Skip to main content

View Diary: My only Meta diary, ever (285 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The purpose of this site, (14+ / 0-)

    what drew us to it, was its commitment to 'electing more and better Democrats'. Sadly, that no longer seems to be the raison d'etre.

    A relatively small group of people who believe they are leftier-than-thou want to attack the President and Democrats in Congress for not adhering to a purity platform which says that anything less than a progressive paradise is heretical to the progressive movement.

    They ignore the fact that the vast majority of Americans are not progressive. In fact, most identify as conservative. They despise incrementalism and compromise. This is despite the fact that these are the tools of democracy.

    They believe that they have the right to bully and berate those who disagree. They seem to view this as sport, not that it helps build the coalitions we need to bring about progressive change.

    I agree that this is the best website I've ever blogged at. I love the ability to moderate the comments democratically. I think there are many great diaries submitted every day.

    However, I fear that ultimately DKos may go the wat of a site like MYDD, which imploded in a spiral of vitriol and hatred.

    Far too many great Kossacks have left, and many more may follow if Kos cannot find a mechanism for moderating those who feel they have the right to suppress the speech of those who oppose their views. The use of mob tactics to
    censor other points of view is inexcusable.

    Every voice deserves to be heard, so long as it conforms to that vision of 'more and better democrats'. If DK cannot sustain that vision, I fear that more and more of the people, who make this community a community, will migrate to greener pastures. That would be a tragedy.

    Here's my take on it - the revolution will not be blogged, it has to be slogged. - Deoliver47

    by OIL GUY on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 07:56:31 PM PST

    •  I think one of the things (16+ / 0-)

      that makes this site so great is the very democracy of it.  We police ourselves pretty well.  We fact check each other and we don't take anything for granted.

      It doesn't bother me about the perceived bitterness (frankly I really haven't seen it).  If those diarists keep writing bullshit diaries, then they will evaporate, eventually.

      If a truly loved diarist with a good reputation leaves (take fishgrease, for instance) there will be action and that good diarist will hopefully return.

      So, I'm not worried about the future integrity of this site.  In the least.  We have enough talent here that will overcome any bullshit takeover, IMO.

      "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

      by La Gitane on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 08:08:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The American People Are At Pre Depression Levels (21+ / 0-)

      of wealth and power inequality. We are last among advanced democracies in delivering the American Dream of upward mobility to their people.

      Failure to support our present return most of the way to the worst our country has been for its people, is a radical purity agenda.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 08:19:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  couldn't agree more (0+ / 0-)

        and, am wondering if anyone else read the title of the comment as referring to emotional depression equally with economic depression

        our only hope is that the american electorate at least recognizes reality over and over again, from now on

    •  I don't see this mob mentality that you speak (13+ / 0-)

      of. There are a couple topics where that happens, but I see no reason why a progressive blog wouldn't question if elected Democrats are progressive enough. It seems to me that would go with the territory.

      •  There are none so blind, (0+ / 0-)

        as them that will not see.

        Why don't we spend our energies attacking those who oppose our view of society, and spare those who agree with us - at least n spirit, if not in every detail!

        Here's my take on it - the revolution will not be blogged, it has to be slogged. - Deoliver47

        by OIL GUY on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 12:25:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You could spend time arguing with Republicans (6+ / 0-)

          or you could find a wall and smash your head into for the same result.  The Republican party that Chris Matthews fondly remembers compromising with is dead, it was eaten alive by the cannibals from the conservative wing.  Right now Democrats want pizza for lunch Republicans want the Democrats and the Democrats consider it a win when they walk out of the room surrendering only a pinky for lunch.  That is not a win, nor a compromise nor is it purity to oppose it, it is a call for sanity.

          The rightwing sees a house on fire and says to empty a tanker of gas on it because Michelle Bachmann believes spraying water on fires is how they get the fluoride in the air to the people who refuse to drink it.  The answer is not to negotiate down to half a tanker of gas and let the neighborhood burn, it is to turn to the American people and explain to them that the Republicans refuse to apply common sense and explain what will happen if Republicans get their way.  Explain that Democrats were willing to use chemical foam but that gasoline is not a solution.  

          If you negotiate to half a tanker of gas, the neighborhood still burns, the media writes the story about how both sides decided to pour gas on the fire, and the public blames both sides.  If Democrats let the Republicans burn down the neighborhood, people will see they were the ones who did it and will either stop sending lunatics to the House or will have to live with the consequences of sending lunatics to the House.  Either way Democrats are not complicit in the damage.  You fight for the right answer, the proper fix to a problem, not just for any solution and certainly not for whatever can squeak by the conspiracy theorists on the radical right.

          Compromise can only occur when both parties are in the same plane of existence.  The current incarnation of Republicans does not want to fix anything, the only results they will accept are things will ultimately allow them to dismantle the government.  It is perfectly reasonable to back away from a negotiation when one party is making unreasonable demands, particularly when one party's demands are so extreme they defy the laws of the natural world around them.  If Republicans demand a unicorn, the proper response is to show why the demand is ludicrous, not negotiate down to a pony with a paper towel roll glued to its head.

        •  Oil guy, I agree, but then why not just "hang (0+ / 0-)

          out" in the diaries you like?  I am not sure I am paying enough attention to all of this to get what you are getting at, but I since you took the time to respond and I like your quotation line,  I suppose you mean that the Prez and the Dems are trying and all they are getting from "our" side is criticism and it isn't fair or accurate.

          I do think that happens a lot, that the people fixing the problem get blamed, it isn't fair, but, it happens all the time. At some point, if you keep at it, fixing or slogging, the people who are saying that you aren't doing enough will
          quiet down and nobody will take them seriously anymore.

          So, I think it is up to the Dems, to continue to work on behalf of the people who elected them to do that. If they do that, then they will be acclaimed, not questioned.

          That is my opinion, you don't have to agree.

    •  Whoops, except when polled on individual (12+ / 0-)

      specific issues:

      They ignore the fact that the vast majority of Americans are not progressive.
      •  How do they describe their views? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        isabelle hayes

        This issues bullshit is great, except it totally is dependent on how you ask the question.

        Here's my take on it - the revolution will not be blogged, it has to be slogged. - Deoliver47

        by OIL GUY on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 12:27:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If Coke and Pepsi competed like Democrats (10+ / 0-)

          and Republicans, Coke would have run ads everywhere telling people Pepsi takes like crap.  After enough ads over enough time people polled would say Pepsi tastes like crap.  However, if they were given a blind taste test, they would describe Pepsi as being sweeter, may be better tasting but few would say it was crap.

          That is what polling has picked up.  After decades of being told progressive ideas are bad, people respond they are bad, but when asked about individual progressive ideas without the label, they support them.  Labels don't matter, the ideas do.  People want progressive ideology, they just don't think they do because of the Republicans very successful marketing campaign against the label.

    •  What you call purity is the Democratic platform (13+ / 0-)

      Polls are only relevant in how you ask them. I guarantee you most people do not want to put SS, Medicare, or Medicaid on the table for the fake self induced crisis perpetuated by outright incompetence or corruption, but if Congress cared about what the people wanted they wouldn't have single digit poll numbers.

      So since SS is a major part of the Democratic platform like Medicare, those that would put it in harm;s way should probably think about whether they are in the right party.

      I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

      by priceman on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 09:51:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your comment is meaningless. (0+ / 0-)

        Do you think Barack Obama is trying to abolish these programs? No, he is trying to strengthen them. But you want everything to be just as you desire in your fantasy world.

        We could probably agree on many things. I would like to see the defense budget slashed. I think Chuck Hagel is exactly the right guy to achieve this.

        I do think we need to deal with the deficit, but I don't want to do anything that slows short to midterm growth, so chained CPI makes sense to me and I'm only 4 years away from collecting SocSec. i would change the formula as soon as Democrats resume control  of the House.

        Here's my take on it - the revolution will not be blogged, it has to be slogged. - Deoliver47

        by OIL GUY on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 12:38:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If chained CPI is put in place.... it's staying! (6+ / 0-)

          How often do you see shitty legislation reversed?

          There are many ways to strengthen SS, and cutting the benefits to the old people and the infirm is not the way to go about it.

          You can kiss the asses of those who choose to coddle Wall Street at your expense and the rest of the 99%, but some of us just don't see it that way.

          Sorry.

          Corporations before people.... it's the American way!

          by Lucy2009 on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 01:12:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Seriously (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          isabelle hayes, TJ, priceman

          some of you just simply need to get over your need to be in charge.

          Or something.

          But you want everything to be just as you desire in your fantasy world.
          NOT HELPFUL.

          It is time to #Occupy Media.

          by lunachickie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:16:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You are correct, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          priceman, figbash, SadieSue

          we don't need a drag on short to midterm growth. That's why we don't need more cuts. We need a bigger deficit right now, then address the deficit once the economy improves. Economic improvement alone would help the deficit situation.

          But what does chained CPI have to do with the deficit? Soc. Sec. does not drive the deficit. Period. Bargaining it away in a "deficit" package drives the fallacy that Soc. Sec. is a drain on the budget. It's not.

          Payroll taxes were higher than needed to fund the program for 30 years. During that time working people bankrolled the deficit spending brought on by tax cuts for the wealthy. How can we, as Democrats, say they (and you personally) should have their benefits reduced to address a deficit problem they alleviated rather than caused.

          And it would be nice to change the formula back but you can't count on it happening.

          Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

          by fenway49 on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:23:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, some of us obviously don't want to be (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          priceman

          Republicans.  And implement Republican policies.  

    •  We're gonna fight about what "better" means. (4+ / 0-)

      Somedays, we're even gonna fight about what "Democrat" means.

      Politics ain't bean bag.

      "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

      by JesseCW on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:50:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If I see this (4+ / 0-)

      it's the other way around. I don't know why I'm even getting into this for a minute. I've never been HR'd nor do I intend to start. We can debate things civilly. But I've seen more "mob tactics" and "suppression of speech" coming from the strong Obama defenders than from the other side.

      Your comment, to me, says:

      Step 1: Interpret the site's purpose to exclude those who disagree with you.
      Step 2: Assert that those who disagree with you are fundamentally incompatible with the site's purpose.

      I read Mets' diary (and I've never had anything against him) and thought it had more straw men than a scarecrow convention. The debate is not "what is possible with a GOP House" vs. "sprinkle progressive magic dust and get exactly what I want." It's a genuine disagreement over what would be possible with stronger negotiating.

      And my blood pressure goes through the roof when people blithely assert that anyone who thinks we could have done a little better this time WANTS UI to be cut off, or a recession. It's pretty rich for people who spend most of their time being SHOCKED anyone would question Obama's motives to then turn around and assail the motives of people who think two or three days off the "cliff" might have given more leverage and wouldn't have been devastating.

      I don't consider myself anti-Obama and I am anti-pie fight, but I do tend to think the President could do better in a lot of these deals. As is pointed out above, after 30-40 years of right-wing economics has pushed us back to 1920s wealth distribution, and now they are coming for the safety net too.

      You say more Americans identify as conservative than progressive. Perhaps so, but that doesn't extend to policy. Clear majorities support tax hikes at $250K over the cuts we just kicked down the road two months. Nobody wants cuts to Soc. Sec. My view is that we'll have to see if the President holds firm (as we all hope) or if there are even more cuts in March. And I've been insulted on this site for even suggesting the President might blink (might, as in hypothetical, in the realm of possibility).

      Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

      by fenway49 on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:15:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I honestly don't see how people can type (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      figbash, SadieSue

      stuff like that with a straight face.

      The purpose of this site, (9+ / 0-)

      what drew us to it, was its commitment to 'electing more and better Democrats'. Sadly, that no longer seems to be the raison d'etre.

      A relatively small group of people who believe they are leftier-than-thou want to attack the President and Democrats in Congress for not adhering to a purity platform which says that anything less than a progressive paradise is heretical to the progressive movement.

      I'm 'leftier than thou'.  I freely admit it, because I'm a socialist.  I do want a progressive paradise, and it's FAR to the left of what I see advanced here by the people whacked with 'purity'.  And while I do mention the things I actually want, I'm pretty much a lone voice on many of them.  The so-called 'purity trolls' ask for far less than I desire.

      They want modest changes to the tax code that actually raise all taxes that high income folks might pay to at least Clinton era levels - I would like to see a return to far more marginal rate levels, with a top 90% rate on all forms of income over 1 billion in a given year, with dividends and interest taxed as regular income.  They want a return to Clinton era estate tax, I want graduated estate tax again, with maybe a top tier of 75%.

      They want a public option, I want single payer.

      They want modest raises in minimum wages, I want the difference between tipped and untipped income removed, and minimum wage raised to $15 an hour.

      They want sensible restrictions on access to firearms, I want an amendment to amend the second, and actually require 'well regulated' militias, with secure militia armouries.

      I could go on and on, but the reality is that 'purity' is tossed around on this site to mean 'anything even slightly to the left of what I believe' by the people using it, and it being proclaimed that they're never willing to 'compromise'.  I'm farther left then them, and I'm always willing to compromise.  Any movement to the left at all is good, because we've spent 40 years moving to the right.

      The reality is that Dems are criticized for failing to adhere to their own party platform.  Not to some mythical socialist utopia, such as I would like to see.

    •  Actually, there are a number (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SadieSue

      of issues people here believe are 'important' that have nothing much to do with elections or ins vs. outs in D.C. Those people write about those issues, helping others to understand details, positions and points of view better. Issue oriented diaries seldom make the wreck list or garner a thousand comments, but information does manage to change hands and awareness sometimes blooms.

      Sometimes illumination of actual issues can translate into pressure applied on politicians to deal with those issues. Or not, but at least the issue has been highlighted for those who do care. These ridiculous meta wars about who thinks Obama can do no wrong versus those who think he's undermining Democratic foundations seem mostly (to me) to be about blind hero worship versus the view that politicians have to be pushed to do anything worthwhile. No amount of bruised fee-fees on either 'side' are going to materially effect actual politicians or policies.

      Seems childish to me, but that's just my opinion. Others obviously believe their personal views should count for a whole lot more than they actually do.

    •  The purpose of this site, (0+ / 0-)

      the official mission notwithstanding, actually is leisure time spent schmoozing and debating with other Democrats and seeking validation for our views. And preaching to the choir, which, however emotionally satisfying it may be, is not really productive. If we want to accomplish something through blogging we'd be better off going to sites where we could sell progressivism to the wider community.

      Most of what happens here is better described as socializing and intellectual exercise than political action. Why do we kid ourselves about it?

      ... if Kos cannot find a mechanism for moderating those who feel they have the right to suppress the speech of those who oppose their views. The use of mob tactics to censor other points of view is inexcusable.
      How interesting. We need to do a better job suppressing the speech of those who seek to suppress our speech?

      We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

      by denise b on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 12:37:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site