Well,
my earlier diary created a bit of a brouhaha. What's funny is that I guess it made the reclist, got around 160 comments, and fell back off the reclist, all while I was sleeping.
I found some themes in the responses so I'll respond to them here. There were also comments of "so show your hand, Tunesmith", which is fair - so I have some constructive suggestions.
They walk among us! I seriously don't think we have sleeper cells in dKos. It would take a lot of patience on behalf of the moles, and for what reward? If there's anyone actually on this site as a mole, they must have a pretty pathetic life.
Is Tunesmith Leaving? I only wrote the title because that was the question that spurred the diary. I seriously wasn't expecting to be on the reclist and I had no intent to imply Do what I say or the bunny gets it. (btw - link is not graphic, but is one of the worst websites I've seen.)
Love it or leave it! There were a few responses that shared that basic sentiment, which I found ironic.
False Choices: I feel like I often see the need to set reason against passion, as if you cannot have one without the other. What's ideal is to have both. And, one comment:
As for the stereotypes above, I find them far less tedious than their opposites, as follows:
The Greens. The Greens are critical to be critical. They excoriate the Democrats who disagree with them, and they ignore those who do; they attack a Democrat for disagreement on one issue, but ignore their agreement on many others. Any good is insincere or insufficient; any ill is pathological. In general, the Greens believe that Democrats are no different from Republicans, and there is little reason to support one over the other.
The Martyrs. No matter how many times the Republicans strike them, the Martyrs have another cheek to turn. Against the evidence, they believe that the voters will punish Republican wrongdoing, if only Democrats are honorable enough. They shame any Democrat who would dare sully themselves by adopting Republican tactics, even if only in response to those very same tactics.
The Naifs. The Naifs praise Chris Shays, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee, and other Republicans for their moderation, even while they ignore that those Republicans are not so moderate that they would refuse to support Dennis Hastert, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, and George Bush. Even in the face of these Republicans' continued support for the most radical members of their party, the Naifs believe they might become Democrats. In any case, they would never endorse a strong Democratic challenge to such fine, upstanding Republicans, and would prefer to attack those Republicans who, while more vile, are even less vulnerable.
The Sophists. The Sophists argue to argue. Sure, they don't believe that abortion should be illegal, but they believe it's vitally important to have yet another earnest, heartfelt, well-meaning argument over abortion rights. They believe it's important to hear all sides of the debate, get into a meaty discussion, and then . . . do it again, a few days later.
If the community has become less tolerant of the above, then so be it. I've tired of them myself.
It's a perfect example of reinforcing the kind of false choice that I am opposing. (And it got unanimous 4's.) If you're not a "Yellow Dog", you're just bringing the party down. If you're not an "Al Capone", you're a Martyr.
Ask in response:
- Can you be critical without being destructive?
- Can you be honorable without being weak?
- Can you understand/appreciate an opposing point of view without endorsing it?
- Can you explore multiple points of view while still getting somewhere?
I'd argue "Yes" on all. Too many would argue "No".
Is Tunesmith contradicting himself? "He's arguing for more diversity, and yet he is opposing those that are bring up opinions he disagrees with. Isn't this contradictory?" No, not at all. Passionately defending a point of view and engaging in confrontation is great. Seeking to shut down someone else's POV is not. Each of the categories I mentioned was in opposition to diversity of opinion. Tolerance doesn't mean you tolerate intolerance.
What's your bright idea? There was another comment saying that it's extremely common for social forms to have structural biases against diversity of opinion. I agree with that. But what I love about online community is that it is possible to counterbalance that through technology.
Kos and Rusty have done a phenomenal job developing the community-centric tools for this site. I just think there's one basic flaw left. The reclist rewards homogenized lower-common-denominator content, not the best content. It is true that they often correlate, but there are a LOT of diaries that fly right past everyone, that would have gotten great response from the community if not for the fact that they came up one or two recommendations short of critical mass. We all miss content that we would rather read than what is on the reclist.
So I think there should be a second reclist; a user view. Much like we can subscribe to other usernames now, we should be able to indicate whether we "trust" or "distrust" other users. Our lists would be private. If I trust a user his recommendation of a diary counts double (or something). If I distrust a user, his recommendation doesn't count at all (or something). Then my personal reclist would be more tailored to my tastes.
It sounds at first as if it is asking for each user to be MORE in a bubble rather than less, but it would have the opposite affect on the community. More interesting content would show up on more lists and would get more comments, and more recommendations. Which would mean that the global reclist would end up receiving the most popular of those diaries, rather than the ones that the bandwagon jumped on from the "Recent Diaries" list.
This would reward diversity by stirring the pot more. It would also not inhibit anyone's views in any way.