Reply #73: As a newbie I'm about to ramble...

[izzybeans]

not sure what you mean by Underground-specifically with regard to the general topic of the thread. Personally, I fear the person who feels to be "the" authentic "whatever", it carries with it the same danger of purity that other exclusive categorizations bring. Me? I've Never been a fan of someone who wore their authenticity on their sleeve or wanted me to prove mine. It's self-defeating for building a workable consensus in my opinion.

If you find me authentic or not (or yourself for that matter)either way I must agree with this sentiment about the divided left. I'm not sure I totally agree with Q, but I do "feel the pain". Coming to this forum was the first time a truly grasped how divided the left had become. But over what? I am baffled by the "flaming" of people on this forum.<period>. The trouble with compromise or the lack thereof is that it always centers on something that IS negotiable. I don't think people here are too clear on what they are negotiating (and many aren't doing so in good faith).

The notion of "no compromise" is also troubling to me. What if the facts disputed our position (whatever issue we are taking up)? Where would we be then? What is part of this fact? Yeah we've got the numbers, the narratives, and etc. that swing truth-with a small t-our way. But what if our hardline position doesn't fly in a populist polity? Is that not a fact? What then is the next step? How can we swing things our way in the future? To me things are much more open-ended then what most of the debate on this forum allows for. But the trouble with the open part is its openness-- and in that opening we all sit here arguing over procedural matters when most of us in fact agree on the issues. How to proceed? Isn't that a better debate to be having. OK I just found my point. There is little disagreement on this forum about matters of belief. But everyone is flaming each other on actionable strategies. Why?:grouphug: