Reply #786: "the group in power has an obligation to create civility"

[Desertrose]

"My answer to your question then is this - the group in power has an obligation to create civility and demonstrate the surety of their position by listening and responding respectfully. When the attacks come from the side in power, it delegitimizes that sides moral authority. They very fact that they don't need to listen is the reason they can afford to listen. In this case, however, we have proven that they *do* need to listen because, without us, they can't win. But we don't need to cooperate because, from our point of view, we can't win either way. If we cooperate we get Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs demonstrating institutional contempt for us. If we don't cooperate, we at least get the schadenfreude of watching them rant and rail about how it's somehow *our* fault that they screwed up.


DU has not been respectful of dissent. The moderators use their power to ban dissenters and the rest merely pile on with personal attacks. Now, DU has exposed its belly and said "Help us. What did we do wrong?" Like it or not, people got pissed off and voted with their feet. Will those that remain prove their loyalty by digging deeper for donations or will their own sense of "purity" be their own undoing? "