It's the dishonesty (and incivility) more than the volume

As DU struggles to find solutions to DU disease, it should be noted that no course of treatment is likely to succeed when the disease is woefully mis-diagnosed.

The biggest problem isn't just that people are rude or post too much, it is that they are dishonest. Too many people promote or support falsehoods in service of an Us-vs-Them mind-est.

Some apparent dishonesty is sincere delusion or ignorance, of course. Creationists say lots of things that are flatly false, but most of them believe what they say. On the other hand, some creationists willfully mis-quote and dishonestly excerpt the words of serous scientists to create false impressions. (Stephen Gould, and even Richard Dawkins, have been quoted to me by creationists, demonstrating that Darwin was "wrong", because Gould and Dawkins made refinements to Darwins original work... which is about as honest as citing the fact that Issac Newton was unaware of the existence of Pluto as a refutation of Newton's theories on the mechanical behavior of planets.)

We focus on the irresponsible posters, when the greater problem is the irresponsible repliers, who are often those who complain most loudly about DU's diseased state. Without the replies, these objectionable posts would sink without a trace. In that sense, kicking flame bait to say "this is flame bait" is, itself, flame bait, and flame-bait is often kicked 50 or 100 times!

How often have you seen this... Someone posts a lie, a category that includes ANYTHING intentionally misleading, and the lie is authoritatively refuted within the first three or four replies, but a hundred people go on to reply to the OP lie as true. That pattern suggests that many, many people who reply do not really care if the OP true or not... there is no "I wonder whether that's true?" process. This is because many people (on any side) tend to believe whatever they want to believe, and will accept absolutely anything that serves a psychological desire.

Why reply to a post to agree with refuted lies? The mechanism that should cause lies to sink--the collective integrity of the community--doesn't work. People replying to an OP don't enjoy a lesser standard of intellectual integrity, and a reply is a kick, so the focus on spam OPs is misplaced.

Flame bait that desn't even rise to the level of true or false is also endlessly kicked, and that is why the most worthless OPs dominate the top of the board."Obama sucks" is a flame-bait OP, no doubt, but that doesn't explain why such a post would garner 100 replies.

Also, why does management need to clean up GDP simply because the hand-wringers cannot take any responsibility for themselves? I can think of a few assholic posters who toss up 20 low-content, inflammatory posts every day. If I don't find their foolishness entertaining, I put them on ignore. Problem solved!

What is the psychological motive of someone who refuses to put their bete-noir posters on ignore, but supports those posters being post-limited, suspended or banned? Their argument is, "I could eliminate this stuff that offends me so much with the click of a button, but my real interest is not whether I see it, it is whether somebody else sees it. Isn't that always the way... James Dobson's people watch pornography 10 hours a day to document how harmful it is, but somehow it doesn't make Dobson's people slavering rapists. Their theory is that they can handle it, but they need to protect the weak-minded.

It's like parents who refuse to use their V-chip and spend all their time writing protest letters about the terrible stuff their kids see on TV.

A case study, getting back to the corrosive nature of dishonesty and--arguably even worse--nihilistic disdain for honesty as a concept:

Someone posted that on MSNBC Pat Buchanan had noted that Mike Dukakis was redefined between the primary and convention, and went from a 17% lead over GHW Bush to an 8% deficit by convention time. This datum is suggestive when discussing the utility of winter and spring head-to-head polling involving a largely undefined Change candidate.

There were several replies insulting the OP and dismissing the statement as "Buchanan's version of history."

Pat Buchanan does have a version of history, as do we all, but there are historical realities that are not susceptible to analysis by motive, or analysis by personality.

The numerical results of polls from 1988 are recorded and unchanging facts. They cannot (or should not) be subject to shouting down or dismissal. You can spin them, but you cannot wish them away.

It is a flat fact that Mike Dukakis had a GIGANTIC lead over George H W Bush in early polling, much later in the 1988 cycle than where we are today. And is is indisputable that once the Republicans went after him, Dukakis dropped well over 20% in polling between the primaries and the convention, and went on to a convincing defeat.

(There is no law saying everyone has to know that. But if a person is so ignorant of American electoral history that he doesn't even know that, what possible basis does he have for lecturing other people about electability?)

What happened to Mike Dukakis is so well known that I have to wonder whether some posters might have, when confronted with an inconvenient fact (not opinion), sought to keep others ignorant by attacking the source. (That's why "ad homonym" is classified as a logical fallacy, rather than just a breach of etiquette.)

What is the benefit of promoting falsehoods or shouting down truths on DU? Does it change the world, and if so, how? Do people see something to be gained from the world being a little more ignorant?

Incivility is a problem, but a factual statement about "Shillary" or "the Cult-ivator" is better than a lie about "Hillary" or "Barack."

CLOSING NOTE: What makes steps like the segregation of GPD or a GPD post limit so silly, in my mind, is that these expedients are so broad-brush process and irrelevant to the real problem. I have no idea why people who routinely use derisive nicknames for Democrats or their supporters are allowed to post at all. It would be a simple, easily understood rule, and actually is the rule, and always has been. (Adding new laws doesn't cure existing enforcement problems.)

A decision was made to let GDP fester by not enforcing the simple rules that have always been in place. Name-calling, personal attacks and accusations of trollery have all been accepted by the Mods (and thus adopted by many users, including myself, as the de facto rules of the road. I also speed during rush hour... if everyone is driving 70 I can either drive 70 or get off the road.)

So why then strain at the gnat of over-posting or worry whether some sensitive soul in GD cannot bear to see Democratic politics discussed in a community devoted to Democratic politics.

I recognize that the Mods don't have the time to police what GPD has become, and thus look to mechanical solutions like a post limit. But people here tend to follow the rules we take seriously, without much exterior moderation. (It's like Hockey. I have never seen a player fight a referee, despite having reasons to be mad at them, so why is it presumed that they cannot be prevented from fighting each other? The point is, the players know that hitting a referee is taken seriously. People here call each other "fuck-wit" and "nazi" but even obvious trolls seldom call other DUers ethnic slurs, because everyone knows that ethnic slurs are taken seriously.)

The mods should forcefully remind everyone that just because it's a primary, that childish slurs and personal attacks are not acceptable. Almost everyone would simply accept that new reality.

And users should take some responsibility and have the intellectual pride to not promote lies and intentional deceptions, no matter who seems to benefit. (You don't have to be a truth-squad, actively refuting all lies that serve your point of view... just don't join in the lie-parties when they erupt.)

Without those two things, there is no "process" solution.

by Hillary supporters.

One asked if I bathed even!

:sarcasm:

You are either with them, or
against the party.

Just ask Rahm Emanuel or
James Carville.