Pardon me, but nobody is censoring you.

Nobody is stifling debate. Nobody is shutting you up. The only people who could do any of those things are the mods. People disagreeing with you does not constitute an intrusion on your right to free speech. This is a political discussion board. People may offer viewpoints that do not adhere to your own. This should not be either shocking or offensive. Yet any time a debate arises regarding Barack Obama and his latest failure to act as some on the left would prefer, a considerable number of those who disagree with the President post a great many threads and posts complaining about the threads and the posts that are not complaining. I do not begrudge the threads mocking people who approve of--or are agnostic on--the decision at hand, nor do I begrudge the threads mocking people who prefer threads that are positive to threads that are negative. I do, however, strongly disagree with one recurring meta-argument: that DU is populated by bullies who censor anything resembling debate of Obama.

At the moment, there are 24 threads on the first page of GDP complaining either about Obama's decision or about people who are not complaining about Obama's decision. There are eight threads defending Obama's decision. (There is also my own, found at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8406505&mesg_id=8406505 , in which I briefly present my opinion and proceed to explain what I believe to be the simple political reasons he decided the way he did). The threads all contain, by my estimate, roughly 2/3 posters in agreement with the content of the thread at hand and 1/3 posters in disagreement. This is in no way indicative of censorship. Rather, it seems to be exactly what I would expect for a situation in which Obama has acted in a way that is contrary to the hopes and expectations of most on the left, but in a way for which plausible defenses could be constructed.

Everyone here claims to be a strong and unabashed supporter of open debate and dissent from popular opinion. Part of that, I believe, is the maturity to accept and acknowledge that others will disagree with your conclusions, and to be able to accept that others might disagree with you without in turn believing that others are attempting to revoke your right to believe what you wish to believe.

There's a crowd of people here that act like the peasants from Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail. ("I'm being oppressed! I'm being oppressed!")

of "oppression."

They may unconsciously be admitting that they're intimidated by a stronger argument. They may really feel unable to proceed with their own.

"We have to fight the terrible oppression suffered by white, male, heterosexual Christians in America today".

Stop trying to censor him/her/it!

The pretense that effectively presenting a contrary view constitutes 'stifling debate' is risible: making the claim is, of course, simply a junior-league passive-aggressive attempt at shutting off expression of views the manipulator making the attempt does not want to hear. In other words, it is only employed by persons who are themselves trying to censor their opponents.

:hide:

I can't stand the popularity of the notion that mere exposure to disagreement is somehow a threat or an attack. My admittedly quite limited time teaching so far reinforces the hell out of that.

:evilgrin: :loveya:

:thumbsup:

how dare you undermine those martyrs to TRUTH.

k&r.

... to refrain from referring to folks who aren't as hero worshippers.

Because THIS is what they're sounding like.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg

My opinions are just as informed and thought out as anyone else's .... Those not mad at the President are no more blind hero worshippers than were those who ARE mad at him were when that commercial ran. The hero worship snip was a lame come back when McCain did it and it's even more lame when WE do it.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to return to my genuflection of my Obama Chia head statue.

Ch-ch-ch-CHIA!

... MINE HAS A GIANT HOLE IN THE TOP!!!!

....... TUCKER!!!!!!!

(and can you believe I missed the second half of Gibbs' briefing yesterday looking for that cat who was "missing" under my bed)

ghastly "sychophants" which I alerted on in another thread.

Prez Obama is a hero and while I don't worship him or anything else..I do appreciate his contribution to our country.

But, I won't think less of you because of your whole Chia head thing you got goin' on;)

.... the simple fact that I cant bring myself to throw it away DESPITE it being broken .... I think I need counseling ..... NOT water boarding ... counseling. ;)

Very well said.

People fuss about "poutrage" but I'd love for "messiah" and/or "worshipper" to be the No-No word around here. If for no other reason that it makes the person using it, and not the person to whom the word is addressed, sound like an utter fool.

TERRORIST FIST BUMP!!!! :toast:

(whoops, wrong one!)

:fistbump:

to go fuck themselves.

(just kidding)

Actually, when counting, I saw my thread there, and wasn't sure how to classify it. I considered skipping it as an interested party, but then thought it would make the context of this post clearer if I were to provide a link to my full thoughts on the matter.

:thumbsup:

:applause:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:dunce:

this post will be soon populated by members of the Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Outrage - Always Oppressed parish.

One of the reasons that I'm now spending a lot of time over at Science Blogs.

:rofl:

And I am free to defend my post, and you are free to defend your rebuttal, and so on and so forth. That would be why we're here, no?

the incestuous complaints are just precious

It's regrettable that some people repeatedly let their desire to express their opinions in as strong and as forceful a manner as possible outweigh their desire to participate in civil conversation in the manner they agreed to when they signed up on this board. It is true the mods have censored those people in accordance with the rules of this site.

Be that as it may, I don't really see what that has to do with this thread. In fact, as I point out in the OP, more threads are criticizing than are defending--by a ratio of three to one--so any claim that your position is not well represented on this board is a claim that is not founded in reality.

I am a mother of a 3 year old AND a 4 year old. I am used to being ignored/yelled at. I guess some have no tolerance for it.

You are projecting. And assuming something from whatever your think I'm responding to in whatever you're OP is talking about.

The Forum has become an echo chamber and you're fighting with YOURSELVES and imagined adversaries and bad imitations, when those who might have offered some actual balance have bowed out.

:hi: :spray:

2/3 of the members are vociferously promoting one position, 1/3 of the members are promoting the other, and claim that this is an example of an echo chamber? That would be the most discordant echo I've ever heard. DU is probably the least intellectually homogeneous it's been in its entire existence.

(Come to think of it, the fact that the majority of the people who have been tombstoned would fall into the 2/3 majority on this issue makes your claim that their removal constitutes the foundation of an echo chamber doubly absurd.)

else.

You repeatedly say "Board" which is wrong and intentionally obtuse?

You pretend this is about "removal" and the the point is people don't want to come in HERE.

And NOW that the reduction in temperment and opinion is thick and gloppy, you're all getting stuck in it and flinging it at each other.

Just a peek in the sandbox is sufficient.

Watch out for the bullies!!!!! :yoiks:

what you're trying to convey, and failing. Either you don't have a solid grasp of English writing, you're under the influence of mind-altering chemicals, or you're operating from references I don't understand. Whichever it is, I can't begin to comprehend what this post means, nor do I understand why my previous interpretations of your posts are flawed.

I don't know what "'board' is wrong and intentionally obtuse" means. I really don't. This is a board. I thought we were talking about the board "Democratic Underground." I don't understand your complaint.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "you pretend this is about 'removal.'" I am confused. Looking at your post, I think you said this board is an echo chamber because some people are no longer here. I took this to mean the tombstoning of people. I am guessing you are trying to say that people have left because they do not like the environment here. I do not really understand what this has to do with anything in my OP, nor do I understand what this has to do with claims of an echo chamber.

Again, I do not understand how a political board that is currently wracked by fractious infighting over political issues could be called an "echo chamber." I don't see how the voluntary turnover in this board's membership would apply to this discussion.

I don't understand your claim, "people don't want to come in HERE." I'm getting much higher latency from DU now than I did a week ago. It seems to me like many people want to come in here and debate at the moment.

Above all, I don't understand what any of this has to do with my original point about claims of censorship. I'd like to be able to have a conversation with you about this, but I really am having quite a bit of difficulty interpreting what you're trying to say.

And a soda. And then somewhere comfortable to sit back to watch this thread. I've spent so much time and effort trying to have the same conversation with some of the same characters and have consistently failed to make any headway. Occam, it's somewhere between entertaining and gratifying to see you give it a try with a bit more eloquence and truckloads more civility than I can usually manage.

Just for the record, unless I say otherwise, I'll be sitting here reading, nodding and grinning. Especially at honest, rational, incredibly familiar thoughts like this -- "Either you don't have a solid grasp of English writing, you're under the influence of mind-altering chemicals, or you're operating from references I don't understand."

Exactly why people don't want to come in here and deal with all the crap my posts (and the one at the top of the subthread) suggest.

Congratulations!! :toast:

I like to think I'm a better writer than most (who doesn't?), but there have been many, many times I've failed to convey what I thought at the time of writing was a very clear point. Sometimes you need to try to go over your own words with fresh eyes, and try to imagine how someone might misinterpret or might fail to understand what you've said. I get the feeling that you're writing from a perspective in which you assume that others will understand what you say. I think it's usually a better idea to assume that they won't, and go out of your way to assure that you will be understood.

When you're writing, you frequently engage in what I would call rhetorical leaps: you skip over background, justification, reasoning, or explanation of claims, leaving only stark and naked sentences you believe will convey complex ideas in a punchy format. Rather than explain what you mean in a dull but clear form, you prefer to assemble what I am sure you believe are a collection of pithy phrases. However, each phrase is left overloaded with more meaning than the words can successfully carry, and it becomes impossible for anyone who does not already think as you do to divine anything but a vague approximation of your intent. The formula for success in writing comprehensibly doesn't involve how many rhetorical leaps you can get away with. It's all about making as few leaps as possible, while writing as few words as possible.

I'm not a great writer. But I can at least tell comprehensible prose from incomprehensible, and you're sitting at the wrong end of that spectrum.

In the same spirit as some others chase after loose women or cannot stay away from race tracks. There is no help for it....

By your definition, is that censoring your right to speak up? Or is it just unpleasant? Because this thread isn't about things-omega-minimo-finds unpleasant. Like, for instance, matters brought into threads that weren't in the OP. Which I happen to know, omega minimo finds particularly displeasing.

"Master bait
Posted by omega minimo"

It is my turn now, right? Because this *is* just a friendly game of name-the-other-person between buddies? Because if it is, I'm up for it. Actual name-calling would, of course, be against forum rules.

Which play gets me more points this turn? General Confusion? Admiral Attempts-at-oppression? Oberleutnant Overreaction?

You confused me with the title "Master." And the lack of context. If you're only calling the situation "Master bait," I will take my turn and call it "Grand Inquisitor Piffle, Man About Town."

:shrug:

:thumbsdown:

I think both sides are reducing the other to stereotypes "Naderites! Right-wing Framing! Etc." instead of understanding what they are saying.

The first post in the subthread, to which I replied, not to the OP (perhaps you overlooked that) said:

20. "One of the reasons that I'm now spending a lot of time over at Science Blogs."

My reply was about a resounding echo chamber.

2 (someone spending time elsewhere) + 2 (the chamber is echoing!) = 4. People leaving and not coming back = Echo Chamber. Voila!


And after you projected some "claim that your position is not well represented on this board" BS strawman, I clarified for you:

"I do not have a "position." You are projecting. And assuming something from whatever your think I'm responding to in whatever you're OP is talking about.

"The Forum has become an echo chamber and you're fighting with YOURSELVES and imagined adversaries and bad imitations, when those who might have offered some actual balance have bowed out."

** (Having bowed out and popped in just for a moment, was not involved in whatever other threads and dramas your OP referred to. It's still ironic.)

** Can't get much more clear than that OC. In fact, two other posts expressing bemusement at the ironically echoing angst were promptly subjected to deletion by one of the most vicious gatekeepers. So, the previous clarity was quite specific enough.

** I had to correct your repeated ("confused") use of "board" and rereading this now find I had already said, "The Forum has become an echo chamber..."

** Then pretending to be baffled and cook up insults and critique my writing -- and then do it AGAIN -- instead of just read the posts until you comprehend the words, what are you PLAYING AT? :thumbsdown:

** Two Americas has got it right and his parody is pretty good:

Two Americas
#52 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8408358

#48 OC responds that "mocking and ridicule......

"They are not "suppressive tactics;" they are natural human responses to viewpoints the speaker finds absurd and can be found in literally any forum on literally any topic."

** They may be "natural human responses" and here they are used as bully tactics too often and make the topdog/clique look bad, not the target. Anyone familiar with the Forum claiming that's not true is delusional and/or involved.

"People are "banned and effectively silenced" here, but not for their political views (conservatives of course excepted) but rather for how they go about promoting those views. Communists and moderate Democrats and everything in between can all be found here, so long as they choose to obey the rules they agreed to obey when they joined."

** Due to those topdog/clique tactics, that statement is disingenuous. The bullies don't play by the Rules; they just get away with disrespecting and tagteaming whoever they deem fair game. So be it. Like Two America's says, though, don't pretend otherwise.

Two Americas #49
"If you do not think that re-baiting, attacking the messenger (she supported Clinton! Or she is a Naderite!!) - and by that I mean the clear implication that whatever the person says is to be discredited because of what they supposedly "are" - and the dozens of other little tricks people use here to disrupt and shut down discussions are attempts at suppressing freedom of speech and controlling the discussion - the only ways available to people, and the exact way that the right wingers use to shut down discussions - then so be it. We cannot talk about something that you deny even exists, and you are free to have your opinion about that."

"It is the confusion that is the problem, the tab in the back, the being wounded in the house of your friends. Baiting, tricking, deceiving and maneuvering to entrap people, to make them stumble, to break up the attention that the audience here may be giving them, to discredit them - that is not the expression of a political point of view, it is a set of tactics for winning a rhetorical war. I think you will probably win here, will probably prevail."

** OC, some are here to "win" and some are here for discussion. Two different things, esp. in this Forum. Many of the people who are engaged, intelligent and informed, more interested in the less pop culture version of events will head here. The tone is set. And many head right out again. Some stay and have their heads handed to them. "Rhetorical War I -- Discussion 0. Yay topdog tagteam!!!"

Two Americas:
"Meanwhile, some honesty and clarity would be all I would ever hope for. I don't understand the position you and a handful of others here - a small handful that controls and dominates the discussion - take."

** So some of the supersmart who like to win and dominate drive out those who are bored with topdogging and who fills in the gaps? Phonies! Who play the role of "far far far far left" with talking point drivel, egging on the gatekeepers and arbiters of What Deserves To Be Discussed, whipping their passions and deepening their divisive points of view, later to be inflicted on others, actual "left" DUers who have nothing to DU with whatever trash the faux DUers dumped in here.

** It's a lose lose.

** Nobody wins.


OC
"In the OP I stated a position on a meta-narrative in DU, and as context linked to my position on the issue around which the meta-discussion revolves."

** That's the meta tone set here.

OC
"It is true, though, that I needle more people on the left than on the right of this forum. That is not because I bear any particular animosity towards the left. Rather, it is because on a left-wing board, purists and reflexive ideologues are more likely to be on the left than to be in the middle, reflexive purism is at odds with (and, on principle, despises) pragmatism, and I believe pragmatism is necessary to accomplish anything beyond the symbolic level."

** Two things. One is, if you drive out real voices and are tricked by the false ones, then your own misperceptions are reinforced.

** Two: Part of the arrogance that is problematic here is the self appointed who decide based on their own criteria what WILL BE ALLOWED TO DISCUSS. Some "pragmatists" will hijack an entire thread to pound their notion that only THEIR pragmatism is worthwhile and nothing else is worth consideration, discussion or basic respect.

** That's not censorship, no.

OC:
"My position is that disagreement is not suppression of speech, even if it is mocking in tone, and even if it involves ad homs. I think that despite your attempts at martyrdom, you actually do agree with me."

Some would prefer to discuss without the mocking and ad homs, or insults like "your attempts at martyrdom." That sounds remarkably like something a bully would say.

*

Your critique of my writing reflects some of it. If you had read any of my OPs you know how clear I can be. If you find cryptic statements or unwillingness to clarify on demand, look around and see if you can spot any bullies badgering me. Because no, I will not respond well to being belligerently ordered to "fight" some asshole. The conversation ends when the bullying begins.

Expressing disagreement with you is bullying.

Disagreement with you is the product of a clique which controls the forum.

'Real' voices agree with you; 'false' voices do not.

or MAAM after the FIRST request that you drop the belittlements.

Thank you.




Edit:

Oh I See Why You Would Prefer Folks Not Read For Themselves (that's not censorship, Certainly):

"...Who play the role of "far far far far left" with talking point drivel, egging on the gatekeepers and arbiters of What Deserves To Be Discussed..."

"Part of the arrogance that is problematic here is the self appointed who decide based on their own criteria what WILL BE ALLOWED TO DISCUSS. Some "pragmatists" will hijack an entire thread to pound their notion that only THEIR pragmatism is worthwhile and nothing else is worth consideration, discussion or basic respect."

Indeed.

Here's the Cliff Notes version, which put the lie to The Mag Arbitered Version of Reality:

** OC, some are here to "win" and some are here for discussion. Two different things, esp. in this Forum. Many of the people who are engaged, intelligent and informed, more interested in the less pop culture version of events will head here. The tone is set. And many head right out again. Some stay and have their heads handed to them. "Rhetorical War I -- Discussion 0. Yay topdog tagteam!!!"

Two Americas:
"Meanwhile, some honesty and clarity would be all I would ever hope for. I don't understand the position you and a handful of others here - a small handful that controls and dominates the discussion - take."

** So some of the supersmart who like to win and dominate drive out those who are bored with topdogging and who fills in the gaps? Phonies! Who play the role of "far far far far left" with talking point drivel, egging on the gatekeepers and arbiters of What Deserves To Be Discussed, whipping their passions and deepening their divisive points of view, later to be inflicted on others, actual "left" DUers who have nothing to DU with whatever trash the faux DUers dumped in here.

** It's a lose lose.

** Nobody wins.

** Two things. One is, if you drive out real voices and are tricked by the false ones, then your own misperceptions are reinforced.

** Two: Part of the arrogance that is problematic here is the self appointed who decide based on their own criteria what WILL BE ALLOWED TO DISCUSS. Some "pragmatists" will hijack an entire thread to pound their notion that only THEIR pragmatism is worthwhile and nothing else is worth consideration, discussion or basic respect.

** That's not censorship, no.

OC:
"My position is that disagreement is not suppression of speech, even if it is mocking in tone, and even if it involves ad homs. I think that despite your attempts at martyrdom, you actually do agree with me."

Some would prefer to discuss without the mocking and ad homs, or insults like "your attempts at martyrdom." That sounds remarkably like something a bully would say.



The conversation ends when the bullying begins.

I get to feel somewhat flattered and important while I agree with the point you've made (which, by the way, I do). It's like having cake with my ice cream.

Well said, sir. Well said.

I mean, technically speaking? I'm not ready to say that it isn't, because I have faith that somebody who knows so many words may at some point be able to string a few together in a logical way. I'm almost certain, though, with the inclusion of "congratulating," it becomes logistically impossible to be or do all of those at once. At the very least, I'd say it's improbable.

I guess it's possible that you don't mean that we were guilty of all those accusations at once. But then, according to what you've written before, you would have had to point out instances where posters were being or doing each of the three, or find yourself facing the problem of having to confront yourself with cries of "But that's not happening here!"

You are complex minimo. Yet, I strive to understand you.

Post a topic or comment on a thread and it is minimo's job to decide whether it's worthy of a thread. If minimo finds a topic beyond minimo's world view, minimo will storm in -- Hurricane Thesaurus -- to bury the topic in a wind-borne tsunami of indignation, hypocrisy and semi-alliterative word lists.

You call out bullies, but then what are your posts but attempts to decide what can and can't happen in the schoolyard? You decry soemthing you call degrees of "censorship" but use every word at your disposal to try to disallow entire threads. You discredit, name-call and belittle, then play the oppressed and usually perform one scene-ending monologue whereby you finally...(gasp)...succumb..(pant...wheeze)...to the slings and arrows....(cough)...of the evil...(stagger)...aligned against you....(dramatic collapse, and curtain!).

(eye opens to survey the stage..final leg spasm...silence)

Where I begin to post randomness in an effort to be as counter-productive and/or irrelevant as the posts I'm answering. The theory goes like this -- if you insist on posting things like "you really need to use your own words if you're going to try to make a point," I may as well respond with surreality. Today's selection is from a fan tribute site for the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical "Cats." Fair warning, though: I've taken some of the names and replaced them with car parts. Please enjoy.

"Carburetor is a beautiful young tabby kitten who, according to the story, is attending her very first Crankshaft Ball. Her name means "Sump". It is said that Carburetor was born under a full moon, so she is the most clairvoyant of all the cats and can understand what is trying to say through her simple words and her sweet singing voice. Her best Crankshaft friends are Victoria, Etcetera and Oil Pan, is a fan of the Rum Tum Tugger like all the other kittens (though not as much as Etcetera), and she is very lucky to have Windshield Wiper as a protector! She (along with Victoria) is the first to accept Grizabella for who she is. In North America, Carburetor is known as Passenger Seat, but has gained a lot of popularity since the release of the highly successful video."

:rofl:

on me.

For getting sucked into this. After being bemused by the self inflicted angst that now has just gone off the scale.

The post you replied to is the one that I did try to clarify for the OP what he pretended (?) to be confused about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8408358&mesg_id=8411601

Followed by Professor Pompous' Cliff Notes version of my post.

What a waste all of this is.

So many smart people, acting so stupidly.

and you almost always perpetrate it on yourself. but I'm love, love, loving watching you twist and turn. not to mention getting schooled.

you always perpetrate it on yourself

and you are far more venemous than I. And yeah, I like calling you on your hypocrisy and your nastiness. I don't deny that for a second. But wow, your sanctimonious cognitive dissonance is impressive. you are a real peace of work, dear. fascinating.

:toast:

I stand by my intention and efforts and (unedited by malicious posters) words.


Your behavior speaks for itself.

but do continue, it's most amusing. weak, but funny as hell.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That has to be one of the strangest questions I have read on DU.

:rofl:

Unless you have breast implants!

That's at least as obnoxious as anything claimed of other posters by the OP.

"59. DU could use a lot less of the shit in your post, too."

Come on. Evolve a little.

Which is as lacking in context as it is a functioning understanding of evolution. Perhaps you should go back to popcorn posts.

Let's call that "progress" and call it a day. Tomorrow we'll work on the concepts of hypocrisy and civility. If you make another leap like today, we maybe even touch on metaphor.

:eyes:

Nice acting put off after that garbage you posted. Shuffle off.

Rather like the Puritans not truly seeking religious freedom per se, they only wanted THEIR religion.

"Freedom for me! Not for thee!" should be their motto.

Do not listen to "them!!" Do not take "them" seriously!! We know how "they" are!! Be suspicious of "them," do not take anything "they" say at face value.

You do not want people to listen to those critics, and every time they try to speak you will keep reminding people over and over and over in the most aggressive and malicious terms, how they are all beneath contempt and have nothing whatsoever of any value to say, and no one should ever agree with them or you will go after THEM with the same attacks and smears.

And that explains exactly how there is no effort going on to shut down the discussion, at silencing or intimidating any voices, or preventing certain subjects from getting a fair hearing and honest consideration.

Listen up people if you know what is good for you! None of those things are happening here. Do not think that they are. Do not say that they are, or you will be attacked and ridiculed and your experience here will be made so miserable that you will just give up and stop trying, leave, or fight back and get banned.

But none of that is happening. I dare you to say otherwise.

there is no effort going on to shut down the discussion.

there is no effort going on to shut down the discussion.

there is no effort going on to shut down the discussion.

And oh will you ever be sorry if you try to disagree with that. There are a few who will burn down the meeting house rather than to lose that debate, and then blame YOU for the fire. Count on that.



...

I am sick of being labeled a "blind follower". I am most certainly not and it ticks me off to be labeled as such.

to come into contact with a vigorous defense of a progressive Democratic President on a progressive Democratic political discussion board, doing so is automatic labelling as a 'corporate' apologist.

"People disagreeing with you does not constitute an intrusion on your right to free speech."

That is the best point made all day. I want the photos released but healthy debate on all sides is well, healthy.

I do not expect them to be released, and I am not angry that Obama will not be releasing them. I am disappointed, but I think Obama's decision is understandable even if I would prefer he decide otherwise. I think it would be healthy for America to understand what evils can be committed when it decides to abandon morality in pursuit of "security," but I think there are many issues that eclipse that particular one for the time being.

I want them released but understand how hard it was for him to come to this decision. Obviously some here use it to fit into their view of Obama as being nothing better then Bush or only slightly better. I think Obama takes his role as CIC extremely seriously, a lot more than Bush ever did.

The only thing I'd add is that none of us know the full scope of the situation that Obama does, or what his long term plans may be.

I love you :loveya:

...no errors. Logic and common sense are alive and well. Thanks.
quickesst

the good thing is the longer it goes on, the easier it is to understand where individual posters are coming from. I've been trying to avoid logging in lately. That way I can read but have to go back and log in to respond. Nothing good comes from the nonsense, and my whole foray into politics is an attempt to do something humane, something worthwhile, something positive. I don't want to be what I see.

:kick: and REC'D!!!

No one can out and out silence anyone here, so people are subjected to personal attacks and disruption, mocking and ridicule. There is a small number of people who have refined those suppressive tactics - the only ones available to them, and they hardly get any credit for not using methods that are not available to them. Although, as you point out, the tide is turning as people get more and more determined to be heard, so the attempts at controlling and shutting down a free and open discussion are not as effective lately as they have been in the past.

And people are banned and effectively silenced. And left wing points of view are shut out from access to major media.


...

to censorship, nor is it limited to either side of any argument. They are not "suppressive tactics;" they are natural human responses to viewpoints the speaker finds absurd and can be found in literally any forum on literally any topic. Whether the topic is politics, motorcycles, video games, baseball teams, military history, or any other field in which people may disagree, they will disagree in more or less the same manners. Disagreement is not cause for alarm, even when that disagreement is sarcastic.

People are "banned and effectively silenced" here, but not for their political views (conservatives of course excepted) but rather for how they go about promoting those views. Communists and moderate Democrats and everything in between can all be found here, so long as they choose to obey the rules they agreed to obey when they joined.

I agree about the major media, but that really doesn't pertain to a discussion about censorship on Democratic Underground.

We talk about it or we don't. Doesn't matter to me.

You are framing the issue in such a way that your conclusion is inevitable. If you do not think that re-baiting, attacking the messenger (she supported Clinton! Or she is a Naderite!!) - and by that I mean the clear implication that whatever the person says is to be discredited because of what they supposedly "are" - and the dozens of other little tricks people use here to disrupt and shut down discussions are attempts at suppressing freedom of speech and controlling the discussion - the only ways available to people, and the exact way that the right wingers use to shut down discussions - then so be it. We cannot talk about something that you deny even exists, and you are free to have your opinion about that.

If you do not think that this effort is directed at the Left, and always defends the more conservative positions, or supports and promotes the rulers, the politicians, and the powerful, then you are certainly free to hold that position as well.

Those of us claiming that there is an ongoing effort going on here to shut down a free and open discussion could of course be wrong about that. But you are not meeting our argument fairly and honestly. You are characterizing as other than it is, and then insisting that we debate it on those terms. That would be a clever way to....to what? To preclude the consideration of a point of view you do not want to be expressed or heard by people, by setting the debate up in such a way that that opinion is preemptively excluded or discredited. Hmmmm....

So, given the careful and restrictive way you are defining suppression of freedom of speech, the answer to your question is "no, there is no suppression of speech going on." There is no other possible answer. You made sure of that.

I think the problem, Occam, is that you are not a leftist so you are not sympathetic to the political ideas of the Left. You spend most of your time here badgering and attacking people on the Left and all left wing ideas. I know that you deny that, because you want to think of your opinions as the only legitimate alternatives to the right wing, and see your adversaries not as the Left but as something irrational, or extremist, or not to be considered as legitimate. That is fine. You are no required to be a leftist nor to hold left wing political views. I wouldn't see you as the enemy because of that, or treat you with disrespect and deception and attacks.

It is the confusion that is the problem, the tab in the back, the being wounded in the house of your friends. Baiting, tricking, deceiving and maneuvering to entrap people, to make them stumble, to break up the attention that the audience here may be giving them, to discredit them - that is not the expression of a political point of view, it is a set of tactics for winning a rhetorical war. I think you will probably win here, will probably prevail. Meanwhile, some honesty and clarity would be all I would ever hope for. I don't understand the position you and a handful of others here - a small handful that controls and dominates the discussion - take. "I am a leftist, don't try to say otherwise, and I spend all of my time attacking the left and am a worse adversary of theirs than any Republican could ever be." I don't get that. Obviously, if you have your way the Democratic party becomes more conservative and moves to the right. So be it. As I said, you will probably win. The Democratic party may well become the conservative party in the country, the Republican party may collapse, and a new pro-Labor true left wing party may emerge.

Do we have to keep lying and pretending about this, though? It is getting so tiresome, so predictable, so unrewarding. Can't you just say where you stand, say what you want, and debate the merits of that out in the open honestly and clearly? What would be the harm?

But as I said, I don't really care anymore. There is nothing to debate in your OP. You say that given that there is no suppression of free speech here, then do people think there is suppression of free speech here? If you can draw people in to a debate on your terms, then I guess you would "win." But let's not pretend that it is an innocent question or an honest debate.


...

I'm going to first concentrate on the last few paragraphs and work backwards. I think your last paragraph represents a profound misunderstanding of the concept of debate. I am not asking whether there is suppression of free speech. I am emphatically not asking whether there is censorship. I am advancing the thesis that there is no censorship by non-moderator DUers, I am providing a justification for that thesis, and you are free to either agree with the thesis or disagree with it, however you see fit. Declaring a clear, unambiguous position and then opening the floor, so to speak, is a legitimate form of discussion on an internet forum.

Given that I am not asking but rather am declaring that DUers are not suppressing each others' speech, I am confused as to your request I "say where I stand, say what I want, and debate the merits of that out in the open honestly and clearly." I am quite confused by that, in fact, because I was under the impression I was doing exactly that. In the OP I stated a position on a meta-narrative in DU, and as context linked to my position on the issue around which the meta-discussion revolves. No questions were asked of anyone. I hid behind no rhetorical device. I did not post a poll, I did not ask a question, I did not create an analogy, I did not complain that people who disagree with me are servants to an agenda. I did not do anything of the sort. In the OP and the OP linked by this OP, I stated an issue and my position on that issue, and I stated a meta-issue and my position on that meta-issue. I do not think you can get more open and honest than that.

I do not appreciate your attempt to play arbiter of what is left and what is not. I strongly believe you will not be able to find an issue on which a reasonable person would not find my position (that is to say, what I would believe to be the ideal state) to be that of the political left. When it comes to policy, I am a socialist. You and I differ primarily on tactics. I am concerned with what is feasible, with what is possible, with how we might best martial our significant but yet limited resources to advance the best agenda possible. I believe you find such concerns to be excuses for inaction. It is true, though, that I needle more people on the left than on the right of this forum. That is not because I bear any particular animosity towards the left. Rather, it is because on a left-wing board, purists and reflexive ideologues are more likely to be on the left than to be in the middle, reflexive purism is at odds with (and, on principle, despises) pragmatism, and I believe pragmatism is necessary to accomplish anything beyond the symbolic level.

As for your opening salvo? Here's where I turn around your claim of disingenuous argument. I find it astoundingly hypocritical that you would complain I tried to set up a discussion on favorable terms. My post was an unambiguous statement of position, to be either accepted or denied on its own terms. You request a "discussion"--but one that by your framing silently takes your argument as an assumption. I would ask that you take your own advice and stake out a claim. If you wish to say that disagreement is tantamount to suppression of speech, then say so and defend that claim. Say where you stand, etc., etc. Don't beg the question.

My position is that disagreement is not suppression of speech, even if it is mocking in tone, and even if it involves ad homs. I think that despite your attempts at martyrdom, you actually do agree with me. After all, you spent a great bulk of your post claiming that I am insufficiently liberal, that I am an anti-left attack dog, that I stab backs and attack people in their homes, that I am a liar, etc., etc. If you seriously believed that discrediting a messenger was censorship, and that censorship was wrong, then why did you spend the majority of a post ostensibly supporting that viewpoint deliberately attempting to discredit a messenger? And if such behavior suppressed speech, why has my speech not been suppressed despite your apparent best efforts?

in other threads at other times when I reminded 2A that he and I agree on ends and goals and only disagree on tactics and means and clearly stated that I am a socialist he pretty much dismissed it and continued accusing me of perpetuating right-wing propaganda and framing. It's maddening and I really don't know how to reason with him. It's the typical problem of the paranoid ideologue, they interpret any criticism as propaganda, a kind of circular reasoning that is the basis of a lot of bad thinking.

are very strong, and in a TRUE Democracy we ALL should be heard WITHOUT recrimination. But I too see a certain "adoration" going on here that would NOT have been accepted in ANY WAY if we were talking about BFEE!! So let everyone speak their own mind, but there will be many of us who remember those who call others or ourself certain names!

And of course, as usual... JMHO!!

I agree. Which is part of the reason I abhor the recent trend of claiming that any disagreement with or challenge to anyone's statement is an attempt to "silence."

so much infighting. Silence IS NOT GOLDEN, yet let there be civility too!

And that is essentially the problem, many are paranoid and assume that criticism must be part of some great conspiracy to silence the Progressive Left, and thus criticism, even constrict criticism, is violently and irrationally lashed out at.

Yet disingenuousness covers many more causes for alarm and "censorship" by degree.

There is no serious interest in an honest and open debate. The smear campaign was challenged, no one was baited into making intemperate responses, and their opponents were making too many telling points. So this effort is abandoned - dropped like a hot potato - only to be started up yet again from a new angle on another thread, and repeated again and again and again and again. The message is always the same - those critics are to be maligned and discredited, they are fringe, they are lunatic, they are expressing "faux outrage," they are "tearing down the party," they are purists, reds, impatient, unrealistic, Naderites, impractical, have a hidden agenda (which is "proved" by insinuation and character assassination) - anything goes when it comes to smearing us.

The whole charade is getting so old now.


...

To think you hold such power as to control the debate on DU. At least it is a power you ascribe to me as well. But let us leave such delusions aside.

You appear to be claiming triumph: you have, in your mind, exposed me as a flawed messenger and claim that as a result the thread carrying my speech will die. It's very telling that you said that. Telling because it suggests you actually do believe that disagreeing with someone is censorship, and telling because you have absolutely no qualms with attempting to squelch the speech of those with whom you disagree.

It is fortunate that disagreement is not in fact censorship. I would not wish to place the ability to suppress speech in hands so eager to suppress as your own.

Nicely played, sir.

Oh, fragile Ego, how much damage you do!!

How important it is for you to see this as another "rhetorical war" to win, rather than what seemed obvious to me in that post: resignation, maybe even sadness.

Maybe my view is due to my blind spot: I see the potential here. I see the potential for meeting of minds and value it much more than "winning" through verbal pettiness hiding behind a screen.

The battles the smart ones perpetuate also "censors" those voices of so many with less confidence in writing skills, that have a lot to offer and could probably kick the asses of all the sick bullies DU could provide.

Different perspectives. How self important to read these words and assume it's ALL ABOUT YOU.

"There is no serious interest in an honest and open debate. The smear campaign was challenged, no one was baited into making intemperate responses, and their opponents were making too many telling points. So this effort is abandoned - dropped like a hot potato - only to be started up yet again from a new angle on another thread, and repeated again and again and again and again. The message is always the same - those critics are to be maligned and discredited, they are fringe, they are lunatic, they are expressing "faux outrage," they are "tearing down the party," they are purists, reds, impatient, unrealistic, Naderites, impractical, have a hidden agenda (which is "proved" by insinuation and character assassination) - anything goes when it comes to smearing us."

Oh look! The above bit is zackly what The Mag tried to smear me with above. :spray: It's all about ME!!!


IMHO Two Americas agrees with me and my read is the correct one. He is not "claiming triumph."

He may be resigned (or not) and discouraged at how trying to foster discussion here is always like salmon swimming upstream to spawn, struggling against a torrent of topdogging.....

"....you have, in your mind, exposed me as a flawed messenger and claim that as a result the thread carrying my speech will die."

The effort to discuss will die but the the dissing will live to see another day. Those who shush and shut out others will continue to tell themselves that harsh discussion techniques are necessary and those who object in favor of civil behavior are "looking to be offended."

'It's very telling that you said that. Telling because it suggests you actually do believe that disagreeing with someone is censorship, and telling because you have absolutely no qualms with attempting to squelch the speech of those with whom you disagree.

"It is fortunate that disagreement is not in fact censorship. I would not wish to place the ability to suppress speech in hands so eager to suppress as your own."



That last bit is just twisted, OC. Good luck with that.


The whole charade is getting so old now.

...that he/she first came into this thread by dismissing it as an "echo chamber." And then using an emoticon meant to indicate derisive laughter.

Anything that follows about the level of discourse, the behavior of other posters, egotism, what is or isn't considered bullying, etc. just rings hollow. Or hypocritical. Or both.

disposition.

My reading skills seem to be fine. Unless, against all evidence to the contrary, you were championing the thread as an echo chamber. Hmmm...maybe the implication was "Huzzah! I have found an echo chamber and thus, rejoice!" In which case, I and my reading comprehension apologize.

I find it a little more likely, though, that I read it right and that you've either forgotten what you said or deliberately ignored it.

:thumbsup:

Short, retreading an old post, nearly sensible. But, again, I have the perfect response -- the last 87 letters of thee as-yet unsolved Kryptos sculpture at the CIA compound in Langley, VA.:

"?OBKR
UOXOGHULBSOLIFBBWFLRVQQPRNGKSSO
TWTQSJQSSEKZZWATJKLUDIAWINFBNYP
VTTMZFPKWGDKZXTJCDIGKUHUAUEKCAR"

I think our conversation may finally be flying right along.

people can read your own derisive words, dear. it's not our reading skills. you said it, now you pretend your words mean something other than the obvious. ugh. can't get more disingenuous than that.

Nowhere did I say the THREAD was an echo chamber. That ASSumption is mistaken. Any BONEHEAD could read what I actually wrote and figure that out.

The paranoids will insist I said what I did not.

Shameless and shameful.

:puke:

"they are fringe, they are lunatic, they are expressing "faux outrage," they are "tearing down the party," they are purists, reds, impatient, unrealistic, Naderites, impractical, have a hidden agenda (which is "proved" by insinuation and character assassination) - anything goes when it comes to smearing us."


Put that up against... they are corporate slaves, they are deluded, they are hero-worshippers, they are just like goose-stepping Republicans - enabling the slide to the right, they are obamabots, idiots, etc. etc. etc.


What's old is the attempt to characterize this place as having shut down dissent when half the content is criticizing Obama or those who don't criticize him enough to suit those claiming they're being 'silenced'.

It's comical, really.

The blindness is deliberate; it is part of the partisan's tool-kit, just like the claim it is only the other side who are partisans is. In left discourse, the status of 'victim' is highly prized, so some conceive that success in presenting themselves as victims is more than half the battle won, and guide their actions and words by that light. If they are being 'censored', if they are being 'persecuted', or 'smeared' or any of a dozen other elements of a long parade of horribles, then they are by definition not only right but superior, at least in their own minds. And of course their opponents, who do such horrible things, and treat them so terribly, must necessarily be lesser creatures, and wrong to their rotten cores, and so any degree of abuse turned on their opponents is not really abuse, but only fair description. So the full balance of thing really is not apparent to the persons who grip this ploy as their chosen weapon, and succumb to its intoxications.

"They believed nothing they could not prove, and could prove everything they believed."

And that's the difference here. Those who hold the above as objective and goal, an end that justifies all means, including your convoluted, self congratulatory mumblings, and those who hold a different vision of real discourse and affiliation, not mere ego gratification.

"So the full balance of thing really is not apparent to the persons who grip this ploy as their chosen weapon, and succumb to its intoxications."

A person interested in 'real discourse' would have attempted, at least, to engage the description of a commonly employed strategy in leftist discourse, and its underpinnings, aiming either to rebut it or justify it, or demonstrate either its wider application or its inappropriateness as a description of the dynamics at play here. Since the bulk of your comments do consist of claims you are being victimized, and that you are interested in something higher than your opponents, who are 'false' voices while your's is a 'real' voice, your shying away from engaging a description of the strategy embodied in such a pattern of comment can be taken as a confession of their accuracy, and perhaps even as acknowledging some embarrassment at the shabbiness of the technique.

The thing remains, Sir, as described. You desire an echo chamber for your own views, and since those views are not nearly so widely held as you would like to imagine, you cannot have that desire fulfilled here. Your reaction to the demonstration of this fact, by the volume and vehemence of the opposition you encounter when you engage in or support hyperbolic attacks on popular Democrats here, is to engage in disparagement of those who disagree with you, while raising high the banner of 'victimhood'. Outside a very limited circle, that simply does not work....

"They don't take chocolate money out in the real world, Arthur...."

"Victimed"? Calling for the fuller potential of dialogue on DU, including with those who really are intimidated or don't want to be "victimized" by ham handed tactics, who stay out of discussion if it's just a game of oneupsmanship; THAT is not claiming to be a victim.

Another false accusation which you slipped in is truly disturbing, an attempt to tar me with a ride-em-out-on-a-rail brush we've seen you wield most recently; insinuations and false accusations that were challenged by others who don't choose to be "victims," yet you continued to repeat as if they were real.

"... by the volume and vehemence of the opposition you encounter when you engage in or support hyperbolic attacks on popular Democrats here..."

It's disturbing and disgusting that you are doing that.

It is irresponsible of you since your fan club believes you speak for them and you even suggested they read your version of my "wordy" post, rather than read and conclude for themselves.

It's a successful campaign to keep varied voices out of this forum -- isn't that enough? That was my comment and bemusement, when I popped in for a moment, that accusations or defense of "censorship" would be OPd in such a carefully safeguarded verbal arena.

The need, though, of those who control the discussion, to pretend that those who stand up to them are claiming "victimhood," is revealing.

The projections and twisted logic that is applied reveals some interior or egoic battle the topdogs are having with themselves -- a different sort of echo chamber............


"If they are being 'censored', if they are being 'persecuted', or 'smeared' or any of a dozen other elements of a long parade of horribles, then they are by definition not only right but superior, at least in their own minds."



It might smack of "superiority" to call for the higher good and a broader coalition of voices; less needling and more cooperation. It might be called idealistic. The unaviodable truth is though, that anyone who calls for that and has the courage to do so is not interested in one's own "superiority" (or those topdog games would be just fine) but in the common good.

The fear projected by those stuck in their own personal echo chamber prevents them from seeing they are needling needlessly.

Your ensuring they will be read more often is much appreciated.

As is your extended demonstration of the accuracy of my description of the dynamic at play.

Here is one you might wish to review:

"Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie."

citation:

"Growing up I was taught the difference between right and wrong. I've quite forgotten what it was, but I'm sure I remember there was one."

"Please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum."

Cheer up, though, Sir: you may yet manage to tilt the balance between the amusement you provide and the boredom you inflict in favor of some other occupation....

"Mostly I killed time, and it died hard."

"Air goes in, air goes out, blood goes round and round. Variation from this is a bad thing."

"I believe that the vast majority of DUers are not bothered by legitimate disagreements shared in the spirit of mutual respect. O8) That is the ideal that we should *all* be striving for." -- Skinner








http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8408358&mesg_id=8411810

Legitimate disagreement does not trouble me at all. Persons who echo lines of attack against Democrats promulgated by Rove, persons who declare leading Democrats are war criminals because of acts by the Bush administration, persons who defend such declarations, and persons who not only do such things but who denounce members who speak in opposition to such nonesense as cheerleaders and robots and 'false' voices, etc., are not engaging in legitimate disagreement shared in a spirit of mutual respect,: they can expect to be met in kind, and have no ground for complaint when they are.

in the spirit of Skinner's quote.

The fact that you have this apparent compulsion to try to attach generalized and damaging accusations to other DUers willy nilly is alarming.



And finally, the bully talk really belies your presumption. People "get what they deserve" and then are "victimized" and "some people are looking to b e offended."


You operate off the ""thick skinned" section of DU rules. I'm with Skinner on what we *all* should have as a goal.

DU Rules are "based on respect." Some bad behavior "degrades the quality of discussion for everyone."

That would include you casting aspersions in an effort to discredit other DUers.

Skylarking is another old favorite that really deserves more usage than it gets nowadays.

It's always a favorite.

But, what are these, if not disrespect?

"The echo chamber is thundering! :rofl:"

"Master bait"

"Congratulating each other on not understanding English, projecting prejudices and blase arrogance. Exactly why people don't want to come in here and deal with all the crap my posts (and the one at the top of the subthread) suggest."

"Mere noise, cliched bullshit, presumptive pretensions and please do not call me or others SIR"

"Now you've veered from tortured logic to outright lies"

"This is insane. I just explained to you how I used it. You're insane version doesn't change my post. Go urgk yourself."

"If sane voices are driven out there's more room for jurgks"



Mutual respect, indeed.

replies to your crummy comments.

Approach the thin with some brio, some zest: it will improve your mood, and increase your enjoyment of life all around.

:evilgrin:

You know you loved it.

:yoiks: Is that how it's supposed to work? We're supposed to "play victim" and the more we refuse the pretense, the harder the TopDog wants it to be so?


And you still don't see how that fits the pattern of bullies. :crazy: EVEN WITH THE HUMOR IN THAT POST, YOU'RE PRETENDING THIS :wow:



Good night and good luck to you, Billy. :patriot:

While the supply of coffee remains adequate, that of cigarettes is perilously low, and a walk in the sunshine will do me good....

"And your boredom belies much to be learned in the hither and thither of our conversations thus far. Mine is the advantage and yours the long walk back, from beach to wherever it is you find yourself spending the credit of your sad attempts to thwart my openness and my bold admissions, that, yes, there should be moral judgments toward others. :party:

There is this then, that I have asked for your eyes to open, but they have remained tight shut for now (your decision, not mine) and when you learn to not attack but to thank me for wisdom generously given, then I will willingly accept an apology. :headbang:

Your admission "that of cigarettes is perilously low" shows how low, how subterranean, how sub-par, sub-human has the subject become that with tobacco and lights of fire you take to th porch to find new avenues down which to send the Bottom Dogs of my torment, which fully aware of, I will spin and move and dodge, much to your deepest chagrin.

The crap you spew has passed the point of ludicrousness and has moved on to that of lower animals and while I believe you to eat from under porches in the dust and the smell of wet iron pipes, I wholly believe what the mods have said that all of us should strive to be as uplifting, upbeat and upwardly mobile as I have shown myself, time and time again, to be. :nopity:"

Better? :)


(edited to stay out of trouble)

I gave it my all.

I have never seen anything like that. I am floored.

:evilfrown:

Just calling it the way I see it. Best to view the world with a sense of humor and not take yourself too seriously, OM.

I honestly don't know what happens when you're invisible.

I do know, though, with absolute certainty, that people are strange when youre a stranger. Faces look ugly when youre alone. Women seem wicked when you're unwanted. Streets are uneven when you are down. When you're strange, faces come out of the rain. When you're strange, no one remembers your name.

In fact, I'm so certain, I'd repeat most of that several times. Just to make my point.

:hug:

"I'm going home now. Someone bring me some frogs and some bourbon."

:rofl: :wow:


You must have already had some bourbon in your coffee........

Maybe it is. But I'm not the one parading around, wrapped in a cape of self-righteousness, spouting declarations of innocence and civility out of one mouth and calling people names out of the other.

of yours it would be a welcome surprise.

(edited for clarity)

What is that, then? A piece of inspiring, deeply felt Jeffersonian discourse?

Minimo, have you ever considered that:

"A-well-a everybody's heard about the bird
B-b-b-bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, the bird is the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, well the bird is the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, well the bird is the word
A-well-a bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, well the bird is the word
A-well-a bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a don't you know about the bird?
Well, everybody knows that the bird is the word!
A-well-a bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a...

A-well-a everybody's heard about the bird
Bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a don't you know about the bird?
Well, everybody's talking about the bird!
A-well-a bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird...

Surfin' bird
Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb... ... aaah!

Pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-
Pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow

Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Oom-oom-oom-oom-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-oom-oom-oom
Oom-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-a-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, ooma-mow-mow
Papa-oom-oom-oom-oom-ooma-mow-mow
Oom-oom-oom-oom-ooma-mow-mow
Ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, ooma-mow-mow
Well don't you know about the bird?
Well, everybody knows that the bird is the word!
A-well-a bird, bird, b-bird's the word

Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow"?

Rather than trying to squelch it.

Of course, back to the OP, that squelching is *not* censorship. Just bothersome.

and "adding to the debate" rather than acting insane.

I tried to respond just one more time with something pithy and brilliant. But the boredom that hit The Magistrate finally got me too.

There is a random Postmodern Art Speak generator here -- http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

Any time you decide to post, please be so kind as to hit refresh and then insert any paragraph and a half into the thread as my response. I'll start you off with an example:

----

You: A welcome surprise would be your using your own ideas and words and "adding to the debate" rather than acting insane.

Me: Foucault uses the term ‘neostructuralist cultural theory’ to denote the collapse, and eventually the futility, of postdialectic class. In a sense, socialist realism suggests that society has intrinsic meaning.

You: Hardly! :spray: If there is any futility whatsoever, it is the silent futility of your efforts to suffuse and in fact, infuse, your own words on, with, above, beneath and by the words that I have agreed, with all of us (as compadres herein), to share. Your belligerent attempts to rework and work over mine will bring you only misery and no mystery, only sure knowledge of your true colors.

Me: Debord uses the term ’semiotic nationalism’ to denote the role of the writer as observer. However, if neostructuralist cultural theory holds, we have to choose between the subtextual paradigm of context and semantic discourse.

And so on.

Good night.

Wounded, I fall...

..asleep.

G'night minimo.

jurgk

You already used "jurgk" and I was already thoroughly unimpressed by it's childishness. Don't make me start using the equally juvenile "smegma minimo." Or the somewhat heady and incredibly insightful "omnify minimo" meaning to enlarge the minimum. Or, better yet, the unbelievably apt "omasum minimo" which means something like "the tiny third stomach of a ruminant" which would point to your mind-bending habit of re-digesting old ideas until they come out as something akin to cow flop.

Back to the subject line -- according to what I can find, it's literally the last word. It's the obsolete, Kentish "second-person singular past tense of to see." Since it's what you so desperately want, there it is, it's yours. Put it on your mantelpiece, sleep with it under your pillow. It's yours. Congratulations.

of those who want to protect their tiny fiefdoms while pretending everyone else is the hypocrite.

self righteous violations of DU Rules <...>
everyone else is the hypocrite.

"You're smug. And self-righteous. And hypocritical. And territorial. And you violate DU rules." Pleased with itself, the kettle folded its tiny little arms and jutted out its jaw in a manner that it felt best suited its state of agitated indignation.

"Yawn," said the pot, bored to tears, before examining intently a piece of breakfast that had fallen and hardened on its shirt. "I wonder," thought pot, "if this is new enough to be edible or old enough to make a good story later."

good thing you have your lil buddies to give you some spine :wow:

perhaps that's just your ass. difficult to bifurcate at this time.

Please BE CIVIL!!! Everyone! :cry:

You seem pretty genuinely concerned. And I appreciate the sincerity. You might not want to get yourself sucked into the same mistake I was making before I settled in to just have a bit of fun.

If you point out that nobody's lying, you're likely to be met with a Carlsbad Cavern bat exodus of words flying at you, none of which seem intent on actually debating whether anyone has lied. You'll most likely try to steer the conversation back to the subject of lying and be met with semi-repetitious word lists accusing you of generalizations, mis-characterizations and cliquish-ness (at least, with some deciphering, that's what you'll think it says). You'll ask for citations or say that none of what's been hurled at you is really the point at all, and you'll be met with indignant tirades, none of which actually address your point.

The best way I can describe it is to look toward the story of the tar baby. Since it's become racially charged (according to what I've read, the story pre-dates its use as a racist reference, but once it's tainted, it's tainted), I'll tell it as the Native American version which, according to a non-academic Wikipedia glance, is about a pine pitch wolf. The general idea is this -- there is a creature made from something sticky like tar or pine pitch. Some other creature begins to debate and then wrestle with it. The more the struggle, the more stuck the creature becomes until finally it finds itself completely entangled and helpless.

Just thought I'd mention it.

The tar baby is the attempt of some of the most arrogant DUErs to toss their flaming mess at others and make it stick.

Those who won't hug it are subjected to all the vileness you can muster.

The pine pitch (or tar) wolf isn't something one either lights on fire or flings. It's a trap. The whole idea is that someone will, of their own accord get too wrapped in it to free themselves.

He was just giving an objective analysis one the rhetorical discourse, he was in no way engaging in personal attacks against you or other posters.

I won't lie about my own biases, I have become extremely critical of the so-called "Progressives" here even though I agree with you guys on most things. But please, PLEASE, I think all sides, INCLUDING MINE, need to grow up and try to understand each other and quit shouting over each others' heads. These flame wares are completely unproductive and only divide us viciously on arguments of mere tactics and means to an end we both agree on.

it was an accusation and a lie.



The spirit of your last point is what I have been advocating.

but that just seems to be counterproductive. On a discussion board, anyway... where I'd think the desire / goal would be stimulating discussions which further understanding.

The fact is that people usually talk past one another, and the most common motive for posts is to see to it the view one holds is adequately represented, so that a person reading a thread in its entirity, or the forum as a whole, will not conclude an opposing view predominates. There are several major divisions among members of this forum, and topics that strike close to established fault lines will become mere pretexts for pressing these long-standing arguments.

The degree of bitterness is aggravated by two major factors.

First, the basic constitution of the forum is not neutral in regard to some of these divisions. This is particularly so when discussing Democrats and the Democratic Party. The rules of the place do not allow opposition to a Democratic candidate in a general election, require criticism of Democrats to meet a standard of 'constructive criticism', and do not allow extreme attacks and smears directed against Democrats. This cuts rather hard against persons of more radical views, and particularly hard against those given to argument by hyperbole, which is a besetting vice of radicals.

Second, the large number of people who come and argue here ensures that most will have only a superficial perception of their opponents, and little or no conception of them as persons in the round. You may forgive an old lag for invoking 'the good old days', but years ago this was not so pronounce a feature of the place as it is now. When the roster was smaller, people often did come to a better understanding of those they did not agree with on some matters, to a point that it was easy to respect the motives behind the disagreement, and find areas of common ground, because the smaller number ensured that people would encounter one another more frequently and in more varied situations. That does not occur so readily or often nowadays.

Because I see that cognitive defense mechanism in spades among many so-called "Progressives".

8 years of W's BS has left you seeing threats that don't exist and projecting your mental vices on others.

A: Discrediting a person by attacking their motives is intended to suppress free speech and is censorship.
B: No it isn't.
A: Yes, but what are your real motives in saying that?

"Yet disingenuousness covers many more causes for alarm and "censorship" by degree."

You can say anything you'd like about "censorship." That's the beauty of the quote marks -- when used in the manner you've used them, they literally mean to define the word inside as anything other than the accepted meaning. If I write to you that my vegetables are "fresh" you should buy them elsewhere. If I say I worked with all due "diligence" to save your loved one in the O.R., you'd better call a lawyer.

When you write "censorship" it means that you are talking about anything but.

The OP pretended everyone knows who and what he's referring to from other threads.

You used it to designate what you referred to as censorship. Not what the OP was calling censorship. You wrote -- "Yet disingenuousness covers many more causes for alarm and "censorship" by degree." Right? Meaning that in instances of what Occam described when writing ""Mocking and ridicule" certainly exists, but is not remotely comparable to censorship, nor is it limited to either side of any argument..." the "mocking and ridicule" somehow hid censorship. Which it doesn't. You can't hide censorship in discourse. It's not logically possible.

Go urgk yourself.

It's that words have actual meaning. When we use them, they come bundled with a history and context independent of our own intentions. If I say to Person X, for instance, "your brain is a sort of rococo cabbage" I'm stuck with the actual definition of cabbage as well as the history of what it means to be rococo. No matter how badly I may have intended to convey "I like your tie so much it makes me want to disco," I'm stuck with what I've actually said. It's a damnable thing, language.

Thank you very much for such a good laugh to start the morning with....

and not acknowledging that all of the above have occurred.

The truly sad part of the truly sad loss (for all) is the phony voices that fill in with ill intentioned cut and paste absurd imitations of genuine "left" voices that lose interest; the phonies provide foils for the feckless and make the whole "discussion" ever more elusive.

I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say so I know whether to argue or to agree. So, let me run my interpretation by you and see what you think:

"The truly sad part of the truly sad loss (for all) is the phony voices that fill in with ill intentioned cut and paste absurd imitations of genuine "left" voices that lose interest; the phonies provide foils for the feckless and make the whole "discussion" ever more elusive."

Should be translated as:

"It is sad to me and to DU as a whole that the trolls (?) malevolently copy-paste statements by fictional (straw-man) Progressives, the occurrence of which causes actual Progressives to lose interest"?

Or, the only slightly different:

"It is sad to me and to DU as a whole that the trolls (?) malevolently copy-paste statements by fictional (straw-man) Progressives in which the fictional Progressives lose interest"?

And the whole thing ends with:

"The trolls provide false targets for the lazy or ineffectual and make the whole farce less likely to do anybody any good."

Am I close?

You're a good example of the problems that Occam was illustrating in the OP.

without being an asshole or a bully.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, have only each other to talk to.

One manner fosters discussion. The other fosters arrogance and smug cliques.

One type finds the bullies boring and pointless. The other looks for opportunities to pounce again.

are you, perhaps, late for ESL classes?

The point the OP is trying to make is that disagreement is not censorship. and dismissive "OMG, he supported Clinton!!!" attitudes are mere anger and frustration bubbling up, not some conspiracy.

:kick:

It is insane to say no one can disagree with your opinion or they're ability to have or right to dissent. What does that even mean? Are there people wearing red jerseys that can't be questioned to allow fair and open debates and conversations? Sounds like hypocritical bullshit to me. There is no right to agreement and who would want it? A two year old is my best guess or maybe some vain "noble" pleading for affirmation to fill an empty ego.

I honestly fail to grasp the logic or even desirability. Nor do I fail to see the venom and haughty hypocrisies.
I can write to myself if I want my thoughts to be unopposed and unquestioned beyond my own checks. This board nor real life discussions are supposed to be used as a mirror for affirmation.

Someone pushing the theme needs to at least make a flow chart of how things are supposed to work for the brutish and blind that create all this systemic stifling of expression so that we'd at least have a choice in how to respond. Though, I don't see any of those making sure my voice is heard and my dissent is recognized for its courage when I hold a minority position.



I also think it is crucial for all to remember that being "RIGHT" is a dangerous place to be. There is nothing left to learn and no reason to pay attention. I've yet to see that combo pay any real dividends. Usually, it is close to lethal on a good day.

it makes for a better discussion if there are less of comments like "oh cry me a river" to DUers who are alarmed by the withholding of torture pics or calling those who support Pres Obama "idiots".

The other day I got called a "far left wing rubbernecker" and was accused of posting falsehoods and it was suggested that "newbies" not even be allowed to post. Sure, that's not censorship but it sure does make a person think twice about posting anything knowing that it'll be the subject of personal insult for many, regardless of the topic.

:hi:

There are assholes everywhere, on every side of every issue. Best of luck ignoring them.

People attacking you and attacking your message are only censorship if you decide that you refuse to post anything that does not get a purely positive reaction from everyone. That is why I believe that people who cry "free speech" upon having their posts attacked have somehow come to believe that "free speech" means "the right to a respectful, patient, appreciative audience."

People shouldn't attack new posters for being new. There isn't a poster here who didn't start out with a post count of 0; I don't see what's gained by hostility to new blood. Accusing people of posting falsehoods is perfectly acceptable; accusing someone of being a liar isn't. As for "far left wing rubbernecker?" People often use the political affiliation of each other derisively here, and it certainly isn't directed exclusively at any side or faction. Hell, "DLC" is about the worst insult anyone can throw here.

I'm not going to lie and claim this place is always polite. It often is. Sometimes it isn't. Political message boards are like that. Fortunately, we have rather strict rules of conduct that are enforced well.

"People attacking you and attacking your message are only censorship if you decide that you refuse to post anything that does not get a purely positive reaction from everyone. That is why I believe that people who cry "free speech" upon having their posts attacked have somehow come to believe that "free speech" means "the right to a respectful, patient, appreciative audience."

This is the crux of the matter IMO.

I usually do not wade into these "debating about debating" threads. Kind of pointless, like what your avatar reminds me of, a snake eating its own tail.

That said I agree with you on your main points. I think its a simple case that some people are inherently more defensive and sensitive than others. It's annoying to have to scroll through message after message of people screaming that they are censored because they don't get the pats on the back they were expecting. I also agree with a previous point that even if a rebuttal is said in a sarcastic or even (mildly) insulting way, that still is not censorship. We are all big boys and girls and should be able to withstand a few barbs written no doubt in a moment of passion, as long as there is some kind of content mixed in there some where.

But I'll end on my overall point and question whether these kinds of threads do any good. You are always going to have a few hot heads and overly sensitive posters who will mistakenly take every rebuttal as personal. Just roll your eyes and move on.

""People attacking you and attacking your message are only censorship if you decide that you refuse to post anything.........."

Anything at all. Anything in this Forum. Or to even look in this Forum.

The peer behavior here has got itself convinced that it is appropriate and has polite words for belligerent tactics.

That is not censorship. However, the pool of participants becomes delimited by those with sharp elbows and shared arrogance, to shoo out anyone who can't get past the gatekeepers or gets bored dealing with the bullies.

Unfortunately many fakes have filled in the gaps. It's good to see one thread today where the OP was called on it loud and clear.

Others end up "representing" as "far left" and the reactive gatekeepers use it to reinforce their ill assumptions and sickening behavior.

"Unfortunately many fakes have filled in the gaps. It's good to see one thread today where the OP was called on it loud and clear."

I don't know what you're referring to by "fakes," "filling in the gaps," and I don't know which thread you're referring to.

from #113

So some of the supersmart who like to win and dominate drive out those who are bored with topdogging and who fills in the gaps? Phonies! Who play the role of "far far far far left" with talking point drivel, egging on the gatekeepers and arbiters of What Deserves To Be Discussed, whipping their passions and deepening their divisive points of view, later to be inflicted on others, actual "left" DUers who have nothing to DU with whatever trash the faux DUers dumped in here.



It is a vicious circle.