HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » DrewFlorida » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Name: Andrew
Gender: Male
Hometown: Florida
Member since: Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:06 PM
Number of posts: 1,096

Journal Archives

I recently had a post hidden due to what was decided to be a "personal attack".

The thread in question had to do with a liberal who had lost their job for posting a video of him questioning a Chik-fil-A employee at the drive up window.
I disagreed with the majority opinion that he had been a bully, however what I disagreed most was the flood of inarticulate, unintelligent, abusive and derelict use of cussing and swearing. My points articulated this clearly and without the foul language or abuse of original poster, although I did direct it at said poster. The jury voted 5 to 1 against my post, all 5 who voted against gave no reason, the 1 who sided with my post gave a response which showed he/she had thoroughly read my post and that it was actually directed at the bad behavior I was pointing out, and therefore not a personal attack.
I would like to know the reasons for the 5 votes against my post, it seems as though they didn't bother to read enough to gain context of the subject at hand, I can understand that people's time is at a premium, but acting as a jurist carries a burden of due diligence.
I feel that I was speaking out against a certain mentality of some people here which is similar to the vile behavior of the Teaparty, and my less aggressive better articulated voice was shut down.

The fate of liberal compassionate progressive ideas gaining popular support depends upon clear articulation of those ideas to the general public without vitriol and abuse. If the mission of this forum is to support those causes, the manner in which it is discussed should reflect those goals.

I am very disappointed that, in this case, violent aggressive vitriol won out over articulate discussion of an issue.
Go to Page: 1