Skip to main content

Generally, I try to avoid speaking in the meta fights (other than to just laugh at people's self-righteous silliness). But lately I've been seeing a trend at DKos that disturbs me greatly, and I must say my rant about it . . . .

We've always had our pie fights and meta wars and ideological holy crusades here--indeed the entire Left is famous for it; what we've ALWAYS done best is fight with ourselves.

But lately there has been a trend here that I find very disturbing and can no longer tolerate--it is the trend to see anyone who disagrees about one's pet issue, whether it be the NSA or Obama or GMOs or anti-vaxx or gunz or Bitcoins or lots of other issues, as not mere disagreement, but as deliberate conspiracy. As DISLOYAL. As people who are THE ENEMY. As deliberate "trolls" or "disruptors" or "infiltrators" or "paid shills" or "corporate supporters" or "FBI plants" or "people who want to see Republicans get elected" blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda.

In just the past two weeks, I've had anti-vaxxers call me a shill for Big Pharma, anti-GMOers call me a Monsanto troll, a Bitcoin apologist call me an agitator, and several acolytes of one former poster (who begins all of his diaries with a warning that anyone who disagrees with him is a shill or a troll) accuse me of being a corporatist or an "eliminationist" (whatever the hell THAT means). And in the ultimate example of absurdity, I've been called BOTH a "roxxer" and a "suxxer".

All of this, on whatever topic and from whichever side, comes from the same impulse---the impulse for too many of us here to believe that you are ALWAYS RIGHT. No matter the topic, no matter the stance, you alone have The One Truth(tm)(c). Everyone who disagrees with you, therefore, is, by definition, wrong.  And further, since you are so obviously and self-evidently right, anyone who disagrees with you is not only merely wrong, but DELIBERATELY wrong. After all, only a simple-minded fool or a deliberate opponent could fail to see the self-evident rightness of your unassailable opinion, and therefore anyone who disagrees with you must, by definition, either be stupid, brain-dead, a moran, or a deliberate shill or troll whose sole purpose is to undermine your One Sole Truth(tm)(c) and lead everyone down the road to perdition (and obviously they are being led to do so by Monsanto or the NSA or the NRA or Big Pharma or whoever else the Big Enemy happens to be).

The very idea that perhaps you are simply WRONG, and that others simply HONESTLY DISAGREE with your opinions, literally never occurs to you--because it is so obviously self-evident that YOU ARE RIGHT.  PERIOD. And since you are right, period, anyone who disagrees with you CANNOT be simply honestly disagreeing with you--they MUST be deliberate shills who are sworn enemies of whatever your favorite pet theory happens to be. Since you are always right, anyone who thinks you are wrong MUST be either stupid or dishonest.  QED.

It is no different than the Goppers who brainlessly yell "SOCIALIST!!!!" at everyone who disagrees with them. It is nothing more or less than an attempt to shut down discussion and debate by delegitimizing any opinions other than yours and by dismissing any criticism without needing to respond to (or even listen to) it.

People are not "working to get Republicans elected" just because they disagree with you. People are not "supporting the croporatist agenda" just because they disagree with you.  People are not "apologists for the NSA or Monsanto or Pfizer or Obama or the GOP or the NRA or whatever" just because they disagree with you. They are people who think you are wrong.

And believe it or not, you may indeed be wrong about things. Lots of things. Believe it or not, people who disagree with you may not actually be paid trolls or shills or agitators or infiltrators or plants or disruptors--they may just be people who think you are wrong.  You are not the fount of Lightness, and people who disagree with you are not the paid agents of the Dark Side who are out to get you. People can and will disagree with you, and not because Darth Vader pays them to. They disagree with you because they think you are wrong. And you might be. You're not fucking infallible. Not everyone who doesn't get along with you is a paid corporate shill, or a hippie who wants Mitt Romney to appoint the Supreme Court, or whatever other idiotic paranoia you dream up. They don't get along with you because they think you are wrong. It's not all a big conspiracy for everyone to attack you and your pet issues. So get over yourself.

It's time we stop treating every ideological disagreement as if it were a fucking conspiracy to get you. It's time we stop treating every argument as an ideological battle to the death. It's time we stop treating people who are on the same fucking side as we are as our enemies. It's time we learn how to disagree.  It's time we learn how to not get along. Without turning into paranoid lunatics who see enemies behind every tree.

I will not tolerate this horse shit anymore, and I will HR it every time I see it, no matter who it comes from.  And I hope Kos follows through on his front-page post condemning it, and starts banning people for it. This shit has to stop---it does nothing more than create unnecessary acrimony, it adds nothing to any debate or discussion, it poisons the entire atmosphere and creates an idiotic "us vs them" dynamic, and all it does is allow some people to feed their massive martyr complexes. It should not be tolerated by anyone here on any side of any issue. And it won't end until people start getting bojo'd for it.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  alas, I expect most of the comments here will be (36+ / 0-)

    from the dogs of one pack growling and biting and accusing me of supporting the other pack. Because that's just how DKos is now.  

    Yes, it's true--I work for the NSA. And the FBI. And OFA. And the NRA. And Monsanto.

    So there.  (sigh)

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 09:53:14 AM PDT

  •  Who™, me? n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 10:05:59 AM PDT

  •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, kat68, i saw an old tree today

    For those that preach tolerance are anything but tolerant. The kind of do as I say not as I do attitude here borders on historical.

    Laugh and move on is the only thing you can do when called a troll or shill or whatever. Tends to come from people that don't appear to have other things to balance out their lives. Live to post her,e etc....

    You best believe it does

    by HangsLeft on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 10:07:04 AM PDT

  •  Really doesn't seem all that unusual to me. (4+ / 0-)

    Meta comes and meta goes. We've been going through cycles of it ever since I came here. It often gets quite nasty, I haven't seen anything lately that's any worse than what I've seen here before. People get banned, people GBCW, and then things eventually calm down, until the next time.

  •  Aha! I knew it! (10+ / 0-)

    You forgot to divulge that you also work for Third Way, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer, and WalMart.

    And I may have seen you at a Rand Paul fundraiser...or was that Ralph Nader? I get confused.

    Blue is blue and must be that. But yellow is none the worse for it - Edith Sidebottom

    by kenwards on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 10:14:10 AM PDT

  •  Excellent diary. (4+ / 0-)

    I haven't seen anti-vaxxers here, but that is just an education issue, or at least it should be.  

    For many other issues, this law applies:

    The level of poutrage in response to any criticism is directly related to the truth of the accusation.

    "These nations, including Russia..., have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless" - Edward Snowden, with a straight face.

    by Drocedus on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 10:16:25 AM PDT

  •  Back in the day (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fcvaguy, i saw an old tree today

    there was an organized group that sought to weed out the dissenters.  (I cannot remember its acronym, but they were eventually all banned).  Today, there is not an organized group per se, but a consistent number of members who magically always appear to HR comments, users, etc.  

    You/we are being watched people.

    "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

    by EdMass on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 10:18:05 AM PDT

  •  I have gone down the same path as (9+ / 0-)

    you, Lenny. Honestly, no matter how many times you inform people that we are actually on the same side, there will always be people that will tell you that we are not and continue tossing out crazy accusations.

    Meta will continue as it always has. I literally left for a year, came back a few days ago, and the fight hasn't changed. The actors haven't changed. Its like I picked up right where I left off a year ago.

    And for the record, I totally agree with the sentiments in this diary, and a long time ago I wrote about the same exact shit, in almost the same exact way as you did. I tried telling people that they could pick a side without being nasty, accusatory, and conspiratorial about it. I told them we weren't enemies. And, suffice it to say, all the breath I wasted on it didn't do a lick of good.

    My advice: make this more about getting your own feelings out. Don't waste your breath on trying to change the nature of the various ideological wars that go on around here. No one person really can.

    Sorry to be such a downer :/

    •  Here's an interesting exercise (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe, fcvaguy, Joy of Fishes

      You wrote:

      I literally left for a year, came back a few days ago, and the fight hasn't changed. The actors haven't changed.
      Pick a popular diarist and look at the usernames of commenters in their diaries from 2,4,6 and 8 years ago. As you go further back, it is amazing how few usernames you recognize (and I've been here 9 years). It's kinda like a bar where the same crowd hangs out, but if you come back 2 years later, only 20% of the regulars are still around.

      Given the departures we've seen over the last month, I suspect we will see rapid turnover of the more prolific purveyors of meta. And so it goes.

      There was only one joker in L.A. sensitive enough to wear that scent...and I had to find out who he was!

      by virginislandsguy on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 10:51:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree with you about some folk's reaction (7+ / 0-)

    to viewpoints which may contradict their favorite hobbyhorse.  I have begun limiting my comments as I find myself challenged for various comments and even followed from diary to diary in one or two cases.
    It just is not worth my already limited energy.  Typing is difficult as my manual dexterity is deteriorating and even thinking in a straight line becomes a task as I witness my own subtle intellectual degradation.  Given the problems with framing some comments, I simply abandon them as not worth the potential problems.

    However I do value this site as an information source among others and I do enjoy the responses, even those which disagree with me so long as they provide me with new information.  I am wrong on some issues and misinformed on others.  Anything which would correct this is welcome.  A pissing contest does not interest me any more than becoming involved in my grandchildren's arguments.  Nyah, nyah, nyah is not a response.

    I don't know if HRing the people who come here for a fight will work out very well but I do agree with you that a few folks can indeed poison an entire atmosphere

  •  I've had a similar experience this week (17+ / 0-)

    It was very odd but I just thought, "whatever." I literally was called more names than I can count, many of them just trotted out as red herrings responding not a whit to my ideological statements or positions. I'm a Leftist/Socialist who votes Democratic, and I've never wavered in that other than the year I tried being an Anarchist without much luck (long story, but having to do with a boyfriend who I was living with; at least we did get some work done, and we were on the same page about what to do, just not always how to do it).

    I've been called a centrist on this site since I signed up. I think it's weird and funny because in real life, I'm usually "the radical" or whatever. I have never been a Republican or anything, and didn't make my way over here from a more Center or Right position.

    I think we're just seeing the beginning of the '16 election cycle, which will be Hell on wheels, IMHO. Buckle up!

    Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

    by mahakali overdrive on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 10:35:12 AM PDT

    •  You've hit on what I think is an important point (13+ / 0-)
      I've been called a centrist on this site since I signed up. I think it's weird and funny because in real life, I'm usually "the radical" or whatever.
      I believe that some folks are so into their own bubble, or information silo, that they overestimate how wide spread their views are. Fox viewers do it. It is also possible to do it from the left, by limiting information intake to those you agree with. I do not see it as the badge of honor some suppose when they say "I never consume mainstream media". The thing is - that's where the mainstream thinking is. I know a whole lot more about the "issue temperature" in my community from reading the LTEs in my local paper than I can ever learn from reading some analysis of Texas politics in Mother Jones or some such. I may not like what I learn from it, but it reflects the reality around me that I must contend with to make any changes.

      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

      by Catte Nappe on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 12:30:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it is also the pure cliquishness (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fcvaguy, manyamile, AnnetteK

        Many of the folks who bitch at me now used to in the past uprate me regularly, since we agree on virtually everything.  It wasn't until I began criticizing the infallibility of a particular person (who btw I also agree with on virtually everything)  that they all switched like a light bulb.  (shrug)

        It would be funny if it wasn't so silly.

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 01:38:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yet it seems you don't much believe in uprating (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, PhilJD

          So it really shouldn't matter to you one way or another.

          “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

          by Catte Nappe on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 02:21:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  indeed, it doesn't matter to me one way or the oth (0+ / 0-)

            It's not the HRing and/or uprating I am diarying about.  I couldn't care less about that. Nor is it about "name-calling" or "being mean". I couldn't care less about that either.

            It's the practice used regularly by several cliques here (and not just the one we are all thinking of---it's also found in the GMO diaries, the anti-vax diaries, and a few others) of delegitimizing any critics by assigning "disloyal" motives to them, so nobody has to listen to, much less respond to, their criticisms.

            It is a way to shut down debate and criticism from people who disagree with one. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

            And it should not be tolerated by anyone on any side of any issue.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 02:31:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ah, yes. The mind reading and impugning of motives (5+ / 0-)

              Happens in any diary with a contentious subject, not just those you mention.  And it is applied not only to commenters, but to candidates/electeds. I have been assured numerous times that Obama makes the decisions he does in order to safeguard his lucrative post-Presidential opportunities, and Hillary Clinton is bound to protect the banksters so she can draw down those speaker fees, and Pelosi, and Reid, and on and on.

              “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

              by Catte Nappe on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 02:48:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  there's an awfully big difference between . . . (0+ / 0-)

                "you're wrong!" and "you want the other side to win!"

                THAT is the line we should not cross.

                Nobody here wants the other side to win. Nobody. I don't care what side of what issue anybody is on--NOBODY here wants the rightwingers to win.

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:10:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Depends on the meaning of "want" (0+ / 0-)

                  Yes, sadly we can parse that.

                  I agree with you that nobody here thinks a GOP candidate winner will enact policies that benefit the community/state/nation.

                  There are indeed posters here, perhaps in moments of despair and discouragement (or not), who will assert that a GOP win might be beneficial and necessary in terms of bringing home the GOP message to an extent that will finally "teach" and "mobilize" voters.

                  “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                  by Catte Nappe on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 06:12:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Why do you hate America? (0+ / 0-)

              How long have you been beating your wife?  

              How do the drugs affect other parts of your brain?

              ;)

              Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

              by benamery21 on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:08:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  There are anti-vax diaries here? (0+ / 0-)

              ugh....

              Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

              by Wisper on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 08:49:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I like the basic thrust of your argument (3+ / 0-)

    but, there is a gray area where it gets into quibbling over terms.  

    People are not "apologists for the NSA or Monsanto or Pfizer or Obama or the GOP or the NRA or whatever" just because they disagree with you. They are people who think you are wrong.
    I have an incurable habit of trying to see the other side of almost argument.  Sometimes there's not much to see, but I always stop to wonder.   So, if I'm reading remarks by someone who believes that Monsanto/Pfizer/Obama/etc. is doing things that are absolutely, categorically, indefensible in every way ... and I observe that well, but, there are certain contextual factors that make the actions slightly less heinous ... well, I guess I AM an apologist of sorts.  Not because I have a secret allegiance towards Monsanto or whoever, but because I think it is intellectually honest, and ultimately beneficial to our political aims, to consider any potential weaknesses in the argumetns of one's own side.

    In certain contexts, like maybe a get-out-the-vote stump speech, self-criticism isn't very useful.  But when we're just chewing the fat amongst ourselves, I think it usually IS useful.  

    It's inevitable that if I feel discussions benefit from a Devil's advocate, that I will sometimes be perceived as a devotee of the Devil.  An apologist.  Well, so be it.  

    Do hand out the donuts if someone is being really hostile and aggressive with such terms  ... but if they just tell me my remark was apologist, meh.  It probably was, to some degree.  

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 10:36:26 AM PDT

  •  Defensive much? (6+ / 0-)

    Word of advice, Lenny: Just state your truth as you perceive it, and don't sweat what others label you. In the simplistic frame of suxxers vs. roxxers, I've been identifiable as a suxxer for about five years now. Rarely am I called inflammatory names, and rarely have others mischaracterized my positions. The key is to make your case, whatever it may be, logically and consistently. Your point of view will either resonate, or it won't. You won't win allies by whining about being treated unfairly.

    Obama is apparently OK with TPP's price tag of thousands of preventable deaths, due to projected increase in drug costs in impoverished nations. Does it make a difference to you if HRC supports TPP as well?

    by WisePiper on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 10:49:30 AM PDT

    •  I think you miss my point . . . (2+ / 0-)

      It's not about "calling names" or "decorum".  Fuck all that.

      It's about delegitimizing people who criticize you (and I'm not referring to "you" you) by assigning them disloyal motives, to shut them down without any need to reply to their criticisms.  Such as declaring of people who criticize HRC "you would rather elect a Republican than Hillary", or of people who criticize some of the sky-is-falling CT kookery here as "you are an apologist for the NSA", or anyone who criticizes some of the unscientific anti-GMO arguments as "you're a Monsanto shill".

      Be as uncivil to people as you like--I don't care. You can call em a shithead or a dick or a dipshit or whatever else you like---insult their mother too while you're at it if you really think that'll help.  That isn't what I'm talking about.

      But if you are gonna make accusations about someone's motives because they criticize you or your pet theories, then you'd better be prepared to back up those accusations.  Or else STFU.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 02:10:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yo' mama (0+ / 0-)

        Civility is overrated.

        Of course, you realize that even though you're not a paid corporatist tool you're still a brainwashed dupe for buying into the whole "germ theory" CT?  

        Oh, and the Agency whose existence can be neither confirmed nor denied says you're in violation of all their unknown decency regs.  They will adjust your bank accounts accordingly, if and when they wish.

        Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

        by benamery21 on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:17:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm amazed at the number of times I see... (6+ / 0-)

    ...recurring names of a few people here, both in diary threads, and in the hiddens, who INVARIABLY say really rude shit to others, and as a result, I refuse to interact with these people.

    What's really surprising is the times I've found these same people waaay down some inch-wide thread in a set of comments responding to something I wrote, not responding to me or my comment, but arguing with or defaming some other person in the comment thread.

    My response to this us to avoid interacting with these people, I see that any discussion they are in turns into a pie fight or exchange of insults, and I'm not interested. So I never interact with them.

    I try VERY HARD to restrain my responses to people here, I don't come here to engage in animosity or SCREAM AT PEOPLE.

    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

    by leftykook on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 10:50:17 AM PDT

  •  With vast apologies to the Bard: (11+ / 0-)

    Neither a roxxor or a suxxor be,
    For cant oft loses both its point and view,
    And warfare dulls the pure civility,
    This above all: to thine own cause be true,
    And it must follow, as the rant the fray,
    Thou wilt not then be friend to any man.
    Stay, stay thine hand, in typing shrugs and sighs,
    Let not thy wit and clarity of thought,
    Make haste to trample out the muddy ground,
    Of baseless slanders uttered to affright,
    And bring the Revolution 'fore its time.
    Say on, say on, that base and ranting words,
    In mean thought spoken, should be for the birds.

    (in case it wasn't clear, I'm agreeing)

    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

    by serendipityisabitch on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 10:55:01 AM PDT

  •  calling for the banning of the "intolerant"? (3+ / 0-)

    that involves some heavy brain work since, you know, it would mean anyone calling for that would, himself, be banned.

    Better to not participate in the discussion.

    Dear NSA: I am only joking.

    by Shahryar on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 10:58:55 AM PDT

    •  yes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shahryar

      last night I wandered into one whose subject I've striven, yes striven, to stay away from, it was brutal

      today I left another for inexpert and harmful opinions, I hope to god some people don't have to see it

      so I ended again in the pootie diary, really those are more devious than you might expect

  •  yeah, the ideolouges (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buddabelly, Remembering Jello

    probably why i haven't seen the incredibly polite MarineChemist post here lately. Alternately, it is the busy season in academia I imagine. Also, I've been busy too.

    also too

    oh and i work at monsanto, chesapeake energy, the nsa, the cia, MI6, MI5, and DoD. :)

    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

    by terrypinder on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 10:59:18 AM PDT

  •  no problems with me... (0+ / 0-)

    I will always read and rec your Bucket diaries!

    All the suffering of this world arises from a wrong attitude.The world is neither good or bad. It is only the relation to our ego that makes it seem the one or the other - Lama Anagorika Govinda

    by kishik on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:22:09 AM PDT

  •  You will not tolerate this intolerance. (5+ / 0-)
    I will not tolerate this horse shit anymore, and I will HR it every time I see it, no matter who it comes from.
    Kudos to you for your declaration of intent to even-handedly enforce your customized version of this site's rules.

    To preempt a couple of possible responses:

    No, I'm not worried about being a potential target of your HRs, and no, I don't think you "work for the NSA."




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

    by DeadHead on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:47:47 AM PDT

  •  You know, it just might (3+ / 0-)

    have more to do with your beligerent 'style' of disagreement than with the simple fact of disagreement. If this diary is indicative, and it unfortunately is.

    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

    by Joieau on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:53:58 AM PDT

  •  Seems more destructive than constructive (7+ / 0-)
    I will not tolerate this horse shit anymore, and I will HR it every time I see it . . . This shit has to stop---it does nothing more than create unnecessary acrimony, it adds nothing to any debate or discussion . . .

    I see irony and hypocrisy in your words. When I've seen you in pie-fights, for every substantial comment, you made half a dozen mocking people you disagreed with.

    It took you six years on DKos before you rated anyone else's comments at all. Since then, you've HRed 18 and recced 1. You seem focused on the empty half of the glass.

    "Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth" Samuel Johnson

    by Brecht on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 12:01:32 PM PDT

    •  I've HRd 18 (0+ / 0-)

      All but a handful of them went to spam rock crusher diaries.

      Nearly all the rest were fore exactly what I point at in this diary---idiotic accusations that someone is a shill or a plant or a troll or a disruptor.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 12:11:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yet a very valid point has been made (7+ / 0-)

        HR are the sticks, Recs are the carrots; and you need both. If you want to foster civil disagreement you should be reccing at least those comments that civilly disagree with you, or others, in a debate.

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 12:36:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Recs can be abusive (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          phenry, i saw an old tree today

          and as Markos himself said, using recs to encourage bad behavior is worse than the bad behavior itself.

          KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

          by fcvaguy on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 12:58:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  as an aside, I never rec anything. since I've been (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HudsonValleyMark

          here.  I've uprated a few comments that got bullshit HRs, but all the rest have been accidental--if I click on the "comments" section of a diary before it has expanded, it registers as a "rec" instead.

          Mostly because all the forums I was on before I came to DK didn't have recs, so I never got into the habit of doing it. And I'm not sure I really like the whole "popularity contest" aspect of it.

          So if anyone wants to not rec any of my diaries or comments because of that, feel free. I understand completely.

          I prefer not to HR either (and our commenter neglected to mention that my 18 HRs were over a period of seven years--nearly all of them in just the last year (when the stone-crushing diaries started showing up).

          Perhaps some certain people would like to share with us how many HRs they have had in the past year or so . . . .

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 01:35:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you can use recs in other ways (3+ / 0-)

            Sometimes I'm the 75th rec on something, but I think most of my recs go to comments in the single digits. For me, they're a way of saying 'good post, even if I don't agree with all of it.' Looking for recworthy comments actually tends to improve my mood, unless I really don't think there are any, in which case — right or wrong — it's usually time to step away from the computer.

            But I totally understand about just not being in the rec habit.

            "Democracy is a political system for people who are not sure they are right." —E. E. Schattschneider

            by HudsonValleyMark on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 03:03:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I suppose I should at least make an effort to (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Brecht

              do it, since there are really so many very good diarists here. Since the political diaries are mostly just dueling dogpacks, I tend lately to stay out of them---but I do very much like the history, science, aviation, and nature diaries. And they do deserve to be acknowledged.

              I'll have to try to make the conscious effort to do so. But alas it quite frankly just isn't what I think about while I'm here--I prefer to just read and converse.

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 03:14:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  In my recent, and last, interaction (5+ / 0-)

      the aforementioned called me "Coward, loudmouth and full of shit,"  following up with the charming "Your ass should be bojo'd."

      Not very likely that an exchange can occur in such an environment.  

      It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

      by Radiowalla on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 12:48:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that is because our commenter here did (0+ / 0-)

        exactly what I condemn in this diary. Your comment was that "some people here would rather see a Republican get elected than Hillary"

        That is simply bullshit.  NOBODY here wants to elect Republicans.  Nobody. N-O-B-O-D-Y. And you are full of shit for claiming so.

        I asked you to back up your accusation by naming names--WHO here wants to see a Republican elected rather than Hillary. Put up or shut up.

        You waved your arms.

        That is indeed cowardly, loudmouthed and full of shit.

        I stand by that.

        And I should have HRd you for it.  It is exactly the kind of idiotic unsupported accusation I am talking about, made for the sole purpose of demonizing people you disagree with.

        It should not be tolerated here.

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 01:43:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am quite certain (0+ / 0-)

          that as 2016 approaches, there will be people here who believe that Hillary would be worse than whichever Republican gets nominated, and would gladly tell you so if asked. It's happened before. There won't be many of them, but they'll be here. I certainly don't think it would be inappropriate to point it out when it happens.

          •  feel free to point it out . . . (0+ / 0-)

            but be prepared to back up any accusation you make. And if you can't back it up, be prepared to swallow it.

            Making such an accusation WITHOUT backing it up, is cowardly.  And loudmouthed. And full of shit.

            PS--I find it impossible to believe that any serious member here would vote Gopper, no matter WHO the Dem nominee is.  Stay home, yes. Bitch and gripe to everyone within earshot about how awful the Dem nominee is, yes.  But vote Gopper?  I'd need to see that to believe it.

            Nobody is here to elect Republicans.  Nobody.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 03:07:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well now, let's be careful with our terms. (0+ / 0-)

              "Would rather see a Republican get elected than Hillary" is not the same thing as voting for the Republican (although if that means not voting at all, or voting for a third party, the end result is largely the same). What you are accusing Radiowalla of is not what she said.

              •  I see no difference (0+ / 0-)

                Nobody is here to see Republicans get elected. Nobody. Nobody here would rather see Mitt Romney as President than Obama.  Nobody. Anyone making such an accusation had better be prepared to name names.

                It's just a bullshit accusation made to stop people from criticizing something that the poster doesn't want to be criticized.

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 03:21:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  But you just said (0+ / 0-)

                  that you can imagine people staying home on Election Day but you can't imagine them voting for the Republican, so clearly you do make the distinction. And I think it's entirely fair to say that if someone here loudly proclaims that they'll stay home rather than vote for Hillary, that person "would rather see a Republican get elected than vote for Hillary."

                  •  and I don't think it fair at all (0+ / 0-)
                    I think it's entirely fair to say that if someone here loudly proclaims that they'll stay home rather than vote for Hillary, that person "would rather see a Republican get elected than vote for Hillary."
                    It's a protest against the Dem candidate, not a step FOR the Gopper.

                    You can argue that it's not smart or effective or a good idea. But that is NOT the same as arguing that the person wants Goppers to get elected.

                    Nobody here wants Goppers to get elected. Nobody.

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 03:34:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Don't pwersonalize this, Brecht. (0+ / 0-)

      Out with the gloomage - in with the plumage!

      by mikidee on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 01:30:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sheesh - "personalize" (0+ / 0-)

        Seriously - it doesn't help.

        Out with the gloomage - in with the plumage!

        by mikidee on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 01:33:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, it's completely out-of-bounds (0+ / 0-)

        To make it personal about a diarist who's written a meta diary about a bunch of people who've behaved in a manner he personally disapproves of, driving him to the point of creating his own personal HRing guideline, under the authority of which he will henceforth personally HR those personally-offending persons.  




        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

        by DeadHead on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 03:12:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Again? (6+ / 0-)

          Just once I would love to read something from you that's substantive instead of whiny/snarky/juvenile/fill-in-the-blank.

          And yes - I'm personalizing my response to your silly comment.

          See how helpful that is?

          Out with the gloomage - in with the plumage!

          by mikidee on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 03:25:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  like all ideologues, this particular posse thinks (0+ / 0-)

            that everything is about THEM.

            Actually this diary was sparked by the Bitcoins guy. and the anti-GMOer a few days ago.

            But it applies to ALL of the packdogs, on both sides. In a diary a couple days ago  I actually HRd people on BOTH sides of an argument for tossing the same kind of idiotic unsupported motive accusations--which naturally brought BOTH sides running at me screaming and yelling and waving their arms. (shrug)

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 03:50:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Please don't hold your breath while you wait. (0+ / 0-)

            While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 06:02:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  the one that used the term "eliminationist" (2+ / 0-)

    has been banned.

    KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

    by fcvaguy on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 12:48:06 PM PDT

  •  But I am the fount of Lightness! (0+ / 0-)

    I alone have The One Truth(tm)(c)!
    Is it my fault you can't see the self-evident rightness of my unassailable opinion?
    Can I help it that you can't see I am so obviously and self-evidently right?
    Is it my fault you are supporting the croporatist agenda (sic) (make that corporatist) agenda? NO!
    Believe me, it's hard to be fucking infallible!
    BTW, love your travelog and museum diaries, Lenny.

  •  Welcome to my side of the fence, Lenny. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LamontCranston, Kasoru

    I recommend you get comfortable.
    I don't think it's going to change.

    However, HR's are lame (outside of obvious situations ie racism, blatant insults, IMMA MAKING $80/hr!!!), if you don't like a comment just skip it or say something.

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 01:59:28 PM PDT

  •  i think a number of people do their own (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    serendipityisabitch, mikidee

    'causes'  and 'issues' a disservice  in the way they vent via diaries.
    for example, issues regarding privacy, civil rights, money influencing politics, governments overreaching, corruption, environmental issues, political candidates and races,  etc, etc are always useful when the the diarist  brings useful information to the forum, brings  new insight into the forum, and so on.
    i do not interpret what Kos has said as decrying or censoring anyone or anything  on this basis.( i know ,I know, drag out the disconnected quotes as your shield and sword).

    what i have seen are diaries that sound more like, "Dad took the car keys, cause he said we got drunk and trashed the place and now he won't give them back an now dad is a f--king corporatist pig and  I am really really, mad about this . so there!"
    Well,  Kos is not dad, and he didn't take anything, well  that wasn't already surrendered anyway.

    that's how they 'sound' or 'read' .
    in all seriousness, i probably agree on most issues with nearly everyone on this forum, and i like to think any disagreement can be healthy disagreement.

    unlike the diarist, it is NOT because i think others are wrong on issues. hell,i am often wrong.  what i think has been wrong headed is the misinterpretation of past events and the tendency to escalate and extrapolate beyond reasonable bounds. then the escalation and extrapolation is reinforced and further escalated and extrapolated, until people are spinning like tops. this has turned into a 'slam kos' fest, which is not only ugly but without grounds.

    maybe I err in contributing to  this, another vent diary, but i understand the frustration of this diarist.

    i will not read any diary on any issue that starts out with  a premise, that Kos is a corporatist, Kos has already decided the next election and will silence everyone who is therefor not a corporatist (see the mistake in both premise and  logic there?)Kos is fallible, I am not. and so on.

    I think the word 'corporatist' has been misapplied and misused to the extent it is no longer a valid or useful term.

    i also think that when people have been around for awhile , they believe they are at the center of the group universe , self appointed experts. We are,after all,  human and it is easy for us to get quite full of our own selves.
    just realize that there are many people who read this blog who have various opinions , which are valid..

     

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site