Reply #75: What is wrong with disagreement?

[Jakes Progress]

I can't bring myself to go to those nut-job neo-con sites, but I know that one doesn't grow without confronting some disagreement and having to clarify your position and hone a statement if you wish to make a point. Back in the olden days, Democrats argued with each other all the time. Since, as you say, they have the same goals, it is easier to agree on anchor points which makes it possible to discuss methods and finer points of ideology. You can't argue with someone who believes god hates gays or that one race is superior to another; there is no anchoring point to use as an argument.

With the internet and access to millions of sites, people tend to gravitate to sites that reinforce their personal feelings. We just bask in shared self congratulation. Feels good, but doesn't serve any real purpose. I only lurked on DU back in the bush years. What was the need of my voice joining in the taunting and jeering. (I never was a big pep rally fan.)

DU can serve as the half-way house. We can examine our beliefs and positions by testing them against people who, down deep, want the same things for the country but see those things coming another way. We can avoid the drooling idiots and lying assholes from the right wing but still have a place for reflection.

Of course there are the non-reflectors, the Obama-is-evil posters who see no gray and the Obama-is-god posters who brook no disagreement. These posters OP boiler plate flame bait so that they can tit for tat with their enemies who play along. Or they snark about on substantive posts deflecting the point of a well reasoned OP with irrelevant points and off topic wanderings. Just let those time-wasters get the scorn from the body DU that they get. Let the sub threads play out. No one reads them past the first two.

Some may see DU as a vent. I have read many posts that have informed me and helped to shape my thoughts. I have seen posts that ask genuine questions and enjoyed the responses.

Perhaps a nice feature would be a time-out. Once someone replies to a post, there would be a time period - hour or so -before it could be posted. You would have to write the reply, wait an hour, and then re-read your post before you could click to have it posted. It might stop some knee-jerking and it might cut down on the snarks because it would be a pain to come back an hour later to post something that you vented long ago. But it also might make for more careful and considered writing.

If you want new rules, try requiring people to answer for their statements or just stop posting in the thread. A poster could be called on just posting crap without any support. You could have a forum for unsupported drivel where people could vent - call it "The Vent". Thinkers wouldn't go there.

All that said. I'll be sending a check at the end of the month. Pay for say.