Skip to main content

View Diary: Loyalty Oaths (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This message (10+ / 0-)

    about loyalty oaths is timely and needed on this site, imho.  

    And another thing worth mentioning is that the people on this site who are now accused of being "far left" purists would have been considered moderate Democrats just a couple of decades ago.  The redefinition of far left is worrisome to me because there are now voters in the party who have only ever known this new normal except for what they might hear in stories or read in history books.

    There have been many times when I've seen McCarthy-like interrogations in the comment threads here and it was not called out.  It's clear that progressives who will not toe the party line are smeared as being not loyal enough and often there are calls for us to get off the site or to be banned.  Some of us are or were lifelong registered Democrats (some are now Independents and former lifelong Democrats but clearly still people who vote D all or a lot of the time).


    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 06:19:05 AM PST

    •  "far Left" is still "far Left", but "progressive" (6+ / 0-)

      is not an agreed-to term in many cases.

      There's many here old and experienced enough to know the difference between strict allegiance to socioeconomic ideals and sociopolitical parties, including how they tend to intersect in through constructive through corrupting ways.  

      I've met all types here, most folks showing their own unique mix of abstract and practical perspectives.  The more polarized voices can be interesting at times, but I prefer those with more practical notions on how we get past the next hump of each day, keeping long-term goals in mind as general targets as best possible.

      Still, broad victimization claims concerning position-taking probably don't help to bridge many gaps or engender sympathy, since they tend to sound like defiant finger-pointing from the many, past pie fights here.  So, I vote "pie."

      There are no loyalty oaths at this site, to my knowledge.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 06:40:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There is a huge difference between (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluedust, hnichols, SilentBrook

      involuntary oaths forced on people by government or corporate entities, and the voluntary loyalty oaths people practice at time here. I myself stated my loyalty to Obama several years ago, but did so completely voluntarily, as did many others at the time (and I've never regretted it). The problem with loyalty oaths is not the oaths themselves but rather the compulsory nature of official ones.

      •  Well she's talking about McCarthy-like tactics (6+ / 0-)

        used by some people here to shut other people up.
        i.e. Have you ever voted Green, did you vote Nader, are you a Dem, do you know that this site is just for electing Dems, are you or will you or did you vote for (insert name here), And if you didn't, won't or can't, HAMSHER!! FDL!!  <--------redstate is that way.
        And so on.
        If you haven't seen any of that then you aren't hanging out on the same site I am.

        And no, that sure isn't the same as loyalty oaths forced on people by GovCOs. Not the same as taking a voluntary oath either. But it is used to shun and discredit some fine people and ideas because they won't take that voluntary oath others have taken to trust and have faith in politicians, which is a ridiculous and dangerous way to involve yourself politically and that is where there are similarities between Loyalty Oaths and the tactics used by some people on Daily Kos.

        It's ugly to me.

        •  Kos has a mission statement, it is to elect Ds, mo (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Burned

          re and better, but Ds.  If you don't support that, they are many other places without such a mission.

          Now, if you present your views in a way that appears to undermine that mission - for example, as in 'I'm not voting for D/D-candidate in GE' diaries and comments - you should not be surprised if you are then invited to not let the door hit your rear, especially during election season.  The practical effect is to undermine the stated mission of the site, and presumably the primary goal of most folks who come here.  And when emotions are high and all energy is directed at one front, its hardly surprising that such acts are seen as counter-productive at best and a stab-in-the-back at worst.  Add to that the nature of this medium...

          And you also shouldn't be surprised if you get treated like a troll.  Ratfucking is what Thugs do, and have done since Nixon at least.  They raised it to an art.  Heck, they coined the fraking word.  Since there's little way to tell who is and isn't one in fact, its not surprising when non-'big names' get treated as such. (Heck, that's part of what ratfucking seeks to happen.)

          But, yes it would be nice if we could be more civil about things.  Say like sports fans who buri down parts of their cities when they win. :)

          •  I think it is VERY easy (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chrismorgan, joanneleon

            to tell who is looking to make a stink, and who is looking for support for their good for people ideas or a piece of good for people policy that they're pushing for.

            The deal now though is that if an idea or a policy someone would like to discuss with people on Daily Kos has any sort of negative slant on the Obama Administration, the gates open and the questioning begins.

            But I understand that not everyone can see who's bullshitting or not, so I think it would just be a plain good idea not to encourage that sort of challenging questioning at all. I've spoken to a few people that do it trying to get through, but without success.

            It is ugly and when it involves someone that doesn't deserve to be treated that way it gets REALLY ugly.
            I want pretty Dems with pretty policy for all us pretty people.

    •  The difference between criticism here (0+ / 0-)

      and McCarthy-style attacks is that if you simply ignore your critics here, they have no more power over you. Whereas, if you tried to ignore Joe McCarthy or HUAC, you were likely heading to jail, often without any hope of resuming your career when you got out.

      That's a pretty big difference.

      Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

      by Nowhere Man on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 11:13:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site