Reply #225: With all due respect, I don't think getting yourself out of the way is the answer.

[Starry Messenger]

People do look to you for leadership, it's an inevitable side-effect of the dynamic created by a privately owned website. Creating a power vacuum where people are left to form their own opinion of how you would like them to behave probably leads to 75% of the problems here. Several people believe that this website is strictly for bringing forward all of the present aims of electing Democrats and they let nothing stand in the way of their energy behind that. Can't fault them for that, the site does say Democratic Underground. In this view, any criticism of the party or its elected members is branded as counter-productive and the person who does it is labeled an enemy/right-winger/leftbagger/etc.

But the person who is criticizing is also bringing forth the aim of discussing left-wing ideas, which I believe is also allowed in the rules, though I don't have the quote handy. There are several positions on issues that Democratic politicians hold that are not *materially* different than the right wing. We can speculate all we want on the possibility of their having good intentions, but at the end of the day, it is the decisions that they make that improve or don't improve the lives of the people who elected them that matters. Several people have *not* had their lives materially improved by decisions made by this Administration. Yes, things are shifting, but things that could have been done have been left undone or not communicated about in a clear and sensitive manner.

The greater burden of proof about this should *not* be on the people who are suffering the most from this. And in my opinion, the rules have been *structurally* enforced in a way that requires a small minority of already burdened people to make the case over and over again that their lives have not been materially altered. For their pains they have been called all kinds of names, which I don't need to list here. Those kinds of personal attacks can be removed, but the fact that a person is capable of using that kind of language on a second-class citizen and DU member who has fewer rights than them should make for a higher burden of proof on *them* that they are acting in a good faith manner in the future after having those kinds of attacks removed. That way, when they skirt the rules with passive-aggressive insinuations that go up to the line, the alerts would be given more scrutiny. Or, you could take my approach, which would be zero tolerance for abusing second-class citizens with bigoted insults or insinuations that they are closet racists or republicans because they have to defend their lives and existence everyday on this website and in their lives.

I also submit that it would be useful to reiterate to some folks here that criticism of a politician is not equivalent to a personal attack. Paying out personal insults directly on a DUer for something that they say that you don't like about a politician is not "even". I've seen a lot of "so there" type insults paid to gblt members here as a way to settle some imaginary score, when criticism is perceived as a personal attack by some straight members here. Being insulted by something a DUer says about your favorite politician *does not equal* personal oppression by that criticism.