I've been asking myself that question much more often lately. I've thought it about it, and... I'm not leaving, because every once in a while a really interesting discussion crops up, and every once in a while there's a really important cause to trumpet and hope it hits the reclist.
But I've been feeling increasingly cynical about dKos lately, and thought it might be illustrative to share why.
The basic gist is that I'm seeing a lot of unsavory characteristics among the population here, and they're making me feel bad about our political identity and the strength of our ideals.
Let me include a quick graph here illustrating the basis of my point.
The people in the "center" aren't very far away from each other, and it's frankly because they don't care very much. As people start to care more, it's very possible for them to occupy more leftward or rightward positions (or anywhere in between).
But there comes a point where someone's passion level rises to the point where reason disappears. It happens on both sides of the spectrum, but what is more concerning is that both sides start to look alike. Past a certain point, it really doesn't matter whether you're Democrat or Republican or left or right. You're just extreme.
Here are some of the personalities I've been seeing more of:
So-called "Yellow Dog" Democrats: The term evidently came about from someone who said, "I'd vote for a yellow dog if he were a Democrat." Now, why do I say "so-called"? There's nothing wrong with straight-ticket voting. If you're completely signed on to the Democratic platform, and know that a candidate isn't a mole, then it's not bad to vote for a candidate that you don't know much about. But there are some in this community that are taking the "Yellow Dog" concept to a really creepy extreme. "Support" becomes "loyalty". "Loyalty" becomes "unity". In the last few months before the election, there was a growth of democratic "nannies", with occasional encouraged "loyalty displays". They haven't left. People that criticize certain Democratic officeholders "too much" are often harrassed. We should all think really hard about this, and what kind of societal corruptions this behavior is similar to. Unity in a caucus vote is one thing, but in a discussion site? What other governmental forms have placed emphasis on "unity"?
Al Capones. You know the type. "You can't bring a knife to a gunfight!" "This is a war we're fighting against the Republicans!" "Fuck the high road!" Think about it. Think. How many times have you been told, and how many times have you caught yourself thinking that honor is weakness? Just watch the response you get every time you try to make this point. You can practically pickle the responses, they come back verbatim just about every time. What does that say about the level of thought in the responses? The next time you are faced with the two prospects of Democrats being fair and being strong, ask yourself if you are automatically setting the two against each other. Are you even considering the possibility of being tough and fair? Strong and right? The party of reform has to have corruption to run against. The Al Capones would throw away credibility just for a short-term victory.
GOP Dems: I can't count how many times I've heard people say things like, "They're either with us or against us!" or "Period. End of discussion." Or, "One does not negotiate with terrorists!" when we're not even talking about terrorists. Watch out for the Republican rhetoric - aren't we supposed to be different from them? If things start sounding similar, it's a good indication of radicalization.
Parrots: I haven't heard people talk about this, but I see it all the time. You've got a conversation that is getting meaty. Then all of a sudden someone weighs in a chirps the "easy answer". And they're showered with 4's, and the thread ends. This includes a higher prevalence of what I'll call "Hallmark" diaries that are easy to recommend just because they're noncontroversial.
I know some things about flourishing communities. They really do need a certain combination of qualities - decentralization, member independence, opinion aggregation, and diversity. This community has the first three, thanks to the reclist, the diaries, and the ratings. But it's clear that we have a structural bias against diversity of opinion. I've been here more than a year now, probably close to two. And it is unquestionably true that over those two years this community has placed more nad more importance on unity, with less appetite for diversity. Many of our strongest and more diverse voices have left, leaving behind a greater number of hard-core partisans that are content to reinforce each other's views and discourage dissent.
Kos has said that daily kos is a "partisan Democratic" site. If what we've become is what was intended, then I think it's a mistake. I am finding that daily kos represents my view of the Democratic party less and less, and is instead becoming a hang-out place for wannabe operatives. Diversity creates strength - it inhibits groupthink, and creates a stronger community. If instead the market of dKos means that more and more original thinkers leave the site, and become replaced by more and more echo types and sycophants, then the community will rot.
Since I believe the bias here against opinion diversity is structural, I don't believe this diary will make much difference. In my mind, best case scenario is that it will trigger a good discussion, perhaps with some members practicing temporary willpower to be cognizant of these points in other discussions. But unless there's a real sea change, it'll just be swimming upstream. I'd rather leave the seed behind that says: the opinions on this site are not necessarily representative of Democratic citizens.