A quick word about expectations.

[Skinner]

Recently there seems to have been an uptick in complaints about the prevalence of other opinions here on Democratic Underground. This happens from time-to-time. I suspect that this time the catalyst was the nomination of Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. This post is to remind you that if you want this place to only represent one viewpoint, you are never going to get your wish.

If you post something supportive of President Obama or the Democratic Party here on DU, some people are going to disagree with you.

If you post something critical of President Obama or the Democratic Party here on DU, some people are going to disagree with you.

This is as it should be. DU is a diverse community which includes a broad range of progressive opinion.

If you want to share an opinion without having someone disagree with you, then whatever you do, DON'T POST YOUR OPINION ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND. Because if you do, some people are going to disagree with you.

Thank you for listening.

Skinner
DU Admin

PS: And while I have your attention, I would like to remind everyone to make an effort to be civil. We may disagree on a number of issues, but there is no need to be disagreeable when we disagree.

[blondeatlast]

1. I fully reserve the right to be a very confused liberal. Thank you for DU.

If this was a lockstepper site, it would be as dull as dishwater.

[jgraz]

2. I disagree.

:P

[seabeyond]

9. man.... that was too easy. i wanted ot be the first to disagree. not fair

ah well

[liberation]

62. I disagree with your disagreement...

[pundaint]

85. You're all a little right and a little wrong.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Alerted. Enjoy your stay.

(joke!)

[Skinner]

5. rofl

:thumbsup:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. on a serious note

I think DU is entering a WWI trench warfare mode.

Everyone knows a break-out is impossible.

Everyone has heard the other sides arguments a million times.

The level of discourse is somewhat higher because everyone is grasping that a quick rhetorical win is impossible and nobody (on any side) can bully all opposition off the site.

I think you do this already, but I'd like to reinforce the idea that attacking a DUer is worse than attacking a public figure.

This is a community, of sorts, and a community's highest obligation is to its citizenry.

[grantcart]

54. how about conjugal visits to the other side?

[defendandprotect]

120. ... rather our highest political obligation if to democracy .... with a small "d" ....

and to the ideals of democracy -- and that should be this community's commitment.

[Mithreal]

125. Hard to believe that has to be said but seems it does.

Is it Party first, DU second, American democracy third?

I'm so confused.

Anyway, hi, defendandprotect.

[malaise]

45. DUzy

:rofl:

[MrScorpio]

4. Rules to live by nt

[fascisthunter]

6. Thanks Skinner (nt)

[emilyg]

7. Thank you. Let's celebrate our differences. They

make life interesting.

[Echo In Light]

17. Yes. However, I'm unable to apply that framework to those who support Con positions & police state

[WeDidIt]

8. I'd call that a pragmatic approach

:evilgrin:

[yowzayowzayowza]

10. Cool Beans. n/t

[CaliforniaPeggy]

11. Thank you, my dear Skinner...

Alas, civility seems to be in short supply these days...

Someone said (Emerson?): "Life is short, but there is always time for courtesy."

Words to live by, I believe.

[woo me with science]

12. LOL! nt

[NNN0LHI]

14. What about the use of recently coined words from Frank Luntz like Obamacare around here?

We going to start letting posters use that kind of propaganda at DU?

Hope not.

Don

[havocmom]

20. And can we have a big board on top of every page listing the latest taboos?

[NNN0LHI]

21. No, I think using common sense should be enough

Don't need no list.

Don

[havocmom]

23. well, parameters change pretty fast

I can't keep up with what sources are newly taboo. Start putting a lot of common current terms and it get hard to fully discuss what is being said out there in the world.

[Jakes Progress]

25. Okay. As long as I get to determine what is common sense.

[NNN0LHI]

32. Thats OK with me but lets give a test to see if you have any first

Do you think its a good idea for us to be parroting the words invented by a Republican strategist like Frank Luntz?

Be brief.

Don

[Jakes Progress]

33. No.

So now do I get to tell you what to say and what not to say?

[NNN0LHI]

38. Very good. You passed with flying colors

And yes, you can tell me what you want me to say, and what not to say.

Now whether I will take your advice or not will very likely be a different story.

Take care and see you later.

Don

[Jakes Progress]

58. Oh but it wasn't advice.

I thought the job was to determine where the slope became too slippery. While I agree that only curs would use the republican prepared script language, I don't see how you can stop people from being low dogs without running the risk of some later arbiter of proscription banning my own speech.

[Donnachaidh]

31. and who is going to decide what the *latest* taboos are?

Talk about diving headfirst into a slippery slope....

[havocmom]

35. My point exactly, but it' Skinner's game room, he should be the one

but it would nice to get regular updates as things change.

[JTFrog]

34. "Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents

are not welcome here".

Alert freely on that kind of crap. I've had very quick response from the mods lately.

[defendandprotect]

122. Health care issue will be playing out over a long time yet . . .

if it somehow works and there are positive results, negative terms will be dropped --

If it doesn't work, you'll probably hear much worse than "Obamacare" -- !!!

But the point is, this isn't a spa -- a place to make you feel good -- it's a place

for free speech and ideas -- many you may not like.

As right wing propaganda goes, "Obamacare" is the least of it!!

And keep in mind we have our own left wing propaganda -- like Obama telling us that

"oil rigs these days don't have spills" -- !!





:eyes:

[jberryhill]

15. WHO UNREC'D THIS?

Who? I want them taken out and flayed!

[rfranklin]

22. I DID...i WILL TolERATE NO DisSENSION!

You HEard me Buddy!

[ZeitGuy]

91. Even better...

Have them taken out and filleted!

[Blue-Jay]

119. I did, because I'm drunk with power!

mwaaahahahahaha...

[RoyGBiv]

16. I like people to disagree with me ...

... when they can manage to keep their disagreement civil, per your PS.

Unfortunately, that rarely seems to happen here in the main forums, and in my view, it's been getting worse for well over a year now. I don't know that there's anything the administrators can do about that. Each and every call for civility is met by a chorus of "Huzzah!" while behind door #2 we've got someone questioning whether an individual's parents were legally married. Regardless, it's taxing to one's sensibilities and leads to frustration that can explode at the oddest of moments and in the strangest of circumstances.

I will offer that one thing exacerbating the problem is the substitution of Internet memes and profanity for reasonable disagreement. "FAIL!" "WTF!" "OMGPONIES!!1" "FuckingmotherfuckfuckRAGE!!1" It's beginning to resemble 4chan and its ilk, and if DU really does go there, it will have become utterly worthless.

One can't have a reasonable discussion if the response to an inquiry is to be labeled an apologist or a traitor or a racist or a homophobe or whatever. That is unfortunately the standard here when opposing viewpoints clash.

And, yes, I know the alert button exists. Frankly, when it comes to the point that all one is doing is policing other people's behavior, it's no longer worth it.

[jberryhill]

26. It's the difference between

1. Winning an argument.

2. Persuading the other person to agree with you.

Option 1 is usually a whole lot easier than option 2, which requires patience and dialog. Although sometimes by following option 2, you become that "other person", which one might normally think is the value of even bothering to discuss things with people who disagree with you.

Typically, the approach to option 1, depending on how taken, will preclude reaching option 2.

[RoyGBiv]

39. True ...

I learned during way back during my BBS days, however, that I would rarely convince someone to agree with me, and "winning" an argument often simply boils down to style points, which is rarely satisfying when one is attempting to fill intellectual curiosity. I generally do not expect to convince anyone to alter their opinions to match mine, and I don't expect to be convinced myself, even if I am open to it. (It has happened, within the past month in fact.) So, the question could be raised, what's left? The purpose of engaging others in discussion, for me, is to test my own viewpoints, find the holes in my knowledge, check for the logical consistency of my own argument, etc. It's a variation of the sentiment expressed by William Faulkner when he wrote, "I never know what I think about something until I read what I've written on it." I also often seek to correct matters of fact and to counterbalance what I consider unsupportable opinions with a view toward providing the silent faction reading but not participating in an argument a different way of viewing an issue than the one(s) being expressed.

All this together is why I like people to disagree with me. It can provide the opportunity for these things to happen, all of them being in some way to somebody a productive exercise. However, if the only thing a person does in response is to pick some fancy way of calling me a moron, I learn nothing, others learn nothing, and I am left with a personal dislike of another individual. Intellectual exercise is reduced to an emotional reaction. That's not good for me, them, or the life of this forum.

Sadly, simply "winning" is the intended goal of many people, particularly a few Massive Egos who rarely, if ever, actually engage in debate and prefer to sit around on the periphery waiting for someone to make a logical or style mistake they can attack while ignoring the substance.

[jberryhill]

56. That's only because

...you obviously lack the intellectual capacity to appreciate the sheer obviousness of what people smarter than you have to say.

[csziggy]

72. Simply "winning" as a goal does not build better communities

Either online or in real life. Unfortunately, it is far too often a goal both places, but I had hoped it was not a primary motivation on this forum. I've been wrong, more often recently than even during the election.

[Number23]

83. You are the coolest

One can't have a reasonable discussion if the response to an inquiry is to be labeled an apologist or a traitor or a racist or a homophobe or whatever. That is unfortunately the standard here when opposing viewpoints clash.

Absolutely spot on. I think the main consolation is that certain terms have been flung around so casually, liberally and idiotically that they have lost all of their sting and those on the receiving end couldn't care less anymore. I've noticed that folks are taking a few here "to the woodshed" alot more instead of just ignoring them in order to avoid a situation like they would have a few months ago.

[havocmom]

18. Thank you. That was reassuring

and definitely needed.

[pinboy3niner]

19. But my other personalities keep disagreeing with me!

At least, they've been civil--SO far . . .

[LynneSin]

24. Perhaps there is a better way to say it - "If you post something, someone will disagree with you"

:D

[Nye Bevan]

41. No they won't. (nt)

[Nye Bevan]

43. Yes they will (nt)

[sabrina 1]

53. No they won't n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

98. nice post, Hitler

(sorry, haven't heard that one for a awhile :hi:)

[sabrina 1]

130. Lol! n/t

[xultar]

27. Right On! You for got to tell them to quit bitchin about the Unrec feature.

[tavalon]

97. That is becoming a time honored tradition

A bad habit born of a bad idea.

[awoke_in_2003]

99. +1 Billion. nt

[pattmarty]

28. Even though I can be a prick at times over my beliefs (Hey, doesn't..........

............anybody that "cares" the same either right/left?) I agree overall with Skinner (95%). I really think that at ANY website today you will have "trolls" or plants that want to disrupt for any number reasons. My opinion it that this site attracts people with so called center/left views all the way to anarchist and Utopia-ist (Communism is such a misused/generic term today). Even with my "hobby" site included in my choices, I would honestly say this if my favorite website, honest, no shit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. "Differences of opinion are what make horse races." Mark Twain

[Jakes Progress]

30. Thanks. That's how I thought it was supposed to work.

I will work on my civility. Hey. If we all tried to outdo each other with respect and proper discourse we could compete. It would be a Civil War.

[Renew Deal]

36. lol

:rofl:

[cherokeeprogressive]

37. Your concern is duly noted. n/t

[guitar man]

40. I guess I'm an odd duck

I could frankly give a shit if anybody disagrees with me or not. If I decide to post an opinion I will do so. If somebody disagrees with me in reply, I'll take what they have to say under advisement. If they provide info, I'll evaluate it and if I have missed some fact or facts along the way in forming my opinion, I may just change my mind and a hearty thanks to anybody that would bring something I hadn't considered to light.

But then again, I might not change my opinion, if I don't see a need to. At the end of the day it's my opinion, and if it fits the rules and guidelines here I'll post it and I could really give a wet fart about somebody sitting out there behind a keyboard furiously trying to change my mind. Many of the things I know, think and feel are based on real life experience, I spend a hell of a lot more time off the internet than I do on it.

Thanks Skinner, Admin and Mods for all you do :hi:

<edit typo>

[Soylent Brice]

42. IBTL

in before the lecture!

:rofl:

[TexasObserver]

44. Thank You! All opinions within the rules are properly made.

I strongly support the president on the economy, even though I don't like some of his advisors.

I strongly supported the president on Sotomayor, but not on this nominee.

People who refuse to consider things on an issue by issue basis and who expect others to agree with them, are having unreasonable expectations. I never expect anyone to agree with me, are happy when they do, and don't really care when they don't.

[G_j]

46. I really do think

there are RW provocateurs here. IMHO

[SidDithers]

47. Provacateurs of all ideologies...nt

Edit: better wording.

Sid

[blondeatlast]

76. 'Zactly. nt

[Mithreal]

126. Like Sid said, leftwing provocateurs too.

Folks need to get with the program, triangulation is in, ideologies out.

[Rex]

48. That would make total sense.

Many people alias over at that 'other place', not so sure about if it is for provocative reasons or just to mess with the trolls. I think the Karl Rove types come here to try and stir us up. Never works.

[Uncle Joe]

49. Well at least we have near unanimity on whether Marijuana should be legal for adults,

so we have that going for us!:bounce:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8183416

Thanks for the thread, Skinner.:thumbsup:

[deutsey]

50. You're all individuals!

Yes, we are all individuals.

[berni_mccoy]

51. When several people respond to a post I've made saying: "You've got balls for posting that"...

It always gives me warm fuzzies that I've met some form of expectation.

:rofl:

[Mithreal]

127. If they only knew...

[No Elephants]

133. LOL

(Is that enouogh triangulation?)

[Scurrilous]

52. K & R

:thumbsup:

[HughMoran]

55. I said similar last night

Everybody has a different opinion here. I've learned to grow a thick skin and used ignore where that wasn't enough. There are groups on different sides that agree with each other more often than not, but there's nothing DU management can do about that (referring to cliques). Don't back down, nobody can make you cave on anything. ... Your views are opinion and open to criticism.


...but nobody listens to me - thanks for giving this the attention it deserves.

[Joanne98]

57. Thanks Skinner!

[EFerrari]

59. Okay, Skinner. Good call.

K&R

[MissDeeds]

60. Well said

And thanks for saying it, Skinner. :hi:

[greencharlie]

61. thanks Skinner!!

I think this community represents a very wide diversity of opinion... and that's not a bad thing.

[Jim Sagle]

63. Locking

;)

[harun]

69. lol

[awoke_in_2003]

100. at least you didn't nuke him...

yes, it has happened (but as a joke, or so the moderator fable goes)

[icee]

64. Excellent!

[LibDemAlways]

65. Thanks, and especially thanks for the

civility reminder. I don't tolerate personal attacks. Those people go right on my ignore list. However, it's a good idea for you to step in once in a while and remind people that this is a discussion forum, not a cyber boxing arena.

[progressoid]

66. This Skinner is some kind of attention whore huh?

All those F-bombs, the hyperbole, the righteous indignation.

Give it a rest dood.

[NYC_SKP]

67. kick. nt.

[proReality]

68. K&R n/t

[WCGreen]

70. 101 recommendations.

I always wanted to be 101...

[Divine Discontent]

71. using all caps at any point is "shouting" & telling people to go away from DU is against TOS

:rofl:

:sarcasm:

[awoke_in_2003]

101. I DISAGREE STRONGLY

:hi:

[saracat]

73. Thanks Skinner.This is really true but some folks still haven't gotten over the fact that there was

a Primary!:rofl: And not ALL democrats cast the same vote, though we voted together(most of us) in the General. Some feel that a dissenting Primary vote disqualifies that DUer from ever having an opinion again. The Primary vote has become a litmus test for some.

[Enthusiast]

74. Now wait a minute!

Right on, Skinner.

[Duer 157099]

75. Says you

Even though I happen to agree. This time.

[Usrename]

77. I was expecting a pony.

:(

[Grateful for Hope]

78. I really like this.

Simple, and to the point.

Very nice.

:thumbsup:

[DebJ]

79. We seem to forget its the OTHER party that has to think all alike!

[laughingliberal]

105. +1 nt

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

80. Yeah, nice post Hitler.

:evilgrin:

[madmax]

87. lol nt

[Touchdown]

81. Does "disagreement" include "Apple Fanboy cult member, Steve Jobs' c**ksucker" too?

Because those never seem to get deleted as name calling. ;)

[elleng]

82. Bravo!

[freddie mertz]

84. It's worse than disagreement sometimes.

Motives are questioned, personal attacks proffered, too often with impunity.

There even seems to be a clearly identifiable group dedicated to driving diversity of opinion off the forum altogether.

I know this to be so, they post about it all the time.

I appreciate your continued and clearly stated support for diversity.

Too bad others will never, ever agree.

[havocmom]

109. Yep

:thumbsup:

[QC]

111. Yes. It's not the disagreement that's the problem: it's the rampant bullying. n/t

[freddie mertz]

116. There was a thread about bullying a while ago that received hundreds of recs.

Have we ever gotten a clear statement of rules regarding that unfortunately widespread practice?

[QC]

129. That was a fascinating thread.

Lots of people here clearly feel that they are being bullied.

[rasputin1952]

86. Kick...

:kick:

[ejbr]

88. I disagree with everything you said Skinner

:evilgrin:

[Barrymores Ghost]

89. IBTL

[ZeitGuy]

90. Stealing this strip! (n/t)

[intheflow]

92. Do you ever get tired of baby sitting us?

Never mind. I'm pretty sure I know the answer! :hi:

[ColesCountyDem]

93. Moderator!!!!!!

This man is obviously a disruptor! I expect him to be tombstoned forthwith.

Respectfully,

Earl Airhead
Possum Tits, KY

[Vinnie From Indy]

94. I am the Walrus

I put the entire DU membership list on ignore years ago. Worked for me!

Cheers!

[rug]

95. Finally.

Chicken breaded in cornflakes is not fit for dogs.

[RedCloud]

96. I may be wrong, but I am not wrong long.

[Caretha]

102. Frankly

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. For 8 going on 9 years now, I've thought that DU was to represent the Democratic party. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[JDPriestly]

103. To take a more positive approach, I do not mind if someone disagrees with my opinion.

But let's separate fact from opinion as clearly as we can.

I like posts in which people introduce articles or facts with a link so that I can read or listen to more if I want to learn more.

I also like posts in which people express opinions and then explain why they hold that particular opinion.

Posts in those two categories give me the opportunity possibly to learn new facts or to learn a new way to approach the established facts.

In either case, I have the opportunity to change my opinion. And I do more often than you might think.

I am always looking for facts or ideas that aren't already a part of my experience.

I do not object if someone disagrees with me, but I do object if someone wastes my time with some two-sentence post disagreeing with me that is not backed up by facts or further explanation of the reason for the disagreement.

[bertman]

104. Thanks, Skinner. Well said! nt

[proud patriot]

106. Thanks for the reminder

:hi:

[laughingliberal]

107. Rec nt

[greyl]

108. I can hear Rory Breaker saying those opening lines. KnR nt

[HCE SuiGeneris]

110. I have to say,

I think this could be the best post of the year.


:smoke:

[happygoluckytoyou]

112. for a good post in a lockstep environment.... REDSTATE.COM.... where thinking is just too hard!!!

[bridgit]

113. ^

:kick:

[Hubert Flottz]

114. Maybe a Tax Cut for Wall Street would fix it?

[DFW]

115. And take a hint from John Paul Stevens:

A little "understanding before disagreeing" wouldn't hurt, either.

Some like to yell "corporatist!" as loudly and as often as right wing sites yell "libbrul!"

[defendandprotect]

123. Hard to overlook the DLC . . .

and its corporatist roots in the party now --

the DLC/corporate wing of the Democratic Party --

and its efforts to breed blue dogs!

[Blue-Jay]

117. "Help! I'm being repressed by unrecs!"

I love that one. Always makes me laugh.

Oh, and I'm unreccing your thread, Skinner. Take THAT!

[Duval]

118. Understood, Skinner. Thank you!n/t

[Ian David]

121. I'd like to pay to have an argument, please.

[whereaminow]

124. Is there a place to read these complaints? A little sample maybe?

I definitely would like to understand the nature of this issue.

[Mithreal]

128. When did DU become all about Obama and the Democratic Party?

Maybe you just picked two "items" that people disagree about, I have no idea.

Is DU more about the Party and President, is that how you see it?

So I am sure I am misunderstanding and maybe what you wrote represents the majority of annoying emails you get to TS or silence members of "the other side."

I could say some things that I think would be honestly and sincerely helpful but they would get my post deleted. Isn't that odd? That I have that feeling? That something I think would improve the site would be treated with hostility from a certain faction and most certainly be deleted by mods who seem heavily biased toward the sentiments of a particular faction? Admins, you got yourself in a pickle. I hope you figure a way out that is good for the community, not just the President and the Party. For the good mods and ones trying to avoid bias, you do a valuable service. Thank you.

[unc70]

131. Beyond disagreeing. Plus DU at its best, its worst, & why it matters

Beyond disagreeing. Plus DU at its best, its worst, & why it matters

The problem is not that others might disagree with what I post or challenge the validity of something I believed true, at least at the time I posted; it is that they might I and my post might be attacked, hijacked, deleted, or ridiculed; my posts deleted; and ultimately threats that I would be banned from DU because of my opinions and even of my facts. Looking back at threads 2-3 years ago, I am surprised how many of the Edwards supporters, in particular, have been banished. Most were more concerned about specific issues and their solutions than the were about Edwards or any particular candidate. What happened to them? Could it happen to me?

I have try hard to follow all the rules at DU and have done so, with rare and minor exceptions. Though I hate admitting I am wrong, that is much better than continuing to show my ignorance to ever-wider audiences. DU has always had spirited debates that, while rarely changing the views of the active participants, served to expand our understanding of the topic at hand and the implications of various alternative actions in its regard, to educate and inform those reading the thread at the time or later, and to document and preserve as much of progressive debate as possible -- for ourselves, for those with opposing views, and for the generations we hope will follow to help them understand the history of us.

At our best, DUers are excellent at researching in great detail all aspects of complex topics, issues, or events. Among our members, for almost any topic, there will be many who will have expertise, experience, training, research skills, and connections to the events and people involved. They help the rest of us get up to speed quickly on a new topic, particularly about the people, companies, special interests involved, plus insight into what is not being reported elsewhere.

With so many DUers involved checking facts, researching archives, following web and MSM content, examining and challenging everything, DU has often done a better, most-thorough job of it of anyone except by those who can compel testimony and delivery documents (e.g. grand jury).

When in this "discovery" mode, it is important that we include for scrutiny and consideration everything we can in the process, evens ones from the RW which we expect to invalidate. Facts will be able to stand on their own, false claims will be quickly relegated to that category. We need to remember that those first encountering DU will rarely know as much as some of those here. We should not reject as disruptive a question or opinion that might just be naive. Probably best not to be too smug in our own beliefs, particularly if they have not been tested recently. One should never underestimate ones oponent or overestimate onself.

At our worst, DU becomes almost an angry mob, attacking each other and outsiders in ways we ridicule when they are used by those on the right. We are increasingly quick to label those with different opinions or inconvenient facts as "others" -- birthers, teabaggers, pumas, trolls, disruptors, corporatists, lunatic fringe, shills, freeps and everything else. Or maybe those doing the labeling are PsyOps, paid posters, racists, sore losers, and on an on. Easier to attack ones enemies when you see them as inferior, barely human, unworthy, bringing destruction upon themselves, not like you and me.

We all need to stop, look around at our world, and realize who benefits by keeping everyone else fighting against each other. Look what happened when all those on the right and the left realized that they had a problem with those on the top: the vote to audit the Fed was 96-0.


There are several technical and administrative issues that put us at risk in the future. I will start a thread to discuss what they involve and we might mitigate their impact. We can never fully solve these problems.

[dmr]

132. kick

:kick:

[No Elephants]

134. Thanks. People need to be adults, too. Getting disagreed with on a messeage board is not

the same as being diagnosed with untreatable cancer.

It's a message board, not your firstborn child or your ability to survive the recession. Get over it.

Posting supposed to be an enjoyable pastime. If it isn't, why are you doing it at all?

As far as "bullying," it's only words on a screen. It's not as though someone is punching you IRL. Don't let them raise your blood pressure. It's unhealthy. You have as much right to post your opinions as anyone else here. Don't choose to be cowed.

Stop complaining to the mods so much (except if you see a blatant RW troll). They are not mommy or daddy. Mature up!