Reply #151: I agree. I agree. I agree 100% unreservedly.

[Bonobo]

Cali, if you will, please let me try to explain how I view the back and forth here -but let me first say that I have doubts about my ability to explain it well and I am bound to make some mistakes in my choice of words that will inevitable open me up to criticism (and that is part of this whole one-upsmanship internet BBS tread format).

I think many or even most of us that post frequently would agree with each other on 90% of the issues and what we tend to argue about is what mike_c described as really a semantic battle over things that we don't really disagree about. His and your example of "Dennis the only Democrat" or "Dems and Repubs are the same!" are good examples. When people say these things, what they are really doing is expressing their frustration and feeling of powerlessness and it is less the words than the sentiment that need to be given attention. This is an anonymous BBS and so sometimes people say things to vent, sometimes to anger, sometimes to poke fun, sometimes to obscure-you never know why. Maybe the poster had a bad day or whatever! The point is, that these phrases that mike_c called a "rallying cry" and that you insist are meant literally, they are important in that there is a strong feeling behind them, not whether they were meant literally or metaphorically (impossible to know anyway and it is case by case).

Also, I am convinced that it is a metter of perspective. Let me illustrate. I would expect that you, Cali, when you are amongst more conservative people, tend to identify yourself a leftie and when you are on DU, you identify more centrally in oposition to those who you view as a little nuttie. Right? So it's all perspective and by saying this I am in no way trying to trivialize anything here. I feel I still haven't said it well, so let me try another example.

Your trigger point, Cali, is when people say that all the Dems are spineless, and they are the same as the Repukes and they are all in bed with corporations. Right? And yet, unless I am wrong, you believe these things yourself -to a CERTAIN EXTENT. Right? I mean, if you were arguing corporate influence among politicians with some republican button-down types who denied any influence at all, you might even OVERSTATE your case slightly to make a point, like "All politicians have their hand in the cookie jar!" or some such thing. But the point I am making is that these kinds of statements need to be seen as trying to express an UNDERLYING TRUTH, not to be the sum total of all the truth. They are representative of a truth that the speaker is trying to express and deserve to be listented to for that intent, if you care at all about the speaker.

Other people's trigger points may be when they are told that they are unrealistic, starry-eyed, impractical, conspiratorial, etc. Or their trigger may be when someone, in a pure-hearted attempt to be positive and optimistic, "apologizes" (in their eyes) for something that just happened that upset them.

Now, the above two people may TRIGGER EACH OTHER EVEN IF they don't really disagree on anything. They are just arguing perspective stuff that reflects their fears/concerns about the group psychological status.

Anyway, thanks for reading this far. I feel like the tit for tat that exists between me and you is so reflective of the underlying problems of this format and I desperately wish it could change and, by changing it, we could extend that to all of DU and the larger negative political climate in our party. And I mean OUR party.