Reply #113: "Sometimes you need to try to go over "OTHER's" words with fresh eyes" to see what you missed

[omega minimo]

The first post in the subthread, to which I replied, not to the OP (perhaps you overlooked that) said:

20. "One of the reasons that I'm now spending a lot of time over at Science Blogs."

My reply was about a resounding echo chamber.

2 (someone spending time elsewhere) + 2 (the chamber is echoing!) = 4. People leaving and not coming back = Echo Chamber. Voila!


And after you projected some "claim that your position is not well represented on this board" BS strawman, I clarified for you:

"I do not have a "position." You are projecting. And assuming something from whatever your think I'm responding to in whatever you're OP is talking about.

"The Forum has become an echo chamber and you're fighting with YOURSELVES and imagined adversaries and bad imitations, when those who might have offered some actual balance have bowed out."

** (Having bowed out and popped in just for a moment, was not involved in whatever other threads and dramas your OP referred to. It's still ironic.)

** Can't get much more clear than that OC. In fact, two other posts expressing bemusement at the ironically echoing angst were promptly subjected to deletion by one of the most vicious gatekeepers. So, the previous clarity was quite specific enough.

** I had to correct your repeated ("confused") use of "board" and rereading this now find I had already said, "The Forum has become an echo chamber..."

** Then pretending to be baffled and cook up insults and critique my writing -- and then do it AGAIN -- instead of just read the posts until you comprehend the words, what are you PLAYING AT? :thumbsdown:

** Two Americas has got it right and his parody is pretty good:

Two Americas
#52 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8408358

#48 OC responds that "mocking and ridicule......

"They are not "suppressive tactics;" they are natural human responses to viewpoints the speaker finds absurd and can be found in literally any forum on literally any topic."

** They may be "natural human responses" and here they are used as bully tactics too often and make the topdog/clique look bad, not the target. Anyone familiar with the Forum claiming that's not true is delusional and/or involved.

"People are "banned and effectively silenced" here, but not for their political views (conservatives of course excepted) but rather for how they go about promoting those views. Communists and moderate Democrats and everything in between can all be found here, so long as they choose to obey the rules they agreed to obey when they joined."

** Due to those topdog/clique tactics, that statement is disingenuous. The bullies don't play by the Rules; they just get away with disrespecting and tagteaming whoever they deem fair game. So be it. Like Two America's says, though, don't pretend otherwise.

Two Americas #49
"If you do not think that re-baiting, attacking the messenger (she supported Clinton! Or she is a Naderite!!) - and by that I mean the clear implication that whatever the person says is to be discredited because of what they supposedly "are" - and the dozens of other little tricks people use here to disrupt and shut down discussions are attempts at suppressing freedom of speech and controlling the discussion - the only ways available to people, and the exact way that the right wingers use to shut down discussions - then so be it. We cannot talk about something that you deny even exists, and you are free to have your opinion about that."

"It is the confusion that is the problem, the tab in the back, the being wounded in the house of your friends. Baiting, tricking, deceiving and maneuvering to entrap people, to make them stumble, to break up the attention that the audience here may be giving them, to discredit them - that is not the expression of a political point of view, it is a set of tactics for winning a rhetorical war. I think you will probably win here, will probably prevail."

** OC, some are here to "win" and some are here for discussion. Two different things, esp. in this Forum. Many of the people who are engaged, intelligent and informed, more interested in the less pop culture version of events will head here. The tone is set. And many head right out again. Some stay and have their heads handed to them. "Rhetorical War I -- Discussion 0. Yay topdog tagteam!!!"

Two Americas:
"Meanwhile, some honesty and clarity would be all I would ever hope for. I don't understand the position you and a handful of others here - a small handful that controls and dominates the discussion - take."

** So some of the supersmart who like to win and dominate drive out those who are bored with topdogging and who fills in the gaps? Phonies! Who play the role of "far far far far left" with talking point drivel, egging on the gatekeepers and arbiters of What Deserves To Be Discussed, whipping their passions and deepening their divisive points of view, later to be inflicted on others, actual "left" DUers who have nothing to DU with whatever trash the faux DUers dumped in here.

** It's a lose lose.

** Nobody wins.


OC
"In the OP I stated a position on a meta-narrative in DU, and as context linked to my position on the issue around which the meta-discussion revolves."

** That's the meta tone set here.

OC
"It is true, though, that I needle more people on the left than on the right of this forum. That is not because I bear any particular animosity towards the left. Rather, it is because on a left-wing board, purists and reflexive ideologues are more likely to be on the left than to be in the middle, reflexive purism is at odds with (and, on principle, despises) pragmatism, and I believe pragmatism is necessary to accomplish anything beyond the symbolic level."

** Two things. One is, if you drive out real voices and are tricked by the false ones, then your own misperceptions are reinforced.

** Two: Part of the arrogance that is problematic here is the self appointed who decide based on their own criteria what WILL BE ALLOWED TO DISCUSS. Some "pragmatists" will hijack an entire thread to pound their notion that only THEIR pragmatism is worthwhile and nothing else is worth consideration, discussion or basic respect.

** That's not censorship, no.

OC:
"My position is that disagreement is not suppression of speech, even if it is mocking in tone, and even if it involves ad homs. I think that despite your attempts at martyrdom, you actually do agree with me."

Some would prefer to discuss without the mocking and ad homs, or insults like "your attempts at martyrdom." That sounds remarkably like something a bully would say.

*

Your critique of my writing reflects some of it. If you had read any of my OPs you know how clear I can be. If you find cryptic statements or unwillingness to clarify on demand, look around and see if you can spot any bullies badgering me. Because no, I will not respond well to being belligerently ordered to "fight" some asshole. The conversation ends when the bullying begins.