Why is there so little give and take on DU?

[jpgray]

Poll question: Why is there so little give and take on DU?

A post by Skinner made me think about this--a lot of the discussions on DU are essentially two entrenched camps throwing bombs at each other. Too many people tie themselves in Gordian-grade knots in the weird attempt to avoid giving any ground or admitting any flaw in any given stance, candidate, Congressional strategy, etc. they support. Is this really necessary or productive? As valuable as DU is, I don't believe the debates here have high enough stakes to warrant PR-official-style denial of any and all minute flaws a given stance/candidate/etc. might have. The worst of this is visible in the primary wars, which is more understandable because it may have an actual impact--people want others to vote for their candidate, want to be able to argue against their candidate's perceived problems--but it does seem to invade discussions that won't affect policy in the slightest. Some folks on DU (on both sides of almost every debate) seem to think that any admission of imperfection is something to be avoided at all costs. What causes this, do you think?

[bananas]

1. Which post by Skinner?

How about a link so we know what you're referring to?

[jpgray]

3. Sure

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1254032#1261815

[johnaries]

9. I have to agree with Perky and sfexpat2000, above.

"typing is easier than thinking" :rofl:

But I think it is a combination of factors. The medium itself, as perky explained and sfexpat so succinctly described. Also the fact that the radicals are "louder" and more "visible". An also because people here are so passionate.

I also get tired of all the bombs thrown around here, but I actually believe it's healthy. It shows that people here ARE passionate about what they believe in.

And that's what our country needs more of - people who are passionate about their country, justice, and holding their government accountable.

edit: Oops! meant to reply to OP. Typing really IS easier than thinking! (that may become my new catchphrase. I love it! Thank you, sfexpat!)

[EFerrari]

12. That's okay. Sometimes I can't type EITHER.

lol

[johnaries]

30. Thanks! BTW,

here's a toast to the memory of Andy.
:toast:
He would have loved what is happening. I'm sure he is looking down and he is loving it. He also would have reminded us that we have to fix the voting process or all of this is for naught. Something we all need to be reminded of.

[EFerrari]

31. You bet!

:toast:

[Perky]

2. It is the medium

a combination of anonymity which means unaccountability for words. ( we would never throw bombs like we do at a DU meet-up) and the insulator effect of online community which tends to go to extreme interpretation of events. Plus the reality that the design of the DU does does not support consensus building.


A lot of the bomb throwing is actually between rational and irrational views. Impeachment, the war, the force and place of Faith in the marketplace of ideas; the Kennedy assasination, Al Gore, the list is pretty endless

[EFerrari]

4. Other: typing is easier than thinkin' n/t

[maximusveritas]

5. I've definitely noticed this

It does seem as though some people here see themselves as unofficial spokesmen for a candidate or cause. They just push their spin and are unwilling to listen to reason. I don't think it's unique to DU, but it does seem to be worse here for some reason.

[JitterbugPerfume]

6. Attention seekers!

They think the more controversial they can be , the more attention they get.

It is time to grow up!

[EFerrari]

8. NO! Not that!

lol

[Forkboy]

10. I dont want to grow up..

I'm a Toy-R-Us kid! They got so many toys you'll flip your friggin lid!

Come on..sing it with me! :)

[JitterbugPerfume]

16. Forkboy

you are incorrigible:)

[Lilith Velkor]

7. "PR official style" is the key phrase, methinks.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. Because

far too many people believe that it's impossible for someone to disagree with them, unless that person is ignorant, a paid shill, or a troll.

[jpgray]

14. I refuse to believe that people actually think that way

To me the tone of some of the debates is more like watching two competing press conferences--dissemble, distract, and disavow to avoid acknowledging any perceivable weakness, no matter how inconsequential.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. oh, I see it all the time

People who think that if they just post a link, they'll change your opinion. "Did you READ those links??!"

They're just flummoxed that somebody could have the same information they have and draw a different conclusion.

[jpgray]

22. That's a good point

[EFerrari]

21. Imho, there's something here about learning how to have a debate.

I've sinned in this way. DU reminds me of my very political Latino family -- who believes that sarcasm, contempt and arrogance are condiments for argumentation. And we'll take a big side of emotionality with that. lol

But, for people who are interested in learning how to have a useful argument, DU is a wonderful lab. :)

[TahitiNut]

24. It's hardly the "Argument Clinic" ... that's far too civil to be an apt comparison.

When I see retorts laden with the word "you," bald misstatements of another's opinion, and ascriptions of personal motives, I'm convinced that many DUers fail to comprehend how insulting and fallacious they're being.

[EFerrari]

28. You wanna fight, TahitiNut?

:)

[LeftishBrit]

39. I've seen that from time to time!

I don't know that it's LOTS of people, but there are a few who think that if you disagree, either (1) you're being paid/ bribed by someone to do so; or (2) that you are totally ignorant. Then there are people who think that disagreement = stifling freedom of speech, so that "I don't agree with you" = "I ban you from saying that".

However, I think most arguments here are fairly civil; it's just that the ones that aren't civil get noticed more *because* they are aggressive. Certain subjects do bring out a lot of heat.

[asthmaticeog]

13. Not all DUers are supporters of candidates. Many are actually just fans.

I think you know what I mean - not everyone's reason to support so-and-so is policy-based, but often emotional instead. In much the same way that Bush fils got the "I'd like to have a beer with him" vote, there's a good bit of rallying around candidates that fulfill certain emotional needs irrespective of policy positions. Which certainly contributes to tha all-or-nothing argumentation you rightly decry.

I think another contributing factor is that DUers are kidding themselves about the importance of this discussion board. Not to say that it's unimportant; it IS important, but not as Earth-shakingly important as many would seem have it. That vaunted 100,000+ registrations is not the number of active members (I remember a thread wherein a DUer haughtily bragged to a retail worker with whom s/he was quarreling that s/he was going to bring his/her grievance to the attention of DU, with over 100,000 members. :eyes:) That number isn't reduced when zombies, sockpuppets and trolls get tombstoned, nor is it reduced when users lose interest and move on. As far as active posters go, I'd guesstimate that 10,000 actual users is a better bet, and that's probably high. Since we overestimate the impact of what we post, we get hotter under the collar about being contradicted.

Additionally, there's the problem of doctrinaire behavior that's plagued the left for longer than I can remember. Purity tests, the "only a true Scotsman" fallacy, and just plain dogmatic thinking are the fans, if not the sparks, for a lot of our dumber flamewars.

I could go on at some more length, but why bother? There's asshatting around to be done in the Lounge, which can be far more illuminating in its own weird way than the "political" "discussions" here.

[jpgray]

20. Yep. Interesting that over a quarter of voters so far don't even see this as a problem

That's tough to get my head around.

[asthmaticeog]

36. Enthusiastic tribalists don't see tribalism as a problem. nt

[enigmatic]

32. awesome post

:thumbsup:

[asthmaticeog]

35. Gracias, hermano.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

33. Okay, so you're in the pay of The Lounge, right?

:rofl:

[asthmaticeog]

34. They PAY?

:wow:

Man, I'm getting FUCKED SIDEWAYS pimping that forum for free! :grr:

[EFerrari]

37. LOL!

:hi:

[ProgressiveEconomist]

15. Exchange requires questions and answers. IMO very few DUers ask questions

or voice agreement with other posts--they just supply differing opinions. It's rare that the post links just after the opening post show many sets of progressively indented responses by a small number of DUers. The indentations rarely go more than one or two deep.

Maybe DU needs a "chat" format people can choose, the way they choose the "poll" format now.

[shadowknows69]

17. Other: I like to vote

[jpgray]

23. You are a good citizen

[Rex]

18. Just two? I see thousands of camps.

They all want what they want. I guess people really have a problem showing weakness on an anonymous message board. Who can really say, I've only seen a few extreme cases - and they are mostly freepers trying hard to blend in while disrupting the board in games of tag.

[davidwparker]

25. There's a lot of "stick up the butt" liberals. Ever listened to Stephanie

Miller when she gets letters from PC liberals? She and Jim have a good time joking on them.

Relax, people. Life's too short. Speaking of having fun, time to go have lunch and watch Sicko.

[KAT119]

26. Paid R. Operatives.

[jpgray]

40. Way too many for that.

But of course I was paid to say that.

[ixion]

43. maybe, maybe not... but you do seem to have a very specific agenda

I've been following your posts, and they are generally about the same subject. That doesn't mean anything, in and of itself, except that you're very concerned about the lack of capitulation the DLC dems are receiving from this board. :evilgrin:

[nolabels]

27. Other here

We have been indoctrinated into this type of thinking for centuries.

We probably would even find it hard exist without that "either or" thinking.

Asking REAL and cognitive questions is the antidote when it gets toxic :shrug:

[EFerrari]

29. Good point about binary thinking. Very true. n/t

[entanglement]

38. Two camps? Dude, you're an optimist

:P

[Jed Dilligan]

41. I would say emotionally high stakes.

I've been reading a novel about John Brown ("Cloudsplitter" by Russell Banks) that resonates a lot with the current situation.

You can look at things like the Iraq War as tragic errors to be sorted out over time, or as great evils to be corrected by direct action now.

People are extremely emotional vis a vis their position in this dichotomy, as well they should be.

[Pyrzqxgl]

42. Its the Internet

Folks are willing to take positions they don't really believe just to see what the opposition will be like.