One of the biggest obstacles we face here on Democratic Underground is human nature.

[Skinner]

One of the few pleasures I have time to enjoy these days (other than DU) is reading. Earlier this year I read The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, which argues that there is such a thing as human nature, and that our human nature has been shaped by millions of years of evolution.

In a chapter about politics, there was a section that really jumped out at me. I believe it goes a long way toward explaining a lot of what happens here on Democratic Underground:

Social psychologists have found that with divisive moral issues, especially those on which liberals and conservatives disagree, all combatants are intuitively certain they are correct and that their opponents have ugly ulterior motives. They argue out of respect for the social convention that one should always provide reasons for one's opinions, but when an argument is refuted, they don't change their minds but work harder to find a replacement argument. Moral debates, far from resolving hostilities, can escalate them, because when people on the other side don't immediately capitulate, it only proves they are impervious to reason.

Pinker makes reference to "liberals and conservatives," but I think it is obvious that his point would be relevant here on DU where the discussions are among progressives.

To be clear: I am not sharing this to point fingers at people or condemn anyone's behavior. I am posting this because I believe we all have the potential to view our political disagreements in this way. I know I do. It is very easy to slip into thinking that people on the "other side" (whichever side that may be) have ugly ulterior motives, or that they are resistant to reason. In fact, this type of thinking is effortless and unconscious. What is really difficult is to resist it.

This dynamic explains why our discussions are so quick to spiral out of control, and why it is so difficult (or perhaps impossible) for the moderators and administrators to force people to play nice. We are all fighting against human nature.

Democratic Underground is not always a nice place. I know it is comforting to point the finger at other people or put the blame on "trolls" -- especially those trolls on the other side who are both morally defective and utterly resistant to your relentless logic. No doubt, there are some trolls here. But I believe the biggest obstacle we face here that makes respectful discussion difficult is our own human nature.

So, is it hopeless? Must we throw up our hands in despair and accept our fate? Are we destined to continue like this on DU forever?

I think not. At least, I hope not. But the solution is not easy -- for me or for you.

First, we all need to understand our own human nature, recognize how it shapes our own behavior, and do our best to resist it. We must each take responsibility for our own behavior.

Taking responsibility for our own behavior is not easy. I know it is especially difficult to do when we are surrounded by other people who seem to think the worst of us, and do not seem to be doing very much to control their own behavior. But remember that they are human beings, too, and their behavior is shaped by the same human nature that shapes our own. By controlling my own behavior, I make it more likely that other people will control theirs.

I know this sounds unlikely. But Pinker provides some hope...

Social psychologists have discovered the even in heated ideological battles, common ground can sometimes be found. Each side must acknowledge that the other is arguing out of principle, too, and that they both share certain values and disagree only over which to emphasize in cases where they conflict.

Can you do that?

Can you acknowledge that the other side is arguing out of principle, just like you?

Can you acknowledge that the "other side" shares most (or all) of the same values with you?

I know how easy it is to assume the worst about people. They argue so passionately and relentlessly for their side that they must be defective in some way. They must be motivated by ugly ulterior motives, otherwise they would back off. But since when has arguing passionately been proof of bad faith? We are all passionate people here. When we argue passionately we think it is a virtue. We do it because we are passionate people.

We are all progressives here. We all share the same core values. Our arguments -- when we have them -- are about the details. It is easy to believe that a different opinion on the details is a clue to ones opinion on the big picture stuff. But here on DU, that usually isn't the case. We all want the same things.

[WillParkinson]

1. We all want the same things...

Sometimes I have problems believing that.

I try to keep an open mind when being involved in discussions here. There have been times I've changed my mind based on rational arguments.

Unfortunately it's not just the details that are the problem. As you said some refuse to acknowledge the principle and instead jump on the 'pile on' bandwagon. No comments other than 'rec', 'unrec' or 'you're wrong n/t' without trying to discuss the situation.

[snot]

2. Thank you.

If it were up to me, I'd have a forum for name-calling and other vitriol, and completely ban it in all others. For me, insults simply do not move anything forward -- not my knowledge of relevant facts and not my insight into complex issues.

[bigmonkey]

15. Doesn't it seem, though, that some think name-calling is the essence of argument?

Making that distinction, between argument and conflict, is difficult for some folks. Additionally, politeness does tend to skew toward supporting the rich and powerful, when it's combined with lack of precision, so I can see why some folks are impatient with it. "Down with the oppressors!" is not a polite statement, but that doesn't mean it's inappropriate in its right place. It's just that arguing with compatriots probably isn't that place.


(edit for spelling)

[bobburgster]

33. Very good point......

name-calling, and other vitriol, doesn't do much for showing me my opinion may be wrong.

[JDPriestly]

191. I kind of figure that if someone resorts to name-calling, it is because

that person has run out of arguments, in other words, has lost the argument but doesn't want to admit it.

I come to DU, yes, to vent my frustrations against the powers that be, but also to engage in discussion because I learn a lot from discussion. From a good argument, I learn the weaknesses in my own point of view. I like that. I am ready to change my mind.

I think that is the big issue. We should ask ourselves that when we come to post on DU. Are we seeking to persuade and unwilling to change our minds no matter what, or are we seeking to discuss and are willing to change our minds,

Seems to me that if you don't see the argument, neither your own or the other person's as a personal matter but rather as a means of exploring ideas, you don't take it all so personally.

I've been wrong many times on DU. In some cases, someone has pointed it out to me and I have been very grateful.

That's why DU is so much fun. There are lots of people here with better ideas than my own, people who are smarter than I am or who have more expertise in a particular area than I do. I love that.

I'm here to share -- to teach and to learn from other DUers. I don't take things personally.

[MineralMan]

3. Very interesting. It does seem that political differences seem to

be handled differently, in some ways, from other differences. As you say, here on DU, we pretty much all hold the same basic goals as an objective. I've never seen anyone here, for example, say that same sex marriage is wrong or shouldn't happen. The arguments all revolve around how that is going to happen. Same with many other issues.

It's always surprising to me when any disagreement over process gets turned into a discussion of principles or priorities. It always seems to me that the principles are held in common. It's the details that fire up the flamewars here, most of the time. At least, that's how it seems to me.

[Enrique]

11. being against gay marriage was essentially prohibited here

it's one of the few issues where Skinner actually expressed some kind of official DU opinion. I don't know if moderators banned anti-gay-marriage posts, but I do know that it was clear how people "should" feel about gay marraige.

[MineralMan]

31. Well, I'd agree with that. If someone's against same-sex

marriage, I can't see how this place is where they should be. It's one of those things that says a lot about a person, in my opinion.

[elocs]

52. That would include President Obama then? Would he be allowed to post here?

Or would he get a special dispensation?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20012842-503544.html

"The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control," White House adviser David Axelrod said today on MSNBC.

[Skinner]

53. Let's not turn this into a discussion of Obama's position on same sex marriage.

Thanks.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. And the tactic works again.

Getting very old.

[MineralMan]

73. I don't take your meaning, I'm afraid.

[Bluenorthwest]

110. It was not addressed to you.

Now was it?

[MineralMan]

115. It was in a subthread that I started. Aside from that

it was a public post, with a Reply button on it. You don't have to answer the question. But, I can, and did, reply to your post. DU is a discussion forum. Its intent is to encourage discussion, so I asked what you meant, since the meaning was not clear to me. My assumption is that you meant something with your post, that you had a point. So, I asked what that point was, since I did not find it.

Again, you're under no compulsion to reply to my request at all. But, you're also not able to prevent me from clicking the reply button and asking. These are not private conversations.

Have a good day.

[fishbulb703]

122. lol +1 on those relies: "Wasn't talking to you stay out of it" on a public forum

[Bluenorthwest]

137. I am aware of the nature of DU, obviously

But you did not ask me anything. You told me you did not understand. I told you that was not my concern, and it still isn't. Post what you'd like. No one wants to 'prevent' you from anything. If I had wanted you to understand my post, you would have. Trust me on that. The other day you asked me a question and I answered away. You said you did not agree with much of what I said, then wrote 'seeya'. Really straight forward of you. So as you see, when asked I have replied to you. You have not always been so kind in return. Think about it.

[dionysus]

236. wow, you got some stones, i'll admit...

[Zhade]

355. Why the attempt to control the discussion? It's a legitimate point.

Per your own stance -- one I obviously applaud, having been involved in a thread I started wherein a bigot was finally burned out of DU -- Obama would not be welcome here due to his bigoted view on the equal right to marry. And that's the way it should be, provided you're not inclined to extend him a special double-standard dispensation to be bigoted here.

[stevenleser]

379. The response to that is, why are people hijacking the discussion to discuss something totally

different? One of the classic definitions of an internet troll is someone who hijacks discussion threads.

[mikelgb]

313. Let's not turn this into a discussion.

lol

[stevenleser]

380. Yeah, what a tragedy that an OP wants the discussion to be about the points in his OP

:sarcasm: :eyes:

[walldude]

210. Exactly.... If you are against gay marriage then your base

values show a tendency to want to control others who may not be just like you. It's quite the opposite of a progressive or liberal position. I couldn't imagine why a person who feels that way would want to come to DU.


Damn MM, we don't always agree but you have been on a roll today. I take back all the shit I said about you! :rofl: J/K of course...

[Name removed]

310. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

249. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. I'm reminded of Cuba Gooding Jr's character in Jerry McGuire

"You think we're arguing when I think we're finally talking"

I don't see heated arguments as a bad thing.

[Skinner]

8. I also do not see heated arguments as a bad thing.

But I think it is a bad thing when people assume ugly hidden motives in others.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. Agreed.

Good OP by the way.

[alsame]

35. I think part of suspecting hidden motives is because this is

an anonymous message board. We don't really know who other posters are and therefore people sometimes suspect others of being GOP trolls or paid political operatives.

In real life, you generally know who you're arguing with :)

[RaleighNCDUer]

49. OTOH, we know there are some who DO have ugly hidden motives.

They don't usually last long here, but some have held in for quite a while. Their purpose is to exploit the very real differences that exist between people who do not have hidden motives. If they didn't exist, there would never be a need to tombstone anyone.

I try not to assume hidden motives in others, but when they consistently try to argue for Republican ideas it is hard to not make that assumption.

[blondeatlast]

98. +1. Since they fly under the radar though, I think the best thing we can do is

gently point them out to other DUers without violating DU Rules.

I think it is possible.

[RaleighNCDUer]

105. That's what I try to do, but sometimes my irritation gets the better of me.

Generally I go no further than asking "Isn't that just what a troll would say?" or some such.

[creon]

119. it depends

It depends upon what you want to accomplish. Talking someone into or out of something is very difficult; especially when they have a lot invested in their opinions. You can argue over those views if you want, heated or otherwise. At some point, a decision on whether or not to let it go comes into play.

It is well to remember that words are deeds and have consequences.


Ascribing evil motives is a common failing; it is part of the "game".

[Autumn]

121. Thank you Skinner, for recognizing

what a problem that is. To me that is one of the biggest problems that I see on our board. Assuming ugly motives, I have seen interesting, thought provoking discussions shut down because someone comes in and attacks someone for their motives behind their post.

[Hawkowl]

125. Excellent point

I do not view people on this forum as having ugly hidden motives, merely a difference in tactics or strategy on achieving the same goals. However, I know I DO ascribe ugly hidden motives to Rethuglicans. Not all of them, just the ones in charge. And that may be a mistake on my part, but I am comfortable with that position or mistake.

I also think that a lot of what we like to think of as "reason" or "logic" is as the author suggested, merely a construct to bolster our preconceptions. This may be inescapable for most of us as a species. We probably will have to wait for evolution to allow us to advance beyond this.

I really liked your OP, and it did give me a bit more understanding, and indeed tolerance, on those who attack on DU.

[safeinOhio]

5. I think the key is to

keep all arguments civil. Attack the idea, not the person with uncalled for personal attacks. It is possible to do. Not always easy. If moderators would strive to delete all personal attacks, even mine when I slip up, tempers can remain even.

Thanks
Safe

[Skinner]

12. We are going to be more pro-active in our moderating.

The moderators are currently working under instructions from admin to only respond to alerts. We are working with them to come up with a new approach that will be more pro-active.

[proud2BlibKansan]

197. Didn't that used to be the policy? Or am I confused?

I seem to remember when I first came here that mods were directed to respond only to alerts.

[MikeMc]

198. Moderate this, Skinner.

I don't want to hear about how we all have most of the same values as the Nazi repug party.

Bull hockey, brother.

You seem like a good Democratic American, but wise up.

[Fearless]

213. The world is made of human beings each more like the other than we'd like to think

Because we can believe that another is evil inherently, we justify our actions against them. I'm not saying that the Nazi movement wasn't very bad, but I am saying that not all people in it were akin to a Hitler stereotype. It's much more complicated than black and white. In terms of DU, we have to step back and realize that it isn't necessarily the person we disagree with but the idea. Too often we make the argument a personal attack or assume that we are being personally attacked.

[MikeMc]

221. Warsaw Ghetto Resistance, Fearless

I don't disagree with Skin or his posts in general, but tell the poor schlubs that dealt with Joe Miller's security detail (or Rand Paul's security detail, or Eric Cantor's security detail) -- tell them to 'step back and realize they it isn't the person they disagree with, but the idea'. Bollocks.


Violence in defense of yourself is intelligent -- Malcolm X

Bring it on -- L'il Georgie

[Fearless]

365. An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

I discussed this issue ad nauseum in the GLBT forum back when gay marriage support wasn't as much of a DU prerequisite. I will use the same concept here, albeit I'll be brief as I can.

Hate begets hate. If you hate someone it gives them justification to hate you. If you love someone if takes away any justification they have to hate you. They may well still hate you, don't get me wrong, but you have the moral high ground. The Miller, Paul, and Cantor situations all require justice. This is true. But justice isn't violence. Justice seeks to repair the damage caused to the victim while violence seeks to harm the assailant. I believe that justice must always be served, but I believe that violence only begets more violence. Israel and Palestine, Russia and Chechnya, Ireland and Northern Ireland, segregationists and abolitionists, gays and homophobes, and even DUer and DUer.

I've been around here for a while, read a lot of threads, talked to a lot of good people, and had some fierce debates. And I see it time and time again, one hateful comment explodes into a tirade of name-calling and mocking. We forget, sometimes, that we're all people, DUers, and DUers and Republicans too, and that in the end we're ALL trying to do what we think is best. It is in the details of what the "best" is that we need to debate, not the validity of the person to have their own beliefs.

[MikeMc]

392. To quote Michael Jeter in 'The Fisher King' : "How Gandhi-esque of you"

Gandhi was wrong re the Jews and Nazi Germany, though he was a great person that I respect and love, as an Irish Catholic, cause he defeated the Brit oppressors.

As you say, republican rank and file members may be 'trying to do what they think is best', but the people who they acknowledge as leaders are not. And those rank-and-filers never bother to check the facts, except on Fox News.

The repug party bosses are already on the record, as people who hate all that seems to me to be good, decent, fair, right, and normal in America. You can't have a fruitful dialogue regarding philosophy, theology, or culture with a repug. As a famous repug put it, 'when I hear the word "culture", I reach for my Lugar.' (Oh, sorry, my bad. That was Goebbels, who the US repugs bankrolled.)

Paul Krugman quoted a Kissinger doctoral thesis that said 'people who have been accustomed to stability can't bring themselves to believe what is happening when faced with a revolutionary power, and are therefore ineffective in opposing it.' (Krugman's book 'The Great Unravelling', p. 12; from Kissinger's 1957 thesis, 'A World Restored'.) Fearless, you had better believe it. The repugs have been threatening the opposition with civil war for decades, now.

Hate and defense are not the same thing. If we hate, they win. (Spiritually, at least, cause they are already baddies, and make us bad with our hatred.) But if we defend, they don't. I have debated with republicans, Birchers, LaRouchites, Fundy Khristians, Klan-ers, skinheads, and Farrakhanites, without any violence, but with no change in anyone's trajectory, either.

Spiritually, I believe that you are not allowed to commit suicide. Not because you will roast in hell for all eternity, but because it is not permitted. Our side will never oppress and destroy the repugli-nazis, but the opposite is not true. Please don't listen to the repug argument on this issue, that asks 'Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?'

Theologically, I agree with your statement: 'If you love someone it takes away any justification they have to hate you. They may well still hate you, don't get me wrong, but you have the moral high ground.' That doesn't guarantee a win, but if you made peace with your moral lodestone or higher power, losing doesn't hurt as bad. Praying for your enemy is also good, cause it keeps you from ulcers and agita, and maybe it will help the poor f_cks. But it isn't good to pray for them while they are shooting at you, you starry-eyed dreamer.

You and I are currently, rhetorically, rehashing exactly what the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto discussed. Some of those Ghetto defenders lived through the fight against the nazis in Warsaw. Some went on to revolt in Auschwitz and Treblinka, and a few of those people lived through THOSE uprisings, and went on to help found Israel. (I wish that jag-off 'Bi-Bi' wasn't such a fascist against the Palestinians, personally, but such is life. Still, there's nothing dumber than a Jewish nazi.) The Warsaw Ghetto discussion is simple: It is wrong to violently attack another person, even Hitler. It is also wrong to hurt yourself, or let someone else hurt you. So if someone is coming to violently attack and harm you and yours, it is right to defend yourself against them.

A lot of intellectual and agnostic Jews returned to their religious beliefs in Warsaw, too. (No atheists in foxholes, I guess.)

Defending yourself is the only moral option, Fearless.

[Fearless]

398. I never said don't defend yourself or your opinions...

I said that we should be attacking the ideas they support and not the people themselves. People are all worth respect as individuals regardless of their opinions. What I merely have asked is that we differentiate between rebuking ideas and rebuking people. The first could win us allies the second will win us enemies.

[MikeMc]

399. You are right

I apologize if I appeared to be putting words in your mouth, or using a 'straw-man' argument with you. The biggest and most virulent nazi has the right, in America, to say whatever they want. That's why the ACLU backed the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie, where a lot of Holocaust survivors lived.

Our side doesn't attack them physically for what they believe and espouse. But the recent televised assaults by Cantor's thugs, Paul's thugs, and Miller's thugs -- those assaults dovetail into recent statements from candidates from the same party. (Angle's '2nd Amendment' remedies, Benhey's 'cleaning his guns', Broden's 'violent revolution option is on the table' if he loses, etc.) Those candidates' statements in turn dovetail into the repug candidacies of nazi 'cross dressers' like Iott, and 'white rights' advocates like Russell.

The repugs have no adults in their leadership that will disavow these people, or reign their 'enthusiasm' in. So first they run people with an open affinity for aryan views. Then their candidates threaten physical violence, verbally. Then their candidates' goons commit violence against the opposition. None of those candidates are worth respect. But I respect you and your opinion.

If the other side is threatening and committing violence, and we don't stand up to them, we are losing potential allies among the more timid and undecided people who are on the sidelines, watching the violence. Those people are scared into shutting up, and will just go along with the violent nazis.

[deacon]

298. That is the key. The sniping. Attack the issue not the person otherwise it just balloons

and others join in as "tag teams" and it escalates to an out of control situation. Stop the sniping and DU returns to a more civilized place. And,It won't hinder passion.

[knowbody0]

6. I believe that it is imperative we MOVE FORWARD

that we force our natures to evolve, and that this is the biggest brick wall of all.

[era veteran]

7. I have had my positions on some issues changed by

rational argument here. The infighting may not be preventable in such a big tent. Civility is nice though. Let's all go to Washington this weekend.

[eridani]

223. Same here. I used to be knee-jerk anti-gun

I've come around on that issue, though I still favor some regulations.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

9. I also like Steven Pinker

Very wise man, IMO.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

10. self-delete. previous post gratuitously cloned itself. n/t

[AngryAmish]

13. This is news to you? About the demonization of opponents

This is a well established fact for a long time.

[Skinner]

23. It is true that the demonization of opponents is very common.

What is not so obvious is the fact that demonizing ones opponents is not always a conscious tactic used to aid our side in an argument. In fact, it would seem that we demonize our opponents because it is in our nature to actually believe they are demons.

[blindpig]

14. Horseshit

Capitalism is the deal-breaker, there is no compromise, there is no shared values.

When the Left compromises with Capital it is diminished and Capital is strengthened.

[MineralMan]

37. Capitalism is the way business is done in the USA. It has been

so for a very long time, and I see no path that will change it. We're going to have to work with capitalism, it seems.

Unless, of course, you have a suggestion about how we can change to an entirely different form of society. I can't think of one that doesn't require very, very drastic events.

Besides, "Horseshit" is not an argument for anything. It's just an expletive.

Further, I don't believe that capitalism was even mentioned in the OP. So, I'm not even sure why you bring it up in this thread.

[txaslftist]

45. Everyone has a deal breaker.

[MineralMan]

48. Well, that's true, I suppose. However, if a person's dealbreaker is

the end of capitalism in this country, there's not much common ground to be had, I think. Capitalism is the economic system in use here. I absolutely do not see any viable path toward eliminating it. Regulating it seems possible, but eliminating it is the kind of upheaval that really isn't possible, given our political system.

So, if everything revolves around the elimination of capitalism, I don't see much room for discussion of anything else. That's not a progressive goal, a Democratic goal, or a liberal goal. It's a pure Marxist goal, and this isn't Marxism Underground, I'm pretty sure. We're pretty invested in our Constitutional Republic here, it seems to me.

[txaslftist]

80. "this isn't Marxism underground???"

WTF?

Where is that forum, dang it...

[TBF]

87. You do realize that with a 2 party system you will have

Marxists right along side you campaigning? But feel free to throw them under the bus with everyone else you've discarded ...

[txaslftist]

92. I got no problem tossing Marxists "under the bus"...

They did a lot worse to their idealogical rivals in the countries they came into power in.

[stevenleser]

104. I have to admit that I view Marxists like I view someone who suggests the earth is flat.

i.e., a surprising anachronism advocating a failed theory.

[maryf]

172. Let's put it this way, if asked to choose between

"me" (meaning you yourself) and "us" meaning everybody, who do you pick? It's a question of everybody being taken care of...a question of sharing equally...something that natural humans do...capitalism is unnatural...

[stevenleser]

179. I disagree. I think both sharing AND selfishness are natural and the way we evolved

This is easily seen by looking at our closest cousins, the apes. Apes share, and care for each other, yes, but there are also alpha males and females and a pecking order beyond that.

There is no question that human beings MUST cooperate to survive, it is how we overcame predators who were faster and stronger than we are/were. But we will also always compete for resources, status and mates. Early on, tribes of humans would cooperate within the tribal structure, but also war against other tribes for resources.

These instincts transcend contemporary economic and political constructs.

[defendandprotect]

211. Capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill System" .... a one way ticket for elites ....

[stevenleser]

242. Lots of buzz words that dont really mean a lot, no offense

"ridiculous" - why?

King-of-the-Hill - ?, striving to be the best is bad because... ???

"one way ticket for elites" - I like elites. I like watching elite athletes. I like reading books from elite authors. I want me and my family to be treated by elite doctors. I can go on. "Elites" as a bogeyman does not work for me.

A well regulated capitalism, with safety nets and universal healthcare, like they have throughout most of Europe, seems much better to me than the places where they have tried to displace capitalism.

[defendandprotect]

253. Wow .... any chance you recognize "King-of-the-Hill" as ONE final winner .... ????

You're saying you've never heard of the game?

"King-of-the-Hill" -- if you really don't know isn't about striving to be the best!!! :eyes:

It's about striving to be the final winner -- the guy with ALL the marbles -- the one who owns

everything! Btw, Howard Hughes, for one, wanted to own everything -- to own USA.


Oh -- you thought when I said "elites" I meant ATHLETES .... ??

Common misconception around here!

:rofl:

Are all authors "elites" -- ? Are all athletes "elites" -- ?

Elite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Elitism|Religious elite|Linguistic elite|Rump eliteElites may justify their existence based on claims of inherited position; with the rise in the authority of science, certain 19th and 20th century elites have embraced ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite - Cached

Don't see any mention of authors or athletes there ... !



Why is it ridiculous? Because most of the world rejects unregulated capitalism because

it is understood what it means --

Capitalism is a system intended to move a nation's wealth and natural resources from the

many to the few --

And unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime --


A well regulated capitalism, with safety nets and universal healthcare, like they have throughout most of Europe, seems much better to me than the places where they have tried to displace capitalism.

We've already done that -- FDR saved capitalism by regulating it --

took them 60 years, but through right wing political violence, stolen elections and lies,

they did succeed in overturning those controls we know as NEW DEAL.

They have already overturned 60 years of Welfare guarantees with Clinton's assistance --

AND, they are now targeting Social Security and Medicare with Obama's assistance --

See: Cat Food Commission.

[stevenleser]

262. You are arguing against something that no one is advocating

No one here is arguing for unrestricted Laissez Faire capitalism. First of all, such an animal has never existed. It cannot exist. It has never come close to existing. Just like pure Marxism/Communism, it is an impossible goal to attain.

You didnt attack "Elitism" in your prior post, you attacked "elites" which is an important distinction. You ROFLd, but your own misuse of the word caused the misunderstanding.

Capitalism is not intended to move wealth from the many to the few. In practice, without the proper regulations, that is what will happen, yes, but that is nothing compared to how bad things are when there is no private ownership of the means of production and property and ideas.

Most people do not want to live in a system where working harder or attaining advanced skills or similar endeavors do not result in higher compensation. Marxism advocates egalitarianism. The problems with such a system are well known. Many people stop caring about their work performance. Some become so despondant at the lack of ability to advance and improve their lot in life that they become depressed and/or turn en masse to alcohol and drugs. That isnt when you have an issue with the implementation of Marxism as it is when Capitalism has gone awry, that is when Marxism is operating as designed.

And, of course, Socialism and Marxism result in a different set of powers that be. The party members all seem to have nice cars, second and third homes, etc while everyone else has nothing.

There are several very easy fixes by which Capitalism can become a great system. The most important, IMHO is a comprehensive anti-nepotism law. Simply put, there is no extragenerational inheritance outside of small family farms. No more inheriting wealth. any gifts to your children beyond a certain amount over their lifetimes, lets say 2x the average annual salary of the country are taxed at 100%. Once you have that, having a good capitalist system is easy.

[defendandprotect]

277. Unregulated capitalism which we now have is predatory capitalism....

Do you find anyone here at DU in favor of what is currently going on?

Let me repeat again .... we have had REGULATED CAPITALISM ... that is what NEW DEAL

gave us. It has been overturned. We are once again left with predatory capitalism.

It is corrupt and criminal -- and the current economic disaster is evidence of it.


You're running away from a lot I said ... see definition of "Elite" below ...

"Elitism" is simply another form of the word/recheck the post.


Capitalism is not intended to move wealth from the many to the few. In practice, without the proper regulations, that is what will happen, yes ...


Capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill System" because it is intended to move wealth into

the hands of the few -- as we have seen now for the past 40/50 years! Do you deny there is a

war by the rich against middle class and poor going on?

It is taking Americans much longer to wake up to the tragedy of capitalism and its exploitations

than it has taken the rest of the world!

Again -- the REGULATIONS were overturned -- by dishonest means. Do you really think that elites

play fair? They bought government and elected officials to overturn the NEW DEAL.


... but that is nothing compared to how bad things are when there is no private ownership of the means of production and property and ideas.

So there would be no private book shops if we had libraries.

We'd have no military if it weren't for mercenaries like Blackwater willing to sell themselves

to us?

We could never deliver the mail if there were no FEDEX?


Rather, most elites are engaged in trying to prevent competition -- our energy disaster is

an example of that!

Capitalism isn't about competition - it's about killing the competition!


HOWEVER, when we speak about democratic socialism and economic democracy that does not

preclude permitting organized business to rise. It simply means that business works for

our interests -- and not to make their interests America's!


Most people do not want to live in a system where working harder or attaining advanced skills or similar endeavors do not result in higher compensation.

Do you understand that America hasn't had a raise in more than 30 years?

The private sector salaries have been stagnant for at least that long!

Further, that people have been steadily being laid off for decades -- and benefits

like health care and pensions being withdrawn?

Further the very means of advancement -- education -- is under attack by this corporate fascism

that has crossed our threshold. We should have what many other countries have -- free education

at all levels!

Who is arguing for "Marxism" ... ??

Do you think other nations with universal health care, retirement systems and free college

educations are "Marxist"????


My advice is that you try to catch up with FDR -- many of his writings on the internet --

and Brandeis. Do you understand that the US Supreme Court at that time made unemployment

insurance illegal?


elite Elites may justify their existence based on claims of inherited position; with the rise in the authority of science, certain 19th and 20th century elites have embraced ...

[CanSocDem]

352. Brilliant response.

And it highlights the OP's point about 'gettin' along' with the completely out to lunch ideas that show up under "the big tent".

Social Democracy works great. But it brings out the corporations' big guns. On the bright side, they seem to be running out of ammo...

.

[stevenleser]

371. Its a nonsensical response full of exaggerations to the point of meaninglessness

but if that floats your boat, have at it.

[stevenleser]

370. No, we don't have unregulated capitalism now. We have insufficiently regulated capitalism

That is hardly the same thing.

The problem with conversing with you is that like the "unregulated" post, every single thing you said is imprecise to the point of being a worthless comment. I find myself having to either correct every point of every sentence or point out how you have no facts to back up anything you have written and I am getting tired of it.

No, capitalism is not designed to do what you said. Many things that exist in this world, beyond economics and politics, are operating in a way that was not necessarily unintended.

It is not surprising to me at all that someone who espouses Socialism or Communism cannot put a strong factually based point together.

[maryf]

227. I think competition will do us in, nt.

[stevenleser]

244. I think lack of competition would do us in. n/t

[kenfrequed]

348. clarify and elaborate on that please.

I think excessive competition IS doing us in.

[stevenleser]

376. Pick a time or industry. Just the competition between Microsoft and Apple

has been the fuel to bring forth many technological innovations. At what time would you have proposed we halt that? Pre Windows XP? Pre iPhone? Pre Mac?

How about the global competition between the various car makers? Where should we have stopped that?

In terms of personal competition, when should we stop people from competing with their peers? 3rd grade? 9th grade? College? 1st year on the job?

I want MORE competition, not less. the problems we have come from powerful people and companies being allowed to restrict competition.

[maryf]

388. Innovation is not always motivated by profit...

in fact most of those who invent new products work for a salary and don't get the profit...

[kenfrequed]

395. Too true

How many of the business men and hypercompetitors squeeze idea people and inventors for the profits?

How many excellent bits of software were squeezed out by microsoft or swamped out of the market?

If rational competition were so good wouldn't an open source software have won the platform wars?

Many of the innovations put forth in the computer industry were bits of software where the inventors were not garaunteed to be paid a fair rate for their work.

[proteus_lives]

183. +1

[Raoul]

300. May I assume

you read Marx/Engle's Communist Manifesto? If so, did you understand that this work dealt solely with economic problems with capitalism - the SAME problems we have now? Did you also realize that the Soviets and other political powers corrupted the true intent of Marxism for their own 'political' purposes?

[stevenleser]

372. I completely expected this response eventually. Of course, all several dozen countries who have

tried simply didnt get it right. That is the typically offered excuse by Marxists.

I find a very similar correlary from the laissez fairists who are always telling me that true capitalism has never been really tried, and if we only dropped all regulations and laws regarding business and put taxes to zero, it would usher in a glorious future for all of us.

It's complete fantasy-land bullshit in both cases. It continues to amaze me that anyone buys it.

[Raoul]

393. A. I ain't

a Marxist and
B. Did you study the works I mentioned?
C. If not, then your opinion is no different than that of any neocon who claims this really is the greatest country in the world.

My statement that communism was intended solely as an ECONOMIC model stands unless there's someone with some kind of intellectual merit (highly unlikely I might add) who can refute it.

[kenfrequed]

396. Which part?

I suppose if I didn't read or make some minor study of an economic system and blurted out about it I guess I would expect someone to ask me about that too.

Do you include all the various gradiant degrees of socialism in with your analysis or do you only count dictatorships as 'communist'? Do any of the western European systems that have various degrees of socialism 'count' to you or is it all or nothing?

If a country has tons of socialist style programs and a bit of a free market in non-essentials do you consider that country socialist, capitalist, or communist?

I would say that we have actually tested laissez faire capitalism to a degree that we have never actually implemented the ideas set out in das capital or the manifesto, and we have easily and provably discovered that this hyper unregulated capitalism is an undeniable failure each and every time.

Do you even have a grasp of the history of the labor movement? 'Cause without the commies it might never have taken off or leveraged a decent days pay for anyone.

[kenfrequed]

347. err

Apples vs Rocks.

A semi-spherical earth is a scientific fact

A theory about labor and the division of resources is a bit harder to prove or disprove.

Additionally if you don't study Marxism in its historical context, then you really don't understand it.
i.e. Freshman Politcs 101 or, worse yet, 7th grade civics does not cover it nor do it any kind of justice.

Though as a whole it is a difficult system that has been impossible to implement, the things it critiques are as relevant as they have ever been.

[stevenleser]

373. You don't need Marxism to critique Laissez-fairism

I'll bet very few people injured and killed by the Union Carbide disaster in Bophal had studied either Marxism or Capitalism, but they got the point that an unregulated or insufficiently regulated company is an invitation to disaster.

We can list all kinds of similar examples about different aspects of capitalism.

[kenfrequed]

394. Uhm..

I'm not sure but I think... maybe... yes, marxism/communism was a product of the industrial revolution. And yes, Bhopal was obviously, disgustingly, and aggregiously horrible, but to look for what communism was critiquing and the necessity of that critique, historically speaking, wouldn't you actually have to look at the early part of the industrial revolution?

[MineralMan]

96. I throw nobody under any bus. When they're campaigning for the

same things I am, they're my best friend. When they're talking about an overthrowing of our system of government, then they're not. It's that simple. I deal with actions, not ideals. I'm an "action liberal."

[stevenleser]

102. I highly doubt Marxists are out there campaigning for Democrats.

Most Marxists I know are at least three parties removed from Democrats. While this isnt exactly scientific, going left from the Democratic Party I see the Greens, then two or three Socialist or Socialist workers parties, and then Communist Party USA. Most Marxists I know are CPUSA members some belong to various Socialist parties. I dont think someone who is a real Marxist would even be happy with the Greens. The Greens are not hard core enough for them. The Greens are not out there demanding a destruction of capital as the economic order. Some of the things for which they advocate vaguely suggest that Capitalism is not the way to go but it is not the same.

If folks who occupy that far left of the spectrum vote (not campaign) for Democrats, it is to make sure that the far right doesn't win, which, by the way, I think is a good vote for them to make.

[sabrina 1]

114. While you have said what you said very politely, which you always

do, you have in the space of a few minutes, made the case for two groups of people who, in your opinion, do not hold progressive views, to maybe find another blog more suited to their beliefs.

I believe eg, that the commenter was referring to 'unregulated Capitalism' the kind we have 'lived under' for approx 14 years or so, since the end of regulatory oversight. I am not sure, but before telling him that this blog does not appear to be the place for him, I personally, would have asked for clarification.

As for those who do not believe in gay marriage, you stated that they too may not belong here without wondering if on most other issues, they are very progressive.

Again, I would ask them why. If their reasons are based on their religion, and in many cases that is the reason for opposition to gay marriage, I would ask if they could support civil unions. And have, and in most cases, progressives who are also religious (they do exist) are fine with civil unions once they understand that their religious views cannot determine civil law in this country.

These issues are complex. People are free to be religious and even to base their political decisions on what they believe. That doesn't exclude them from being Democrats.

John Kerry eg, who is a Catholic, was cornered by the right when asked if he supported abortion. He explained that he personally did not because of his religion, but he respected the law and would abide by it as president. He attempted to do what the 1st Amendment means, separate his religious beliefs from the government. I accepted his position, many did not. But to not accept it, is to deny him HIS right to practice his religion privately, while never allowing his position in government to be influenced by it. John Kennedy was able to make the same case when people worried about his religion.

So, imho, name-calling and expletives I can ignore, even though I do not engage in it, 'sticks and stones etc.'. I don't consider such behavior to be threatening, just expressions of frustration by people who cannot express themselves more calmly.

What is threatening, is politely telling someone they do not belong here, simply because they have opinions that some people may feel 'are not progressive'.

Do you see my point? It is NOT always the hot-tempered person who momentarily explodes into a string of expletives out of frustration who should cause all that much concern. Sometimes it is the person who truly believes that some people don't belong here and acts upon that belief by making it publicly known.

And, fwiw, that is completely my own opinion and I don't expect, or care really, if no one agrees with me, because I've thought about it for a long time, I've been on line for ten years in political forums, and am comfortable with my opinion on this.

And I could be wrong ~ although imo, that's most unlikely :sarcasm: for the sarcasm impaired!

[MineralMan]

118. You make a fair point. However, since I have no control whatever

over who posts here, my suggestions were not a matter of something I can impose. It is not my site.

I really can't understand how someone who believes him or herself to be a progressive or a liberal can oppose same-sex marriage, or its legal civil equivalent (added because I understand that argument, even though I don't support it personally.) I do not understand how someone who believes that we must destroy capitalism (and the poster I'm addressing believes that...I've seen the posts) can feel a part of a progressive, liberal group.

That's my opinion. Since I have no authority, that's all it is, and that's all it can be. Everything I write here is nothing more than my opinion. Everyone is welcome to argue against it, dismiss it, or do whatever else with it they choose.

I will express my opinion, though.

Thanks for replying.

[sabrina 1]

124. Well, you see where the problem is. In the real world, if we were

to eliminate all those WE feel are not of our 'beliefs' whether political or otherwise, we would live in a very small bubble. The Democratic Party constantly reminds us that it is a Big Tent. It is a party of the people and as such, it must include people of various opinions and even religious beliefs. The Republican Party otoh, has more or less confined itself to people who base most of their political views on their faith and/or ideologies so people who do not fit those beliefs are not welcome in the party except to supply them with votes, but they have no voice.

Personally, I agree with Skinner that we should recognize the human nature of those we engage with in political forums. I would go way further than his OP which talks only about progressives. Most of the boards I participated in early on, were mixed boards with both Republicans and Democrats, and everyone else. We fought furiously, and some rightwingers are pretty nasty, but, most of what I learned about politics, I learned from people who disagreed with me, because they always asked for 'proof'! lol, so you could not get away with being lazy with facts and they would accept nothing that looked like a 'liberal' source. I thank them for that.

I was a moderator, eg, on the original Alternet forums which were really excellent. They allowed everyone to participate but I was the only moderator who actually believed at the time that we could change the minds of some of the Republicans there. Most of the mods wanted to ban them. But I and a few other members prevailed. We never really changed anyone's minds, back then but we learn that most of the Repubs there were decent people who did care about this country and that we did have some common ground. Those who didn't like having them there, simply avoided them.

[MineralMan]

131. Sure. Every discussion forum is it's own world, and doesn't

really resemble the real world all that much. Each has its own personality and denizens. Each has a person or group of people who started it and operate it as they choose. It's not something I'd ever want to do, quite frankly. I was a moderator on one forum for a while, and did not like having the ability to make the decisions that often must be made. And that wasn't even a political forum, but a hobby forum. I stopped doing that, and decided that I'd never take such a position again.

I've been on open political forums with all parties represented. I didn't like them very much. The old Politics forum on Compuserve was one of them. A nightmare for the moderators. It always seemed on the verge of chaos to me.

I like Democratic Underground very much. I like the general mix of members, and like that it is, for the most part, made up of people with some common ground, even if the details don't always match up. I like discussion forums, because they help keep my mind active and expose me to a range of opinions and let me express my own. I have no illusions about them having any effect on the real political world, though. I know perfectly well that they don't. But, it's fun to participate.

As for changing minds, I've never felt that happened a lot, regardless of the forum. But, that's OK.

[sabrina 1]

155. Well, it does happen. I've changed my mind since I first started

participating on political forums about many issues eg. The more I learned the more I had to think about opinions I had formed without a lot of imformation.

As for making a difference, they can and often do make a difference. Eg, the minority blogs who joined forces to organize protests against the immigration laws were hugely successful and again when they organized against discrimination in the Jenna case. Just two examples.

Early on, blogs were very involved in organizing the anti-war marches. And before politicians understood much about them, they were very successful in encouraging people to call their Representatives who were often surprised that so many people were actually paying attention to what they were doing.

They have great potential which was, imo, utilized much more in the beginning. Not to mention coordinating with people in other countries for the biggest anti-war rallies in the history of the world. That was exciting, the possibilities were endless. But something happened, maybe both parties decided this was not good for them, to have so many people actually getting involved in the process and you see far less organization now than before, at least in the U.S.

They educate people also, who would even know about the war crimes being committed if it was not for blogs?

But you didn't address the 'Big Tent' issue. And as far as expressing your view that some people might be happier elsewhere, I think that can be more insulting to someone than an expletive or name-calling.

I remember the first time a rightwinger said that to me on a board that was not just for them. I was never particularly disturbed by their mindless insults, we expected that from them, but that really did get to me and I cried, then came back and asked if they had any authority to make that suggestion. The owner of the blog never participated, or interfered so people were on their own. My question was answered by members of the left and right all of whom told me I had a right to be there. I felt better and appreciated that even the wingers didn't like anyone being told to leave.

So, all I'm saying is that what might be upsetting to one person, is not to another, and what we think is simply expressing an opinion, can be very insulting to someone else. If we agree that personal insults are not productive, then I would add informing someone that I don't think they belong here to the list. Unless we own the board, it really isn't our call or place, just as when we are a guest in someone's house, and don't think one of the guests belongs there. Would we say that to their face? That should really be the standard, imo. What you say to someone if you both were guests in someone else's house?

[MineralMan]

203. I'll certainly think about what you wrote. Thanks for your

thoughtful reply.

[stevenleser]

153. I'm right there with you on all of your points n/t

[Time for change]

195. Slavery was the economic system in use in the South in 1860

I'll bet there were plenty of people at that time who did not see any viable path towards its elimination.

I also bet that the vast majority of DUers who want to see capitalism eliminated see its elimination as a progressive/liberal goal.

I also see no inconsistency between the elimination of capitalism and the maintenance of our Constitutional republic. I don't believe there is anything in our constitution that requires capitalism.

I do agree with you that its elimination would be extremely difficult in this country. But I strongly disagree that there is no common ground between those who want it eliminated and those DUers who think that we need it. Again, we are talking about process here, not underlying values.

I personally believe that there are aspects of capitalism that are useful. In this country we have an economic system that allows for the uber wealthy to use socialism for their risks and capitalism for their profits. I believe that Capitalism needs to be much better regulated than it is here. But I certainly don't believe that there isn't common ground here between those who have different beliefs about it. It's an economic system, and there are a zillion different varieties of it.

[MineralMan]

204. If you have a plan that would do what you suggest, I'd like

to hear it. Seriously. I've asked that question of others in this thread and usually get some vague reference to a violent uprising of the "workers." That doesn't sound like a plan to me. So, if you do have an idea of how capitalism could be eliminated in some other way, I think that would be a great thing to discuss. Probably you should write an original post, though, since it might get lost here. I can't, for the life of me, think of a path to a USA without capitalism. I've never heard one laid out, even in rough terms. Sounds like a good project to get a discussion started.

You see, I'm a socialist philosophically, and such a society would be very attractive to me. But not if it involved a bloody civil war.

[defendandprotect]

214. More like a permanent NEW DEAL -- no reversing -- !!

All original rules and regulations on elites/wealthy/corporations reinstated --

not reversable!

[TBF]

254. That's the trick -

how to get there. I'm not sure I can give you the answer you're looking for. But I know we'll never get there by telling people to be sensible and settle for crumbs. Let me try it this way - think back to Germany during WWII. Looking back, who do you admire more - the "good germans" who went on day to day trusting that things would work out (well, they did, but not for the millions who were killed in the meantime) or do you admire folks like the members of the white rose for at least resisting? Now the story for those kids doesn't end pleasantly but when I look back I sure have a lot of admiration for Sophie Scholl. I'm not sure I would have the courage to make the choices she did. But unlike me she didn't sit there thinking about whether she could do it, she thought instead about those who were dying - and she did something about it. Now, would you call her an "action" democrat or a "movement" democrat... personally I simply think of her as a hero.

[Time for change]

335. I don't have a plan

In fact, I'm not sure that we need to eliminate capitalism. I just think that it needs to be regulated much more than it is, and it needs to be regulated in the interest of ordinary citizens.

I think it's accurate to say that our economic system is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, our public school system, and bank bailout are all socialistic components of our system. I agree with the first four that I listed and was adamantly against the last one. Unfortunately, politicians and our media rarely if ever refer to Medicare or Social Security as aspects of socialism, since the word "Socialism" has been so denigrated in our society. They were referred to as "Socialism" before they came into existence, but now that the US population has become used to them and has such a strong favorable reaction to them, they are no longer referred to as "Socialism".

I think that if more of our economic system is to tilt towards socialism, as it has in much of Europe, it will be an incremental process, not something requiring a civil war. Unfortunately, by that time we will have experienced widespread climate change induced environmental catastrophe, largely because of the billions of corporate dollars poured into equating any effort to regulate corporate induced climate change as "Socialism".

[defendandprotect]

212. Agree with you, except opinion change would be difficult ... it would be more like a

permanent NEW DEAL -- no reversing it -- that's all.

[defendandprotect]

209. You're saying because Vatican gave us capitalism few hundred years ago... we're stuck with it?

[bvar22]

145. I have no problem with capitalism.

I wish we had it here in the USA.
"Capitalism" demands that when you fuck up, you lose your capital.
We haven't had that for over 20 years, and neither major party supports "Capitalism".

Now THIS is “Bi-Partisanship” !


I would LOVE to go back to the highly regulated Progressive Capitalism of the 50s and 60s,
with the upper brackets at about 80%, Sane Trade Policies, strong LABOR protections, and fair competition Anti-Trust laws that allowed Mom & Pop to compete with Big Boxes.

Yeah...Gimme some of that ole time Capitalism.

[LiberalLovinLug]

164. The path that will change it

Would have been in some small way....establishing a Single Payer medical system.

It would have, as the Washington Corporatists feared it would, opened a small window revealing the benefits of at least part-time socialism. And slowly the Tea Baggers would lower their signs as the years went by and not only didn't The Government not kill off their grandmothers, but they would realize how great it is not to have to worry about medical bills anymore. They would join all the other countries who would now never give up their public health systems in a million years.

But yes I digress from the thread. But in a civil thoughtful way I hope. :)

[defendandprotect]

215. Exactly .... great point -- MEDICARE FOR ALL would put us on the road to economic socialism....

and economic democracy -- !!!


:)

Nice post!

[defendandprotect]

208. Democratic socialism would require very little change ... it would be the equivalent

of New Deal regulations on capitalism/corporatism ... but this time

with no reversals!!

[dionysus]

240. he's a one string guitar... what's that you say all the time... Uff da!

:)

[midnight]

323. Business in America was suppose to change with the second bill of rights....

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16518

There already was a road map laid out a long time ago to change this status quo or if you like capitalism....

[stevenleser]

47. You don't even see how you proved Skinner's (and the author whose work he is quoting) point, do you?

Wow.

[MineralMan]

51. Well, the post certainly illustrates it well, though.

Or so it seems to me.

[bahrbearian]

78. Right On

[TBF]

90. Yes -

Capitalism is the deal-breaker.

[Ikonoklast]

127. Then you will be perpetually disappointed by Democrats.

The Democratic Party supports capitalism as our economic system.

And if you think Marxism is the answer, you are sadly mistaken.

[defendandprotect]

217. Dem Party used to support Nationalizing Oil Industry ... !!

Used to support NEW DEAL -- !!

The answer is what works -- and with any label we give it --

Economic democracy -- demococratic socialism --

It's simply a permanent NEW DEAL -- re-establishing NEW DEAL regulations/laws

on corporations and elites/wealthy -- and making them IRREVERSIBLE.

[defendandprotect]

207. True .... and the French are out in the streets delivering that message ....

Evidently, the message USA is getting now is that the same austerity agenda --

pressures, intimidation -- will soon be coming down on us!

[eridani]

224. Everyone on this board has problems with capitalism

Some want to regulate it, and others to abolish it.

[Name removed]

238. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KossackRealityCheck]

318. EXACTLY !!!

That is, exactly, perfectly illustrates what the diarist is saying. This comment reflects someone who has a fixed, writ in stone world view, and who is saying before hand, that there is no possible way to change it or even have a discussion with anyone who doesn't share it EXACTLY. I mean, in most of the real world, communists, Marxists and others on the left do not take this commenter's point of view.

Very, very sad.

[blindpig]

336. Which goes to show....

that the diarist is full of dingo kidneys.}(

[Scruffy1]

387. Yeah compromise got us where we are now-screwed

I am so sick of this nonsense of can't we all get along. Anytime you give the authoritarian personality anything the more they want. It's not a two way street. The best thing is to tell them to piss off and not bother to listen to them inane twaddle.

[Horse with no Name]

16. The level of vitriol in political discourse is amazing

I was called a "racist" more times than I care to count because I didn't support Obama by what some consider to be "relevant DU'ers". I don't think they were trolls but I resented the fact that I wasn't allowed to post facts that disagreed with the "herd view" that was being shoved down our throat by many of these people. I watched them be allowed to gang up on folks more times than should be allowed--depending on which moderators were online at the time.
Sad thing is, many of us had the same views on other ideals but the RESPECT was gone at that point--so the apathy of what they have to say is disregarded. It is a pity and it didn't have to end up this way.:(

[SlimJimmy]

108. I sat back and watched that whole menagerie in real time without commenting.

After the dust settled, I, and others, decided that we couldn't let this Administration take us so far left that we could never return to some sense of center-left normalcy. The progressives in this country have made "progress" because we clearly understood the concept of incrementalism (boiling the frog if you will). This Administration doesn't seem to understand that. But, if they continue on the path they've chosen, they will.

[sabrina 1]

128. Was this a typo?

and others, decided that we couldn't let this Administration take us so far left that we could never return to some sense of center-left normalcy.

Did you mean to say 'so far right'? I ask, because only the right thinks Obama is 'left'. Most progressives believe he is far to the right of center. So, I wondered if it was a typo.

[SlimJimmy]

147. A typo? Not at all.

There are many Democrats like myself who identify as center-left and not far-left. My biggest regret, as a lifelong Democrat, is that the party has pretty much abandoned us. I do have hopes for the future though, so I will remain optimistic.

[stevenleser]

151. Amazing that you think so.

I think it is pretty obvious that the party is in the middle of what comprises most folks in the Democratic party.

[SlimJimmy]

180. Not in my view, but I realize I'm in the minority here. (nt)

[defendandprotect]

219. US is a liberal nation ... Democratic base is liberal/progressive .....

76%+ of the nation wanted single payer/government run health care --

Including Catholics* by even a larger majority -- and percentage continued to increase.

That doesn't put Obama in the middle of anything within the party or outside of the party!





* And despite the US Catholic Bishops and Pope, Catholics also want reproductive care by

large percentages included in either government or private health care -- and they wanted

simple CHOICE included by 51% majority.

[stevenleser]

245. I saw other polls that suggested different. THe agreement we have is that

a majority wanted universal healthcare that was guaranteed by the government as far back as 2007. When the Republicans got ahold of the debate, they changed that statistic dramatically.

[defendandprotect]

257. Citizens by 73%+ and 83%+ wanted single payer government health care ....

because they are anti-liberal?

Americans have wanted government run health care since the NEW DEAL!!

That was part of the original package!

Even majority of doctors and nurses are for single-payer government run health care now!

As for this being a liberal nation, I doubt any of us would see the polls which

prove that --

However, as Chomsky has always made clear -- and I agree ....

If this were NOT a liberal nation there would be no need for right wing to buy government --

or our elected officials. There would be no need for right wing to buy out and control our

press -- publishing houses -- etal.

And there would certainly have been no need for right wing political violence which we have

certainly seen over the last 50+ years at the least --

for right wing stealing elections -- or for right wing lies.

As you might recall from the PNAC writings about the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" ....

they made clear that the American public would NOT support their desire for attacking Iraq!



This is like arguing that "god" is a fascist --

We have only to realize that we have been given free conscience and free will with no limits

on our use of them to understand that "god" is not a fascist!


Same with US as a liberal nation -- look at what has to be done to try to cope with the

extreme liberalism of Americans!


As Newt Gingrich admitted to Bill Clinton .... if we told the truth we'd always lose - !!

[stevenleser]

377. Please post a link that backs up your numbers. n/t

[sabrina 1]

157. Well, I'm pretty conservative on some issues, and definitely not

far left by any means, not that there's anything wrong being far left. I just have different views on some issues that could be considered conservative. I think this administration is definitely center right and I don't think I'm alone. The fear of the Republican party calling Democrats 'lefties' really puzzles me. I don't know why anyone cares what Republicans think since they've pretty much destroyed the country and have been wrong and proven wrong about pretty much everything for decades now. But for some reason, Democrats seem to worry more about the right thinking badly of them, than their own members.

[defendandprotect]

220. Agree ... "liberal" demonizing began w/John Birchers ... JFK responded eloquently....

without a right wing press, it would be a dead issue.

This is a liberal nation --

And the health care debates where 76% supported single payer government run

health care is but ONE example!

:)

[sabrina 1]

367. I agree, I believe it is a Liberal nation.

People will realize it one day and stop paying attention to propaganda machine in their living rooms and then maybe organize and demand proper representation finally :-)

[Hekate]

161. That's cute. Prez Obama has always been and remains a centrist. You think he's "far left"?

>>> After the dust settled, I, and others, decided that we couldn't let this Administration take us so far left that we could never return to some sense of center-left normalcy. The progressives in this country have made "progress" because we clearly understood the concept of incrementalism (boiling the frog if you will). This Administration doesn't seem to understand that. But, if they continue on the path they've chosen, they will. <<<

You really kind of lost me there, Slim.

Hekate

[stevenleser]

167. It really is bizarre that he thinks so. I place Obama in the exact center of the Democratic Party

If you lined up the entire Democratic Party electorate in order of left-right ideology, Obama would be somewhere in the middle IMHO. I know plenty of Democrats to his right, and I know plenty to his left. I know what the DLC ideology is and I know what the progressive agenda is. He is somewhere in the middle of those.

The sad thing about all of the anti-Obama comments I typically see is that no one identifies him as one of their own. Everyone identifies him as "the other", whether that is ethnically/racially, or ideologically.

[Hekate]

177. Agreed -- apparently those of us who are for him find enough points of identification...

... so that he is brother, not other. I see him as one of my own, without question.

[defendandprotect]

259. Are pro-corporate Dems really "centrists" .... ???

Maybe you missed this ... ??? Eh?



Rahm .... crowing about preserving "private health care industry" ... business s/b grateful!


Here is the quote: ”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system; the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18...


This was posted originally by another DU poster on 8/12/10.

[stevenleser]

264. Compared to what even the most Liberal Republican is like? Yes

If we compare Rahm to someone like a Lindsay Graham, for instance, or even either of the two senators from Maine, he is to their left on every issue except one that I can think of. Lindsay Graham actually advocated for a nationalization of the banking industry. Other than that, these folks are to Rahms right on every issue. None of them even voted for HCR as passed because they thought it too liberal.

[defendandprotect]

272. Republicans targeted their liberal and moderate Republicans.... none left --

so you're using a very distorted lens to judge where Obama lands in all

of this --

Repugs also targeted our liberal and progressive Democrats -- GOP/NRA was a

common way of doing that -- but CIA helped target Democrats -- and very few

liberal/progressive Democrats left in the party which is quite obvious.


So -- in both parties the left and moderate wings were targeted -- and gone.

Obviously that leaves a much more right wing situation in both parties --

and quite a different political reality.

Obama's pro-corporate agenda certainly doesn't puts him on the corporate side

of the fence -- and that isn't a "moderate" position, of course.

[Hekate]

294. I don't accept yr premise that Obama is now or ever has been a "corporatist." Your frame, not mine

He's by nature bipartisan, but that strategy is likely to change now that it is abundantly clear the other side isn't playing by the same rules. The GOP keeps bitching day and night that Obama is a dangerous leftist and that the HCR bill is a socialist commie plot -- NONE of them voted for it, so how Dems can keep on with the "corporatist" meme themselves is beyond me.

But you just keep on with what makes you happy.

Hekate

[stevenleser]

374. Yes, I dont accept it either. It's hard when the post to which one is responding is riddled

with inaccuracies, generalizations and exaggerations. You almost have to pick and choose which items to try to correct. It's exhausting.

[defendandprotect]

258. Levels of Obama/Rahm support for corporatism suggests postions far more

to the right than "centrist" -- so does DLC --

Obama campaigns as a liberal/populist --

he governs as a pro-corporate leader.

[stevenleser]

266. No, you want to believe that but it is not correct.

If we use the rating systems that are generally used to describe Progressive and Conservative voting records with 100 being most progressive and 0 being most conservative, even someone like a Lieberman scores in the mid 60s to low 70s. You have folks like Kucinich at 100 and people like former Rep Duncan Hunter at 0. Rahm is to Lieberman's left so he is somewhere in the low 80s. Obama probably is at around 85. When he was in the senate, he rated close to 100.

Most Teabaggers would probably be at around 5-10 on this system. Lindsay Graham is at about 30.

There are few politicians in the 31-64 range.

Its easy to map out the conservative, progressive and centrist position on issues to see that Obama is somewhere between progressive and centrist on virtually everything if you are willing to be somewhat scientific and non emotional about it. Pick an issue. I've already described health care reform.

[defendandprotect]

273. As I've already pointed out, we now have a very distorted picture now of left/right...

and moderates -- everything has shifted to the right --

to suggest that Obama lands in the middle of the right does NOT make him

a "centrist" by any means!

[stevenleser]

378. To whose comment are you responding?

If you are engaging in a conversation with me, you arent responding to any of my assertions. You keep responding to points I never made.

[Hekate]

296. Thank you Steven

At least most of us who disagree are being civil while Dad's in the room or just around the corner

[TBF]

306. lol

maybe you should re-read your post #294

was there any substantive reason for you to add the line "But you just keep on with what makes you happy." No you did that in a condescending fashion to belittle your correspondent. It wasn't civil, it was rude.

[Hekate]

349. You are absolutely right. I rose to the bait and I can't tell you how ashamed I am of myself.

Rising to the bait is for fish.

[defendandprotect]

218. You think Obama is too far to the left ..... ?????

Amazing!!

[stevenleser]

252. I've encountered a fair amount of registered Democrats who think so as well

just like I've encountered many who think he is not left enough.

I think it is instructive to note that the first main objections I saw to Obama by real Democrats who normally vote Democratic was from the conservative wing of the party (where I write on OEN, of course, which has lots of folks that are left to the point that they are not Democrats, there was always a lot of criticism since before he was even elected). Way back in April-ish of 2009 when Obama was considering doing some investigations of the CIA and former administration, a number of these more conservative Dems came up to me and read me the riot act. I guess since I am the Obama supporter that all of them knew, etc. they decided to take their frustrations out on me.

When Obama backed off, of course, then we all heard about it from the progressive wing of the party. Note that many conservative Democrats never forgave Obama for intending to explore those investigations and they were equally upset that he didn't drop the Public option on HCR from the get go. Many Progressives have never forgiven him for giving up on the idea of these investigations and then for HCR being passed without a Public option and without a vote on HR 676 (single payer). It went downhill from there.

You can easily chart where Obama was on various options and note the conservative Democratic preference and the Progressive preference and see him as generally in between.

I honestly dont think Obama had a chance his first two years. At least one wing of the party plus the howling Banshees of the Republican party were going to be on his case and upset with him no matter what he did. There was zero chance of Obama uniting the party because the party refused to be united.

[defendandprotect]

260. Evidently, conservative or DLC-Corporate-Dems here didn't take the survey???

[stevenleser]

263. I don't think many of them are DUers. n/t

[defendandprotect]

270. Well. . . there certainly are DLC-Dems here ....

quite some squeaky wheels at times!

[stevenleser]

381. So some people keep saying. This poster here is the first that really seems so to me.

The DLC agenda like the progressive one is pretty easy to spot if you know what they are to begin with. I haven't seen much evidence of DLC talking points here.

[sabrina 1]

291. But why the concerns about which political group is pleased or not

pleased with what he does?

The concern should be are his decisions based on what is right, on the Rule of Law.

Eg, there is no discussion to be had on such issues as Torture. There is simply a right way and a wrong way regardless of whether you are a Democrat or a Republican.

There are no two ways regarding the Rule of Law. Presidents swear to protect and defend the Constitution, not the feelings or opinions of political groups or pundits.

This country has accepted the Rule of Law as a way to preserve a civil society. So the discussion of whether, eg, we should pursue law-breakers, like war criminals or Wall St. criminals, is over. It was over when as a society we agreed to certain laws.

So how can a president go wrong if s/he abides by the Rule of Law?

And if there are people in the Democratic Party who believe we can overlook war crimes eg, they are simply wrong. There is nothing to discuss about that. It's not a situation where you can say 'well there are different ways of looking at that'. There aren't. Our laws are clear on the subject.

So again, why the concern about who attacks from the left or the right? It's part of the job to understand that you cannot please everyone, no president does. So why not just do the right thing? That might at least keep one side happy. If all sides are angry at Obama, then he's doing something wrong. He is leaning over too much to try to please people who hate him and no matter what he does, that won't change. And in doing that, he is losing support from those who elected him. This is very bad politics as well as bad leadership.

If he still thinks, as he said recently, that Republicans, if they don't do as well as they expect, will be more willing to work with him or even if they DO win what they expect to win, that will make them more responsible and they will be more likely to work with him, after hearing what McConnell said this week, I would have serious questions about his capacity to be a leader. He seems to yearn for the approval and cooperation of the right, MORE than he cares about being the great president he could be if he would just stop trying to please them. They hate him. He can't please them. He needs to accept that and move on.

[SlimJimmy]

324. Nice summation.

I've been sitting here reading replies to my contention that the Obama Administration is indeed quite left in it's thinking (compared to say the Clinton Administration) yet I'm being excoriated for having made that logical conclusion. Big tent party, my ass.

[Horse with no Name]

251. Well you obviously didn't watch me, lol

I didn't think he was Liberal or Progressive ENOUGH.
I think trying to appease the squishy center will destroy our party, and in turn, our country. That was one of the things I was the most concerned about.
The republicans took us so far right over the last few years that we NEED a hard left to stabilize it.
FWIW--I think you are really off the mark.

[Enthusiast]

290. What is this path you speak of?

This Administration has taken a path of excess 'liberalism'?

Sorry, most of DU would agree that the Obama Administration is nowhere near excessively liberal. Not even close, not even ballpark.

Please name something 'too' liberal done by the Obama Administration.

[Jamastiene]

301. That has been a big problem for a while now.

The GLBT forum is routinely called racist and other things like a "den of vipers" and more recently, "vampires," for a while now.

[kentuck]

17. ** BREAKING !! ** Skinner admits there are trolls on DU !

"No doubt, there are some trolls here."

:-)

[jaxx]

19. Very thought provoking.

Instead of focusing on the sames, we focus on the differences. Makes me think of what a sort of guru told me once upon a time.....don't sweat the small stuff.

I should remember that more often.

Thanks.

[Beetwasher]

20. Someone's Been Doing His Homework!

Have you read Lewin, Peck, Tuckman or Bion yet?

[Skinner]

25. I have not read any of them.

Perhaps you could suggest a good book to start with.

[Beetwasher]

39. Sure, It's Good Stuff And Will Come In Handy For You Considering Your Profession

The most "readable" is probably M. Scott Peck who is also a best selling author of "spiritual" fiction.

In my view he tends to be a bit "New Agey" but he has some terrific insight into group dynamics.

"The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace" is probably a good place to start as any since it actually has a more pragmatic/applicable bent to it.

Let me know if you'd like some deeper recommendations that are heavier reading.

[Bonobo]

21. It's funny. I was just re-reading Pinker's The Stuff of Thought"!

Great synch.

And yes, you're right of course.

[txaslftist]

22. Well, okay, but let's not take it too far.

You don't want to concede that Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Partiers or those kind of people are human, do you?

I mean, imagine Republicans and Democrats working together. What a horror that would be!

Without someone to really, really hate, what meaning would life as a progressive hold?

So I assume you are limiting your remarks to disputes among progressives and other progressives.

[Skinner]

30. To be honest, DU was a much simpler place when we all hated the same people.

(By "same people" I am referring to the Bush cabal and conservatives.)

For the purposes of my post, I am referring to discussions among progressives.

But I think Pinker's point is that this principle holds for everyone.

[txaslftist]

42. yeah, but Pinker doesn't post here, does he?

LOL.

All these posts about how FOX is trying to divide us as a people crack me up.

We are dead-set on dividing ourselves.

I actually have family members whom I love very dearly who are Republicans. Some are Libertarians. Hell, I'm halfway to libertarian myself, at least as far as the non-aggression principle and the "governs least governs best" principle.

So go on and tell me my father is a fascist and my brother is a thug and my mother in law is an anti American shill.

FOX news is telling them the same thing about me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

59. Ah, you do realize that on first scan that reads as

"DU was a much simpler place when we all hated progressives".

(all hated the same people - and the next people you mention are progressives)

But I know what you mean, and I agree.

[Skinner]

63. Thanks for pointing that out.

I have edited my post.

[KoKo]

250. I don't remember DU'ers "hating anyone but Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush." That hardly qualifies as

being called "Haters" with a broad stroke brush.

That's my memory of things...and I've been here so long...the roots are deep... Just saying......

[WingDinger]

24. Thank GOD someone said it.

I just said to my winger father the other day, that Liberals dont account for human nature much. They believe that education will give us the sense we need, and we will follow the good.

The attempt here, to quell the dissention, has led to a situation that anything possibly contentious, is locked. Instead of using this, to smelt a unified front, we squabble for being right. We could be SO MUCH more powerful and effective. If we settle for just politically correct, we are DOOMED.

I used to say there was a reasonable man behind right wingers. I can no longer say that. Pity. At least I should be able to say things to lefties without being called a troll, Teagagger or idiot.

I sure hope you have the juice to make us pause. We are losing RIGHT NOW because of your concern. Had we hashed out our differences, in the womb here, we would stomp and frighten demagogues.

I get much of my view of human nature from juxtaposing it beside BONOBO culture. That we believe ourselves above them, and too sophistocated for instinct, drives our blindness to inhumanity to man.

[YOY]

26. Sorry Cap'n. Not really.

Not according to my Political Science Prof back in the day and if people's words are to be indicative of their actual opinions.

Unless we are re-defining "progressive"...and that's not really our job. But if it makes anyone here fell better...sure...why not?

[Skinner]

38. Help me understand where your disagreement lies.

Do you believe that the everyone who who disagrees with you is motivated by ugly ulterior motives? By "ulterior" I am referring to motives that they are deliberately keeping concealed.

Do you believe they are resistant to reason?

Do you believe that they do not share any of the same core values?

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[YOY]

113. Yup...that's what I though you'd do.

That makes me sad...those words are neither sarcastic nor hateful at all.

That honestly makes me sad.

[EarlG]

117. I deleted your post

You called out other DU members as "tombstone-proof attack monkeys."

[YOY]

120. Did I name anyone Earl or are their IDs that obvious that I needn't have?

If you want snide comments to delete then look a few below this one.

If stating the blatantly obvious is verboten then I am honestly sorry.

[mikelgb]

325. If you are just going to repeat what they said, what is the point of censoring in the first place?

[whatchamacallit]

146. Ulterior motives? What if your overt motives are worthy of a whopping?

;)

[Jamastiene]

303. "Everyone"

That is the keyword. Words like all, any, and everyone compared to some or few make the difference.

The fact that some of us believe that there are some people with ulterior motives does not mean we believe that "everyone" who disagrees with us has ulterior motives.

Most of us are able to distinguish between repeat agitators and others who merely disagree with us on how to go about effecting change.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

27. This is a political site

It disproportionately attracts people who are not critical thinkers and are not internally honest.

That is the nature of politics... it is primarily a game for those who are driven by emotion and dogma and are sure they are right.

If this was a site dedicated to something other than one of the most dishonest human pursuits it would be different.

There are forums about wine and art and auto repair where people are interested in learning and communicating.

But politics, religion and sports forums will always be this way.

Congrats on reading Pinker. Everything he has written is a delight.

I expected the most recent book on language to be a little slow but it ended up being among the liveliest and most provocative of his books.

BTW, I hope you realize that even in the 21st century there are still some on the left who would (incorrectly) consider THE BANK SLATE RW pseudo-science.

[Skinner]

46. Yes, I realize that there are some on the left who take issue with The Blank Slate.

I thought about posting some sort of apology in my OP. But that's really not the point of the post.

I agree that the discussion of politics presents especially difficult challenges. I have no illusions that my post will lead to a revolution of civility and respect on DU. But I see no harm in trying to make people stop and think a little bit.

[Dr Fate]

129. "Some on the left"????- I thought we were ALL on the left here.

You know, the whole thingy about us all having the same goals and all?

I've been called a "Liberal" here on this site as if it is a bad thing. I've been called "far left" on this site, not b/c I actually hold far left views, but simply b/c I dared to ask the question: "Why are my DEMS not fighting hard on... (Insert one of literally thousands of events over the past 10 years here)."

LOL! I'm not all that "far" left at all, but I'm proud to be to the left of the average Republican and those "centrists" that can somehow find common ground with said liars and crooks.

I'm not so sure about us all wanting the same goals. Some of us have "centrist", "Keep your powder dry" , let the most conservative members of the party control things, type goals, while "Some on the left" think that the "centrists" and their wars, economic plans and all their other failed strategies are bunk.

This divide on DU goes back several years- where DLC boosters went unpunished for using "far left" as an insult on DU. Many of these same DUers who you say have the same goals as me openly supported Joe Lieberman too-, but any time I refered to a DLCer as a "conservative", those posts got banned.

Many of my favorite DUers are now gone- but many of the "centrists" who supported Lieberman's pro Bush, pro war run to defeat the Democrat still roam DU freely.


The fact that you had to even start this thread, much less use the phrase "some on the left" speaks volumes.

When you indicate that both sides are to blame- that sounds just like the mainstream media when they claim that "both sides" are the problem. Lazy.

The centrists and conservatives at this site are WRONG. Wrong for supporting the war, wrong for making excuses for why the war spending must continue, WRONG for supporting FAR RIGHT economic policies. It's not just my opinion that they are wrong- just look at the war and the economy and where that has gotten us as a country, as citizens or as a party.

Nothing to be objective about here at all as far as I'm concerned- there are "centrists" at this site who have been DEAD FREAKING WRONG about nearly every issue, and then there are "Far left kooks" (You know, those "nuts" who opposed the war, opposed conservative economic theory, BEGGED DEMS to fight literally thousands of times, to no avail, etc) who are now being lumped in as part of the problem, essentially for calling out the people who really are the problem.

Well, that was a long time coming, Old Bossman. Glad to get that out!

In sum, I do not believe that people who defend Lieberman and Max Baccus have the same goals as I do. People who insist that Obama has no choice but to spend money on wars do not have the same goals as I do. People who call me "elitist" b/c I support sustainable living and oppose our shitty service economy do not have the same goals that I do. Etc, etc. I know, I know those are just my "pet issues."

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

132. Yes, but we do not all have the same feelings about the book being discussed

[Dr Fate]

136. In the context of DU's history, I decided to latch on to that choice of phrasing.

If that was inappropriate, I think I still made my opinions clear.

To say that we all have the same goals is like saying that Rahm Emanuel, Joe Lieberman and Max Baccus have the same goals as Howard Dean.

Supposedly we "all want DEMS to win"- sure- but the real issue is, who are these winning DEMS going to be? "Centrists" with records of being WRONG about every major issue, or "crazy, far left" types who have actually been correct?

For better or for worse, the admins of this site are not here to answer that question- but to provide a place for the fight to take place.

All well and good, but I maintain that objectivity is a bit overrated these days. There still is the concept of being correct vs. incorrect in my book.

[defendandprotect]

226. Exactly ....

In fact, the main thrust of my vote this election is to knock out as

many Repugs as I possibly can -- understanding that CORPORATISM is FASCISM

and that's where the enemy lies. That we have class warfare going on in US --

rich vs the rest of us -- rich vs LABOR -- and that we are all labor and should unite!


IMO, AFTER we get rid of as many Repugs as possible, we can double back and target

the corporate-Democrats -- which is exactly what we should do -- and replace them with

liberal/progressive Democrats who will support safety nets and LABOR -- unions --

and public schools!!

I'll also be looking for a new Dem presidential candidate in 2012 --

one who supports public education and safety nets --

one who supports what the public supports -- single payer, government run health care!!

:)

[sabrina 1]

162. I absolutely agree with you about 'right' and 'wrong' and that

is what should be the basis for any political discussion among voters. We KNOW politicians won't always worry about that, and as you say, the media's nasty habit about blurring the lines when they KNOW the 'left' was right about the war, instead of speaking the truth, will say 'well, both sides were right and wrong' or whatever.

I cannot, eg, find any common ground with anyone who thinks we can wait to take care of eliminating torture as a policy of this country, not just in words, but in actions. Saying it isn't, but then prosecuting a tortured child soldier, says otherwise.

I finally gave up my mission of trying to talk to rightwingers in disgust, after the revelations of Abu Ghraib when I really thought if they were decent people as I had begun to believe, they would condemn it. But instead, they took their lead from Rush Limbaugh and I was so disgusted I simply stopped even trying to talk to them.

Is it 'politically naive' to demand that this country abide by its own laws and moral obligations? Is that 'left' or is it just right?

And isn't it very dishonest to condemn Bush for things that he did wrong, while giving a pass to Democrats? Or is that too considered 'politically naive'?

Good post and I agree with most of what you have to say. I do not believe in making excuses for politicians, no matter which party they belong to. I want to belong to a party I believe is moral, ethical and right on the issues. That won't exist if we keep lowering the bar for political purposes.

[defendandprotect]

229. And, agree completely .....

however, for the life of me, I can't understand anyone watching corporate-media???!!

There is nothing correct about war -- it's simply a activity for war profiteers --

has long been true! Don't see any moral issue there. And, I'd say the left was also

correct going back to WW I -- and then Spain/Franco!

Agree 1000% on torture -- and prosecuting any of these more than likely innocent people

we've held for almost a decade now in atrocious conditions!

"Beware of those with a strong urge to punish!"

Is it 'politically naive' to demand that this country abide by its own laws and moral obligations? Is that 'left' or is it just right?

:applause:

And isn't it very dishonest to condemn Bush for things that he did wrong, while giving a pass to Democrats? Or is that too considered 'politically naive'?

Don't know the truth of that -- only those who do it may one day tell us -- but I'm going to

give them a temporary pass right now on that because I see so many of those posts are drenched

in FEARFUL thinking.

Good post and I agree with most of what you have to say. I do not believe in making excuses for politicians, no matter which party they belong to. I want to belong to a party I believe is moral, ethical and right on the issues. That won't exist if we keep lowering the bar for political purposes.

And, of course, the Democratic Party used to manage to do ALL of that --


:applause:

[defendandprotect]

225. Agree with you, but have to say I'm seeing less of this here lately ....

The centrists and conservatives at this site are WRONG. Wrong for supporting the war, wrong for making excuses for why the war spending must continue, WRONG for supporting FAR RIGHT economic policies. It's not just my opinion that they are wrong- just look at the war and the economy and where that has gotten us as a country, as citizens or as a party.

Nothing to be objective about here at all as far as I'm concerned- there are "centrists" at this site who have been DEAD FREAKING WRONG about nearly every issue, and then there are "Far left kooks" (You know, those "nuts" who opposed the war, opposed conservative economic theory, BEGGED DEMS to fight literally thousands of times, to no avail, etc) who are now being lumped in as part of the problem, essentially for calling out the people who really are the problem.

Well, that was a long time coming, Old Bossman. Glad to get that out!

In sum, I do not believe that people who defend Lieberman and Max Baccus have the same goals as I do. People who insist that Obama has no choice but to spend money on wars do not have the same goals as I do. People who call me "elitist" b/c I support sustainable living and oppose our shitty service economy do not have the same goals that I do. Etc, etc. I know, I know those are just my "pet issues."

Maybe my imagination?

Or -- Perhaps the "nervous nellies" who live and breathe FEAR that any criticism of Obama

will bring defeat of Dems at the polls are coming to understand things a little differently

these days?

[stevenleser]

56. A Political site "It disproportionately attracts people who are not critical thinkers and..."

"It disproportionately attracts people who are not critical thinkers and are not internally honest."

This is really what you think of your fellow DU'ers? I think the reverse is true. I think it tends to attract people who are critical thinkers and internally circumspect.

I have had my opinions changed by fellow DU'ers, I have had strategies altered and amplified by fellow DU'ers and I feel better educated as a result of fellow DU'ers, even those with whom I have had strenuous disagreements.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

74. The word "disproportionate" has a meaning. n/t

[stevenleser]

103. You don't say?

:sarcasm: :eyes:

Here is try #2.

I think DU disproportionately attracts people who are extremely thoughtful, discerning, self aware and self actualized.

If you really think that you are right, the fact that you spend time at a site that "disproportionately" attracts people that you think have those negative attributes says A LOT about you.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

106. This kind of unprovoked personal attack is always welcome here on DU

I stated something about the nature of politics.

You reply with your nasty opinion of me.

That contrast says about all that need be said.

:hi:

[stevenleser]

126. You make a sweeping negative generalization about DUers and then accuse me of a personal attack?

Interesting.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

135. You will find the word "personal" in many of the better dictionaries.

You seem to be suffering under the delusion that you somehow represent or embody the aggregate membership of this website.

[stevenleser]

141. Really? Show me any text in any of my posts that suggests such a thing. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

143. You are going to win this argument, and I can tell you how.

I will put you on ignore as soon as I post this.

Then you will respond with some irrelevancy and have the last word.

Thousands will cheer your triumph.

:party: :party: :party:

Aloha means good-bye.

:hi:

[stevenleser]

149. You lost this argument with your original post attacking the population of DU

then, despite the fact that you were in a hole, you kept digging.

[hfojvt]

156. you said something about the people who post here

not just about politics.

also when your original statement said "internally honest" that seemed to be a divergence to me. Since the people with ulterior motives are not EXTERNATALLY honest. I am no sure why internal honesty should even enter the picture.

[HughMoran]

158. The comment was illuminating and appropriate

I was hoping you would be a bit introspective and listen to his criticism - alas you took it as a personal attack.

[AngryAmish]

130. Critical thinking is largely a self-congratulatory hoax

Do you know anyone who does not think they are a critical thinker? Even that "morans" guy thinks that he is correct based on his own facts and logic.

The way humans brains work is we come to a decision then select the evidence that supports our conclusion. (There is a lot of good science on this I'm omitting because I'm too lazy to look it up.) We ignore or discount facts that do not support our conclusion. We are ruled by our emotions. Some people just like to put a veneer of "critical thinking" on it).

A good short primer on this is "How We Decide" by Johah Lehrer.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

138. Irony

You just used the phrase "good science" while suggesting that there are no methods by which human beings might better approximate objectivity, or that if they are they are never used.

Did Jonah Lehrer come to a decision that critical thinking is a self-congratulatory hoax and then cherry-pick evidence to support his conclusion?

Did you decide that critical thinking is a self-congratulatory hoax and then seek out books like "How We Decide" that support your conclusion?

Of course there is no magic formula for arriving at the truth of everything or removing all humanity from our mental processes and being rational doesn't make someone right all the time. But it allows the possibility of them ever recognizing that they were wrong and making adjustments, which is key to the OP.

(One reason for that is that if our ideas are not entirely gut-generated those ideas are less a part of our personhood and it is less painful to let them go.)

[defendandprotect]

222. No ... I don't think it will always be this way .... as long as we have the internet--!!!

Remember there was a time in America when the saying went --

"You shouldn't discuss politics or religion in polite society!"

Who did that benefit but elites and religious elites?

Other countries understood elites/royals -- Americans really didn't.

FDR was so easy to understand that you didn't have to be a deep thinker to get it.

Now, after the reversal of the protections of NEW DEAL Americans are having to

wake up again -- and to give some deep thought to issues.

It's happening on the internet every day on every website --

and everytime someone is exposed to the latest news articles!

Are people now discussing politics over their restaurant meals? Not quite yet!

Are they discussing politics with their next door neighbor ... not quite yet!

But why? Because most of our political discourse has been framed by the right

wing -- right wing landmines in every debate -- right wing propaganda which comes

so trippingly off the tongue!! Like Dems being the "food stamp party" --

the "tax and spend party" --

But we will get over it -- and I'm confident if the internet is able to continue

on -- and if we all have a bit more patients -- we will get there and we will

become just as political as the FRENCH!!

And other countries who understand their stake in uniting with their fellow citizen --

and that we are all LABOR -- and the "meal ticket" for corporations!!

[LoZoccolo]

28. I can acknowledge that the other side has much of the same principles.

But the principle of which strategy is more effective and reasonable in pursuing the common principles is pretty much the entire argument. I don't see any real resolution there except to find ways to react to the ineffective strategies and the tired routine arguments that will expose them as ineffective.

This is why I employ troll tactics from time to time (and I do admit to trolling under certain definitions of the word, but in the service of the Democrats and not the conservatives; Socrates was an epic troll): the idea is to set up the situation, or the way of posing the question, such that people cannot respond the way they'd like to without exposing some kind of weakness or disingenuous part of how they think. If there's any ill motives, don't make an accusation, just find a way to ask the right question such that they can't hold on to their falsehood or bad habit and still maintain the facade of integrity. This goes hand-in-hand with the practice of not really trying to to get your opponent to explicitly admit that they are wrong in the end; this is what causes heated battles, and it's hard to accomplish, but put their fallacies on display through their own words and you may have convinced five other people not to try the same tack as your opponent.

Law 9

Win through your Actions, Never through Argument

Any momentary triumph you think gained through argument is really a Pyrrhic victory: The resentment and ill will you stir up is stronger and lasts longer than any momentary change of opinion. It is much more powerful to get others to agree with you through your actions, without saying a word. Demonstrate, do not explicate.

(from The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene)

[Dr Fate]

144. "the other side"- as in conservatives or people who have agreed with them on the war and economy?

Or "the other side"- as in the "far left" who opposed such wrong-headed conservatives?

That brings us to the crux of this thread, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm glad you have your troll tactics fine tuned, but at some point, there really is a such thing as being wrong vs. being correct- no matter who wins the day on a message board.

For instance- Conservative & centrist DEMS who supported going to war in Iraq were/are wrong (Joe Lieberman and most DLC members being prime examples), liberals who opposed it (the "far left" DUers and other liberals) were right.

On many issues and in many cases, we are not dealing with the same principles or the same goals at all.

Some think that "the other side" are Liberals who have been correct on the major issues, some think that "the other side" are the conservatives & centrists who have been dead wrong on the major issues of our life time.

[LoZoccolo]

159. Why do you come here?

To tell everyone you're right?

[Dr Fate]

165. Lately, to debate with centrist and conservative DEMS.

I feel that centrist and conservative DEMS do not have the same goals as I do, as far as where the party should be going.

Now it's your turn to answer my question- by the "other side" do you mean Liberals who opposed the war and the Bush economic plans, or do you mean DLCers, Blue Dogs & "Centrists" who supported all that in one form or the other?

Maybe "the other side" you mean the Republicans that the DLCers agreed with?

The fact that you did not feel the need to provide a clear answer really sums up the problems with DU. In a way, it might illustrate why Skinner even felt the need for this thread.

Fact is, some people on this site have been and still are dead wrong, while others were and are correct. It's the real reason why people are arguing.

It seems like Admin is in the unfortunate position of trying to appear "objective" where there is no real need for objectivity.

I answered your question- will you answer mine? Who is "the other side" to you- Anti war Liberals? Pro War Centrists? Which faction do you tend to argue with the most?

Give us a specific answer- can you do it?

Skinner says we all have the same goals here, but I'm wondering if we should be questioning that theory.

[LoZoccolo]

169. Republicans are not really allowed on DU, are they?

I did not answer your question because it seemed to be rooted in some big misunderstandings about what the OP is about. He talks a lot about people who are absolutely certain that they are right and that the motives of people with whom they are arguing are malevolent.

[Dr Fate]

187. So who is "the other side" to you? Anti war Liberals? Pro Blue Dog/DLC types?

Other?

Interesting that I was able to predict your refusal to give a specific answer, no?

Your use of the phrase "the other side" has nothing to do with any misunderstandings I might have- you can either tell us who "the other side" (your choosen phrase, not mine) is to you, or we can all just guess.

What I want people to ask is: Was "the othe side" correct on the major issues, or not? Which "side" has the record of being correct on the issues and making predictions?

Either way , having identified that there is "the other side", can it really be said that we all have the same goals?

I do not misunderstand what the OP is about at all. I'm pointing out that the OP basically ignores the idea that there really is a such thing as being correct or incorrect on any given issue.

I do not debate pro-war centrists and conservative DEMS b/c of "human nature"- I debate them because they are wrong on the issues, and dangerous to the party.

Wrting it all off to simple "human nature" is the lazy over-objective way out. Sometimes people argue b/c there IS a right and a wrong answer.

And yes- partisan Republicans are not allowed here- but conservative DEMS who agree with them on many major issues are not only allowed, but encouraged. You know, whole "big tent" thingy.

[LoZoccolo]

189. Whoever I happen to be arguing with?

The OP describes an abstract phenomenon that transcends a particular view point, and I was discussing it further. Feel free to keep going though, because you are contributing invaluably to the discussion.

[Dr Fate]

192. Who do you happen to argue with the most- Liberlas or DLC/Joe Lieberman types?

And since you used the phrase "the other side" to describe one or the other, it's very strange that you are now backing aaway from sayting exactly who that is.

I'll go ahead and take the leap for both of us:

When you say "the other side" you mean Liberals who tend to disagree with the Blue Dog & DLCers, when I say "the other side" in the context of DU, I'm talking about said DLC types.

Sound about right?

Why is it that I can freely admit who I argue with hre at DU, but you cant? Why is it that I could predict your refusal to give a stright anwswer?

I dont expect you to understand-and I dont exepct Admin to back me up on this, but this is the whole "centrist" vs. "Far left" DU debate in a nut shell.

One side constantly hides the ball and refuses to give straght answers, while "the other side" remains correct on the major issues of the day.

[LoZoccolo]

248. This thread is not about my personal political opinions.

It never was, not even when I said "the other side" to literally mean any generic opinion other than my own, being that this is an abstract discussion about strategy. To try to change it to a discussion of something else would be an act of thread hijacking in which I do not wish to participate.

[hfojvt]

29. I don't see why that should be true

Your first excerpt

"Social psychologists have found that with divisive moral issues, especially those on which liberals and conservatives disagree, all combatants are intuitively certain they are correct and that their opponents have ugly ulterior motives. They argue out of respect for the social convention that one should always provide reasons for one's opinions, but when an argument is refuted, they don't change their minds but work harder to find a replacement argument. Moral debates, far from resolving hostilities, can escalate them, because when people on the other side don't immediately capitulate, it only proves they are impervious to reason."

That is perhaps true, in general, but does not seem to be true for me. I rarely assume that the other side has "ugly ulterior motives". In fact, I often am arguing on DU about the ulterior motives of the other side. Which often only serves to "prove" that I am really on the other side. It sorta goes like this, and the current 'curb stomping' story may provide an example.

"Aha, a move on protestor was curb stomped. This proves the other side has ugly ulterior motives"
replies
1. you said it. What a bunch of brownshirt thugs.
2. knr, typical repukes, violent bullies and cowards

a few more replies like this and the "DU truth" has been established, that all good DUers are supposed to see things a certain way and only trolls and morons will disagree.



Anyway, I think this is learned behavior. People assume in an argument that the other side has ugly ulterior motives becayse they divide into gangs - the Jets and Sharks (or sometimes even multiple gangs like the Winnipeg Jets and the NY Jets and the Melbourne Sharks and the Orlando Sharks) and then the gangs spend lots of time sitting around the campfire telling stories about a) the greatness of their own gang and b) the malevolence of the other gang.

And that dynamic is true even when the gangs are the woodchuck coalition and the Boggers.

[Tsiyu]

271. Hmmm....

So a "DU Truth" is that a man shouldn't throw someone down on the ground and hold her head down with his foot?

I would say all "good PEOPLE" would agree with this truth.

If you don't agree, I would say no, we definitely are not on the same side at all.


Hmmm....

[hfojvt]

293. "I've seen all good people turn their heads each day"

Yes, you seem to illustrate it.

"So a "DU Truth" is that a man shouldn't throw someone down on the ground and hold her head down with his foot?"

If that is your truth, it seems to be an error. First, that would be two men, One who threw her to the ground and a second who held her down with his foot. Second, the foot was not on her head.

Thus to describe it as a "curb stomping" is not accurate, but woe to the person who calls for accurate statements when all "good people" are just supposed to be foaming at the mouth and hurling expletives.

Another question might be whether tackling a woman is ever appropriate behaviour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynette_Fromme#Assassination_attempt_on_President_Ford
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/0104/012804-franken.htm

The other larger questions though are whether this incident somehow makes any Republican voter of a similar character, and also whether we can discuss this, or larger issues, without attacking the character of people on the other side.

[Tsiyu]

327. Parse it any way you want

if it helps you justify it.

Honestly, you're not really making any sense to me. Perhaps someone else can crack your nebulous code of ethics.

My ethics say one, two, however many men involved are WRONG and VIOLENT. That's my truth.

[Winterblues]

32. Then second Amendment Remedies should not be any problem

:shrug: Just a small difference in principles.

[Skinner]

57. I'm not sure what your point is.

Here on DU, we don't permit members to argue in favor of "Second-Amendment remedies." So, that would not be in the universe of shared values here.

[Winterblues]

101. I'm sorry I was not limiting it to just DU

I was speaking about a difference IMO that can just not be compromised on.......:shrug: I realize no one here holds such an opinion, at least not yet anyway..

[mopinko]

34. evolutionary psychology is so interesting

if everyone accepted the facts of our evolution, they could learn some really important lessons about who we are and what we need to get along and thrive. sometimes i think that is what the deniers are really afraid of.

[dkf]

36. I've probably learned the most through the heated discussions...

It is only through probing all the angles that one can learn about the situation. Sometimes when people are being "nice" they kind of pussyfoot around the reality of the issue and that doesn't lead to true understanding.

I would be sad if we got moderated down to pleasant civilities. Not that name calling or just plain rudeness should be tolerated...those are pointless and a waste of space. But true discussion, even if it gets passionate, is what I love about this place.

[MineralMan]

60. There's nothing wrong with spirited, or even heated discussion.

I don't think that's the point. It's one thing to say, for example, "I think your argument is simple-minded because..." and saying, "You're a moron."

Or, saying, "What you're saying sounds a lot like what the right says," compared to "Your just a freeper."

One is rational discussion of the issues. The other is just a personal attack. Sometimes, we have far too much of the latter in some discussions.

[TheKentuckian]

40. I'm far from convinced we all have the same goals. If we did the paths wouldn't diverge so.

This logic can from a great enough distance from the ground apply to all people and eventually all life but we are talking about what are details from the view from high orbit.

I'm sure everyone wants safety and prosperity for their children. What those words mean and how to get there is the entire conversation. Even the most extreme Reich winger, in their fashion, wants affordable health care, self determination, and broad prosperity but their roadmap to achieve such aims is at odds with my interpretation of those words and their path will never lead to those goals in thousands of years of effort.
A very similar divide exists here.

Once, not long ago, I was as "sensible" and "pragmatic" as any but certain lines got crossed and certain approaches were deemed wholly toxic and counter-productive at which point being "sensible" and "pragmatic" became parodies, deserving of being placed in quotes at all times except when they are used in a real and applicable fashion.

The journey means as much as the destination and some paths exclude by nature certain aspirations other than the world being round and eventually a straight line will lead you where you came from if you stick with it. Going across the street via China is not a reasonable path but it is possible.

[TexasObserver]

41. We are all captives of our own mind.

The certitude we have is based entirely upon who we are, and what our composite knowledge base is. We always see what we want or expect to see. Most of the heated arguments on DU are among people who generally agree on most issues.

There are some major dividing lines. Those who think things are generally getting incrementally better are chronically at odds with those who think the end is near. The bitterness among gloom and doomers, however, is kind of weird. They seem to love bad news and hate good news. That's probably just a function of their world view and personality.

[handmade34]

43. Thanks Skinner for commenting on this

I rant in silence often because it seems we progressives can be just as dogmatic as the people we believe to be backward thinking...

We are complex beings and it behooves us to be rational (most of the time)

[flvegan]

44. *They* may also argue out of principle, but I'm always right.

Just kidding.

Even with those folks upon which a disagree with a great deal about certain topics, I know that I do indeed share most common ground, and will be the first to agree with them on those other topics.

Unless of course they are a troll.

[MineralMan]

54. Oh, just eat your veggies, why don't you?

I know you know I'm just kidding. :hug:

[flvegan]

67. I laughed out loud

when I saw who posted this.

:rofl:

[MineralMan]

71. I knew you would. That's why I took the chance of being

misunderstood.

[Dr Fate]

148. If you opposed the war, vs. a DEM who did not, then you ARE right.

At some point we have to admit that objectivity is being overused here at this site.

There really are factions here who have been pretty much wrong about every major issue (The DLC guys).

In turn there really are factions here who have pretty much been right about the major issues (anti-Bush FP and economic plan, pro PO, etc).

Of course, I'm arguing fromt he point of view of a Liberal (shudder), so I guess I'm just being biased. Maybe the war and the DLC/Blue Dog supported Bush economic plans were great after all, and I'm just to subjective to see it, but I doubt it.

[mike_c]

50. one of the best and most perceptive posts I've ever seen here...

...and that's saying a LOT. Rec'd!

[Skinner]

65. Thank you.

You are too kind.

[bobburgster]

58. I believe....

that I am open to being factually shown why an opinion of mine might be wrong. The OP gives me a little insight as to why so many very intelligent, and well informed members, can be reduced to replying with junior high insults. I must plead guilty to this behavior myself. I could rationalize by saying it is in response to a juvenile comment to me, but honestly, what's the difference....

Unfortunately, time constraints limit the amount of time I can spend gaining an in-depth understanding of the plethora of subjects impacting us, and our country. One of the big reasons I enjoy DU so much is the amount of knowledge shared on here that I would never be able to experience and learn from. Thanks to all of you here on DU, just about everything is at my fingertips.

:toast:

[MineralMan]

69. One of the things that may play into this is that not every

member here is equipped to write detailed, rational arguments about an issue. By that I mean they don't have enough information, writing skills, or have pre-conceived ideas they don't fully understand. In frustration, that often leads to those personal attacks and "junior high insults." I've seen that situation pop up a number of times in discussions. It's easy to get frustrated and snap at something.

Now, it's different when such an attack comes from someone who is capable of expressing a good argument, but chooses not to. I treat the two situations completely differently when I know the situation.

[bobburgster]

190. Good point.

I'll keep that in mind.

[boston bean]

193. I can't believe you wrote that! I really really want to make a personal attack.

But I won't.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

61. Wouldnt these be true of republicans as well?

i mean if i am going to give another dem the benefit of this doubt, would i not have to extend this same logic to republicans?

:shrug:


i think maybe the bigger issue here is that emails are the worst way of communicating especially when there is conflict. without nonverbal cues arguments escalate

[Gormy Cuss]

66. Good points, pri. n/t

[Skinner]

72. I agree that digital communication, with its anonymity and lack of visual clues...

...is a huge challenge for us.

As for Republicans, I think it is true that I share some of the same values with them, too. But my post was in reference to Democratic Underground, which limits it to discussions among progressives.

[txaslftist]

111. I hear the buzzing of heresy, or apostacy at the least....

[AngryOldDem]

62. I think expecting civil discussion on an Internet board is often a futile effort.

I've never seen it happen, even on boards that have the best of intentions to keep things polite. And that's true the longer a topic is open for discussion and the greater the number of people who take part in it.

I, too, believe there **is** common ground to be found on most issues, and that if people would just take the time to listen to each other and appreciate each other's viewpoints and perspectives, a lot of grief could be avoided. But I don't expect to always see that premise recognized, here or elsewhere on the Web. And I think that's due to people working from a position of anonymity behind a keyboard where it's easy to give in to the anger, vitriol, and -- yes -- the sense of helplessness that we all feel as we spectate upon current events. Plain good manners and constructive discourse are often the first casualties.

You're also assuming that we are all starting out from the same place ideologically -- politically and otherwise. That's not always the case either.

[Skinner]

75. To a certain degree, I think you are correct.

It is often a futile effort. I know that I cannot make people be nice.

But I do believe it is possible for everyone here to do a little bit better. Not saying everyone will. But I believe everyone is capable of doing better.

[Scurrilous]

64. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

68. "here on DU where the discussions are among progressives."

Errrrrrrrrrrrr...

[Skinner]

77. From your post, I assume you think our discussions are not among progressives.

I disagree.

Progressive describes a broad orientation. I think it is obvious that Democratic Underground is far more progressive than American society at large. The vast majority of DUers self-identify as progressive or liberal.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

86. Vast majority != all. Don't forget the RW trolls.

They make a disproportionately high amount of noise.

[Skinner]

89. I'm not sure the RW trolls are our biggest problem.

But I would agree that we do have RW trolls here.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

95. Your biggest problem is that MFing posting bug.

RW trolls come a distant second. But boy, are they annoying.

[Gormy Cuss]

109. It'd be interesting to poll DUers on whether they consider themselves liberals or progressives

because I'd guess based on the wide range of political positions in discussion that the number of liberals is far greater than the number of progressives.

[TBF]

84. +1 good point nt

[EFerrari]

93. Well, it makes you wonder why we have so many threads bashing progressives or liberals. n/t

[Dr Fate]

142. "Far left" and "Liberal" are used by "centrists" on this site as insults.

And yet admin wonders why everyone is getting snippy at each other here at a Liberal (We all have the same goals, right?) site.

For the record, I dont see what is so "center" about agreeing with the FAR RIGHT on the major issues of the day (war spending, tax cuts, public option). Supporting the far right does not make one a centrist, it puts them on the right.

[defendandprotect]

232. Presumably ... they didn't take the survey ... !!

[Jamastiene]

307. That is something I have never understood. n/t

[leveymg]

76. As in Somalia, it's the smallest degrees of difference that draw the most blood.

In mostly homogeneous societies (like DU, believe it or not), the bitterest differences are among those who are closest to each other. What we're seeing is a sort of family feud, which like the clan-based warfare in East Africa, can last for years and destroy the environment in which people share.

What we should allow for, in that case, is not so much sterner peacekeeping, but greater diversity, which would break up and rearrange existing lines of combat.

Just a thought.

[H2O Man]

79. Agree & Disagree

I think that a significant part of the on-going cycles of hostility on DU are due to the nature of the internet, which is best viewed as distinct from human nature. We are not able to see one another, for example, to be able to interpret things such as body language. Hence, those subtle influences that are actually "human nature" are lessened, and "machine nature" increases.

However, because it is unlikely that the participants on this forum will have the opportunity to engage in one-on-one discussions, much less sit in circles of eight (which creates the best context for group communications), there are things that each one of us can do to improve our machine-based, internet forum dynamics. And some of those are indeed the things that you mention in the OP, and that are discussed in the resulting thread.

I am convinced, though, that as words do have actual meanings, that it is better if we do not start with a false assumption, such as that we are all progressives, or all share the same values and goals. It is by taking such an assumption that creates the greatest stumbling block to being able to find those areas where many (if not most) participants do share the same values and goals, and -- perhaps most importantly -- where their can be mutual respect among groups and individuals who absolutely do not share the same values and goals.

For but one glaring example of the stark differences here, one need look no further than the topic of "religion." There are very real differences, among forum members, in terms of both values and goals. This creates the potential for both ugly fights and divisions, as well as the potential for understanding and mutual respect. And anyone who participates here can easily list a half-dozen similar issues.

Despite having very significant differences in political, social, and economic views, we all inhabit this same internet forum. We can work to improve communications and individual/group relationships here, or feed into the hostility and bitterness. Hopefully, your recent OPs will help all of us here to invest in making this a better place to be.

[damntexdem]

81. Then it's simple: just get rid of all the humans on DU.

;-)

[Skinner]

83. ROFL.

:thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

88. LOL

[myrna minx]

99. Heh - I know my kitty occasionally posts here:

';lk;lkdwqpoo qweo<0 o-==========------------==========d0000000000dqwwwwwwwww= [br />
11233333322111111111111.....kjhnnnnnnvhdfszerfrrrrrrrrrrrewqqqqqqqqqqqqq


:rofl:

[TBF]

82. Capitalism is not "human nature" -

it is an oppressive economic system that we've had forced on us (those with slaves as ancestors will especially appreciate this). Those of us who are workers understand why it has to go. Those of you who choose to suck up to the owners for crumbs may not see it as clearly. Once we are free of the elephant in the room, perhaps then we can discuss this "human nature" nonsense.

[txaslftist]

94. LOL. You are right. Fascism is human nature.

Thank God for the ameliorating effects of property ownership!

[defendandprotect]

235. Well, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Hitler were both human ....

Also think if there was a "Jesus" ... he was also human.

Guess we also have to say that W, Poppy, Rumsfeld and Cheney were also human --!! Yikes!

[defendandprotect]

234. Agree .... and even FDR saw the need for REFORMING it .... think that experiment failed and ....

we should be on our way to dumping it!

Many argue FDR knew it should be dumped but saved it --

let's not make that mistake again given a new chance!

As humans we are all LABOR -- with the right to use it for our own benefit --

not someone else's.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ..." -- NOT --

"Life, liberty and property" -- !!

[Starry Messenger]

85. I think it's class conflict.

People who have what they need to survive are getting pissed at those less fortunate for complaining. That's what I see.

[leftstreet]

100. ^^+1^^

Couldn't agree more

[txaslftist]

112. I think they are getting pissed because the government is taking it...

and they are worried that they will no longer have what they need to survive.

59% of the federal budget is war and defense.

I don't think Blackwater or X-3 or whatever they are called now are less fortunate than me.

[Jamastiene]

315. I see an awful lot of that too. n/t

[ShamelessHussy]

91. I think even more can be blamed on our crass culture derived from m$m

I wish we allowed user to rate post on a scale, say 1 to 10.

This way the community as a whole could help moderate the site with less censorship, and allow users to filter the content based on their own personal preferences.

This way the site would be more personalized to the taste of each user. Some could say show me only content rated 4 andabove, while another user could say give the whole, uncut, unmoderated version.

Less headaches for the admins, and more choice and freedom of expression and consumption by the users.

Think about it.

[defendandprotect]

237. Interesting ... a self-policed website .... !!!

[opihimoimoi]

97. Rec'd reading: JANUS Arther Koestler....Answers to the questions of who, what we are

Worth the time effort to review

Old but Gold

****We need to move out of the present DIVISIVE Level

Which means finding common ground between parties...

I've been searching for years,,,,

My Reason, Sanity Search & Rescue Teams keep coming back with dismal results....

Not too much Sanity out there.

[cbdo2007]

107. The problem I see here on DU is too many uninformed generalizations about the other side...

such as people lumping "christian", "tea party", "Republican", and "Libertarian" all together like these all describe one person that we're against. Really these are different groups with different sets of beliefs yet it seems like too many people here are not knowledgeable about the difference so it is broken down too rudimentally to just "good" vs "bad" - the specifics of the arguments aren't even considered.

Then it turns into a battle between the super-far-left progressive liberals and the super-far-right Republicans while leaving those of us in the middle out of the discussion because we just get lumped into one of those two groups - either for or against. I'm probably 90% liberal but I definitely have some conservative viewpoints as well, yet it seems like people like me aren't "pure" enough to even have discussions with, half the people here would rather just kick us out all together (as if they could get more than a handful of Democrats elected without us).

[creon]

116. common ground

Common ground can be found, if the parties decide, for whatever reason, that they want to find it.

If you want a fight, you can, usually, find someone who will oblige.

[Generic Other]

123. I can accept disagreement if it does not include ad hominem attacks, mockery, or condescension

These effect tone of conversation.

If both sides argue respectfully, then yes, maybe we can find middle ground.

[earcandle]

133. I like the way George Battaille describes human nature and animal nature in his book

"eroticism: death and sensuality"  

http://www.amazon.com/Erotism-Death-Sensuality-Georges-Bataille/dp/0872861902

He says that human nature wants to serve, and animal nature
wants to be divine in that service.

so if we just allow for each other to serve and be dignified
in our service (told we are making
a difference) we will all be happy campers.  

I think we are old enough as a organism to be able to deal
with differences.. its the undignified
ways we are taught to fight for our differences that are the
problem. 

[Jim__]

134. I wouldn't expect us to overcome that obstacle anytime soon. :) - n/t

[EFerrari]

139. People learn very quickly.

The stops were pulled out during the primaries and people learned that they could be horrible to each other more or less with impunity. And the stops were never really put back; it became the New Normal. All those people who joined then and since haven't experienced DU as anything else than a place where you could answer an honest question with "WHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!111"

The great thing about human nature is that it's plastic and/because largely social. Heated arguments aren't really the problem at DU. The tone of those arguments is and changing the tone is something that is achievable, imho.

[cynatnite]

140. I have religious and ultra-conservative family members and friends...

so I feel I can deal with these substantial differences pretty good.

Politics and religion are big subjects. For a lot of us these are deeply held beliefs and despite the differences, there are things more important than differing opionions about abortion, George Bush, health care reform and so on.

The relationships are more important.

My mother is as RW as they come. She voted George Bush, she doesn't think Obama is a citizen, she kinda sorta likes Sarah Palin and all that. She's a fundie and I'm an atheist. We could get into some serious debates that could go all over the place, but our relationship is what's important to us. We love each other and these differences isn't going to interfere with that.

Like you said, Skinner, these are the details, but it's the bigger picture that's important. My mom and I.

Good post.

[rug]

150. I suppose, from your perspective, some days DU looks like this.

[Hissyspit]

152. I'm not buying the Jon Stewart frame. Civility is not the issue. Ignorance and corruption

are the issue.

[defendandprotect]

239. ...however, the right wing rises on political violence and "incivility" ....

if what he is thinking is that it's wise to try to control the tendency

among the right-wingers to want BROWN SHIRTS, then I'm for CIVILITY!!!


And I'd add that if the T-baggers the other night who were supporting Rand Paul

had at least adhered to CIVILITY there would have been head-stomping of the young

woman with the protest sign!!


I truly think that CIVILITY bars head-stomping!!!



:evilgrin:

[WilliamPitt]

154. I am a living example of the darker side of "our side."

More pointedly, some of my behavior has been a living example of the darker side of "our side."

Color me part of the problem.

Still, I'm on your side if you're a DUer.

Now and always.

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[valerief]

163. You put Huggies on trees? nt

[DFW]

170. Some people have a LOT more time on their hands than most of us n/t

:rofl:

[Hekate]

175. Soon to have more time on its hands

... with which to eat pizza, delivered piping hot. :eyes:

[emulatorloo]

184. its a good user name, though isn't it?

I found the post kind of amusing, I hope somebody preserves it.

[Dennis Donovan]

173. Hey Loser - wanna debate... on ANY issue?

C'mon asscarrot - bring it on!_|_

[Hissyspit]

176. Opposing Points of View are tolerated in the Right-Wing "sanctuaries?"

There are "spaces" on the Internet to do all these things. But let me ask you: Do you support lies and torture and death and corruption and bigotry? Is that what you want to be able to defend here?

[Hekate]

178. Apparently so, Hissy.

Amazing.

[Ikonoklast]

181. And yet, you feel the need to grace us with your wisdom.

What a pathetically sad little person you must be, such a small world you live in.

[fascisthunter]

182. lies are not tolerated. If you can debate without lying, sure

but if you are a right wing ding, you probably won't be tolerated and not for being a right wing ding, but because your point of view on issues are filled with propaganda and lies.

[Octafish]

185. David Vitter wears Huggies.

Depends, too.

[awoke_in_2003]

188. I thought I smelled pizza. nt

[seabeyond]

166. i had an interesting experience not long ago on du. i was on side of an issue with ALL the people

i normally argue with. it was one of the BIG dust ups here on du and it lasted days... or felt like. more like three days, lots and lots of threads. two sides. i was on the side that had a significantly smaller number. and man it was harsh, the attacks swift and the bonding of this small group was totally interesting.

i was agreeing with the people i never agree with

i was joking with people i normally left alone.

i got to play in the humor and interacting from a perspective i have not allowed in the past.

that was a month ago or so. since, i have been chatting with whomever. someone makes me laugh, i let them know instead of not saying anything because they are people i generally disagree with

i understand there will always be those differences. but i also see there will be common ground. and i can still enjoy them as people, even when i am pissed at them. it also allows me to be more respectful, even when i am pissed at them

it was a fun experience.

[DFW]

168. Presumably "Jo McCarthy" is not long for this board

On the other hand, I recently got the honor of this one directed at me: "maybe you go to france 3 times a month to deliver
drugs to some french aristocrat & his bankster friends."

And this was, despite the tone, from a regular DUer, not from some freeper.

Ah, well, different strokes for different folks. Some people get up in the morning and think, "crap, in ten hours it'll be
dark outside," and others get up and think, "hey, alright, the day is just beginning."

My signature line is not there for decoration, but because it's what I believe and live by.

[Fire Walk With Me]

171. People passionately want things to change for the better, NOW

and an anonymous forum provides an unfortunate outlet for such frustration.

"Just walk away" is indeed the best advice, even if it was given by The Lord Humongous. (chuckle)

Thanks Skinner!

[Broken_Hero]

174. Good OP,

:thumbsup:

One of the biggest issues I see when people are talking/debating one another, is that more often than not, they are talking past one another. In some cases, both parties agree on the same thing, yet are debating on which path to take to achieve their goal, and when the parties involved think they have been slighted, the debate escalates.

I believe most of us are on the same page, we just have different ways to get to that page...I hitch a ride on the Batmobile, others might use the city bus, others use a Lexus, others fly Delta to that page...but I do believe for the most part we are all on the same page.

[nicky187]

186. I'm thinking it over.

From the page: "Social psychologists have discovered the even in heated ideological battles, common ground can sometimes be found. Each side must acknowledge that the other is arguing out of principle, too, and that they both share certain values and disagree only over which to emphasize in cases where they conflict.

Can you do that?"

** Oh, ok. If you're going to make a big deal out of it, then I guess I can.

Good points. If you want to see the real "other side" check out postings on Twitter, Yahoo! News, or any newspaper online comments section. That should scare you big time.

[LiberalLovinLug]

194. Jo Mcarthy reveals the "Morans" we are REALLY combating.

I do not like the practice of deleting overt right wing bagger nonsense, because it reveals the wider gap that is there between them and progressives. At least for this thread, I think it is relevant. So at the risk of getting a slap on the knuckles I will quote it:

Jo Mcarthy: Opposing points of view are not tolerated in the Lib Sanctuary...

..this turns the forum into a group therapy exercise. Tree huggies struggle in the outside world, their ideas always getting ruined by the laws of physics, economics, sociology, psychology..just check out your epic failure to date if you have any doubts..hence the need for a safe area, such as this, where libotards can't get hurt, where any scream about evil 'teabaggers', no matter how hysterical or illogical, gets picked up, magnified, without any opposition to bring sanity into the discussion.

Lemmings, don't you ever get bored of your collective stupidity? I mean, sure I will have a nice stay and all that, but before this comment gets scrubbed, doesn't it just illustrate how pathetic you lot truly are if you need censorship to protect the validity of your ideas instead of relying on logic to defend them?

And Skinner, I hope you get to enjoy Nov elections, leaving all your delusions aside, it's going to be quite a spanking for your bunch and you deserve every bit of it, don't feel too bad - you brought this on yourself. LOL

This is nonsensical rhetoric that can easily be refuted, to show how very different we'all are from them.
At least in this thread, on this topic, let's see who the real "morans" are. ( I loved how Jo used the sign "Get a brain MORANS" as his avatar!)

Tree "huggies" ideas get "ruined by laws of physics, economics, sociology, psychology..just check out your epic failure to date if you have any doubts"
I mean WTF is that? So conserving (like a good conservative) natural areas instead of clearcutting is against the natural order of things? really? Humans do not need oxygen? We do not need a sustainable forestry industry so that jobs will be handed to the next generation? We do not need to protect Gods creations when they are in danger of extinction?

And of course the laughable 'insight' he has that opposing viewpoints are not tolerated here, implying that they are on tea party sites (LOL), EVEN THOUGH THIS OP'S PURPOSE IS MEANT TO ADDRESS THAT!

Anyways rebuttal is almost like taking candy from a baby DOLL from the likes of Jo. I'd love it if DU had a kind of boxing ring area where flame wars could be transferred, as opposed to deleted, if they got too heated. I would have loved to see some of the more knowledgeable DUers take that nutcase apart.

[BeFree]

196. Well

Not every DUer was created equal.

Some of us come from real knowledge, long life experiences, battles and activism. Some of us are mere babes in comparison.

So when someone, for instance, tries to tell me that e-vote machines are a-ok, I get f'n pissed.

The facts are that our votes have been stolen time and again and with the advent of the new-age e-vote, are in the gravest danger ever. It's why we have so many republicans in office. Duh!

Don't mess with my vote. Or my freedom of speech to see that my vote, and yours, is made whole, complete and counted as cast. And after that everything else can be given some room.

[Individualist]

199. He that troubles his own house shall inherit the wind

[pnwmom]

200. Excellent post, Skinner. Thank you.

I think Pinker is describing well what often happens here -- a tendency to think that the person arguing the other side -- or who is simply not doing what you want -- is acting out of bad faith.

[scarletwoman]

201. I completely disagree that this is what is happening on DU.

As someone who argues on the side of the farther left of DU, I have never thought that those to the right of me are arguing in bad faith, or out of a lack of reasonableness.

What I see is a clash of the grounds in which a person's worldview is based.

I have no problem with recognising the validity of someone's argument when I consider the perceptive ground out of which their thinking is operating. What I see is that I'm referencing a wholly different zeitgeist than they are.

Their arguments are perfectly logical and coherent within their chosen zeitgeist. I understand that. Where frustration arises is out of the lack of recognition that there is more than one valid mode of perception.

It is human nature to organize one's perceptions of external phenomena based on unconsciously and consciously inculcated mores formed through personal, familial, and social experiences.

It seems to me that the biggest source of conflict on DU is not that people want to ascribe bad faith to those who oppose/resist their arguments. It's the failure to understand that there truly are differing modes of perception at work.

sw

[BeFree]

216. Different modes of perception

Like drill baby drill?

Like the war will pay for itself, and we are at war with the Muslims.

How about SS needs to be cut?

That the world is f'd up because of the liberals?

Etc, Etc, etc.

I say crush those modes whenever and wherever they pop up. We owe it to the future.

Don't be so mamsy-pamsy, SW, it doesn't become you. <grin>

[scarletwoman]

261. I'm not talking about right wingers, I'm talking about DUers.

It's easy to see the wrong-headedness of right wing positions, that's not the point of either the OP or my post.

I'm talking about the arguments that go on between different factions of DUers.

I do not ascribe bad faith or ulterior motives to DUers I disagree with. I DO, however, ascribe differing perceptions to them.

sw

[Kurovski]

228. Oh, is that right, sister? Well let me tell you a dang thing or two...

:loveya:

My doors of perception have fallen unhinged, and bleach out in sunlight like whale bone on a battered beach.

...Just kidding!

[scarletwoman]

267. Blithely do I trod upon thy fallen door, that glowing bright doth span the strand.

Into the breach, upon the beach, the barricade crumbles to kindling.

O fallen gate, how drear your fate.

Now dost the wind and sun and take reign, wherein thou once didst shut away.

Rise up, rise up, the barrier's gone.

:*
sw

[Kurovski]

276. Fallen, risen, pale and crimson

waves and sky and sun.

Washed and sodden, tossed and plodding

downed horizon done.




:hug:

[scarletwoman]

278. Upon thy breast

the surging wave

in sunlit crest

in liquid light aspangle

the rush of life

within we lave

in energy rife

all the world atangle

:loveya:
sw

[Kurovski]

282. Tall

and

tan

and

young

and

lovely...








:D

[scarletwoman]

283. Whoa,

cosmic, man.

:rofl:

[Kurovski]

285. Are we hijacking,

or are we kicking this thread?

My natural inclination is kicking.

High and straight of knee.

While posting from my bed,

I wonder: what doth thinkest thee?

[Hekate]

350. Get a room! (applauds madly, enviously)

:spray: :hug:

[Kurovski]

358. :)

What's this thread about again? Oh yeah...

:hi:

[scarletwoman]

385. I would say we are beautifying this thread, with poetry, heart, and light.

Dreary internecine conflict could use a bit of love and poesy.

:D
sw

[Kurovski]

397. I'm going to give you a new nickname.

Madam Fruitcake Butterfly McDovelove. :D



We need a emoticon that indicates the pinching of a rearend. Sexism be damned!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

202. VERY interesting OP

I like psychological analyses...social psychology...

the "my logic will demolish yours" that gets things so heated around here, there's a lot of ego in it. I know I can feel the incensed ego rising in me when I've been flamed and have to outdo the interloper! I think a lot of "heated discussion" can get caught up in egoism.

[joshcryer]

205. Yeah, having a nuanced position is a bad idea here. If you correct someone over nuclear, you're a RW

...nut. If you decide that a particular issue is being mischaracterized, you're someone who agrees with the most negative and anti-progressive position.

[defendandprotect]

206. As they say, Skinner, best lessons are taught by example ... join in and show us how it's done--!!

[tavalon]

230. I know you're human just like me

Especially these days when I watch you try so hard to turn the tide of ugliness back. But, damn, it's hard not to deify you when you just keep coming back at this, gently and thoughtfully. I think I would have, long ago, said "Screw you crazy idiots, have fun in your mosh pit. Feel free to let me know when you've decided to stop throwing poop at each other.". But you don't (at least not on this forum. I can only too easily imagine the earful your wife gets) and it amazes me.

You've pegged it better this time than with the Alter thread. And you've pegged one of the main reasons I continue to remain in this mosh pit. Yeah, I get poop thrown at me on a regular basis, just like everyone, but then there are threads where I learn. Heck, when I got here, I knew there were three branches of Government and that I voted every 4 years. That's about it. Now, I'm a wonk and I'm that way because people here taught me and encouraged me to look up things I didn't agree with. Nowadays I can speak at length about why I think Rahm Emmanuel, his brother and the whole DLC are dangerous to the Democratic party and can speak at equal length about why a freshman Congressman from Florida is rapidly becoming my favorite Congressman. And I'm an activist. This place, not DKos or any of the other left blogosphere is what launched me and what keeps me nurtured (in between cleaning the poop out of my hair).

But, to speak to what you actually wrote- I often fall unconsciously into scoring points and entrenching when recognizing our common ground would almost certainly work better. When I remember to do that, I find that real conversation often follows. In some cases it doesn't and so I close the conversation from my side (usually. Sometimes, my higher self never shows up). I only have seven fellow DUers on my ignore list because even when I disagree with someone on 90% of their POV, I leave them in my mosh pit because it has happened that these same people have shown me good things.

[saltpoint]

231. No. Human nature, such as it is, long predates this site

and its various manifestations is not the problem.

You own the site, David. The mission of the place appears significantly undefined and your posted rules are only intermittently enforced and therefore only intermittently followed.

[HughMoran]

233. I agree with the premise.

I'm not going to add anything as many of the responses in this thread are instructive in making your point.

[bertman]

241. Actually, Skinner, we're NOT all progressives here. There are quite a few conservative Dems

who post on here with great regularity. There are also quite a lot of moderate Democrats, or centrist Democrats who post here. That's why some of us get heated up when there are discussions that suggest that liberals/progressives are out of step with Democratic values

Aside from that, most of us do share some core values.

Yes, I agree that we all should operate from a place of respect for the opinions of others on DU. I think most of us do. Or at least we try to.

[defendandprotect]

246. It seems THEY did not take the survey .....

[Panaconda]

243. Your premise is faulty

There is no such thing as "human nature" per se.

People's behavior is not shaped by this elusive "human nature", you could not possibly be so far off the mark.

People's behavior, if that is what it must be called, is shaped primarily by their social conditions.

And in the midst of the confusion we get the "personal responsibility" bit thrown in there?

"We must each take responsibility for our own behavior."

You do know that's a very conservative position?

[Tunkamerica]

297. you could not possibly be so far off the mark...

so are you being hyperbolic or you think he has some ulterior nefarious motive?

<"We must each take responsibility for our own behavior."[br />
You do know that's a very conservative position?]

personal responsibility is not conservative or liberal. If you have ANY knowledge of liberalism you will, no doubt, know that liberals take personal responsibility very seriously. The most hardcore among us take responsibility for their effect on the environment, other people, and the world as a whole. If anything personal responsibility is a liberal quality.

Right?

[TBF]

311. "Personal Responsibility" is just another distraction tool

the elites use to keep us busy. If we are focused on driving our Prius and hauling our recycling out we accept that those are the only things we can do, and we overlook the forest for the trees. Meanwhile capitalism chugs along with massive manufacturing attacking the environment at every stop.

I agree that democrats have adopted the "personal responsibility" mantra, and the results are obvious.

[kristopher]

247. We want the same things but we don't always want them for the same reasons.

I think DU (and the internet in general) has a real problem; bear with me while I walk through it.

Let's call our issue Problem Zed.

We both agree Problem Zed needs to be solved.

We both agree that the first order solution to Problem Zed is Answer A.

To that point our values are congruent.

However one solution involves blue snowcones and one solution involves popcorn.

Party ONE has other values related to the issue that cause them to attach more value to the popcorn solution than to the snowcone solution.

Party TWO also has other another set of values related to the issue that cause them to value the snowcone solution over the popcorn solution.

In policy discussions what is the means by which this is solved?

Most policy issues have a large body of academic work available to guide a cost/benefit analysis. Therefore when two policy analysts are discussing an issue about which they disagree, the best results ar obtained by an honest discussion proceeding from the best available information that academic analysis can provide us.

If both parties proceed in good faith (and in a setting where there is no anonymity it usually does I believe) they are bound by good etiquette to TELL THE TRUTH.

What happens on talk radio, or through anonymous ads, or via a circuitous trail of planted information in the press (ala Judith Miller) is what we see when one party realizes their values driven preference is in an inferior position when evaluated by the goal of solving Problem Zed.

This happens here also. The problems occur (IMO) because we have no means of applying social sanctions for socially unacceptable behavior such as overtly lying or misrepresenting the truth.

When your friend lies to you and gets caught, they are ashamed and their behavior is (hopefully) modified.

There is a very real problem with this everywhere in modern communications media. Why should DU be any different?

I don't really have a good solution but I suggest that the root of the problem is probably where the solution lies, and the root of the problem is that people can lie about objective reality with impunity and suffer no consequences.

Frustration with those circumstances results in the problems I believe you are referring to.

[Dystopian]

255. We all want the same things...

I don't know about that. Maybe in a roundabout way....going in circular motion.
There are issues.
Fairness.
Justice for All.
Humility.
Think about it.




peace~

[sam sarrha]

256. we miss the point if we try to understand the GOP thru Reason.. >>Link>>

"Dominionism", it is part and parcel of what drives the GOP's repeatedly Failed Ideology.. it is seed from which the NeoCons grew.. The GOP is simply a puppet arm of the Oligarchy that runs this country.. it isn't the Liberals that will take our guns, it is the GOP. what they have in mind for us is the stuff people fight to the death against.. to save their children an their country.


http://blog.buzzflash.com/hartmann/10016
"...Thom Hartmann's "Independent Thinker" Book of the Month Review
How is it, some have wondered, that the Republican Party has been taken over by a relatively small band of radical ideologues who don't believe in democracy or honesty or any specific religion, but relentlessly flog the language of "freedom," "honor," and Christianity? How is it that people who run the government into deficit can campaign on fiscal responsibility? Or that people who campaign on a "pro life" position can be responsible for lying us into a war that has killed well over 100,000 human beings, nakedly advocate torture, and openly promote the death penalty in American?
Most of it goes back to one man - Leo Strauss. To understand what has happened to America since the dawn of the "Reagan revolution," one must first understand Strauss and his disciples..."



http://doggo.tripod.com/doggchrisdomin.html
"snip...Leo Strauss was born in 1899 and died in 1973. ... He is most famous for resuscitating Machiavelli and introducing his principles as the guiding philosophy of the neo-conservative movement. ... More than any other man, Strauss breathed upon conservatism, inspiring it to rise from its atrophied condition and its natural dislike of change and to embrace an unbounded new political ideology that rides on the back of a revolutionary steed, hailing even radical change; hence the name Neo-Conservatives.

Significantly, Dominionism is a form of Social Darwinism.<48> It inherently includes the religious belief that wealth-power is a sign of God’s election. That is, out of the masses of people and the multitude of nations, wealth, in and of itself, is thought to indicate God’s approval on men and nations whereas poverty and sickness reflect God’s disapproval.

(It was not until I read this article that I realized that this is a fundamental tenet of Dominionists.

Worldly wealth and power are signs of God's favor -- to attempt to limit or decrease one's wealth and power is to disrespect God.

On the contrary, God's elect on Earth are called upon to increase their wealth and power.

It is not sufficient for a man to be a millionaire, or for a country to have sovereignty within its borders -- a man must strive to increase his wealth as much as possible, and a Dominionist government's behavior toward its neighbors must be "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity".

Furthermore, any attempt to decrease a person's or a country's wealth and power -- to take from the rich to give to the poor, to reduce military spending and power -- is a direct attack on God.)

If “Secular Humanists are the greatest threat to Christianity the world has ever known,” as theologian Francis Schaeffer claimed, then who are the Humanists? According to Dominionists, humanists are the folks who allow or encourage licentious behavior in America. They are the undisciplined revelers.

Put all the enemies of the Dominionists together, boil them down to liquid and bake them into the one single most highly derided and contaminated individual known to man, and you will have before you an image of the quintessential “liberal” -- one of those folks who wants to give liberally to the poor and needy -- who desires the welfare and happiness of all Americans -- who insists on safety regulations for your protection and who desires the preservation of your values -- those damnable people are the folks that must be reduced to powerlessness -- or worse: extinction.

What would a “reconstructed” America look like under the Dominionists? K.L. Gentry, a Dominionist himself, suggests the following “elements of a theonomic approach to civic order,” which I strongly suggest should be compared to the Texas GOP platform of 2002, which reveals that we are not just talking about imaginary ideas but some things are already proposed on Republican agendas.<60> Dominionism’s concept of government according to Gentry is as follows:

“1. It obligates government to maintain just monetary policies ... fiat money, fractional reserve banking, and deficit spending.

“2. It provides a moral basis for elective government officials. ...

“3. It forbids undue, abusive taxation of the rich. ...

“4. It calls for the abolishing of the prison system and establishing a system of just restitution. *...

“5. A theonomic approach also forbids the release, pardoning, and paroling of murderers by requiring their execution. ...

“6. It forbids industrial pollution that destroys the value of property. ...

“7. It punishes malicious, frivolous malpractice suits. ...

“8. It forbids abortion rights. ... Abortion is not only a sin, but a crime, and, indeed, a capital crime.”<61>
. . .

* Gary North describes the ‘just restitution’ system of the bible, which happens to reinstitute slavery,
like this:


“At the other end of the curve, the poor man who steals is eventually caught and sold into bondage under a successful person. His victim receives payment; he receives training; his buyer receives a stream of labor services. If the servant is successful and buys his way out of bondage, he re-enters society as a disciplined man, and presumably a self-disciplined man. He begins to accumulate wealth.” ...snip"
---------------------------------------------

and this is proof how much they are in control...the top1% richest have 42% of all of Americas Financial Wealth, bottom 80% Americans only have 7% of the nations financial wealth.. 72% 0f debt.!! and they say Socialism sucks..
and they are such cry baby's about "Wealth ReDistribuiion"..!!

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth....
"...This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.

Some of the information might be a surprise to many people. The most amazing numbers on income inequality come last, showing the change in the ratio of the average CEO's paycheck to that of the average factory worker over the past 40 years..."

people do not understand where the GOP is coming from.. you have to literally step out of conventional reality to really get it
The Dogs aren't the problem.. it's the Rabies..!

[Enthusiast]

295. Wow!

Thanks for sharing that.

[MannyGoldstein]

265. I heartily agree, and go out of my way to prevent personal attacks. However...

It seems to me like only one side got tombstoned en masse. Are the admins all on board with your supposition?

That being said... I do appreciate your hard work and the good site. Thanks.

[Waiting For Everyman]

268. I don't think this has anything to do with human nature or evolution

It has everything to do with brainwashing and propaganda. Those "principles" on the other (RW) side are not principles, but tenets of the program... lies of fascism and corporatism and fake religion.

Not everybody thinks the way described in the OP, nor do we have to. It's ABnormal, NOT normal.


We all need to read the book Snapping by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman, and then figure out how to deprogam 1/3 to 1/2 of our nation. (1/3 being RWers and 1/2 would include "independents". And no, I don't believe that could be done is a mass way, it would take a few million trained volunteers. Although, a more progessive media could speed that up.)

Until then, elections and politics will be like this.

And on DU... it's the same thing only "lite". (Meaning: a little more covert, is all, the same as with "independents". In quotes because - they're anything but independent.)


This is why a majority of the population consistently votes against its own interest. That is irrational. It's deviant behavior. The only reason we accept it as a norm, is that its sickness has dominated our culture for decades now. People feel free to vote their attitudes, which are piss poor, and this is what we get from it. They'd rather have the "fun" of doing that, than have a better life at the cost of admitting they were wrong.

As if anybody but them cares.

[Tsiyu]

269. I was reading last night half-mulling over the Action/Movement thang

in my head as I read.

I had curled up with Steinbeck from Travels with Charley and this one line popped out at me.

(Steinbeck had been trying to rediscover America as he wrote this in 1960, traveling across the country with a poodle named Charley in a pickup truck named Rocinante. He was discussing visiting Texas and the Deep South and then he would "call it a day.")


"From my reading it seemed to me that Texas is emerging as a separate force and that the South is in the pain of labor with the nature of its future child still unknown. And I have thought that such is the bitterness of the labor that the child has been forgotten."


Such is the bitterness of the fighting here, the "child" - the nation we build - has been often forgotten.

But I would have it no other way, because the truth comes out in the struggle. Minds are changed - i know mine has been - by arguments made here.

A few years ago, many of us started warning of economic hardship. Whether by training or intuition or just plain old "The-Emperor-Has-No-Secure-Revenue-Stream" Common Sense, we could see a real mess ahead. We were laughed at and scoffed. But we WERE right.

There were not two sides to the story.

There was one gigantic UGLY side of the story, and we are suffering it today.

Yet we were told our motives were "ulterior" that we were wannabe survivalists or that we were goons who prayed for economic collapse.

Had we been banned for our "far-leftist kooky views" we couldn't say "I told you so!" (Okay just kidding about that part!!!!!)


My point is, if it gets too civil here, it won't be a thinktank for America; it will merely be an echo chamber.


Don't forget the child in the struggle to birth it.








Edit because the brackets around "ing" just made "ing" go away :P

[live love laugh]

274. "We are all progressives here." "The other side shares most of the same values..."

IF that were true then I could buy in to your logic.

But it's not.

DU has changed because the other side wants to permeate every crevice of society including this discussion board. And their minions have been effective enough that my time here has been reduced by 90% over the past two years.

The other side buys into lies and manipulation based on greed that is doing irreparable harm to millions. They cannot possibly share the same values as progressives when they ignore the rampant hypocrisy and wrongdoing of their own (ie., stepping on somebody's head, breaking the leg of a protester ...

On this we may agree: Time is short. There's a lot at stake--the very future of this country.

[crim son]

275. This human nature you speak of

is not an immutable force. We compromise our "nature" every day - at work, when dealing with unruly kids, in line at the DMV, & when scoping out potentials at a bar - so while it is kind of you to present us all with an excuse I'm not sure I buy it. Online especially where communications are slowed to the speed of the fastest typist, there is no excuse for the kind of blatant, reactive rudeness rampant here and on other discussion sites, unless anonymity is an excuse. I wonder if we were capable of anonymously delivering physical blows, would we be doing so and would somebody else be explaining why the violence is unavoidable. When open anger isn't tolerated it's much less likely to be displayed, and I think the problem on DU is that the tolerance for abuse is very high or at least the ability to police the abusers is very limited.

[Skinner]

334. I want to be clear: This OP was not intended to excuse anyone's behavior.

It is true that the OP attempts to explain why we -- and I deliberately use "we" -- feel and act the way we do.

But the purpose is not to excuse anyone's behavior. The purpose is to get people to think about their own behavior, and how their own mindset might lead them to act the way they do. I believe that understanding one's own behavior is the first step toward changing that behavior.

(Having said that: I think it is true that we have been too tolerant of certain disruptive behavior. The other part of getting people to change behavior is to make sure there are consequences. Currently, the consequences are not reliable enough.)

[peacetalksforall]

279. I feel that the tensions are several times worse than before Obama

became President BECAUSE = during the Cheney Rumsfeld years we were collective Democrats pretty much in agreement about seeing through the despicabale things that were happening.

What we are fighting about now and the reason for the tenseness, imo, is that we all had different expectations for the Obama years. Some/many/most? thought there would be rectification. In spite of knowing that some issues require time, there is a dreadful feeling that we are losing our country. The fear of bigotry that is in the air written on the signs, coming out of the mouths, and in the body language and acts are all overwhelming, especially when it is corporation-sponsored.

The turn that the Republican Party took and the decisions such as Habeas Corpus puts me on tenderhooks. I'm not posting much because I've noticed myself exploding at times and I have phrased a few things that I would have never ever considered saying when I first started to follow DU.

I'm also not posting much because I am starting to be convinced that I don't want to play the mirage/myth of two parties and a possible third party. It keeps us preoccupied while the agenda for ownership and rule of the world progresses. The one world multi-national cabal are the true progressives. All the while we believe red-blue-white-purple and can't wrap our heads around being a 2nd/3rd world country. That is a collective 'we' - us and the teabaggers being brought down in notches.

The pressure is turned on high right now to privatize us. Own us. Rule us. We shouldn't be wasting too much time fighting with each other.

The way to quiet things down is to say something like I just did - no one wants to talk about it.

I must say, Skinner, you are an ace at analyzing and presenting and an excellent writer. Thanks for DU.

[Skinner]

337. I think is absolutely true that tensions are worse now that Obama is president.

We all agreed that Bush/Cheney were a disgrace.

Now that we have a Democrat in the White House, we are more divided. These days, or disagreements actually matter.

[hulka38]

280. I believe that there are innate truths.

Imo, people who most consistently come close to the mark on the issues and thereby have the tools to build the big picture are the ones who challenge their own beliefs and don't cede their opinions to an authority figure or group or personal hero. I think dispassionate logic and the acceptance of an uncomfortable or even painful conclusions that come from it are the challenges to getting as close to the truth as possible. From my perspective, there are too many people who value being comfortable and secure as their top priority.

[demmiblue]

281. I stilll think it is all about the bullies and the lack of consequences (see OMC)...

and that is what many people have cited... numerous times.

To me, this is the main problem.

(I hope I am not TS'ed for this)

:hi:

[QC]

286. Yes, the conflict here has far more to do with behavior than with ideology.

The official survey found that 44% of respondents say that they have participated less than they would like to because of uncivil and disruptive members. (If that's not bullying, it's quite similar.)

Another survey thread found that 82% of DUers consider bullying a serious problem here, with most of those believing that the severity of the bullying has recently increased.

Sometimes the answer really is the obvious one that lots of people are talking about.

[Skinner]

339. We are keenly aware that members are unhappy with incivility.

Believe me, this is our number one priority. We are going to do everything we can to change the atmosphere around here, and persuade people to improve their behavior. And for those individuals who refuse to change, we will ultimately have to ban them. Because they are making this website suck.

So, my message to everyone is this: Now would probably be a good time to think about improving your behavior.

Which is one of the reasons I am posting this thread. I want people to think about their own behavior. I made no reference to ideology in my post, because this has nothing to do with ideology. If anyone reads this and thinks "if only that other group of people would knock it off, this website would be just fine" -- they are COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT of my OP.

[QC]

384. You are exactly right: civility and ideology have nothing to do with one another.

I was a regular at the old Salon Table Talk boards before coming here early in 2001, and TT had no ideological requirement for membership; participants ran the gamut from left to right, with some unclassifiable kooks thrown in.

Despite that range, and despite the fact that this was the era of the Clinton impeachment, TT was a reasonably civil place.

The reason is that there were strict, uniformly-applied rules against personal attacks: a personal attack was a strike and people who racked up a few strikes got suspended. A few more strikes and they were out the door.

Consequently, people who were most assuredly smart and feisty still hesitated before posting personal attacks. There was simply no TT equivalent to OPERATIOMNMINDCRIME. People who attacked other posters simply did not last long.

I think your point is well taken, and I think it would be a great thing if everyone in our community could learn to see everyone else in our community as a sincere, truthful person committed to doing good in the world. But until that blessed day comes, surely it's not too much to ask that people not attack and bully each other.

[Senator]

284. Torture. Not a Detail.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/23/obama-investigate-war-logs-torture">It was never "same people" that "we all hated."

---

[ibegurpard]

287. If we all wanted the same things we wouldn't be arguing about what we got

[backwoodsbob]

288. I think some of this has to do with the *new media*

we have the ability with the internet to completely isolate ourselves from any point of view we disagree with.IMO this makes it much too simple to simply shut off any POV we disagree with and instead of engaging in debate,simply turn any person we disagree with into a enemy other.And yes as much as I love DU this site can and does bring this mentality out in many people as does pretty much any one sided political site from all sides of the political spectrum.It is easier to hunker down with those you agree with and demonize the *others* than to engage the brain and debate a topic

[azul]

289. Moving this thread to Books, Mind and Manners

I think we can all agree that it would be a crying shame to burn this planet to a cinder.

Yet it still behooves us to horse around and kick up our heels in the DNA propagation competition round. Good thing we breed for beauty or it might not be seemly.


Have you by any chance read "The Hidden Brain" by Vedantam?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122864641

[zenprole]

292. An A for effort...but missing a few things

Pinker's social theory drifts in the wake of the absolutist attack on average people that started in the late Carter years. Whether I agree with various strains of progressive argument, they only get my respect when done passionately because that's the ante for opposing the nightmare that's been increasing for three decades. The star-spangled culture of contempt, which takes no prisoners, has been inflamed far beyond simple human nature.

And that encapsulates the vitriol I'm not shy about employing on DU; when I hear soft/fuzzy notions for combating Straussian, neoliberal, Randroid politics, it makes my brain hurt. Not because I attribute ulterior motive, but because it's the equivalent of sending children into the ring with seasoned heavyweights; it's tragically flawed and dangerous. Let's use wit and insight and promote solidarity, but we cannot be ambiguous about power.

A modest proof is how Pinker's idea can be measured against the physical workings of propaganda on the human brain (teabaggers, especially). The discourse today must be about dire emergency on many levels. We can dither about after the crises pass.

[Raoul]

299. Oh give me a break will ya?

If by 'other side' you're referring to the right wing neocons all I gotta say is what typical liberal flower tossing crap. They have NO priniples, NO honor, and in my humble view represent all of the evil in human nature. I have gone head to head with those whackos for over 4 years and found nothing redemptive in their behavior. Principles? Yeah if you honor the almighty buck and believe you got yours and screw everyone else. But I'll let another person who wrote an excellent article about this on this very sight today say it better than I ever could! He spent FOUR long years trying to talk to them and finally concluded the following:

From MineralMan
I finally realized that, in all that time and after all those words, I had not changed a single mind. I had not switched a single person from being a right-winger to being even a moderate Republican. It was a total waste of my time.

[tclambert]

302. As long as you argue with them, THEY think they can convert YOU.

If only they could find the right argument to break through YOUR close-mindedness! The only way to deal with them is to ignore them, dismiss them, make them irrelevant. That's why attempts at bi-partisanship give them more strength.

[Joe Chi Minh]

304. It's a complete waste of time and effort arguing with someone whose

basic assumptions are antithetical to yours.

One of you is likely to be right, but that doesn't matter, since what is at stake is the person's "take" on their past experience, and the trajectory of their future. We're feeling creatures before we are thinking creatures, despite scientismificists' tragic dreams about the infinite scope of "cold, hard reason". And thank goodness it's that way, and they're as daft as a brush. I'm not arguing about that!!!!

[Mimosa]

305. "We are all progressives here" ???

Skinner, do you honestly believe that?

At least a few regular members strike me as moderate to left leaning Republicans who no longer feel at home in today's rightwing Republican Party.

The new D.U. 'lock down policy' concerns me, and I think I'll be spending lest time posting here. I seldom post topics and one I'd posted on how possible Social Security changes could effect women was locked quickly. I know this wouldn't have happened at D.U. in the past. Why is D.U. seeming less friendly to womens issues? Not to mention the issues of gays?

Many of us are perceiving it.

[Skinner]

340. FWIW, your locked thread appears to have been a mistake.

After I saw your post here I went back and checked. I reviewed it and decided to unlock.

I apologize for the error.

[Mimosa]

383. Thank you, Skinner.

I've gotten so much pleasure posting here.

I don't think much is actually 'wrong' with D.U.. I've seen big progressive boards which started out energetically (I won't name them but people who've posted at political boards over the years may know them) then declined in participation when members perceived there was too much 'censorship,' not to mention mistrust. I think the denizens of at least one of those boards wound up here.:)

[rosesaylavee]

308. Another book you may find interesting...

is Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication. Not that I have any expectation that DU will ever be a nonviolent communicative place... but, it may give you some ideas about how to keep it toned down a bit when needed. I am reading it with a group of people here and it is not an easy thing to work into my way of being... but it is helpful for me to figure out why I respond so strongly to certain statements made by others.

[Pacifist Patriot]

314. I find myself recommending that book alot.

[Pab Sungenis]

309. I'm sorry, but there are just some things where there IS no middle ground.

Some things simply are black and white, right and wrong, zero and one. Civil rights is one of those things.

I cannot find common ground with someone who opposes my rights, or seeks to deny me the dignity due to me as a human being (or worse, sees me as less than human).

[Jamastiene]

317. I understand where you are coming from on that.

I'm still trying to decide whether I am considered either a viper or a vampire or both here on DU. Something tells me the answer is both. After all, both are allowable characterizations of the GLBT community as part of the debate when it comes to civil rights as they apply or, more accurately at this point, do NOT apply to the GLBT community.

The constant lectures are no fun either. We are constantly told how to think, feel, vote, and what to and not to post.

The blame for any Democratic Party losses are no fun either. We get the blame both before the elections even happen and after the elections. It's always our fault for some reason.

The problem with that is that if we do not fight constantly to keep our request for rights in people's minds, we will be back burnered completely.

:(

[Skinner]

341. Respectfully, you should not have to find common ground like that here.

Nobody on this website opposes your rights. (Or, to be more exact, nobody who is currently posting has admitted it. Because if they did they would be banned.)

The arguments on DU about LGBT issues are not about whether or not LGBT people should have full equal rights.

The arguments are about how to achieve the goal of full equal rights. They are about how fast is fast enough to achieve equal rights. They are about whether President Obama is actually serious about LGBT rights. They are about whether Valerie Jarrett is a homophobe in her heart or not. They are about whether it is appropriate to focus on other priorities before dealing with LGBT rights. They are about whether the DOJ has an obligation to appeal the decision striking down DADT. They are about whether we believe President Obama will repeal DADT during the lame-duck congressional session.

Here on DU, you should not have to find common ground with anyone who opposes gay rights. Because people who oppose gay rights aren't supposed to be here.

[Pab Sungenis]

345. Really?

Nobody on this website opposes your rights. (Or, to be more exact, nobody who is currently posting has admitted it. Because if they did they would be banned.)

What about a moderator who makes a point of locking gay-positive threads?

The arguments on DU about LGBT rights not about whether or not LGBT people should have full equal rights.

Respectfully, that's not the way it seems most of the time.

The arguments are about how to achieve the goal of full equal rights. They are about how fast is fast enough to achieve equal rights. They are about whether President Obama is actually serious about LGBT rights. They are about whether Valerie Jarrett is a homophobe in her heart or not. They are about whether it is appropriate to focus on other priorities before dealing with LGBT rights. They are about whether the DOJ has an obligation to appeal the decision striking down DADT. They are about whether we believe President Obama will repeal DADT during the lame-duck congressional session.

...and if we bring any of them up we risk getting verbally abused with impunity at best, and locked or tombstoned at worst.

Here on DU, you should not have to find common ground with anyone who opposes gay rights. Because people who oppose gay rights aren't supposed to be here.

...except they ARE here. And some of them are moderators.

[Skinner]

351. I understand that you and many other people feel this way.

My advice to you is this:

When you see anything like you describe, send me a link. I know that I don't always respond (I get a lot of corrspondence, but I have been trying to do better), so feel free to nudge me again if you don't get a timely response.

Quite often, it is a legitimate case of an ambiguous post where multiple interpretations are possible. As the Admin, it's my job to give members the benefit of the doubt when such doubt exists. Other times, there may be posts that the mods were never aware of. And sometimes posts really are bigoted, but we didn't understand the nuance when we were made aware of it.

Believe me, we try very hard to be fair to everyone, and we want DU to be free of bigotry. I have no illusions that we will satisfy everyone. But we make a good faith effort to do the right thing, and I welcome feedback on specific instances where we fall short of the ideal.

(BTW: I made a small edit to my post above: "about LGBT rights not" now says "about LGBT issues are not".)

[Javaman]

312. Down with humans! Up with Zombies!

Personally, I welcome our new zombie overlords...brrrrraaaainssss...

[ZombieHorde]

320. Thank you. nt

[Javaman]

333. I bow before your dead eyed omnipotence. nt

[undeterred]

316. Dead Man Walking

When this film came out I saw it with a group of people and was reading the book (Sister Helen Prejean) at the same time. One person in the group had a family member who had been murdered, so there were some strong personal feelings, to say the least.

This experience changed my mind about the death penalty. It gave a full and compassionate exploration to the whole issue and to the people involved. Of course you have to be completely engaged and open going into it.

People can change their minds, even on subjects about which they have strong convictions. Maybe its the storytelling that helps.

[nmvisitor]

319. I'm a registered independent

But when I signed up for DU years ago, it was clearly stated this is a site for Democrats. I signed up anyway, because I enjoyed reading the posts here and occasionally wanted to reply to something. But politely, because I've always considered myself just a guest here. And that's what I've done all these years; read a lot, and reply once in a blue moon. And never argue with people.

I'm moderate to conservative about most things, but there is no place for me in the republican party, or the tea party, or on a right-wing web site like free republic. I'm pro-choice, atheist, and a believer in keeping religion out of government. Those beliefs would make me a pariah in all those groups.

But there is no place for me here, either. Not really. As much as I enjoy DU, I would never talk seriously about my personal beliefs here; I'm pretty sure I'd be attacked immediately. The same thing would happen to me on free republic, for entirely different reasons, but with the same vitriol.

By the way Skinner, your OP and the resulting thread are the most interesting reading I've seen here in many years. Thanks for posting it.

[Klukie]

321. Well ....a fews thoughts on this statement...

"Social psychologists have discovered the even in heated ideological battles, common ground can sometimes be found. Each side must acknowledge that the other is arguing out of principle, too, and that they both share certain values and disagree only over which to emphasize in cases where they conflict."

I think the problem with finding ground in ideological debates isn't just about acknowledgment of principled values but of acknowledgment of principled vices as well. Sometimes people elevate certain values over others out of vice...hidden vices that they may not even realize and when they are confronted with then in a ideological debate, their natural inclination is to protect themselves and their positions...hence the battle. Here is an example......When two liberals are debating the importance of one piece of legislation over another (in terms of which one gets passed first, they may agree that they are both important (shared values) but they also will fight to the hilt over which one is more important because of personal vice. They may argue for the need to be right (pride), they may argue for a good value out of anger...or wrath. They may want to see a good piece of legislation elevated over another because they really care more about sticking it to the other side than they do the actual legislation. I just think that everyone needs to check themselves when in a debate. Make sure you are arguing for the good and not solely self interest or self gratification.

[mkultra]

322. I think this may be impossible if your "troll quotient" goes over a certain line

If you are willing to accept the possibility that there are people here intentionally causing arguments, you must consider why. If you believe it is confined to people just having fun, then trolling is an issue easily resolved with minor policing. Eventually those people out themselves and get the pizza.

If however you think that some people, regardless of number, are in an organized effort to sew discord, then they will be more disciplined in their approach and will be sure to take stands that are not clearly right wing in nature but rather just controversial.

Then it seems it would be nearly impossible to differentiate between the those that hold the same opinion and those that take up that opinion in order to rage on and create war.

[LawnLover]

326. What is this, elementary psychology?

"Social psychologists have found that with divisive moral issues, especially those on which liberals and conservatives disagree, all combatants are intuitively certain they are correct and that their opponents have ugly ulterior motives. They argue out of respect for the social convention that one should always provide reasons for one's opinions, but when an argument is refuted, they don't change their minds but work harder to find a replacement argument. Moral debates, far from resolving hostilities, can escalate them, because when people on the other side don't immediately capitulate, it only proves they are impervious to reason."

Well, duh.

[femrap]

328. I actually found John Dean's book,

"Conservatives Without Conscience" to explain much about the forces that oppose progressives. Religion stands strong in the path of logic, common sense, and even compassion today.

All I ask for is tolerance....or if not that, just leave me the hell alone. And I am more than happy to not deal with those who attempt to oppress me.

[grahamhgreen]

329. LOL

And you thought this would calm people down!

[FailureToCommunicate]

330. I agree, Skinner, that we argue passionately here because we are

passionate in our positions. Even if we mostly are on the the same side of the street, our signs say different things. I have always enjoyed and respected the well reasoned arguments of eloquent posters here. I have learned a lot

from them. The posters that just dig in their heels, lower their IQ, and name call, I simply skip over...

I DO hope most here can set down their differing campaign signs and passionate disagreements long enough to VOTE next week! We can resume arguing our points of view after doing that.

Thanks again for a thought provoking OP, AND for all your passionate work to keep DU an enlightened destination on the Web.

[herbm]

331. Bless you skinner, from the bottom of a progressive Republican's heart.

[denverbill]

332. I don't understand why you seem to resist things which could help weed out actual trolls.

For example, back in 2004 I think you instituted a policy forbidding us to 'call out' other DU'ers as being trolls. I don't understand why. If anyone wants to call me out I'm happy to brag about my liberal credentials.

Here's my suggestions.

#1) In the profile, add a 'Why I am a Democrat/Liberal/Progressive' free text area. Encourage all current DU'ers to fill it in, but don't mandate it. Then next time I see a post I think sounds like a conservative, instead of calling them out I can look at their profile. Chances are, I will see something in their 'reasons' that will convince me they are not a troll. If their reasons are something like "I support gun rights and oppose abortion", or if the reason is blank, allow me to tag the user as questionable for mods to review. At that point, mods can review their reasons and posts, and either dump the user or suspend their posting privileges until they either come up with a better justification for posting here or fill in their reasons.

#2 and probably harder, track their rec/unrec versus the norm. People who consistently or completely vote against the DU norm are probably trolls. Use that in addition to #1 to identify and purge trolls.


I don't mind disagreeing with someone who is generally a liberal about specifics votes/policies etc. The trouble is, it's impossible for anyone to know all posters. Without an easy way to learn a little about someone, it's easy to tag them as a troublemaker, even if in fact, they've made hundreds of posts you might agree with completely. Give us a way to learn a little more about someone before automatically assuming the worst.

[Skinner]

342. We have had the "don't call people trolls" for as long as we've had our "no personal attacks" rule.

I think it stands to reason that if we disallow personal attacks, calling someone a troll would qualify. Now, we could certainly discuss whether we should even have a "no personal attacks" rule, but that's something else.

FWIW, I think your first suggestion is a good one. I think we might do it. Thanks. :thumbsup:

Your second suggestion is something we already do (The number of right-wing trolls using the system is minimal).

[denverbill]

346. Great. I know that will help me anyway.

I didn't realize you tracked reccing. I'm actually kind of surprised that the troll population isn't that big. I saw a thread yesterday that was just a post of Tom Tomorrow that got 10 unrecs before it started getting recs. Then again, I guess I never saw the cartoon since i just got a red x.

I look forward to writing my Intro! Thanks.

[Kurovski]

362. Some people might not think cartoons are appropriate.

I think that may be the case.

Me? I loves 'em!

[herbm]

368. How about just not responding to people you don't like?

If speech is not hate speech, why is there a need to cut anybody out? I don't need a moderator to tell me that hate is hate. And I can ignore anybody who isn't adding to the discussion agree with him/her or not. I report hate speech. But I know there are some members here who equate anything they don't like to trolling and they get the ones they don't like bounced and the one thing I don't like is that there is no appeal. I understand the admin has no time to separate spats. But a lot of the people who mistakenly mistake unpopular thought with trolling tend to do it obscenely and insultingly. And like Skinner says - calling someone a troll is a bouncible offense. So I'll take it the way it is, imperfect.
I will fill out my profile and I will read it on others. But progressive is not a Democratic Party exclusive territory and as a progressive Republican I will work bipartisanly to bring the Republic away from privatized military and social programs, the erosion of our Bill of rights, ending the stupid wars we are engaged in and repatriation of all the Gitmo kidnap victims, repeal of DADT, rebuilding of our infrastructure.

[mstinamotorcity]

338. Human Nature is instinctive

That is why fear works well on some people. The self preservation mode goes on when you experience fear.The Republicans have made this a weapon with republicans as well as democrats.And even though we all say we are progressive,it really means on some issues. When you read different Ops you can see what issues have more importance to some then others.

The more I travel,read,talk to people of all walks of life, I find that they all have some things in common that don't seem like much to me. And I don't see why its not possible. We have some of the best people in the world residing inside our own boarders. We are driven by human nature and it should be used to help humanity as a whole.

When I talk to people they really want the humblest of things. Oh it used to be a big fancy car,but I sense a change in a direction most people are not realizing about themselves. When you speak with everyday people most just want simple things. Job,home,adequate health care,have the ability to put safe food on the table,breath clean air,drink clean water,and to have the ability to give their child access to higher education without a parent or child being in debt 60,000 to 100,000 dollars before the child has worked a day. To be accepted for being an individual and not broad brushed because of color,sexual orientation,or religion. And have a little money to take a family vacation once a year. Maybe have a few dollars tucked away for a rainy day. This doesn't seem like much to me.

Even though this has been a difficult time for a lot of people,some of the stories of love,integrity,and responsibility, that have come through all of the political noise and complaints, shows what's most important to the spirit of man. When I speak to friends though some have had to get used to less income they have found out some of the little things that they were missing trying to achieve the American Dream without stopping to look at your impact on the others around you. I have talked to couples who were headed for divorce,but because of their financial situation they had to remain together. And found each other in the process. I have female friends who have had to step up their game and become the sole provider for the family. Now they have learned and appreciate what it is their significant other was going through to provide for the family. Fathers who have become jobless have learned a new respect for the work his significant other does around the house and with the kids. Parents are now starting to notice things about their children they would have otherwise missed. People were growing gardens handing vegetables across the fence to neighbors. Families started budgeting their income and being more responsible about their spending. Some have shed debt. And found happiness when they thought it was tied to a big house,car,and lucrative income. They realized after the things are gone all you have is each other.

[snooper2]

343. Turtles make everything better

[Kurovski]

363. Unless they're the Republican leader in the Senate.

[snooper2]

364. Turtle Boy finds that offensive

nt

[Kurovski]

366. Republicanism?

I certainly agree.

[rrneck]

344. At the risk of stating the obvious...

This is an internet message board thingie. We are all just text on a page here. You will rarely change someone's feelings about anything if they care much about it all. It will be even more rare to see the change if it happens.

How about we post here to learn from each other and test our ideas against the ideas others.

How about a little humility and willingness to learn?

[bobbolink]

353. The flaw in this is that these "scientists" are studying ONE culture--

This one.

To say that *our* ugly crap is "human nature" is a bit elitist, wouldn't you say?

I spend quite a bit of time with a different culture.... a couple of them, as a matter of fact, and I can tell you that they DON'T behave in the way you describe.

As a matter of fact, the ONLY time that behavior comes about is when they are dealing with ANGLOS from *this* culture.

Its time to think beyond ourselves.

[MineralMan]

356. You may well be right.

However, we are dealing with anglos from this culture to a large extent, so we're sort of stuck with that situation, I think. Educating people is always the goal, isn't it? But, given the situation you describe, the issues raised in the OP remain the same, since that is the culture most represented here on DU.

[bobbolink]

357. I am objecting to the term "human nature", as I have many times on this forum.

That was the whole content of my post, plus pointing out that considering ourselves the only "humans" is very elitist.

I will continue to try to get people to understand that WE are not the only humans on this planet.

AND, that maybe we have things to learn from some of the others, if we would only drop our belief that we are "number one".

[MineralMan]

359. I understood you. But thanks.

[bobbolink]

360. Too bad Skinner will ignore it, too.

[MineralMan]

361. Too? I didn't ignore it. I commented on it. Had I ignored it,

we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes, there are multiple cultures. Some of them are even within the borders of the USA. However, most social scientists study the primary culture of the place they're in. That seems to work best in predicting and understanding the behavior of the society being studied.

Others specifically study other cultures, but they don't try to make general statements about anything but that particular culture. The writing that Skinner mentioned was about the primary culture, not about minority cultures. It made some general statements. You may not agree with their use of "human nature," but that's a minor point. The real point is that American society acts, generally, as the primary culture in that society acts. We don't act, for example, like the Amish culture, even though that culture exists within the society.

It's a little sloppy, in terms of language, but that's about all you can say about it. The general findings seem pretty accurate.

[bobbolink]

375. Again, my POINT... you can't claim "Human Nature" based on ONE CULTURE.

I don't know why you keep backing up on that... it seems quite clear to me.

Unless you see American culture as the only or the main culture of the world, it is hubris to claim "Human Nature" to what we, ourselves are guilty of.

[Zhade]

354. We're all progressives here? With all due respect, that's demonstrable nonsense.

First off, you have -- and for some inexplicable reason allow -- avowed self-described conservatives here. So your claim is wrong on its face.

And I'm not sure how anyone can claim with a straight face that being anti-union (to use but one example) is progressive.

[stevenleser]

382. It never fails, when people discuss progressivism, everyone define it according to their own beliefs

It's one of my favorite phenomena to watch.

[whatchamacallit]

369. Interesting research that runs contrary to the empiricism of Pinker's "slate"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html

Just more food for thought...

[Skinner]

389. I seem to remember reading that article when it was first published.

If my memory serves, it did not run contrary to Pinker's book. Both argue that much of human nature is innate rather than learned. Pinker's book actually argues against the idea of the blank slate.

(Admittedly, I did not re-read the babies article. If I misremember, let me know.)

[whatchamacallit]

390. No, you're right

As you summarized: "Earlier this year I read The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, which argues that there is such a thing as human nature, and that our human nature has been shaped by millions of years of evolution." That's pretty much what the baby study points to as well. So... I have no idea why I posted this. Ha! Sorry :/

[Arkana]

386. I can. Don't know if they can.

[scarletwoman]

391. Is this the right room for an argument?

The Cast (in order of appearance.)
M= Man looking for an argument
R= Receptionist
Q= Abuser
A= Arguer (John Cleese)

M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.
R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
M: Well, what is the cost?
R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.
Pause
R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory.
Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
M: Thank you.

(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M: Well, I was told outside that...
Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M: What?
Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q: Not at all.
M: Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!

(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.