PhD Thesis on DU and Free Republic

[snot]

Last edited Sun Jul 28, 2013, 09:49 PM - Edit history (2)

NOT mine; just came across this and just started reading . . . it's long, but looks interesting:

http://gradworks.umi.com/3331358.pdf :

The citizens of Democratic Underground and Free Republic ranged far and wide
for information to build their narratives, and contrary to the arguments of some critics
(e.g., Sunstein, 2001) they did not seek to exclude opposing points of view. In fact, their
activities can be seen as challenging many of the “myths and stereotypes” of the
relationship between media and democracy as described by Doris Graber (2003). The
primary challenge is to one of the myths defined by Graber as the “belief that governments
can control the citizens by manipulating the media” (2003, p. 140). . . . These environments
include institutions and social groups, work environments and cultural ties. When media
narratives come into contact with individual narratives, numerous factors determine how
they are received, and whether they are accepted or rejected, in full or part, mutated,
elaborated or even eviscerated. The unique environment of the message board records
these moments of narrative collision between individuals and between citizen and media
narratives and allows us to address them in context. In becoming the media, on whatever
scale, citizens participate in the creation of political culture. . . .

Updated to add title, etc.:
AGONISTIC DEMOCRACY AND THE NARRATIVE OF DISTEMPERED ELITES:
AN ANALYSIS OF CITIZEN DISCOURSE ON POLITICAL MESSAGE FORUMS
Jeanette Castillo
Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Telecommunications,
Indiana University
August, 2008

[snot]

1. One trend the author seems to note

is that while Freepers are able to cite more corporate media sources in support of their arguments, they are also more likely to characterize such media as downright evil.

UPDATE: Skipped to the final section, which I think summarizes most of what came before. The author has several interesting observations to make, but it's hard to cut and paste because it's a PDF . . . but I think it's worth a look.

[KoKo]

32. Definitely worth a look..I remember

when she told Skinner she was doing it and there was a link to it posted here.

Her conclusions were very interesting. I think if she ever did a re-visit to the site she would have found it worth writing a book as follow up. Maybe she's still around here and would consider that. DU has morphed since that time...but there are similarities from what I remember of my read.

I will check it out to see if my initial read at the time of what she said fits with the "rear view mirror" that I have now.

[MineralMan]

2. Wow! A doctoral thesis comparing

FR and DU. And it's in PDF format. I have saved this to my hard drive and will transfer it to my Kindle for future entertainment.

And it was approved by the faculty, too. This should be fascinating.

[Maximumnegro]

90. They should have just taped two hysterical people

on a see saw and transferred to a Film/Media Phd. Bam, hello tenure to cries of genius.

[Gregorian]

3. This is wild. She even cites specific DUers. There's a lot of info in this.

And I feel somewhat nostalgic reading it, as if it were my own diary. Excellent. Although I disagree with a few basic things. I think we are enemies, and not adversaries. America wasn't created out of right wing concepts, and in fact was just the opposite. It was created to get away from them. Well, that's my take on it at least.

edit- Her Appendix makes me rethink the notion of enemy. What a great encounter she had with that Iraq vet. Inspiring.

Her conclusions have some interesting things to say about us versus them-
Free Republic was focused on consensus through exclusion.

By contrast, the community at Democratic Underground was more pluralistic.
It was “fragmented,” “creative,” and accommodating to a diverse array of group identities
within the larger community.

[Mr. David]

4. Who does she cite?

[Gregorian]

5. Landshark, Tainted Chimp, another I've forgotten.

Oh yeah, and a few specific threads as well. I'm pretty sure she's a DUer. Definitely not a FR member.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. I definitely picked up more sympathy for DU than Freepville in what I've read

[ohheckyeah]

14. cwepler is one she quoted on page 26. n/t

[bananas]

77. I'm footnote 81.

I remember when she posted about this, and gave us a link to download it.

[KoKo]

33. Ahhh..the Landshark and Voting Rights Days on DU...

long time ago. Many remember it well.

[Mnemosyne]

49. Will never forget it. nt

[SoCalDem]

36. I had a quote too

Lots of work put into that thesis..whew!!

[DevonRex]

42. Nance Greggs as one of the most widely read & most recommended journals. And

DainBramaged. Vektor at the end. LWolf.

[snot]

11. Um, that Appendix is not the author's writing; she's just including a post by a DU'er.

The post is discussed in the latter part of the thesis because it was originally posted on DU and then also posted on FR; the thesis author compares the different responses in the two forums -- it's pretty interesting.

[Gregorian]

15. That wasn't clear. Thanks.

[denbot]

6. Holy crap, I did not know my Kindle app would grab an Adobe .pdf

This looks like an interesting third party observation of "us and them" from outside our respective fishbowls.
Kick, Rec, and Kindled.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

7. I'm definitely bookmarking this. I read quite a bit but will get back to it

Should be interesting to see what DU'ers think about such clinical evaluation from academia.

[NMDemDist2]

8. i remember her

she contacted Skinner and he put out a call



I'm quoted too, in my "AZDem" persona

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. A call for what?

[NMDemDist2]

29. if we agreed to her using 'us' n/t

[Hissyspit]

19. I remember it well, too.

[Hekate]

28. I have a 270 page pdf in my files but no link, from 2008. Is this she?

AGONISTIC DEMOCRACY AND THE NARRATIVE OF DISTEMPERED
ELITES: AN ANALYSIS OF CITIZEN DISCOURSE ON POLITICAL
MESSAGE FORUMS
by Jeanette Castillo

(I ask because I clicked the link upthread and got an automatic download of something, which I cancelled.)

Anyway it was quite interesting to be noticed at the time!

[dmr]

60. Yes, it's the same one, and dated August 2008

[Arctic Dave]

12. I think I remember them posting about this after they finished it.

If memory serves me correct, they actually invited us to read it. I never did but I will make time for it.

[madrchsod]

65. ya i remember that

[OneGrassRoot]

13. Ha! I'm even mentioned, w/my old screen name...

Language games and the expression of personal support for other participants are
also used as a means of community building at Democratic Underground. These
language games are sometimes started deliberately, but can also erupt spontaneously.
Even a deleted message is an opportunity for a silly rejoinder, and just as at Free
Republic, the ability to write a funny, pithy comment is highly valued, and a point of pride.

Participant timeforarevolution wrote in an original post, “No way Freepers could
even BEGIN to dish out the clever, intelligent snark DUers can!” This concern for a
wider perception of the community is even more evident when participants feel that their
cohorts’ behavior casts DU in a poor light.

[snot]

16. Yes, the author quotes quite a few of us.

If I understood correctly, they author closely analyzed activity on both sites over a single, 24-hour period (which, of course, includes a lot of material); as well as the general structure and administration of the two sites.

[OneGrassRoot]

18. I was just surprised to see my (old) name...

I expected to see many of the others. It was a trivial mention but still surprising (and probably not the best example of what she wanted to convey). But, as you said, if she had a very limited time window, she took the examples available at the time.

[MineralMan]

17. I feel left out. Of course, this was written before I came to DU and long

after I was banned at FR. Bad timing, I guess.

[ohheckyeah]

20. LOL from page 47

Moran” is a deliberate misspelling that comes from an “inside” joke among liberal activists online. It is
based on a photograph of a pro-war demonstrator carrying a sign that reads “Get a brain, Moran.” This
photograph has been widely circulated on the web and appears frequently on Democratic Underground.

[snot]

22. One of the author's observations is

that we use humor more often and with effects helpful to open, creative discussion.

[ohheckyeah]

24. I noticed that....

I believe that is what is referred to as comic corrective.

[pangaia]

37. That is maybe because right-wingers have almost no sense of humor.

[sabrina 1]

23. I think it may have originated on DU.

[RC]

45. It most certainly did.

The DU'er responsible is long gone. I can't remember the whole story any more, but that guy had a misspelled word on his sign, what word I can't remember, and the Du'er convinced the sign holder that 'moran' was the correct spelling. The person in the photograph has long since disappeared, never to be seen again.

Maybe another long time DU'er can fill in the blanks here.

[sabrina 1]

53. The mispelled word was 'moron', spelled 'moran' on the sign. It has now become legend

with the poor guy still being portrayed, even in cartoons. I thought it had originated here on DU as this is where I remember seeing it first.

[teach1st]

54. Some Moran Stuff

From the Know Your Meme site: Get a brain, moran

DU Thread, 8/11: The "Get a Brain, Morans" guy may have been identified...

DU Thread, 9/05: Get a Brain, Morans! A Pictoral Essay (Image-heavy)

[sabrina 1]

57. Lol, those are priceless. He's everywhere!

He's probably responsible for a whole generation of people who now spell that word incorrectly!

Thanks for the memories, poor guy, he'll never live it down!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

71. The orig. pic showed the girl's sign.. "Free Ripublic"

I know I saw it once, but never found again

[trueblue2007]

88. DON'T FORGET... BUGS BUNNY.

What a maroon.

[northoftheborder]

78. now i know how "moran" got started

[RevStPatrick]

21. Fascinating!

Kicked to download and read later...

[ohheckyeah]

25. It is really fascinating. n/t

[ohheckyeah]

26. From page 55......

The constraining forces of liberalism were manifested at Free Republic, where posting conventions and language
are restricted,original rhetoric is discouraged, and moderators enforce all rules with a heavy dose of discipline. At Democratic Underground, discipline and order are clearly less valued than free expression and egalitarian practices. The resulting force is an example of democratic tendencies, robust, noisy and tending towards dissemination rather than closure.

[reformist2]

38. "At DU, discipline and order are clearly less valued"... LOL!

[pinboy3niner]

43. She clearly did not run into Skittles

YES INDEED

[OneGrassRoot]

44. LOL! n/t

[Skittles]

63. I would have kicked her PHD'ing ass

yes INDEED

[pinboy3niner]

89. I won't disagree with you there, Skittles. No, Ma'am!

YES INDEED

[Skittles]

91. I need to whale on pinboy3niner ass, just out of courtesy

yes INDEED

[sabrina 1]

27. It's pretty good.

The narrative analysis invoked Kenneth Burke’s
dramatistic frames of acceptance and rejection in order to provide a framework for the
investigation. The study identified a narrative of the citizen-protagonist that was shared
between the two communities. A more robust rhetorical ecosystem existed at Democratic
Underground, as they often applied Burke’s “comic corrective” to points of conflict and took a
more egalitarian approach to who could speak and when. The participants at Free Republic
were more likely to assign motivations that precluded the agonistic frame. Ultimately, these
emergent communities created environments that manifested the centrifugal and centripetal

Later in the study she outlines Burke's theories to explain her frame of reference.

[PCIntern]

30. As an aside,

I dated Cass Sunstein's now ex-wife when we were high schoolers. I only mention this because he's quoted in the abstract and maybe he'll read this during a narcissistic Google self-search.

[HardTimes99]

68. LOL! - nt

[RainDog]

31. bookmarking to read later

interesting thread. thanks!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

34. It's ancient. Done many years ago. nt

[LWolf]

35. I remember this.

It's an interesting read; I'm browsing through it now.

I found myself on p 28/29.

[ismnotwasm]

47. That's gotta be fascinating

Though she names quite a few names, they had to have stood out given the numbers of people who post, and you're one of them

[LWolf]

52. What was weird...

I remember my post, and it seems like I just wrote it recently, not 5 or 6 years ago.

There are many familiar DUers referenced; some are still quite active, some I haven't seen in a long time.

I've now spent a bunch of time I was supposed to be doing chores reading this paper. Oops.

[ismnotwasm]

56. Heh!

[mountain grammy]

39. I'll read it later.. fascinating. "If we could see ourselves as others see us."

[ohheckyeah]

40. ..........

Based on the practices and patterns observed at DU and FR, there is no denying that Democratic Underground was a more nurturing environment for the citizen-protagonist who wished to develop his or her rhetorical skill. The encouragement and critique of peers, the challenges and elaborations all served to build confidence and inspired offline actions. While there may ultimately be more conversation than mobilization, the conversation itself represented a demonstrated desire among politically engaged citizens for a more robust rhetorical environment in which to express themselves.

[KurtNYC]

72. and that nurturing anvironment has been under attack lately

hmmmm....

[Initech]

41. Tagged for later

[ismnotwasm]

46. I read most of it, skimmed through parts

I wanted to dislike it because I dislike DU being compared to FR. Some of the author's conclusions seem self evident. Then again, I'm on the inside looking out.

It caught my attention; it's a interesting Internet participant analysis and I got the feeling the she tried to be as objective as possible.

I do note that the Internet has changed even in the short time since authorship and the tone of political conversation changes based on a variety of factors. At least it does at DU, I suspect FR hasn't changed much at all.

[RedCappedBandit]

48. tag.

[azurnoir]

50. interesting albeit was written in 2008

IMO it would make for different and even more interesting read now in 2013

[NewJeffCT]

51. One of my threads was footnoted

on how the media is trying to make a race between McCain & Obama

[WinkyDink]

55. I find this creepy, frankly. Yeah, yeah, "Internet." Still, one would prefer to think of this board

as JUST this board.

[rug]

58. It got her a job at Florida State.

http://directory.cci.fsu.edu/jeanette-castillo/

Somebody should email her this thread.

[KoKo]

59. Cool Find! On thread I suggested she should Re-Visit her Doctoral Thesis

and do a BOOK as follow up on DU vs. Free Republic. Did it change from her original thesis or not. If so ....How?

It would be very interesting.

[rug]

61. I can't wait to read the chapter on the Lounge.

[snot]

62. Another of her observations

(she puts this in more erudite, nuanced terms, and I'm not sure I'm understanding correctly based on my hasty read, but): that the Freepers seem to place high value on loyalty to their tribe, and yearn for a "good" authority figure to tell them what to do/think, to the point that, when anyone presents info that might seem to challenge their existing beliefs, they tend to just attack on whatever basis they can muster -- e.g., by killing the messenger -- without ever really focussing on the content of the message.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

64. I know it's about content - but that first sentence...surely it's not gramatically correct

is it?

The citizens of Democratic Underground and Free Republic ranged far and wide
for information to build their narratives, and contrary to the arguments of some critics
(e.g., Sunstein, 2001) they did not seek to exclude opposing points of view


Ranged isn't even a verb is it?

[RainDog]

66. Yes. Range is also a verb

Definition of RANGE

transitive verb
1
a : to set in a row or in the proper order
b : to place among others in a position or situation
c : to assign to a category : classify
2
a : to rove over or through
b : to sail or pass along
3
: to arrange (an anchor cable) on deck
4
: to graze (livestock) on a range
intransitive verb
1
a : to roam at large or freely
b : to move over an area so as to explore it
2
: to take a position
3
a : to correspond in direction or line : align
b : to extend in a particular direction
4
: to have range
5
: to change or differ within limits
6
of an organism : to live or occur in or be native to a region

[Laura PourMeADrink]

69. Thanks RainDog...of course I should have looked it up myself. I guess

the connotation here if grazing and exploring information out there? I have
never seen the word used like that....learn something every day. I do think
though, the way the sentence was written sounds like a mistake. Like they were
trying to say "information ranged (from).." and then switched gears.

[RainDog]

74. I read it like "grazed"

which is one definition. Grazed among a selection of options and arranged them in such a particular way sort of thing.

But "grazed" connotes less considered choices, for me. "Ranged" implies more active seeking and a wider field from which to choose, again, in my mind. One is the cow. The other is the cowpoke.

At least that's how I viewed the use of the word, but didn't really give it much thought because, I guess, I was applying my own definition and connotation without really thinking about it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

79. Well, I since 2004, I have NEVER seen anyone show two sides of anything. It is always just OUR

SIDE. Maybe I am not here enough. I used to post about how good it would be to debate our side and their side - the pros and cons. But finally gave up.

[RainDog]

80. There is more than one side here

There are plenty of people here who are more liberal than the range of options available at the ballot box. They present their sides of arguments. There are plenty of people here who are in line with current available options as the better option. They present their sides of an argument.

That goes on all the time here.

You rarely, if ever, hear those more liberal arguments made among main stream media outlets, however. The variety of povs on DU stems from seeking sources outside the mainstream of allowed political discourse in the U.S., and from forum-user generated posts. But those more liberal arguments are the mainstream in other western democracies.

In order to debate certain issues, you have to have a basic common agreement about reality. This is where the lack of debate comes from - DU and FR do not have the same frames of reality - tho people here and there often employ the same memes and rhetorical strategies to discount the pov of the other group.

If someone were truly hoping to present a rhetorical argument, that would include acknowledging other positions - but the reason for this is to indicate the better position the speaker/writer holds. That's basic in formal rhetoric. But this is informal, citizen-generated and conversational, for the most part.

A range of political positions exists here - but those that range further to the conservative/authoritarian are not overly represented, as they are in media, for the most part (tho there are many authoritarian povs that are permitted here.)

What's lacking, in terms of sources, is any of the major media outlets offering the critique from the left that is standard for other democracies. Or when it appears, there are attempts to shout this down.

If people from DU and FR want to discuss issues, surely someone could create an opportunity for that elsewhere. The rules of FR and the rules of DU put the range of opinion within certain parameters. I don't understand why people pay much attention to right-wing arguments. For me, after years of looking at this stuff - it comes down to that Colbert remark about reality having a liberal bias.

But, even in saying that, I recognize there is a bias that also includes who or what are considered reputable sources, and we're all more inclined to believe something depending on the source, rather than the subject, and more inclined to reject something, even if two parties say the very same thing, if it's said by the party considered the opposition.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

81. We, the left, and all variations, have goodness on our side. When you strip away all the politics

and logistics, say, around the ACA, for example, no one could possible argue that it is not kinder to care about people who are sick and can not see a doctor.

But, as you say, there must be agreement of reality. There must be agreement that we need to care about the 23 mil people without healthcare.

That is what is missing on the right. I never once heard any rep say "We care about these people and here is what we will do about it." I think deep down, most people feel this missing - lack of compassion. Who wants to hear them spit the word Obamacare over and over and over again, with no viable alternative?

This is the kind of debate I would like to hear. Not the finer points between our side.

[RainDog]

83. The conservative view is that family should do these things

And, yes, families do do these things. But not all families have the same resources and some families are broken, due to no fault of any child that is part of it, or the adults, too. There is no reason for people to suffer when this nation has so much wealth. No reason other than hatred and greed. Well, except that such a view is also highly patriarchal and repressive for women and children and also breeds racism and jingoism rather than openness and appreciation of the creativity of difference.

The conservative view seems to be that, if you experience misfortune, too bad. Deal. Pick yourself up. Well, yes, we all want to deal and pick ourselves up and go on - the conservative seems incapable of understanding that sometimes things happen to people that impact their capacity to do these things. It's like... my experience is the only one that counts. But, realistically, anyone with the slightest bit of "common sense" knows that's not how the world works.

Conservatives also use the family as a way to continue systems that are highly dysfunctional for some people. For most people. They view children as property and think they should be able to determine reality for that child. That's not the thinking of a good parent, but they don't see that, either, because they're so protective of their worldview - they have to be because their worldview doesn't correspond to reality. The consequence is that they hurt all children, and society, by trying to force their erroneous views of the world on everyone.

Economic arguments - I cannot tell you the number of times conservatives have claimed Western Europe was failing while the U.S. was thriving - in spite of data that indicates this, too, is bullshit. But, for 20 years, conservatives have made this same argument, simply because they have demonized social democracy - or the mix of individual effort and a social safety net. A nurturing society also nurtures entrepreneurs and frees them from health care via an employer, or total devastation if someone does try and fail. This is not the way a reasonable society functions.

So, yeah, a debate about the actual value of one system vs. another would be great - but, when you have people who can't tell the difference between Sweden's social democracy and Stalin's totalitarian oppression and total state control - well, it's hard to have those conversations. The biggest irony, of course, is that Americans favor a nation with income distribution like Sweden - and they think this is what it's like in the U.S. when the reality is that America has a feudal system of income distribution in place. Because conservatives have created scare quotes for social democracy, people refuse to accept that the way a nation achieves that more equal nation, in terms of income and opportunity and safety, is through taxation on wealth.

I've mentioned here, before, a great book I read a while back called The Divine Right of Capital. A businesswoman wrote about the way that this nation failed, during the Enlightenment era that created this representative democracy, to overthrow the myth that wealth deserves its privilege (and this failure is America's "original sin" in the form of slavery.)

We were able to grok that there is no "divine right of kings," no logical claim to hereditary power - and this holds true for those who, through the accident of birth, are treated as privileged beings who deserve better treatment than anyone else in this nation.

Since a strong middle class is the best indicator of a strong democracy, and since a strong middle class was created by the New Deal and the opportunities made available to those from all parts of society, I have to conclude that conservatives, ultimately, despise democracy. Those who are not wealthy who vote for conservatives vote for their own servitude. I suppose they think their supplicating deference to wealth will give them an advantage when scrambling for crumbs that fall from the table of wealth.

No wonder they loved Reagan who told them to beg and deal with it. He just left out the part where he laughed about the scam he was selling.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

85. very interesting RD

"The conservative view is that family should do these things"

I think this approach to helping those in need actually does work in very small setting. I saw first hand how it worked in West, TX. I see it work in small communities where people know each other. They go to the same churches, shop in the same stores, and have children who go to school together. But, it is a very narrow world view. It could never work in LA or NYC where the wealthy and the poor rarely mingle except on a busy street.

What troubles me is that in the past, these people looked at the masses in need with indifference. Now they look with utter disdain. They no longer think "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps", "Deal with it," as you say. They say they are all "on the take" and are bilking the system and that they are having to pay for it. I hear it all the time. Hell, even Romney echoed it in his 47% remarks.

How did this change in attitude happen? I think this is extraordinarily interesting to dissect. Was it a master plan the PTB hatched? Although I have no proof I have to believe it was. And I also have to believe that the Limbaughs of the world played a major role. I also think that the Bush economic downturn caused by a raping by the rich did as well. They noticed it was harder to make ends meet - and it was easy to make them think it was someone else's fault.

[RainDog]

86. Dunbar's Number?

Some folks who look at this stuff say that humans have a limit for their awareness beyond more than 150-290 other lives - as far as stable social interactions.

Beyond that number, the need for laws and enforced social justice/kindnesses increases with the increase in number. So, it's easy to see how people become stereotypes - we can't see others beyond our own small circles, unless we make the effort.

When we lived in smaller communities, sharing was the norm, and those who didn't were ostracized. We have a long, long past of living harmoniously within communities. War isn't a given for human society - war-like societies get traumatized by their own warring actions by bringing that back into their communities. When I say a long, long history of harmonious living - I mean in the tens of thousands of years. When populations were so much smaller, maintaining our community was a matter of survival.

It still is.

We're just a lot bigger, as a community, than 290 people. But we're also not isolated - so our 290 and intersecting others' 290s eventually make up the whole world.

We have a lot of different ways, as humans, to live in this world, and the one that focuses on building community seems, to me, to be the exact reason we have govt. in the first place. That's what democracy, or more exactly, a Democratic Republic is - declaring ourselves a community.

I also have seen that, many times in history, when vast economic inequity in a society exists, people will create scapegoats to blame for their own frustration at their worsening situation (like the Jews in Germany.) The early twentieth century was the final gasp of European empire, and look how many people the rich took down with them...from Western Europe and Russia. Seems like empires, over and over, overextend themselves making war. The rich expect the poor and middle-class to pay for this, and are surprised when people revolt. But sometimes those revolts first take the form of kicking the person nearest to you.

I don't think the current hate-fest among white conservatives is new. The difference is they have an entire news network, plus radio stations, dedicated to repeating this sort of hate speech toward the American community. Even so - Father Coughlin was spouting hate on the radio in the 1930s. He supported fascism (after initially supporting the New Deal.) And the KKK existed, strongly, into the 20th century. I don't know what it is that makes people hate, other than fear. Maybe that's the only way they know to create a community, by creating an enemy to oppose. But who, really, created those ideological 20th c. wars? The powerful who chose to exercise power poorly, and greedily.

I think the internet makes it possible to see the hate more easily, if you're not the target for that particular hate. Ever read comments on news sites? I quit doing that, for the most part, because I didn't want to give up on this nation. I have to remind myself that most people aren't represented in the hate we see online.

I think it's really, really important for Americans to remember, or to learn, that there were many people opposed to the New Deal back in the day. These people were, however, wealthy, not working people - and that's what's so idiotic about today's republican party. That's why cultural issues are played up - the "us" that's versus "them" is limited to those the religious right hates in order to get them to vote against their self-interests. Cultural issues mean these conservatives are more interested in voting against someone else's rights, rather than their own self-interests. I'd say you have to have a pretty skewed view of the world to cut off your nose to spite your face - but, seems like that's where we are.

at least that's how I view it. how about you?

[RainDog]

67. DU has two daddies!

The "nurturing parent" model for liberals and progressives, versus the authoritarian "discipline daddy" of those with arrested political development, is the overwhelming finding.

That parental or governing style is evident in the philosophies of those on DU, for the most part, those who run this site and in the Democratic Party at its best. And we see, in our nation, our lives, our DU community, that this nurturing rather than punishing power results in greater creatively, more problem-solving and tension diffusion through humor, more compassion and a stronger community.

Why would someone want the other sort of experience?

The other factor that precluded closure at Democratic Underground was the focus on the rhetorical, which was simultaneously playful and competitive. There was no privileging of elite voices. They were always present but in the DU environment they were often completely drowned out by the shouting of multitudes. Anyone could submit to the competition. Originality and creativity were respected and rewarded rather than loyalty and orthodoxy. If the rhetorical ecosystem of the Internet is going to reach its full democratic potential, it will be in providing space for the regular exercise of rhetorical muscle by ordinary citizens. The daily practice of active citizenship can only serve to contribute to a more robust “rhetorical Republic” which could “reform the practice of public reasoning” (Ivie, 2005a, p. 25) and produce a more democratic debate.

...To return to Mr. Nietzsche for a moment, if there is one major contribution that the Internet can make to democratic practice, it is in preventing the “forgetting” of these citizens who demand to be heard.

[snot]

70. +!

[KurtNYC]

73. A partial list of those quoted: DainBramaged, Annabanana, TahitiNut

Spiffarino (?), DesertRat, BushDespiser12, Land Shark, Tierra_y_Libertad, rjones2818, bleever, 2 Much Tribulation, weezy2736, TexasObserver, Hart2008, johnfunk, Kestrel91316, kineneb, Solly Mack, scarletwoman, singilarpoint, Symbolman, LWolf.

Lots of familiar names there including many I have not seen here in years.

Also PDF page 151 includes the graphic of "Get a Brain Morans" (which was morphed during the 2012 elections into "Gate a Bain Mormans" ) and then a discussion of DU's Ignore List feature and how it is used (specifically by DainBramaged).

Overall, a well-executed study on an emerging and still evolving media / social space.

[LanternWaste]

75. If I remember, the paper took one DU task and the DUer was livid

I remember when this was first posted here soon after its release and was linked to. I actually spent an evening reading it (who doesn't want an objective academic analysis of your hobby?) One poster from DU (I forget his name, and can't remember if he still posts here or not) was cast in a rather bad light. He was livid, righteously advertising his indignation and his absolute intent to sue (yes... we laughed at him).

I'm guessing that if the DU2 archive is still available, one could do a search for the original thread.

[Historic NY]

76. One Sentence...

there are morons and trolls on both sides. They know who they are too.

[mnhtnbb]

82. Is anybody going to wade in over at FR and tell them about her diss?

Could be fun...

[LostOne4Ever]

84. Not me

Every time I even peak at that sight my computer gets digital herpies...


Also the hate that comes from there makes me want to throw up.

[delrem]

87. "AGONISTIC DEMOCRACY AND THE NARRATIVE OF DISTEMPERED ELITES"

The only interpretation I can think of for "agonistic democracy" is that it means that every different faction has equal rights - then winner takes all. That's according to the dictionary.

I'm aware that for each of several different "narratives" telling about the current political situation, there are others branching off, and fiction is sometimes substituted for authentic reporting.

In short, I would rather not talk about "narratives" or "meta-narratives".
Or any of that kind of evil, when it's laid down as politics.
I want to talk about fact.

For example, it's a fact that DU is split right now, and "Free Republic", that fetid mass of decayed fungus, be damned. It has no connection.

Because:
If we all support the same principles and can agree to speak in terms of those principles there is no problem.

That fact seems to supercede talk about "distempered elites".