Some Thoughts on the Need for More Civility at DU

This post is my no means meant to be a thorough discussion of the subject indicated in the above title. Rather, it focuses mostly on my own personal observations and experiences. But I know that many others have encountered similar problems, so perhaps some will find it useful.

Like most other DUers who have posted a lot and offered their opinions on controversial subjects, I have been subjected to my share of flaming. There is one particular type of post in which I have most encountered this problem: those in which I have disputed the “official” versions of various historical events. Since that is the type of post in which I have most frequently encountered incivility, I will begin with that:

My problem with incivility encountered on DU

The phenomenon that I’m talking about is where people who disagree with my ideas, rather than merely express their disagreement, feel it necessary to throw in insults along with their disagreement. Sometimes these people simply respond with insults, with nothing else to go along with them. Those are relatively easy to handle. I either point out DU rules to them, or I ignore them.

Other people include substantive arguments along with their insults and arrogant assertions. Sometimes those arguments are of such a nature as to indicate that the poster has a somewhat high degree of intelligence.

Those are the most difficult for me to deal with. The arguments may be of such quality that, if not for the insults, they would be well worth responding to in a constructive manner. But because of the insults, my first inclination is to respond in kind, by hurling back insults at them. I believe that generally that is not a constructive way to respond. But sometimes my anger gets the best of me, and I do it anyhow.

Another alternative, which I have also tried, is to respond with my own counter-arguments. In some cases that is easy, if I happen to be aware of a good one off the top my head. At the other extreme, a reasonable counter-argument may require a great deal of research and a great deal of time.

But the problem with responding with a good counter-argument to these people is that that any reasonable response is highly unlikely to be fruitful. If somebody is willing to start off an argument with insults, then how likely is it that a counter-response, no matter how well-reasoned, will elicit anything in return but another insult? I have concluded from experience that the chances of that happening are very small. And furthermore, in situations like this I’m so focused on the insults that it’s hard for me to think productively about real arguments.

The dilemma is this: If we refuse to respond, that may give the impression (to third parties) that we are conceding the argument. Yet why should we devote a lot of time to an effort that is almost certain to result in nothing but a spiraling flame war? That is a gross waste of time. Not wanting to retreat, and at the same time not wanting to waste my time on a fruitless effort, I have often tried some middle course whereby I respond with a counter-argument without putting in the time required to develop one that might otherwise be warranted if I was dealing with a reasonable and civil person. But I have found this middle course to result in the worst of both worlds, in that my time is wasted, I get my blood boiling, and I elicit an even more venomous response from the other poster.

Some examples

To clarify what I’m talking about, I’ll give some examples of responses I’ve received from these people:

In response to a post in which I discuss the efforts towards peace made by President Kennedy in the face of intense pressure from the war hawks who filled his military and CIA (and in which I don’t even offer an opinion on how he was assassinated), I received this:

... As this OP confirms, there is no end to the unfounded and unprovable paranoia and tinfoil that some people choose to believe, said paranoia offered without a scintilla of what would constitute proof outside of an elementary school playground.

Why be forced to prove what you can simply assert when so many are gullible enough to follow your lead and heap praise upon your "truth telling" lunacy?

In response to a post in which I defined “conspiracy theorist” as anyone who seriously questions the official government or societal view of reality, I got this:

A "conspiracy theorist" is someone with a near-religious belief in highly implausible conspiracy theories, for no particularly good reason. They believe that all the evidence we have was faked, that all the "real" evidence was covered up, and that anyone who says differently is either uninformed or "in on it" somehow. That's not a "theory"; it's a closed feed-back loop. Since you started with a bad self-definition, your "anti-conspiracy theory" analysis is kinda pointless.

In response to a post in which I say that I will respond to the poster’s criticism, but “that may take a little time because there's a lot of information there. But I'll get back to you”, he responds:

Run, run, run n/t

At a point later in the discussion, in response to my question to the same person, “So you’re relying on the words of Bush and Cheney?” I received this:

The same fucking tactics of every other CT advocate here. Man, it doesn't take much to scratch the surface and get the same old tired bullshit. How disappointing…

Apology rescinded, Time for change. There was a hell of a lot more there besides Bush and Cheney (which may have been true, but when I got to the point where Bush and Cheney’s words were part of his argument, I figured that that was enough to respond to), and anyone who reads my post knows that. You are not arguing in good faith. You are pushing bullshit and you won't listen to reason…

(Adds a couple of paragraphs of actual argument, mixed with “fucking BULLSHIT”. And then)

You get nothing more but mockery from me, Time for change, because that's all you deserve on this issue. In my experience, you push the work of a snake oil salesman and defend him. You evade, you misquote, you distract. You promise to investigate issues and then you keep running…

How to respond to such incivility

As I said above, I’ve responded in many unfruitful ways to these attacks, including acting like them (returning the insults), trying to respond with constructive argument, or trying to find some middle ground between those two extremes. It is rare that any of that works out well. Here is what I think would be an appropriate response to this kind of thing:

Your hostility and insults are noted, and they don’t deserve a response. But I’ll say this one time: Since you are unable or unwilling to discuss your disagreement with me in civil terms, then there appears to be little or no chance that we could have a productive discussion about it. To try to do that would be a great waste of my time and effort. I’ll alert the moderators about your post and hope they handle it as I believe they should. But I won’t respond to you any more.

On the need to discuss controversial issues

When after carrying on a flame war with these people for a while I finally respond to them with something similar to what I proposed above, of course I just get more insults, especially to the effect that since I refuse to discuss it further with them, that means that (to quote a recent response) “I have no doubt that you (referring to me) don't give a flying f*ck as to what the truth is…”.

But that’s not true. I really do care what the truth is. It is true that after reading five and a half books on the JFK assassination, for example, that my mind is pretty much made up on some basic aspects of the case. But I still would like to know more about it, and I do try to keep an open mind on anything that might contradict my views. And I appreciate a good argument. But not when it’s laced with insults. Some people have the patience or temperament for that, I realize. But I don’t.

On the other hand, if someone disagrees with my point of view on a very important manner and is willing to discuss it in a civil manner, I’m more than willing. The best example I have of that is an argument I entered into with two DUers in early 2005 regarding the 2004 presidential election. Because of the largest exit poll discrepancy in a presidential race in U.S. history, combined with electronic black box voting machines and my opinion of George Bush and his cronies, I believed that the election was stolen by means of electronic vote switching. In fact, I did an analysis which I believe lent credence to that proposition.

But these two DUers believed otherwise, and we argued about it. I ended up spending literally hundreds of hours and exchanging possibly thousands of private e-mails with them on the subject. And as far as I recall, we never found it necessary to insult each other about our disagreement.

It was a productive exchange. In the end they led me to believe that electronic vote switching probably had a lot less to do with the 2004 election results than I had originally thought, at least in Ohio (Ohio used very few electronic voting machines in 2004, but Florida is another story), where the election was most clearly decided in the Electoral College. But at the same time, additional avenues of research led me to the conclusion that the presidential election in Ohio was probably decided instead by massive illegal electronic purging of voters. I believe that my two friends at least partially agreed with that conclusion – at least they didn’t express disagreement with it. This was really an ironic twist because illegal purging of voters wouldn’t be reflected in an exit poll discrepancy, since those who went to the polls on Election Day only to find out that they had been purged of their right to vote wouldn’t have been interviewed for an exit poll… presumably.

Anyhow, in the run-up to the 2008 election I posted information on DU, warning of the need to guard against a repeat of the massive voter purging of 2004.

On the need to avoid insulting people

I think that insulting people is generally bad for at least two reasons. First, it cuts off the possibility (or at least the likelihood) of productive discussion. And secondly, I generally don’t see any reason to insult someone because they disagree with me.

Take abortion, for example. I believe that abortion should be legal, primarily because I believe that people should have the right to do what they want as long as they don’t interfere with other peoples’ rights. That belief is magnified by the fact that criminalizing abortion leads to women putting their lives in danger when they feel the need to seek illegal, dangerous abortions. Also important is the fact that I feel little or no empathy for fetuses. I suppose that the reason for that is that I don’t believe they have thoughts or consciousness. I’m not proud to say that I feel little or no empathy for them, but it’s a fact.

In a recent post I had some harsh words to say about the so-called “pro-life” movement:

As part of a political movement that is so anti-life in so many other ways, it makes no sense unless seen as a mindless act of obedience to authority figures – authority figures who profit from war and many other anti-life policies. Such a political movement has to throw in something to make their followers feel self-righteous. The so-called “pro-life” movement is that something, and it costs the leaders of the movement nothing, while supplying them with minions to help them achieve their goals.

Nevertheless, my beliefs on this matter don’t preclude me from believing that at least some people are “pro-life” out of a sincere desire to protect unborn fetuses. In fact, I believe that my sister-in-law and at least two of her three daughters appear to fall into that category. And I have never had the slightest desire to insult them over their beliefs on this issue. Nor have I ever insulted any of my fellow DUers over this issue.

Some final comments

Admittedly there can be a fine line on this issue. I have insulted people in my DU posts in two circumstances. First, I have had some very harsh things – actually insults – to say about right wingers, as part of a political movement. In this case I’m not talking about fellow DUers, but rather about the opposition political movement. My insults in those cases are aimed at ideologies and behaviors that I consider to be terribly destructive to our country and the world. I do name names sometimes (for example, Bush, Cheney). Maybe I go too far sometimes, but I find it difficult to talk about such people in less than harsh terms.

I also sometimes return insults with insults to fellow DUers. I do that usually not out of any reasoned thought process, but simply as a knee-jerk response to being insulted. I don’t believe I should do that, and I’ll try harder not to do it in the future.

I think that insulting fellow DUers has no useful place on DU. We come to DU to have constructive discussions with other people, to learn, and to get emotional support. What good does it do to insult our fellow DUers, even if we strongly disagree with them or if we suspect that they’re trolls? We can offer our opinions on things, even offer constructive criticism without insulting people. Insulting our fellow DUers, while perhaps working for us as a means of releasing our pent-up hostilities or hatreds, serves mainly to cut off discussion and create bad feelings between us.

Anyone know what the record is for the longest post ever here?

But after reading half the post, I was kind of surprised how much more there was.

And it was an thread titled, "please remove".

Here it is: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Another was the famous Kudzu thread, but it was under 2000 posts.

I think graywarrior's current "I want to create a thread that never dies" is now #2 and still kicking in the Lounge.

You'll find some endless posts in the pile.

I'm kidding of course, but I wanted to be first to the joke.

edit: dammit! Post #1 beat me to it.

Embrace your Inner LaBamba ....................

everyone on DU could probably be more civil if they tried, including you, correct?

I feel that most are reasonably civil.

As for me, as I suggest in the OP, I don't believe I've ever attacked anyone on DU without first being attacked by them. But if anyone is aware of examples of that I wouldn't mind seeing them.

I do acknowledge that I have a number of times insulted people in response to being insulted by them. I don't think I should do that because as I said, it is generally pointless.

People enjoy being assholes, nothing's going to change that. I'd rather let the assholes reveal themselves as the assholes they are, than beat my head against a wall trying to change their behavior.

sw

But when someone basically says that my whole OP is wrong, then I feel that if I don't respond to that I am in a way consenting to that characterization of my OP, especially if the poster accompanies the insults with substantive discussion. So, in general such a statement, if I disagreed that my whole OP is wrong (which is generally the case

, would warrant serious discussion -- for the benefit of everyone reading the thread.

So my problem is trying to respond to statements which would otherwise warrant serious discussion, but where because of the rude nature of the poster, serious discussion is very difficult and stressful.

In such a case, using the IGNORE function, as some posters on this threat have suggested, does not address the problem.

who are seemingly here all the time and who apparently live to insult and dismiss and degrade others.

Dealing with incivility would be a simple matter of dealing with those few but relentlessly and loudly rude posters.

As it says in the forum rules:

People who repeatedly and willfully break the rules, or who generally engage in rude, anti-social behavior, will be banned. It doesn't matter if you are a fellow progressive, a long-term member of this community, or a donor.

If you had people in mind, it would be interesting to compare lists. I don't have such a list, except for my ignore list and some of those people never even insulted me. I draw a fair amount of insults myself because I am such an obvious troll (in the minds of many DUers, that is. Ironic, considering that I am treasurer of my county Democratic Party (or maybe not since lots of elected Democrats (for example Evan Bayh or Tim Johnson) would probably get flayed and filletted if they posted here.)) I expect it though, since people get upset when their sacred cows are kicked or their shibboleths are mispronounced. A real DUer is supposed to say 'amen' when a part of the creed is recited, not 'I doubt that. Prove it.' It's a difficult responsibility being named 'Thomas'.

Unfortunately, any effort to discuss issues such as these at DU is hampered by the fact that threads can be shut down if they copy from others threads, even if no attribution is given.

I just learned yesterday about the "Thou shalt not ever cut and paste anything you read at DU in your OP" rule. What this means, I think, is that we are supposed to search other sites like Daily Kos for the same types of material and copy and paste that instead while making clear that no one here would ever write anything like that.

Go Team, My Discussion Board Right or Wrong and a big Rah, Rah! And be sure not to criticize any government officials for their role in torture, because that would make America look bad.

I thought that by not giving attribution I would avoid that fate for this OP.

Well, I hope that doesn't happen, because I think it's useful for us to discuss these kinds of problems.

!!!

My take on this is life is too short to converse with certain people. It is good to know who these people are. I've had a lot less wasted weekends in pointless conversations since DU taught me this lesson.
You, however have never been one of those people. :hug:

I have frequently admired your restraint when responding to vicious put-downs by people who have little to offer apart from posturing as an authority.

Engaging the best-known repeat offenders in any way is no longer an option for me. They go on ignore until there's no longer a double standard on DU that allows them to dominate an entire forum.

I think we all have had this. Last week I had a response to something I wrote about trusting an insurance company that I should 'either vaccinate my kids or drown them' (not at all what I wrote about). It was so over the top, it was funny/sad at the same time. Unfortunately, someone alerted on them and I wasn't able to show off the demented response I had received later.

Some of us are here to discuss and learn new ideas. Some of us have some... issues.

* (Except for the disciplinary action for the chronics) Flamers will always be with us.

* Flaming is a stage in their (everyone's?) development, and no sooner than some mature out of it or are gone, than others pop up. (Not that everybody flames, but that most might have outgrown their Ugliness phase outside of an internet discussion board.)

* (From long burnt experience) The value is, as OP says, that the Uglies REVEAL themselves. But beyond this, KIND posters ALSO reveal themselves including some who don't post in the flamefest but offer kindness in private messages.

* What is disappointing is that sometimes, so unexpectedly, one discovers that the previous image of one or another DUer as a goodfella turns out not to be the case. The letdown over the formerly-Goodies almost hurts more than facing down the thoroughly Uglies.

* What's almost pathetically funny is when an unhinged flamer, days or months later, keeps following you around, as if nothing had happened, constantly intruding in your threads or posts with their condescending advice and vapid opinions, despite your having made it absolutely clear there is NO, ZERO interest--forEVAH.

Your posts are some of the most thorough, thoughtful, and civil on these boards. It seems pretty clear -- to me at least -- that you are a conscientious thinker and seeker of the truth.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum

Best to just take the high road...I keep telling myself.
Sometimes I even listen to myself!!...

Did you get the memo, too?

Productive debate and civility are what makes this medium so potentially profound.

Unfortunately, like you, I have found it to be rare at best, most commonly masochistic.

We have never really had an opportunity to debate since I usually agree with your positions, but if/when it happens, I look forward to an educational experience.

BTW, I haven't forgotten or abandoned it, life is just getting in the way right now.

So,what of it?

You wanna take this outside?? ;-)

j/k

I couldn't agree more. Discussion on any topic without civility is just a food fight. We USED to have many a great thread around here, full of in-depth analysis and research, thoughtful opinions, and useful exchange of perspectives, often is disagreement with each other but rarely angry. Or at least not too often. Lately I have seen topic after topic, items that seemed very promising based on the OP, turn into pointless unreadable insult exchanges. The thread you mentioned concerning JFK and the hawks attempting to influence him was a prime example. Brilliant OP, followed by a chorus of hecklers with nothing to add to the discussion.

I don't know if there is anything you or anyone can do or say that will make much of a difference, but it's good to know you are trying. Thanks for posting TFC.

:toast:

You might start posting PHOTO threads.

on DU, visit the Gungeon (gun forum).

Often it turns into the Wild West over there.

Wow, TFC, if you're gettin crap for your well reasoned, researched, public service, always-worth-a-K/R OPs............ maybe you're doin something right.

Sometimes people consider "thought provoking" a bad thing.

As you say:

"If somebody is willing to start off an argument with insults, then how likely is it that a counter-response, no matter how well-reasoned, will elicit anything in return but another insult? I have concluded from experience that the chances of that happening are very small."

I wonder what it would be like if the game was to see how long an actual exchange of constructive posts could be kept volleying back and forth, rather than a volley of flames or shutting down a post or OP immediately.

Some don't know how to disagree without it being a pissing contest. And some, as you say, think they know what others "deserve."

"You get nothing more but mockery from me, Time for change, because that's all you deserve on this issue."

Whether it's their fears or their agenda or just dumbness, the detractors are going to try to lump you with everything else they've read/thought/encountered on a topic. Blanket attacks, rather than direct responses to your actual statements, will be harder for jerks to pull off, due to your detailed style, but detract and insult they will.

Ingrates.

:yourock:

when someone is just down right rude,I will simply write my response this way......

TFC

That stands for ---- TIME FOR CHANGE

in honor of you and this post.

Are there ever WARNINGS for these bullies or must they control every thread that could be of substance? Maybe that is by design- I wonder.

I have used the alert button but mine must be broken, it never seems to work.

I have used the Ignore button and it does calm me down but I sometimes wonder if the Elementary School Bully ever grew up and it's hard to tell when you can't read their posts anymore.

One of the reasons that I come to this forum is that there are so many brilliant thinkers. I love the ability to gain knowledge on a wide variety of topics.

I embrace gaining information from bright minds that know how to debate. However,a skilled debater is never a bully and the bully factor is alive and well here.

It absolutely is TFC here at DU.
TFC
TFC
TFC

:applause:

TFC: "Your comments are ignorant in the extreme, but you're good at using cuss words, so I guess that makes up for it."

:spray:

that said I do have a personal follower who comes into almost every OP I start and does shit like that. Not on ignore, just on lets see what other idiocy will not be answered today.

There are some folks who cannot help themselves, serious. And the web provides all the anonymity they need to be class A a-holes.

Insults are totally counter-productive. They are an attempt to intimidate, not illuminate.

I think many posts that contain them are from freepers, moles, whatever, just trying to damage our psyches and trick us into wasting our time and energy. (By posts, I mean to include replies as well as OP's.)

But even posts I believe are from well-intentioned DU'er's -- obscenities in the heading; well, I'm pretty sure there isn't going to be anything useful there, apart from someone blowing off steam.

And even posts that are just "me too," or just making some flip remark -- frankly, unless they're k&r'g to get more attn to something impt., they're a waste of time and space.

Your enemy can defeat you merely by causing you to waste your time.

To my mind, good posts add new, thoughtful insight, provide links to credible authority for their factual claims, and are always civil.

There's a lot of cr*p on DU; I've all but sequestered myself into certain corners where I know the players are productive.

Sometimes a fellow DU'er may be insulting and for that I think there is forgiveness and trying to see good intentions. I have insulted fellow DU'ers and at times have been forgiven and gone on to have good discussions, other times ignored.

Any reasonably intelligent third party knows one DU'er may be ignoring another. A counterpoint unchallenged can be explained by IGNORE, simply ignoring, insufficient time to respond, person is away from the computer and DU or has moved on to researching and writing another story, or just moved on to a hotter topic.

I don't get that all arguments need to be logical and have to be free of emotions. I mean, we are all human, some more than others. We all have different days, lives, strengths, weaknesses. People also seem to connect more with emotions than simple logic. I explained to my wife how two guys can get into a fight and become best friends for life. She said it doesn't work that way for women.

I do think people can evolve, political discussion wise.

How do you know if a fellow DU'er is worth your time to have a discussion if they have been insulting? There are some folks that all they ever do is bring discord and rarely make a reasoned point. There are other folks that because they post here so much, they seem to gain followers and when they start making unsound arguments can count on their posse to back them up with outrage and insult. There are plenty of stalkers too. We are a lot of good intentioned people who get happy and angry and sometimes want to tell someone else.

If there were no benefit to incivility then it wouldn't exist, no? I don't believe incivility is all negative.

"I explained to my wife how two guys can get into a fight and become best friends for life. She said it doesn't work that way for women."

Macho junk and belligerence isn't conducive to discussion. Some here don't know how to disagree without it being a stupid fight and somebody "wins." Some come screeching out of nowhere with their first post, pound the other poster with blunt force drive bys, act like assholes/bullies and then AFTER ALL THAT, act like it's time to have a discussion and/or demand replies to their questions now that they've stopped merely shitting on the thread.

That doesn't work too good for anyone.

whole civility idea when my mom-in-law sent a present of a book on choosing civility. No, getting into a fight really doesn't help anyone, just saying that two people can have an argument and end up as friends. I admit to only having skimmed the surface when it comes to understanding political discussion.

Belligerence can be in the eye of the beholder though. Other than that agreed.

Sometimes I wonder if that's part of the difference here. Some who seem belligerent or unable to disagree without topdogging each other may be macho because... I don't know how to say it but you did.

:hi:

I didn't say that there was NO place for incivility. What I tried to convey is that it is used way too much and is generally counter-productive.

You ask "How do you know if a fellow DU'er is worth your time to have a discussion if they have been insulting?". Well, as I say in the OP, some of these people actually do have a lot of knowledge on the subject, and that is evident for their posts. If not for their insults I might be able to learn something from some of them. But I have found through experience that anyone who starts a discussion with insults is highly unlikely to become more civil as the discussion progresses. Maybe some other people can do it, but I find the insults a great distraction in trying to have a fruitful discussion with people. I'm sure that if I tried hard enough that I could end up having a fruitful discussion occasionally with these people. But dealing with them is very unpleasant for me, and the likelihood of a fruitful discussion with them is low enough that I have concluded that it is generally a great waste of my time, given that I have better things to do. And someone who begins a discussion by insulting someone doesn't deserve to have their demands answered.

Let's consider your post. You expressed disagreement with me, but it was civil and wasn't in the least bit insulting. Disagreement is fine. I don't mind at all responding to that. What need would there have been for you to have been insulting? If you would have done that, my efforts to deal with the insult would have precluded a more reasoned response to the substance of your remarks.

It seems you are thinking that emotion is always expressed as anger or in insult form, or that a conversation lacking in incivility is also lacking in emotion. I reject that concept fully. Some of the most civil and humane words of all history have been emotion packed and emotionally charged. From the ancient teachers, to the great speakers of our own day. President Obama is almost always civil, but his speeches could not be called cold or unemotional. In fact, he got much criticism for being too emotion based at times. Those folks shouting "Yes we can!" were showing fierce emotion, civil and positive, but passionate as can be.

Grow up and put on your big boy pants.

"fuck fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck spleen fuck fuckity fuck fuck spleen fuckity fuckity fuck spleen"

Not his own personal hurt feel-bads.

So presumably he's already wearing his "big boy pants", but still worries about the health of the website he likes to frequent. Sounds responsible and productive to me.

you'd be surprised how much people will stop calling you names

DU has become a cesspool of shit-flingers. Just like nearly every blogsite out there. Lefty assholes are as numerous as righty assholes, and they are all belligerent and vocal. You are pining for the days of yore - but they ain't no more.

If you want serious, reasoned debate the internet ain't where you're going to find it.

this is how people grow in their understanding of events, but to some people that understanding is a threat. Of course that could mean several things, one being that they are sheep dog / information minders that know the truth, but don’t want the sheep discussing anything but the official authoritative versions of events, or maybe they are simply high scoring clueless RWA followers that don’t want anyone questioning the official version of events; but I think you can usually tell the difference by looking at the unrelenting intensity, persistence and viciousness of the attack as to what motivates them; point being, few attackers resort to such pejorative insults towards the honest intentions of those who question authority…

One of the claims your attacker made was about how unqualified the doctors at Parkland Hospital where, and that they where not experienced enough (or something too that effect) to dispute the official autopsy; but I remembered that there are a lot of unfavorable claims about the expertise of those who actually performed and blotched the autopsy so I did a google search on that issue and came up with an interesting article titled: “HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG”

I will finish with the first paragraph in the conclusions section of that article as it speaks to several issues at hand, and confirms as to why your work, research and sharing of information is so important…

In discussing the media’s reaction to Oliver Stone’s movie, JFK, Sam Smith commented that, “It is one of contemporary journalism’s most disastrous conceits that truth can not exist in the absence of revealed evidence. By accepting the tyranny of the known, the media inevitably relies on the official version of the truth, seldom asking the government to prove its case, while demanding of critics of that official version the most exacting tests of evidence.”<382> (emphasis in original) Nowhere is this phenomenon more visible than in Kennedy’s medical/autopsy evidence. The original, official findings are accepted without serious scrutiny, as if the government was institutionally incapable of anything but impartiality. Challenges, by contrast, are run through the most withering gauntlet, perhaps for the obvious reason that it is the government that sits in judgment of the merits of the challenge.
<snip>
And the link: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Invest...

K&R Dr. Dale, don’t let the bastards ware you down…
Larry

Hint: They use the words "woo woo" a lot, as if that chestnut has any emotional significance to anyone outside of their clique.

that the posters who are so rude and bully-like as some of what you post are frustrated souls. They go on the internet and push people around, act like bullies who are out to "crush" anyone who varies from their own viewpoint. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

Perhaps I am mistaken on this but one thing I can tell you for absolute certain, people who communicate in such a nasty way are in no way involved in politics in real life therefore, no matter what they read/think they know, there is a great depth of ignorance.

Bottom line? They are utterly useless in the real world efforts to make anything positive happen.

Julie

i'll throw in my 2 cents here.

i think the problem is all about the split within the democratic party between it's right and left wings.

the two party system leaves very little choice for leftward progressives. one might argue that engaging in debate here is a battle for the "center" of the party, too wrest power away from the so called "centrists" or "moderates" which i define as the most rightward elements of the party. those "rightists" are solidly entrenched and will never be swayed but that won't stop them from hurling down their powerful brand of hatred for those who would challenge the party. they know that in any intellectually reasoned and morally balanced debate they will lose. i have reason, morals, and invective... they just have invective.

my hope is that people in the center of the party will see that and move leftward, thereby shifting the balance in the party, or if all else fails making a split off to a Progressive Party more feasible. i don't expect civility from a moribund political group, i expect rage. what to do about it? pretty much what you're doing, with as much civility as my own moral development will allow.

in fact i see some glimmers of a movement against party-blindedness at a very early point in this adminstration. this is hopeful.

I don't disagree with your thesis at all, but you really can't quote other posters like that.

I think that sometimes in order to clarify a point it's very helpful to cite specific examples.

Anyhow, it seems obvious to me that they aren't worried about people seeing what they write, given that they posted it publicly.

which protect honest and civil people from deceitful and vicious predators, so the predators petition and convince the ‘rule maker’ as to how the rules violate their rights, causing the rule makers to change the rules slowly over time; eventually the rules are used to protect the vicious predators from the honest and civil people, and soon thereafter tyranny ensues and the predator becomes the rule maker, and some of the honest and civil people - beholden to the rules - become the predators greatest defender…

Of course you meant one having a badly self-defined definition, here a definition of conspiracy theorist.

But, there are identity crises out there caused by bad self-definitions.

I know you're trying, but there are a lot of different personalities out there along with trolls, some overt, some cloaked.

At times, being civil means dropping it saying that the discussion no longer is working well. Thanks for the time. Sad that you feel such bad things about me. Bye.

One person on DU was so enraged by my opinion that I had to ask them to put me on their ignore list. I did not want to hurt them further by having them see my opinion again someday. Once, in eight years.

If it all matters this much to you, then put some people on your ignore list. It's more important to learn here. Beyond that, have fun out there!

They are the ALERT and IGNORE links. Use them liberally if you feel you must.

but you forgot HIDE THREAD, you idiot :evilgrin:

I agree with you 100%, tho. We each have the ability and the tools to control our own DU experience. Complaining about that experience, when participation and engagement is entirely voluntary seems, well, a bit silly to me.

Sid

many people come here with their ideas set in stone. They are unwilling to open their minds to another point of view. I know there have been cases when an OP has infuriated me and I have taken the time to examine it--and I have found myself fearful that that poster may be right. Sometimes it has taken several days of introspection and self-examination to get over this fear and to examine their point of view dispassionately. For many, I think, the fear of this other point of view is so great that they lash out at the other poster, being impolite and insulting. Yes, this stings. But it is far better to not answer (and alert if it breaks DU rules), because really nothing productive will come out of a flame war.

Important message. Thanks for posting it.

:kick:

some posters who seem to specialize in one line taunts as replies are calling for civility in response to your post. The hypocrisy is hilarious.

TFC good try, if the DU admins really want civility, they can get it quite easily.

It's all I can do with my time, is to read the OP, and TFC you have some of the best here at DU! But I surely don't have time to argue, nor spend the time to read all the replies. Life is too short to get all worked up about postings on the Internets.

Unfortunately, in our culture, put-downs are considered "funny," and are the weapon of choice for "winning" an argument and gaining personal status.

I experience what you are talking about on a regular basis.

As a matter of fact, within the last couple of weeks, there was a whole thread about how the best way to "teach" the opposition is to "mock" them. I was dismayed by the number of DUers who came out in force to celebrate and reinforce using name-calling, derision, and mocking to "punish" "them," and "teach" them "truth."

I didn't bookmark it.

simply because we have differences of opinion??? I thought respecting each others viewpoints and being inclusive of everyone is what makes our party great.

Obscenities generally dilute the point and make the author sound like a cretin.

Frankly, claims of uncivility usually come from those who have had their indefensible opinions exposed as indesfensible.

Sorry, but most of these conspiracy "theories" really are nonsense. Eventually one who responds to such claim repeatedly will lose patience with it. Not all arguments or opinions are equally valid. The ones grounded in baseless assumptions are the lest valid and are often counter productive. Frankly, it would be dishonest for someone to soft-pedal that just to avoid appearing rude. If an idea is crap, I will say so. If I have an idea what the motivation for believing nonsense is, it is a subject worth discussing.

...we don't permit members to call out others in this way.

Sorry. I am locking.

Piss off.	MercutioATC	Jun-02-09 11:03 PM	#1
This makes me wonder ...........	Tangerine LaBamba	Jun-02-09 11:03 PM	#2
Heh.	BlooInBloo	Jun-02-09 11:09 PM	#4
I wasn't thinking that	HughMoran	Jun-02-09 11:21 PM	#10
Not this OP.	Adsos Letter	Jun-03-09 12:25 AM	#26
OP's a Twitter update compared to some things I've seen around here (nt)	Posteritatis	Jun-03-09 01:12 AM	#36
On DU, it had over 2572 replies IIRC.	NYC_SKP	Jun-03-09 02:49 AM	#42
Do a search for my stuff	WilliamPitt	Jun-03-09 08:12 AM	#60
I don't know, but I was just thinking that myself.	billyoc	Jun-03-09 08:24 AM	#64
This post sucks, and so do you.	flvegan	Jun-02-09 11:06 PM	#3
Bow down ..............	Tangerine LaBamba	Jun-02-09 11:09 PM	#5
You're saying...	greyl	Jun-02-09 11:11 PM	#6
Some much more than others	Time for change	Jun-03-09 12:37 AM	#29
I'm of the "water off a duck's back" school of thought on this matter.	scarletwoman	Jun-02-09 11:17 PM	#7
There's a lot to be said for that approach	Time for change	Jun-03-09 09:47 AM	#85
I agree	madokie	Jun-02-09 11:17 PM	#8
90% of the ugliness here is the work of no more than 15 or 20 posters	QC	Jun-02-09 11:20 PM	#9
It just never seems to happen, though.	Lars39	Jun-02-09 11:27 PM	#13
Very true. n/t	QC	Jun-02-09 11:46 PM	#16
True. This site empowers rude people. nt	Captain Hilts	Jun-03-09 12:19 AM	#23
I am not sure that's true	hfojvt	Jun-03-09 03:06 AM	#44
oh so true	Bluenorthwest	Jun-03-09 08:30 AM	#66
.	Iggo	Jun-02-09 11:25 PM	#11
Your call for civility is much appreciated.	McCamy Taylor	Jun-02-09 11:26 PM	#12
Thank you -- I wasn't aware of that	Time for change	Jun-03-09 12:12 AM	#21
I agree. Open dialogue is important.	McCamy Taylor	Jun-03-09 12:15 AM	#22
Hey, TFC	Melissa G	Jun-02-09 11:28 PM	#14
That's true	Time for change	Jun-03-09 12:57 AM	#31
In fact, you have been a model netizen, TFC.	Kaleko	Jun-03-09 01:47 AM	#38
Recommended.	rosesaylavee	Jun-02-09 11:46 PM	#15
With my most recent flaming fresh on me like Borat's butt on Eminem's face	UTUSN	Jun-02-09 11:57 PM	#17
Always good for a rec, TfC	RufusTFirefly	Jun-02-09 11:59 PM	#18
Some people make it easy	BeFree	Jun-03-09 12:02 AM	#19
Auto K&R. This is exactly why I like your work so much.	Greyhound	Jun-03-09 12:04 AM	#20
"Some Thoughts on the Need for More Civility at DU"	Mojo_electro	Jun-03-09 12:20 AM	#24
Maybe it is time for a change.	Rex	Jun-03-09 12:22 AM	#25
Best post in weeks	tkmorris	Jun-03-09 12:26 AM	#27
Become a 'right thinking' 'team player' and civility will come your way.	asteroid2003QQ47	Jun-03-09 12:35 AM	#28
Laugh more and use the "ignore" when absolutely necessary . . don't waste your time . . .	defendandprotect	Jun-03-09 12:38 AM	#30
If you want to see a true lack of civility and some nasty insults...	spin	Jun-03-09 12:58 AM	#32
The 911 Dungeon was a true flamefest	Rex	Jun-03-09 12:59 AM	#33
I just started looking at the 911 forum...	spin	Jun-03-09 01:01 AM	#34
So what's yer point!?	omega minimo	Jun-03-09 01:09 AM	#35
A thousand K's and R's for your post and from now on	goclark	Jun-03-09 01:13 AM	#37
Good idea!! TFC is also good at hoisting on their own petard:	omega minimo	Jun-03-09 03:14 AM	#46
That is what the ignore function is for	nadinbrzezinski	Jun-03-09 01:53 AM	#39
a very enthusiastic rec #30; you rock as usual. nt	inna	Jun-03-09 02:25 AM	#40
I approve this message.	snot	Jun-03-09 02:33 AM	#41
Is there no place for incivility?	Mithreal	Jun-03-09 02:56 AM	#43
"I explained to my wife how two guys can get into a fight and become best friends for life."	omega minimo	Jun-03-09 03:23 AM	#48
Understood, was just a thought, I started thinking about the	Mithreal	Jun-03-09 03:29 AM	#49
I'm glad you posted it.	omega minimo	Jun-03-09 03:32 AM	#50
That is THE BEST description of uncivil posts ever ...	rosesaylavee	Jun-03-09 08:40 AM	#70
What type of incivility is positive? n/t	pnwmom	Jun-03-09 06:34 AM	#52
You make some good points here	Time for change	Jun-03-09 08:23 AM	#63
I think characterizing civility as a lack of emotion is incorrect	Bluenorthwest	Jun-03-09 08:47 AM	#72
Oh noes! Someone is being Not Nice on the internets!!	REP	Jun-03-09 03:10 AM	#45
This from someone who's Profile comment is:"fuck fuckity fuck spleen fuckity fuckity fuck spleen"	omega minimo	Jun-03-09 03:18 AM	#47
The OP is discussing social consquences	distantearlywarning	Jun-03-09 08:18 AM	#61
Thank you.	elleng	Jun-03-09 06:04 AM	#51
try just not posting anything	frogcycle	Jun-03-09 07:03 AM	#53
I study all of the threads you start and enjoy the enlightened exchange of information and ideas,	Larry Ogg	Jun-03-09 07:28 AM	#54
Thank you.	berni_mccoy	Jun-03-09 07:34 AM	#55
There's a certain bunch on here that get away with WAY too much flamethrowing for their own good.	HughBeaumont	Jun-03-09 07:48 AM	#56
I have come to the conclusion	JNelson6563	Jun-03-09 07:49 AM	#57
thank you for posting this.	Soylent Brice	Jun-03-09 08:05 AM	#58
Excellent, as usual, Time for change. Most excellent.	Raster	Jun-03-09 08:05 AM	#59
K & R	distantearlywarning	Jun-03-09 08:20 AM	#62
K&R. Great job and a wonderful effort.	reflection	Jun-03-09 08:27 AM	#65
agreed.	tomp	Jun-03-09 08:32 AM	#67
You do realize that your OP is one big callout breaking DU rules, right?	LostinVA	Jun-03-09 08:36 AM	#68
I thought that by not naming names I wasn't calling anyone out	Time for change	Jun-03-09 08:54 AM	#74
You may be right -- I was told once by a mod it didn't make a difference	LostinVA	Jun-03-09 09:02 AM	#77
Rules are the means of justice	Larry Ogg	Jun-03-09 09:26 AM	#82
Sometimes it's cute or sly like you having "a bad self-definition"	Festivito	Jun-03-09 08:40 AM	#69
There are two wonderful features you can use to improve your DU experience.	trotsky	Jun-03-09 08:43 AM	#71
+1...	SidDithers	Jun-03-09 09:16 AM	#80
Unfortunately,	ayeshahaqqiqa	Jun-03-09 08:53 AM	#73
K&R	MissDeeds	Jun-03-09 08:54 AM	#75
Great OP, the replies are funny	Uzybone	Jun-03-09 09:01 AM	#76
Who has the time to read everything, then to spend time arguing	DemReadingDU	Jun-03-09 09:08 AM	#78
The American Culture is one of put-downs.	LWolf	Jun-03-09 09:08 AM	#79
ITA. Aren't we all all progressives and/or Dems here, so why be so nasty to each other...	kjackson227	Jun-03-09 09:25 AM	#81
I'd love to see a reduction in the unnecessary obscenities.	kegler14	Jun-03-09 09:41 AM	#83
I don't see any direct insults there.	Deep13	Jun-03-09 09:45 AM	#84
While I certainly appreciate the desire (and the need) for greater civility on DU...	Skinner	Jun-03-09 09:47 AM	#86