Reply #1554: Let's be clear about the issue...

[MellowDem]

Is it possible to have a discussion forum with opposing viewpoints?

DU's answer has always been a resounding NO. When DU was first created, that was the idea. The rationale for not allowing conservative viewpoints was just that. And at first, the Democrats were united behind their opposition to Bush, so heated discussions among Democrats were few and far between to be found on DU.

I have been here since 2001, when I was a conservative in fact and liked to see the other side's viewpoints (I didn't troll or even join, since I knew I'd be kicked). I hated this, just as a hated Free Republic, because it didn't seem to be much of a "discussion" forum as much as a forum of yes men reinforcing each other's views. And it was. Sure, even at that time there were a huge slew of different opinions among the Democrats here, but the opposition to Bush drowned out any and all real internal acrimony. Indeed, it wasn't even the policies as so much the personalities of the right that really rallied Democrats of all stripes.

People are always saying how they loved the good ol days of DU. But the good ol days were the days when DU was an echo chamber, a place where everyone was indeed lockstep. The primary purpose of DU was a place of sanctuary, NOT a place for any sort of serious political discussion or disagreement of any kind. These are the good ol days people remember. This is how the site started out when it was created.

The only real exceptions were the primaries, and those got real nasty, even during the time of Republican reign. And it was a preview of things to come. This last one was the nastiest primary I have ever seen and will likely see for a while yet. DU reflected this reality. How could it not? The reality is that Democrats are a HUGE tent with a ton of different viewpoints.

A lot of people, usually the ones that complain how DU has become nastier and wish for the good ol days, don't understand that what they want is sanctuary and NOT discussion. Even now, with the opposing "sides" you see it. People want a place their "group" can go for sanctuary. Sanctuary is the priority. Discussion is deemed nasty and contrary to what DU is about, because it fundamentally is.

If DU's admins are still of the opinion that opposing viewpoints are impossible to discuss in a reasonable manner on an internet board, which has been their rationale since the very beginning, then they should just pick a side and be what they started out as. A sanctuary and an echo chamber. It is why it has been so hard for them to make the transition towards a discussion forum. That and perhaps the naive belief that disagreements between Democrats alone would be much easier to moderate than disagreements between Democrats and Republicans.

Personally, I have always come to DU for dicussion. Sure, there are quite a few people (on both "sides") who are here not for dicussion, and you can tell, but there are many others capable of handling it. I have enjoyed my discussions here and gotten far more from them than from any sense of sanctuary or a feeling of having my views reinforced by like-minded individuals. Discussions can be rancrous, emotional, heated, even sometimes downright nasty. But damn, they ARE politics. They are necessary to participate in a democracy. Discussions should be moderated, and they are, but it's OK, to a degree, to have heated arguments.

It's HARD to moderate an internet message board with many opposing viewpoints. As Skinner pointed out, the EASY thing to do would be to make DU the way it was originally created to be, one side only, no real discussion, just an echo chamber and sanctuary. Hell, DU already as a matter of policy limits discussion to among Democrats only, and even then it is a hard thing to run.

Since discussion has started popping up more and more on DU as the Democrats gained power, DU has been leaning towards shutting down discussion. It took them a while to see what was happening, but you can tell. In the choice of moderators, the application of the rules, etc, one side has been favored over the other. But that is what DU was always all about. If you like that, if you like a place where a very narrow viewpoint is allowed, where there is always a general sense of paranoia because of this, with trolls around every corner and people tombstoned every other day and new posters are viewed as dead men walking, well then that is the DU you want.

I'm not sure what the "radical changes" are that might be in store for us, but it sounds ominous enough to me, in terms of shutting down opposition and discussion. But maybe it means trying something as radical as allowing and even encouraging opposing viewpoints to discuss things. That is truly radical.

DU has always had a pretense of encouraging discussion while also being a place of sanctuary. It can't be both. It has mostly been a sanctuary, with discussion begrudgingly allowed whe Democrats got into power but not really liked. This weird middle ground has created a lot of confusion, not to mention contradictory ideals to be reached and a lack of predictability of what to expect.

So the question really is, do you want DU to be a place of discussion? Do you want to allow opposing viewpoints even just among Democrats? Or not?