Criticize the policy, not the person? You have got to be kidding.

This board suffers from tension between those who value party above ideology and those who value ideology over party. It has always been like this, though the tension is greater now that the Democratic Party controls both the executive and legislative branches of government. The new rules make it plain, whether explicitly or not, that this site will be a place that accommodates those who value party over ideology, and that's fine. That was the owners' call to make, and they made it.

But neither the owners nor the Party want to lose the contributions of those who value ideology over party. So, in an effort to keep those people, the party-first crowd has attempted to reassure the ideology-first crowd that they can still criticize conservative policy, just not the people involved, i.e. conservative Democrats.

The purpose of this post is to suggest that one cannot criticize conservative policy without simultaneously criticizing the people advocating that policy. The person pushing the policy is as objectionable as the policy itself, and that person's culpability is magnified if he or she is a person of great power. That person's culpability is even greater if that person claims to be a Democrat and claims allegiance to the Democratic Party's platform. One can not help criticizing the person when that person's policy is obviously conservative, obviously contrary to the interests of working people, and obviously hypocritical when contrasted with the stated platform of the Democratic Party. One's instinct is to "call out" such people. Sure, the policy is being attacked, but the person is as well, and it is impossible to separate the two.

Suggesting that ideology-first people can criticize the policy but not the person is a meaningless gesture. It does not resolve the tension I have described. It will not keep ideology-first posters here. The mods do their best, but asking them to figure out whether a given post criticizes the person or the policy is too much to ask. It is too subjective.

For years, criticism of conservative posters, conservative policies, conservative politicians, and even conservative Democrats has been allowed if not encouraged. This has changed. Telling posters that they can criticize the policy but not the person does nothing to assure ideology-first posters that they are safe and welcome here.

:dem:

-Laelth

On the other hand, I have decided to mostly just read the posts and not post myself. Then, I don't have to worry about being censored like they do over at the freeper boards.

But until recently, I felt safe posting from my heart. Until recently, I assumed that anything that I felt needed to be said (as a liberal with a strong social conscience) would be welcomed here. I did not fear that my posts would be deleted. I did not fear that my threads would be locked. I did not fear that I would be threatened with suspension or banning.

I fear those things now, and I resent being made to feel this way. It is DU that has changed, not me.

:dem:

-Laelth

Remember, it's a message board. No one outside your house with an axe or anything.

Not intended to mock, but point out the language you're using may be a little more dire than called for. :hi:

:dem:

-Laelth

I don't understand the language choice. It seems overblown, and I'm curious if it's for effect, or if you really feel that way, or what. I don't believe it's out of line to point it out and ask, because it would greatly inform the conversation.

It was, perhaps, uncalled for. At the very least, it wasn't constructive, so I apologize.

But my knee-jerk response is also illustrative. This virtual community means something to me. When posters respond with a dismissive, "Lighten up, Francis," kind of response, I react. I react precisely because I am invested in this community. That kind of investment should not be either dismissed nor demeaned. And you did dismiss and demean my concerns.

As to my use of language, I tend to state things in their starkest, most extreme form for effect. The actual rhetorical trope is "argument ad absurdum," i.e. stretching an idea to its most extreme position to see what it would look like if applied in its most extreme form. It's a useful tool for clarity.

And yes, I do fear having my posts deleted, my threads locked, and being banned from DU. Is that the kind of fear I would have were I threatened with a gun, no. Of course not, but it is a nagging fear, all the same. And I resent being made to feel this way. As I said, DU has changed. I have not.

:dem:

-Laelth

extreme form for effect" then aren't you anticipating, or maybe inviting conflict? That your 'fear' might be legitimate and appropriate, because if you are walking the line of "extremes" you run the risk of overstepping the rules of civil discussion?

I've seen a lot on DU over the years. I've had a few posts deleted- and I understand and accept the reasoning behind the deletions. I've had cause to apologize to others for words posted in haste, anger or ignorance and experienced the same from others.

I believe strongly, that we should be able to be critical of the actions or opinions of others without needing to destroy the individual. Having lived 50+yrs, I've eaten my share of crow, had my eyes opened to other perspectives and discarded some long held beliefs. I'm pretty sure that what ever future I have left will include more learning. People do change and evolve- we also are much more than our "politics" on any one issue.

I encourage you to re-think your belief that it is only "DU" that has changed since you joined. I think you will find that you yourself have also changed over the years. Maybe in ways that are hard to see, but no one stays the same, and what we have all lived through over these last several years has effected us all.

peace~

I want my readers to understand where I am coming from. It works, too, I might add.

It would be absurd to argue that I have not changed in the six years since I joined DU. It's equally absurd to suggest that DU has not changed.

If you think I am arguing this point for myself, alone, you are mistaken. I am voicing the opinions of many. As I said above, I'll be fine (I think). I am sufficiently civil that my posts rarely get deleted and the risk that I will be banned seems slim. All the same, there are many posters who are not as careful as I and who no longer feel welcome here. These are committed liberals, many of whom have been contributing to DU for a long time. They feel rejected by this site and by the Democratic Party. It is counterproductive to drive them away, yet that is what is happening.

Peace.

:dem:

-Laelth

The censoring on DU is based in fear.

if you were truly in the category you fear

a locked thread or two rarely = banning, especially for established members and I doubt if that is going to change much at all

not to be an offensive "lighten up, francis" poster, but... really... some common sense is all that needs to applied.

I've had plenty of posts deleted and several threads locked. I had one locked yesterday, in fact.

But I am pointing to a larger trend and a wider problem. I am inviting people to see the larger tension created by the new rules and the way they might get enforced. I value this community, and I feel compelled to speak out when I see a problem that needs to be addressed here. This used to be a place where liberals could speak freely. For that reason, DU became the premier liberal, American political discussion forum. Now liberals here are under attack if they do not squelch their criticism of the Democratic Party, and that's creating some tension that is having a negative effect on the community. Whether I, personally, get banned or have my posts deleted is a minor concern, though I do resent the feeling that I have to watch what I say here. For a long time, I didn't feel that way.

:dem:

-Laelth

and as much as I believe in democracy, I've always understood DU to NOT be such an entity although much creative collaboration starts or occurs here. So I have always been aware (and mostly comfortable) with the fact that I don't really have much say in how things are run - despite the name, as in the political party not the little d, democracy.

I don't participate in much of the deep discussions here, mostly read latest news, try to get a feel for things and play in the lounge so I may be missing key information. It just seems like most of the outcry about rules is a little overblown. And this is coming from someone who bristles at rules in general.

I do agree with some suggestions re: a seperate forum to discuss the rules and rulings as a form of transparency and education for understanding how and why they might be applied - not to mention the obvious voyeuristic and entertainment value such a forum might provide }(

you're probably safe. IMHO the rules have been brought about because of that sort of deliberate divisiveness and flamebaiting.

No need to cower under your blankie.

But if you choose to be rude and dismiss my legitimate concerns, that's your problem. It may also be your loss.

:dem:

-Laelth

"I think your opinion is wrong headed, and here's why" vs "You are a paid DLC operative"

One leads to discussion and the possibility of changing minds.

The other leads nowhere but character assassination and sloganeering.

What's so hard to understand?

Some folks are looking for a way to continue the personal attacks as that is the only way they can express themselves,
I suppose.

And that I suppose is what's at issue - each "side" perceives the other as making personal attacks, but seems blind to it when they themselves are doing it.

Not at the person being replied to, and not anybody who is singled out in any way (*cough* noamnety *cough*). It doesn't mention the BOGs or the Naderites (what do the BOGgers call the angry left?) or any presumed subgroup. Just a group consisting of "people who do X".

implying that they the reason they don't like the new rules is that they must not be able to express themselves with insulting people. That's lame.

But I so appreciate you trying to do the "if the shoe fits" insinuation directed at me. Also a personal attack. I expect it to stay though.

If you want to know what the BOG calls the angry left, it's easy enough to find the name calling. Haters, Malcontents, etc. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x22921

Apparently cheerleader is a forbidden personal attack, hater is not.

but it IS mostly an attack on people for whom the shoe fits.

My post was not meant to be an attack on you. I thought I was discussing something with somebody that I like.

Lots of personal attacks stay, although I did not readily find the time where I was called a nazi. It's pretty deep in the archives and google was distracted by more current posts. I never alert on personal attacks on myself, since I figure that I made somebody mad, but I will often reply and make the point that "you suck" is not really a good counter-argument.

I never thought hater was much of an attack when Bush was President, but even then some people seemed to hate EVERYTHING Bush did. Should we get upset, for example, about signing statements when Clinton did the same thing?

whatever... state that and why and avoid calling anything or anyone that disagrees personal names (i.e. corporate fascist, paid shill).

Positions do not have morality. They cannot.

the person, in their entirety, immoral. I do not agree that a position cannot be immoral -- context, motivation, knowledge all may contribute to the taking of an immoral position without any reflection on the immorality/morality of the person. Just avoid the personal attacks -- it is not that difficult. I argue with my southern baptist conservative father all of the time -- we disagree on about 80% of positions but I avoid calling him names because I care about him.

that a position cannot be immoral.

Someone else's position on an issue might seem "immoral" to us, but to that person it might be moral based on his own upbringing. In other words, who are we to dictate what's "moral" or not?

We can't even agree on what's "moral" here at DU, never mind trying to do it across party lines.

I would say that a lot of positions are illogical. They just don't make much sense.

I do agree on the need to avoid personal attacks, though. People can disagree about all kinds of things but there's no need to call each other dirty names.

Simply cheering (or razzing) and pre-emptive snarking doesn't foreward the discussion, it kills it. While that may be the point of the poster it's not the point of the forum.

You can't call Obama rude names. But you can still criticize him.

Perhaps if you gave a concrete example of what type of criticism is now forbidden it might be more helpful.

"Obama is too weak-willed and too much of a sell-out to stand up to the corporate lobbyists that now run the country."

Okay or not?

(Disclaimer: The above was just thrown out as an example. It does not represent my true opinions (or it may not anyway).)

ON EDIT: Oops skinner can answer for himself. However, I do think it is fairly simple, and will actually be more conducive to discussion.

criticize him personally for that aspect of his personality.

P.S. I was giving an example.

P.S.S. I was asking Skinner.

so I can't make those kinds of assumptions.

"I oppose the policy of selling out to corporate lobbyists that now run our country."

Or maybe we are allowed to identify selling out to corporate lobbyists only on specific issues (monsanto ... then in another post BP ... then in another post AIG, etc). But what we shouldn't do is tie these all together to identify systemic patterns of behavior, if I understand the rules right.

But first, I would like you to give me your call. Here is the relevant section from the LIST OF RULE VIOLATIONS:

{ } Inappropriate attacks against Democrats
- Insults against prominent Democrats, such as "Fuck Obama."
- Name-calling against prominent Democrats. Calling Barack Obama "Barry" or some other name.
- Repeating Republican partisan attacks against Democrats.
- Broadly suggesting that there is no difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, or that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. (Arguing that specific policies are the same would be permitted.)
- Suggesting that President Obama has perpetrated a "con job" or "fraud," or similarly over-the-top assertions of bad faith.
- Advocating voting against Democrats, or in favor of third-party or GOP candidates.
- Broad-brush smears against Democrats generally. Broad expressions of contempt toward Democrats generally.

You tell me: Should the post be deleted or not?

further why's and how's and what need to be done to push the policy/Obama to execute our will.

But in the end, I would say no. Do not delete it. It is not over the top to suggest that he is a sell-out.

Now let's hear your opinion please.

As an adult, you should be able to state your opinion without resorting to insults and character assassination.

For example, you could say, "I think Obama should have pushed the dems harder to get X bill passed."

That's not rocket science, it just requires clearly stating what your problem is. Just because he does something you don't like doesn't give you the ability to now play arm-chair psychiatrist and psychic.

He also said it was a tough call. Is some of your confidence shaken?

Maybe he was trying to be nice?

But I do think you should reconsider your own unjustified certitude in light of this.

A subjective observation about the words or actions of another, Democratic President or not, is not an 'attack' unless words commonly acknowledged as provocative, insulting or obscene are used.

Weak-willed is merely an adjective which may or may not be true.

There is no certainty. Or rather, one side in this debate is certain about - and happy with - the situation, the other is not.

Just sayin...

It's a subjective call, not a factual one. Just because some believe he is "weak-willed" or a "sell-out" does not make him one.

After most of the TARP money has been repaid and the stimulus has had a better-than-expected impact on the economy, do you believe President Obama sold us out to Wall Street?

Judgement and not truth. Believing it does not make it so.

One is a positive opinion and the other a negative opinion.

Expression of a negative opinion does not constitute an "attack".

There is at least as much evidence that Obama is a "sell out" as there is that he is "principled". The same is true when evaluating his "weakness" versus "strength".

And if you believe there is "evidence" you should cite it. So far, I've seen nothing but rumor and hyperbole to suggest it.

allowing people to state their opinions on a DISCUSSION BOARD.

Do you really not get that, Bernie?

as attacks vs. an opinionated statement that you believe the President sold us out on X because he did Y. There's a difference.

Don't know why that is so hard for so many to understand and I don't know why you have to take this discussion to a personal level.

IMO Wall Street's destructive domination of the economy, and the unethical manner in which they are allowed to operate, is evil. Pandering to the status quo is selling out.

:shrug:

You might have had a case if the complaint is that X public figure's mommy didn't love him, or that Y politician's a closet-case. I agree that that sort of armchair psychoanalysis isn't helpful. But I don't think that's what's being argued here.

Well, you're far more restrained than I. :hi:

While I applaud your restraint, however, I'm not afraid to make value judgments (when the evidence supports them) against those who work towards oligarchy and against democratic/liberal ideals.

It is easy to make a case against Liebermann.

Do you seriously believe Obama is working towards oligarchy?

To be logically consistent, either one can make that judgment (again, with support) regarding any politician, or one cannot.

I don't personally consider Obama to be a "sell-out," but I think DUers should feel free to make their case for that categorization.

:toast:

:toast: :patriot:

argued eloquently for, say, NOT permitting Offshore drilling, giving logical and clear reasons for his position in line with his party's longtime position on the issue.

Then, for no apparent logical reason, contradicts HIMSELF, and lectures those who supported him on his earlier position about 'catching up with the future', tosses them in with tea-baggers in a statement dismissing their scientific based opinion, by stating that we have to start 'ignoring both sides' indicating they are 'behind the times AND radical and purist and not willing to recognize how safe things are NOW as this is not '30 years ago'. Because these morons who supported him, simply are stuck in the past and he's all about 'moving forward'.

Paraphrasing, but his message was clear when he made that announcement. To him environmentalists and those who have fought the right for decades, are no better than the extremists on the right.

Granted he avoided using words like 'tree-huggers' or 'greeniacs' but it was not difficult to read what he meant once he threw his supporters into the same category as tea-baggers.

That announcement caused a lot of people, including scientists, environmentalists etc to wonder why this happened. Did he sell out, did he really have information that they did not have or anyone else? The excuse was that it would help get some bi-partisanship on his energy bill. But since there was no evidence that Republicans, no matter how many concessions he might make (check out the HIR Bill which he stated himself had so many of their ideas in it and got not one vote from them) would every cooperate with him, that seemed as fantastic an idea as the claim that oil rigs are safe.

People concluded that he had sold out as there was no other explanation that made any sense. Sometimes you have to call it as you see it or continue to be taken for a fool.

And no third party can authoritatively pronounce Berni's *opinion* is correct and the *opinion* of another is incorrect if the issue is about people's perceptions.

and he did a complete about face after he was elected.
He railed about secret prisons and rendition and then.....
shrug

If one perceives a campaign promise as one thing and the policy is acting contrary to that there ought to be an adjective available. Quite frankly, with the role money plays in our campaign system is sell out not an appropriate word? The word liar would certainly wouldn't be allowed. (Even in those cases when a demonstrable lie has been proven)

The post lacked substance and instead relied on a personal attack on Obama.

Merely specific. It may offend some, but that does not make it over-the-top except to those that disagree perhaps.

This is a discussion board. If everyone agreed, there would be no discussions to be had. How could one discuss whether or not he was allowing himself to be overly influenced for political gain without making it sound personal to you?

Its the general lack of substance that makes the post so offensive.

In other words, if I went on to discuss specifically how he went and allowed off-shore drilling and bowed to political pressure, then the term "sell-out" would magically become acceptable because I backed up the substance-less word with a substantial post?

Do you see the problem? Lack of substance is truly in the eye of the beholder. To be true advocates of our cause, we must not be forced to tone down language that has a specific meaning, and no, I do not agree that all over-the-top insults have specific meaning.

Let me illustrate further:

Over-the-top = "Obama is a soulless bastard"

Meaningful = "Obama has sold out (now in verb form, kids!) to the oil/gas lobby."

You would probably be better off.

I specifically addressed it to Skinner to see his position elucidated.

It is not my POV and so, "better off", while I agree with you, is not germain to the point I am trying to get at.

Thanks for understanding.

There ought not to be knee-jerk deletions of posts made when not all synapses are firing, for example, and you want to telegraph your frustrations. The moderators should err on the side of liberality. When in doubt, let it stand.

And no, it wasn't an attack, but a guess that with so much hair-splitting to do, mods are not going to be able to be consistent. It's far too "I'll know it when I see it" for me.

Anyone who would post that should expect strong push back on it, but it is not an insult, per se, doesn't call the president names, doesn't necessarily repeat a partisan Republican attack, doesn't state that there's no difference between Obama and Bush, doesn't accuse him of perpetrating a fraud, doesn't advocate voting against him or Democrats generally, and, while not being particularly nuanced, is not exactly a broad-brushed smear.

People are allowed to criticize Obama's actions, right? We're still allowed to fret about his character, aren't we? One reason to make such a post, it can be argued, is to be shown that you're wrong, to be reassured.

Despite our best efforts to make the rules more concrete and less arbitrary, there is still plenty of subjectivity. As the responses above show, this one is not clear-cut. Fortunately, we have a process for stuff like this. Let me tell you how the moderators and I ruled (separately) on the post.

I did not tell the moderators my opinion, although I did participate in the discussion in order to help them understand what their role is supposed to be under the new regime. (As I said, the purpose of this whole exercise is to get everyone on the same page, and that includes moderators and administrators as well as regular members.) Here is, more-or-less, what happened.

They figured out that the violation that might be relevant is this one:

- Suggesting that President Obama has perpetrated a "con job" or "fraud," or similarly over-the-top assertions of bad faith.

But it is not a clear-cut violation. So, the opinions offered all tended to focus on whether calling Obama a "sell-out" qualifies as an over-the-top assertion of bad faith. Some moderators felt that it did qualify, while others did not. Lacking a consensus, the post would not have been deleted.

On a related note, the moderators did express some frustration when faced with the realization that these decisions are not all black-and-white under the new system. This is why we are focusing on trying to get everyone on the same page, and getting the mods comfortable with making decisions under this new approach. If we face consistent problems or confusion trying to enforce particular rules, then we will re-visit them and decide whether they make sense. For what it's worth, the admins knew this one would be more subjective when we wrote it.

Now, here's my opinion of the post: I don't think it qualifies as an over-the-top assertion of bad faith. IMO, calling a politician a "sell-out" is mundane, not over-the-top.

There are some who would use the rule-bending as a platform for defeating and demoralizing the members of the board in blind support of R-wing goals..

Then there are those who truly feel that criticizing the government is part and parcel of being an activist. It's what we do in the real world: holding govt. feet to the fire.

As I see it, it comes down to a pattern of behavior. Tough decisions have to be made. No envy from this member.

I truly appreciate the difficulty of the position you are in.

And I find your statement that it is "mundane" to call politicians "sell-outs" as truthful as it is honest.

Thanks for agreeing with my read on the situation.

Perhaps some of the posters who thought it was so "clear-cut" need now to re-examine their assumptions and be a little less confident that they are in a position to make all the calls.

"...calling a politician a 'sell-out' is mundane, not over-the-top"

I agree!

And probably people from all sides agree on that.

:thumbsup:

Sure, using Obama as the example was deliberately challenging, but I'd like to hope that we're not moving towards an Approved Words List.

Personally, I don't care how much someone's bias comes across in the diction of an analysis, as long as that analysis is well supported. That way, we can have an intelligent discussion about why the analysis is flawed, how the examples given aren't applicable, what's missing from the analysis, etc.

And for those who took offense to Bonobo's example--those who believe that absolutely no pejorative words or phrases should ever be allowed on DU when referring to any Democrat--please think about everything you've ever posted about Dennis Kucinich.

:hi:

It serves absolutely no purpose, none whatsoever. It doesn't address any issue at all. Now if it's down in a thread in response to some defined policy objection, yeah mundane whatever; (although in its entirety I personally think it violates the new rules).

But if it were an original post? What the hell would be the point?? Flame bait. Some of this stuff doesn't even need new rules to define it.

I think the mods would likely rule the same way.

but it was in a larger OP? Is it about the subject line or a first post's content? I guess I'm not sure why a post within a thread isn't flamebait but the same thing as an OP is, since I've seen just as many enormous subthread flame wars erupt from intra-thread posts as from OPs. If something is flamebait, or isn't, I don't see why the placement changes everything.

As an example, and it's an extreme one for illustration purposes, consider the general accusation that "Obama is a corporatist." You see these kinds of responses after the news reports on a policy decision made by the administration to which liberals object on the basis that the rich benefit from the policy more than the working people do. Such a statement is clearly an attack on the President, but it's also an attack on the policy that was just announced. How can the mods tell the difference? It's too subjective, in the end, and I used an extreme example. Most of the decisions the mods will have to make will be much less clear-cut.

For years, DU has been a place where liberals could freely vent. And a ridiculously over-broad accusation like "Obama is a corporatist" is just venting, really. It's the reaction of a principled person who cares deeply about this country sharing, among friends, his or her frustration and anger. It appears that venting like that will no longer be tolerated. If DU can not serve that function any longer, that poster will probably leave.

When my last thread on this subject was locked, the moderator who did the locking let me know that my suggestion to clone DU had been forwarded to you. I hope that you, Elad, and EarlG consider this idea seriously. I think that cloning DU and accommodating both groups is a possible solution to the tension I have described.

Either way, thanks for your response.

:dem:

-Laelth

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Did it add anything except a condescending, sexist twang to your post?

Should we make a rule against that as well? After all, it was overly personal and arguably sexist.

That is apparent from her response. She's continuing to try to push the idea that DU should clone itself into PU. That's what this thread is about. And when someone insists on restarting threads that have been locked, they obviously didn't get the message the first time. It's not sexist at all, but a kind way to say, "Knock-it off already."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Kinda wrinkled and curmudgeonly too.

That was not getting personal, eh?

and those who participate in other discussion boards with them, like Laelth, where they regularly attack Democratic Underground, its members, its mods and its admins.

Yep, I'd say there's plenty of factual evidence to support the term disgruntled.

You denigrate people with terms like "disgruntled buddies", intentionally interjecting emotion-laden terms that you intend to hurt people with, and then you cry foul when others do the same.

That is a hypocrite.

According to your rules, it is therefore fair play.

I am merely playing along with the game you created. It was your choice to begin to wield words as a weapon and I responded in kind.

Hypocritical hypocrites acting hypocritically.

where they constantly attack DU?

Because if you are, then you are denying a cold-hard fact.

It's not hypocritical. It's the truth. Sorry you don't like it.

I can neither deny it or confirm it.

But let's say for the sake of argument that she is, did you need to bring that into this thread?

A fan of rules such as you are, don't you know that a continuation of other threads is a violation? That stalking is a violation? At least in spirit, surely you must agree you are acting contrary to proper behavior.

Why don't you admit it and we can cease this? I think your obstinance and insistence on moral superiority is very much like your insistence that the rules about what constitutes inappropriate language are so obvious. There is a commonality here.

Both suggest that you should be a little less categorical in your positions and that you should remove a piece of the mote in your own eye before, well, you know what I'm saying.

so please knock off your insults already. I answered a direct question as to what Laelth was asking for (a clone of DU). I gave a factual answer based on her earlier request.

Laelth is the continuing her old thread with this one, and that is apparent now from her response above.

I never accused you of stalking. Please re-read my post. I said stalking was a violation. On that we seem to agree.

You claim in several responses that she is on another site and you are trying to "out" her. Am I misreading that?

To me, that is similar to the behavior that people refer to as internet stalking. But that is a far cry from calling YOU a stalking.

I merely am stating facts as I see them.

And it is a fact that you are trying to wield words as a weapon but do not like anything pointed in your direction.

That is hypocritical. Remember now, facts are not insults. They are facts. Your words,

Calling someone a stalker because they correct you on every factual error you make in a single discussion thread. Yep, insult.

Calling someone a hypocrite for complaining when it gets "personal" after spending about half a dozen posts making it personal is not an insult. It is a fact.

That is being a hypocrite.

That too is just a fact that YOU don't like.

Re-read your own comments. There is no hiding from the truth and in this case, the evidence is there for anyone to see.

The fact is, you can't show it. I'm simply pointing out behavior of the OP.

an insult, and not having to do with any fact.

To call it a "fact' is laughable.

Um, that also wasn't a takeoff on your username.

:rofl: :hi:

I'm not sure you're going to love it as much as you think you are.

:shrug:

I sure don't like Sarah the Palinator, but that doesn't give me the right to call her "hon," does it?

I have neither the time nor the resources to clone DU myself. Besides which, I don't own the code. The admins do. It would be a lot easier and less-expensive for them, and we might all benefit if they decided to do so.

:dem:

-Laelth

Why would anyone clone all of their years of hard work and just give it away, let alone give it away to someone who's disgruntled about what that work has resulted in?

Do you expect them to host it for you too?

:shrug:

The moderators were not unanimous in their opinion, but in the end there was no consensus in favor of removal, so the hypothetical post would be allowed to stay.

Here's my opinion: I think it is within bounds.

In my opinion, calling Obama a "corporatist" is a (blunt) way of giving your opinion of his politics. I disagree with the sentiment, but I don't think it should be deleted. I would feel similarly if a poster said "Obama is a conservative" or a "centrist" or a "liberal". It's an attempt to label his politics.

Now, if the poster said "Obama is an asshole," I would consider that deletable under either of these two rules:

- Insults against prominent Democrats, such as "Fuck Obama."
- Name-calling against prominent Democrats. Calling Barack Obama "Barry" or some other name.

I was discussing this with EarlG and he brought up an interesting example. Would we delete the post if someone called Obama a "fascist"? That arguably would be a version of "giving your opinion of his politics." But the term "fascist" is so over-the-top, erroneous, and inflammatory that I think it should be removed.

I assumed that, under the rules as written, calling Obama a corporatist would be out of bounds--worthy of a post deletion and a warning.

Hmm ...

I have to wonder, is the kind of call you want your mods to regularly have to make? Can this be easily enforced? More importantly, can it be fairly and uniformly enforced?

I have no answer to those questions, but, in any event, thanks for taking the time to consider what I had to say.

:dem:

-Laelth

Perhaps I misunderstood your concern. I was under the impression that you felt we were being overly restrictive of criticism of President Obama.

My concern definitely is that criticism of conservative policy and criticism of Democrats when they enact conservative policy has been (of late) squelched to a degree that has dramatically changed this community. I suppose my reaction comes from the disconnect I see between the ruling you just gave me and the way that I perceive that the forum has been moderated of late (thus my question about whether the ruling you just gave would be applied in the future by the site's mods).

I suppose that the best strategy is to wait and see how these changes play out, and I will do that. Again, thanks for the response.

:dem:

-Laelth

I agree with the judgements in your post. I am someone who sees many of President Obama's policies as favoring wealthy corporate interests over the working class or the poor. And, although, I usually try to distinguish by saying he supports corporate interests over the interests of average Americans, I am sure I have, at times, called him a corporatist. I also agree that calling him a fascist would be crossing the line in my mind.

I would like to make the observation that reasonable criticism of policies the President supports is often met with attacks here such as being called a 'hater,' a 'whiner,' a 'malcontent.' It is also common here for criticism of the President to be met with accusations that the poster would not be satisfied with anything the President does and not with a discussion of the policy being criticized.

I noticed in the recent clarification of the rules specifically accusing groups of posters of of being 'conservatives' is spelled out as considered a broad brushed smear but I see no clarification with regards to attack on more left leaning posters such as being called, 'haters,' 'whiners,' 'leftbaggers,' purists,' and not real Democrats. As a registered Democrat from a long line of registered Democrats, who have all voted for Democrats their entire lives, I have been appalled to see some posters here accuse those who have issues with some of the President's more right leaning policies of really being "Greens," or some other affiliation. I'm wondering if those sorts of attacks are considered within the rules.

There are people here that are, and will continue to, use and abuse these rules to stifle disagreement. Now their victims are banned from fighting back.

There are already dozens of Democratic message boards where dissent is not simply not allowed and they are as boring as one would expect.

The subthread was an excellent example.

Post 49 was deleted, so the poster who made that post would be blocked from posting further in this thread. As a result, the subthread would be substantially shorter. :)

Criticizing policy is precisely applying ideological precepts: be it criticism of conservative or liberal policies (stimulus, health care, foreign policy approaches, etc.) Criticizing individuals is, well, just playing boogie man politics.

The difference is, the first takes thought, study, and analysis. The second is just the lazy person's way of substituting slogans for analysis.

But why can't people be lazy here? We're "at home," after all. The kind of laziness you describe used to be tolerated. Now it's against the rules. Why would people sit for that? Why wouldn't they just leave and go to a place where they feel comfortable?

Again, DU has changed. The liberals who post on this board have not.

:dem:

-Laelth

changed.

That is your opinion. It isn't 'fact'. Nothing has remained 'unchanged' since you joined this board including yourself. The same is true of all of us. The fact that we no longer have bush in office has changed things, the ongoing wars have changed things, Katrina changed things, Haiti changed things, Ted Kennedy's death changed things, the economy has changed things. The last 10 yrs have brought changes in all our lives personal and politically.

I personally, believe that anger, arrogance, and 'over-the-top' behaviour blossomed under the 'leadership' of the last administration and everyone has been effected by it to some degree.

Say you are correct, say that things were 'lazy' here, where some ugly, cruel, ruthless personal attacks on others was 'tolerated' (I'm not sure I agree) does that make it 'right'? If people cannot criticize someones actions or opinions without stepping over the line into trying to destroy the 'individual'- then I wonder why the issue is ignored in favor of 'venting' against a fellow human being. :shrug:

Our society has changed quite a bit over the last several years imo. Much of it not for the better. Encouraging us to consider our actions before we speak isn't a 'bad' thing imo.

But that makes for a very boring message board. One has to "consider one's actions before one speaks" in polite company, in formal social settings--not at home, among allies and close friends.

I was free to speak from the heart here at one time. At one time, I had a hard time on this site getting a good argument going. Now, there's virtually nothing I can say that won't get me attacked from all directions, as this thread clearly shows. I can assure you, DU has changed.

As Skinner said here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8603151

:dem:

-Laelth

patient reply to me. You are right that DU has changed, I can't argue that. Our society has changed alot as well. I agree that it's difficult to post much that doesn't elicit attacks- (not honest disageement) on all sides. That is not ok- imo.

I understand there are many people who don't like the 'new' rules, and who feel less comfortable with them. I can only speak for myself on this, but I have found myself very uncomfortable with the way 'discussions' here have become so angry, divisive and full of personal attacks and negativity. I do believe I'm not alone in this, and I that there are people who don't post or read here much because of that as well. It is a difficult balance-

In my experience anger is not easily mastered. We all feel it and have to learn to handle it without destroying others in the process.

thanks for listening and considering what I had to say.

This board has been an important place for me to learn, think, explore and confront many differing perspectives. I hope it continues to be for everyone.

peace~

:dem:

-Laelth

I wish that I had replied earlier to that effect.

Now, I need to take issue with one of your contentions here...

"One has to "consider one's actions before one speaks" in polite company, in formal social settings--not at home, among allies and close friends."

I strongly believe that it is actually MORE important to be careful in our speech when among friends and family. We are more hurt by careless and damaging remarks from those close to us than from strangers.

When we are careless and uncaring with those we say we care about, we damage trust, and that can be very hard to restore.

Harsh and damaging words said thoughtlessly can so destroy trust that it can break a friendship or marriage.

Trust.

Safety.

Those are human needs, and should be treated as such.

Thanks for the kind words and the words of wisdom.

:dem:

-Laelth

Although we attempt to do it all the time here. I'm speaking of politicians and those in power or running for office, to be clear.

:thumbsup:

I don't see how that is a bad idea. Then we could actually discuss things without getting all tied up in Wild Ranting.

without drawing some conclusions about the person or people promoting the policy, even if it goes unstated.

The Dems and President Obama have done lots of things policy wise to disagree with. That's why we have the cognitive dissonance that floods this board. We want to love him and them, they are our team and we all, collectively, put them in office. But then they DO things that some people(like me) do not like. The defenders always seem to say, "But your alternatives are so much worse, so pipe down already". Or the standard "Welcome President Palin" response. Just as unsatisfactory to deliver as to receive, I imagine. And this doesn't apply to just the President, it applies to all Dems, even Dems like Blanche Lincoln.

So then we enter complete stasis. I just read a thread from a year ago that could have been written yesterday. Exactly the same arguments and dilemmas about civil debate and schisms that is going on right now. I don't blame Democratic Underground. It changed and I failed to change with it.

I am sadly coming to grips with the fact that my time here is not happy or productive for either me or this place, even though it was a wonderful place to be unified as a minority. I feel that I am still in a minority and that I am fighting exactly the same battles I was then, to my complete shock and horror.

the continuation of personal attacks on a seating Democratic President.


:shrug:

scum sucking,corporatist, DLC paid operatives anymore and it's cramping your style. Got it.

I believe it would be against the new rules (if I can recall them all).

That seems to be quite a personal attack. But now we are playing with words.

Keep plugging away. You will get it.

okay to just ignore her out of hand because the poster didn't approve of what he perceived her message to be. If that is not personal then what is? Since apparently when one puts forth corporatist policies one cannot be called a corporatist.

and "party over policy" is not a passive aggressive swipe at those who don't agree? Who on DU is advocating against the party platform?

left-baggers. Although I wouldn't call either of those monikers as "passive-aggressive" It seems fairly aggressive to me.

"left baggers" before, is it used here?

imply that those who call themselves progressives are not. Quite often by those who get annoyed at people for considering withholding their vote from the Democratic candidate as said candidate (or more specifically incumbent) had been working against progressive ideas.

Quite frankly that is another problem. We seem to have a contingent of people who are under the impression that one's vote is something that is owed to the party no matter what they do, no matter how many of your principles the spit on. This sense of entitlement is really quite gross and I'm not sure anything in these rules will stop those from denigrating anyone who thinks that perhaps the party hadn't earned their vote.

who work on democratic campaigns and generally believe themselves to be Democrats.As of today's Gallup poll he has an 82% approval rating with democrats. Why would you be surprised that on a democratic board, you're not going to get some flack dissing democrats?

82% as the economy is feeling more and more like the Great Depression? I don't buy that number at all.

the other progressives presumably ought to be able to voice their opinion even when said opinion doesn't vibe with what the party is doing. That is the difference between being a board that welcomes progressives of all stripes which this board was and one that only wants to hear the party line which is what it sounds like the rules are moving toward. It is the difference between putting party first and putting policy first which I believe was what the OP was about, this ideological split.

Not all Democrats are progressives and not all progressives are Democrats. I am not a Democratic party apparatchik. And I don't intend to become one.

In addition I was not under the impression that this board was an extension of the Democratic party.

It is far to the left of the mainstream Democratic Party (although some are pulling us to the right to the best of their ability). As you can imagine, we resent that.

:dem:

-Laelth

the fact that the "personal attack" hasn't been deleted gives weight to the opinion that it wasn't a personal attack.

Sid

at leasat not permitted under the new rules as far as I have been able to parse them.

Thanks. :hi:

For many people, discussing actions or philosophy does not need to include an indictment of ones humanity. Some, however, feel that any misdeed in action is a devaluation of character. I would say that the latter view is a habit of rudeness that should be broken by those wishing to coexist with other humans.

If your logic is to remain consistent, that is.

:)

If you call them a failure or a loser, then it is. When you ascribe actions to the persons value and sum them up based on this predication, its a personal attack.



These new rules are fun. Its like teaching a civility class to children.

Sorry the tone was lost or that you are tone-deaf.

attack?

I'm responding to, the idea of you considering yourself qualified to teach a "civility class" to anyone is pretty damn hilarious.

not hopeful about the new rules.

not because i think people will have a lot of trouble drawing the line with public figures -- because i think some are invested in *not* drawing the line with other posters.

that they lack the personal boundaries necessary to differentiate a critique of that ideology from a personal attack, those people are in the minority here and really, it's their problem, not a countering poster's.

I would suggest to the extraordinarily thin skinned that a political discussion board might not be the best place for them. I've found over the years that developing a hide like a rhino is necessary for discussing politics unless one is in a right wing style echo chamber.

I welcome people who pick holes in my stuff because otherwise, I might never realize the holes are there. However, the unenlightening and unreasoning "you suck!" posts are seldom welcome on any level.

That's really where the line is, IMO.

Criticism is allowed on DU, and is even encouraged. What you cannot do is simply call that figure a name and make that the extent of your criticism. Criticism should be a description of what that figure is doing wrong, in your view, and some description of what you think that figure should be doing.

One liners are not criticism. Attacks without suggestions for an alternative action are not criticism. Declarations that are untrue about a public figure are not criticism. Associating public figures with groups that are universally hated is not criticism.

Criticism is always welcome in discussions. But it must be criticism, not just blatant attack. That's pretty much bad form anywhere.

For example, here's a real criticism I have of President Obama:

President Obama is dragging his heels on the subject of DADT and DOMA. That's bad for the entire country, since it maintains an inequality that is prohibited under our Constitution. President Obama should immediately begin pressuring Congress to take care of repealing both immediately. If he does not, it could prove to be harmful, not only for GLBT citizens, but for his chances of re-election.

That is criticism. Here's an example of something that isn't criticism, but is a blatant attack:

"Obama is a gay-hater. He's failed miserably, and is worthless as a President. He's as bad as the fundies. I'll never vote for him again."

Can you see the difference?

But "Obama is a corporate sell out" is not?

That sure seems like an awfully close inspection of minutely differing shades of gray..

The second one has quotation marks, the first does not. So are you claiming that is something you are quoting, not something made up by you, who is, I seem to recall, not gay?
The quotation marks mean those words are the words of another, are they? Or are they your own?

is someone who values party over ideology.

to the party down to the last dotter "i" is someone who isn't a democrat.:shrug:

On the part of Obama or the Dems in general..

Those are who value party over ideology.

...isn't it.

"tension between those who value party above ideology and those who value ideology over party"

Who is on which side?

May I respectfully suggest that sort of pidgeon-holeing is part of what's exacerbating the rancor here.

:dem:

-Laelth

else is some kind of party hack--and only you are right while those who support Obama are a bunch of party hacks.

It's just a different order of priorities or method of triage.

"For years, criticism of conservative posters, conservative policies, conservative politicians, and even conservative Democrats has been allowed if not encouraged."

Yes, because to be a conservative is to be a Republican. It's been clear and simple for decades: Liberal= Democrat, Conservative= Republican. Then the right Wing echo chamber (the MSM-especially talk radio) demonized the word "Liberal". And now here we are, fifteen years later debating weather or not those of us who support traditional Liberal policy positions are free to defend those positions on a discussion board called "Democratic Underground."

giant steps backward.....scary

This may be the clearest cut I've seen so far in the debate.

Why are we even having this discussion?

I imagine many people who conflate objective criticism with subjective pejorative will get rather frustrated in the long run...

Name of the 'site. If you note, the OFFICIAL LEGAL NAME is Democratic Underground L.L.C. ...note the punctuation.

That is with a big D, not a little one. That means to me, that the ultimate goal of this website, and as stated in the rules, is to help promote, and elect candidates who run as Democrats. It is not the Progressive, progressive, Left, leftist, Socialist, socialist etc.. Underground.

As much as you obviously want it to be, it is NOT going to be the (fill in the blank) Underground, and to suggest that the owners of the 'site spend time and money to hive it off, so you can engage in what debate free from the rules you find so onerous, is laughable.

And if the ideology first people find it that onerous, then they can start (from scratch) their own 'site.

The decision has been made for this to be Democratic Underground with a big "D." Again, let me say that this is fine, and it was completely within the owners' rights to make this decision.

What you don't know is that this used to be Democratic Underground with a small d. For many years, criticism of conservative posters, conservative policies, conservative politicians, and conservative Democrats was allowed, and I am talking about scathing, destructive criticism (as opposed to the "constructive" criticism to which the rules refer).

It appears to many of us that DU has changed. It was, at one point, the "Progressive, progressive, Left, leftist, Socialist, socialist etc.. Underground" you describe and demean. DU remains the premier liberal, American discussion forum. There's a reason that Dennis Kucinich wins our straw polls here. Most of us are far more liberal than the average American and, as a whole, this community is more liberal than the Democratic Party (the one with the big D).

:dem:

-Laelth

Well, it is not like Skinner did not make the rules quite obvious and above board. He did not try to hide it. Frankly, my attitude toward this is "What took you so long Skinner?"

And the attitudes portrayed on this issue is a microcosm of the larger question of:

"Why do Democrats have so many problems getting and keeping power?" and the answer is

"Because they expend more energy tearing each other apart than Republicans."

That would be your answer. Mine is that they seem to forget who the voters are as soon as the election is over...or maybe even before that.

The DLC's main goal is to gather corporate money so that they are not beholden to us.

We don't lose because of a difference of opinions, we lose because our party likes money the same way the other one does.

how we speak about all Dems or just how we speak of President Obama. Can we say what we please, how we please about Bill and Hillary, Dennis, Howard Dean etc. etc etc. Are these other Dems fair game for smearing?

I think the rules are about all Dems not just Obama. Maybe I'm wrong?

Some of us understand that personal attacks are counterproductive to a functioning civil society. When I fall out of line, I expect to be told to focus on the business of governing that is at hand.

There is nothing wrong with talking about policy and there is nothing wrong with talking about the forces producing those policies. It is one thing to say, "X is a corporate whore!!! I'm SERIESS!!" and quite another to say, "On the face of things it seems that X supports policy y because of the fact that his/her spouse sits on the company's board...I'll do some digging to confirm....yep, not only does it appear that way, but according to Z source, confirmed by A,B,C X took legislative language straight from the company report that outlined the company's business strategy on D topic".

Choice one is juvenile, lazy, just plain stupid, and is nothing but a reactionary mirror image of rightwing anti-intellectualism (the choice of words are just counter-posed to one another). It doesn't matter if perhaps the euphemism can be said to stand. It's a waste of time. Choice two is the type of rational fact based discussion we should be having.

Imagine the different discussions that can had organized around the different choices. Who would give a rip about the assertion in Choice one? Would a campaign supporter of politician X be swayed such astute analysis? Is choice two really forbidden by the new rules as you seem to claim? No. You didn't criticize the person, you criticized their actions. Self-governance is about steering the actions of our elected representatives. How successful are you in steering those actions when do not offer any policy alternatives other than name-calling?

Political change is about outsiders playing an inside game. That inside game is all crafting legislation, regulations, and enforcement action guidelines. We spend too much time staring at the shadows of our cave, acting like fools, when the light of the outside world is readily apparent. I'm glad those rules exist.

"I think (insert moderate Dem) is awful because they voted in a way that betrays liberal values"

and

"I think (insert moderate Dem) is a total douchebag, he needs to take a long walk off of a short pier" or "That (insert name) is such a slimeball. Did you see her hair? She's a wrinked old hag."

The first addresses policy but still calls out the person for their actions, which I think is perfectly fine. The second two are personal attacks... one not even addressing why they feel that way, and the other citing trivial reasons that have no basis in policy at all.

But you also realize that there was a time when, on DU, we could freely say, "I think (insert moderate Dem) is a total douchebag, he needs to take a long walk off of a short pier" or "That (insert name) is such a slimeball. Did you see her hair? She's a wrinked old hag."

That used to be OK. This is a place where liberals come to vent. A ridiculously broad and slanderous accusation like the one you posted, above, is just venting. It's the reaction of a principled person who cares deeply about this country sharing, among friends, his or her frustration and anger. And, for a long time, it didn't matter whether that frustration was directed at a Republican or a conservative Democrat. It appears that venting like that will no longer be tolerated. If DU can not serve that function any longer, people will probably leave.

It is DU that has changed, not the liberals who post here.

:dem:

-Laelth

For instance, if someone said "That slimeball supports Big Oil, what a bitch! Did you see her hair? She's a wrinkled old hag."... I would still see it as at least addressing policy, even if the sexism inherent in judging a woman on her appearance would get me a bit angry. "That spineless douchebag, all he does is cave any time Wall Street makes a demand, he need to take a long walk off of a short pier." also addresses policy.

Comments that are solely personal attacks do not encourage constructive discourse. It makes a person look like they don't have any reason to hate them, they just do. Venting like that without saying why you feel the need to vent is just going to insure you have more frustration to look forward to -- it doesn't do anything to change the situation.

It's just not what people are used to, and it's not what many of them want.

Again, it appears that DU has changed. The liberals who post here have not. If liberals do not feel comfortable here, if they can't relax here, if they can't feel free to vent and to express their anger, they'll probably leave.

Same goes for the Party as a whole, I might add.

:dem:

-Laelth

but I won't say more because it evidently offends said people to talk about it.

I'm in the need-to-be-a-somewhat-sympathetic-majority-party-to--even-have-a-shot-at-any-policy-getting-through camp.

you & i both know we don't live in that world

sometimes a shithead needs & deserves to be called a shithead and to pretend that the shithead is a good & decent person is just more dishonesty heaped on dishonesty

it is a lie to pretend a liar is not a liar and usu. a stupid lie, all this false courtesy has done little or nothing to help the progressive agenda

the mealy-mouthedness of certain progressives and even some democrats is not their most endearing policy, indeed, it smacks of cowardice -- i think there should be more calling out of fakes (example-- the unlamented ray nagin of new orleans, who was no democrat at all but who changed parties merely to trick the naive and the illiterate, now that he's away to dallas, we are just finding out how much $ this fake stole, the entire city coffers are in disarray -- but i should pretend that he was a good and decent person who made "mistakes" because he was a registered democrat for about ten minutes?)


the sad thing is, the new "rules" are so long and maundering that i haven't even read them far enough to know if i'm allowed to say "shithead"

is cussing even allowed any more? for all i know, this post will be deleted because i said "shithead"

:dem:

-Laelth

For example, if someone set a goal to criticize a Democrat as being too conservative at all times, whether its warranted or not. It could be to push that Democrat left, or campaign for a third party, encourage lack of faith in electoral politics as a method of change, or simply to satisfy a personal dislike for that Democrat which distorts a persons' interpretation of events.

I don't think those coming to DU for an open debate are the point of contention. If that described everyone at DU then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

examine for them-self what the 'facts' are and sometimes make assumptions and jump in with limited knowledge of the situation.

I do that myself far too often.

If you aren't willing to take the time to read the 'new rules' how can you really know if you agree with them or not?

That doesn't make you a bad person Pitohui, it makes you human.

Everyone thinks their own position is the right/moral/good one, otherwise we wouldn't hold it!-
But it's foolishness to think we are never wrong. We don't live in a 'black/white' world.

How we treat each other says more about who we really are than anything.

That "perfect world" may never happen, but shouldn't we do as much as we can as individuals towards that ideal?

There is a HUGE difference between the following two approaches (hypothetical):

1. We needed the public option, at a minimum, because it was the only realistic way to give the private insurers meaningful competition. Obama told us he wanted the public option, while assuring private insurers early on that it would not be part of the law passed .

vs.

2. Obama is a lying piece of scum.

I find statements like #2 to be inflammatory and unhelpful, and I don't care whether they're about Obama or W. or the tooth fairy.

I want facts and rational analysis, and I want facts sourced; because these are what help me do my job as a citizen. Name-calling just add to the clutter at best.

There is no serious problem here with people saying "Obama is a lying piece of scum." we do have many who claim that people are staying things like that when they haven't.

You can;t tell people how they can and can't post (when they are critics) while those opposing the critics are pretty much free to posts anyway they like, and then to mock and ridicule people who comment on that and say that they no longer feel free to post.

No one here is or ever has asked to be able to say "Obama is a lying piece of scum."

Recommended.

Doing so gets your posts deleted, moved, locked.

What happened to freedom of speech?

Is DU not mature enough to handle opposing opinions and ideas?