I’ve been a reader and sometime commenter on various diaries here for about two months. I’ve noticed too the discussions about what is acceptable commenting or rating and what is not. My first diary was fairly received and on the important issue of misogyny. My second, not so well, and invited charges of troll from some, but not all. In the course of that diary, one member, Cinnamon wrote this:
”Your premise that any discussion must have a common starting point - even if we actually do - is flawed. It shows that you know nothing about this community. The greatest strength of the Daily Kos community, which you will never grok, is that people can have discussions with others with whom they share NO apparent commonality whatsoever. That's how we learn and explore and debate ideas together. Our diversity IS our strength.”
This was in response to my statement that to have a discussion you have to have a common starting point. I would have thought most people accepted that very basic premise. It’s been made clear ever since Plato wrote down one of the Socratic dialogues. But Cinnamon rejected that premise and stated instead that in this community “people can have discussions with others with whom they share NO apparent commonality.” But is that an accurate statement? I read recently a long thread about what was called meta issues, i.e., how not to get banned or HR’d etc. This thread was prompted because of a spate of bannings apparently. There was also a recent diary about the banning of a member named geekesque. Thus, it seems to me there were plenty of instances in which avowed progressives could get themselves booted out for expressing their “diverse” view on a particular issue. What kind of diversity is that? Isn’t that a limited diversity which accepts only certain ideas and certain phraseology.
So I ask you: what defines the Daily Kos community? It is the notion that all ideas are acceptable, or only some ideas? Is it the notion that diversity of opinions is the source of this community, or that only some opinions can be considered legitimate for discussion?
“The thing is jersey that your so-called diversity of thought is not really thoughtful. Most of your "ideas" are not worth the bandwidth or time for actual debate. They are not worth debate; they are worth derision and mostly laughter. They aren't truly ideas with enough substance to give you a seat at the table. So, we won't waste our time. Go home to your little buddies and wear your banning like a badge of honor!”
Seems to be the latter based on this post. I wonder whether the author of this post thinks the principle of subsidiarity is something to be derided and laughed at. Or how about the idea that a national government of enumerated powers is better than one with plenary powers? The latter was one closely considered by the founders of the country. The former a philosophical principle of governance. Are these laughable? If so, why? It is not enough to say because they interfere with our current agenda. That is simply to assert but not to explain.
The choice as I see it on how define this community is two-fold: (1) whether or not ideas contrary to our agenda have merit we will vigilantly condemn them and ban posters of them or (2) we admit that ideas contrary to our agenda have merit and we will allow respectful discussion of the same.