Skip to main content

View Diary: My 2 cents to add to the community moderation discussion. (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  1002 rec's for this diary - you have eloquently (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, AntonBursch, blueyedace2

    summed up the problem.

    if people would debate the policies instead of the personalities, then MAYBE we could actually accomplish something once in a while!

    thank you for this - and i am 100% in agreement with you!

    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

    by edrie on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 06:27:13 PM PDT

    •  we don't debate in a vacuum (4+ / 0-)

      Personalities and emotions can't be neutered during a discussion. We can attempt to temper our emotions and personalities and try to remember to add facts but then people fight over where the facts came from and if what they are suggesting is going to be effective or is popular and they have the facts and the poll numbers to prove but then someone else has facts and poll numbers that prove otherwise and eventually they are talking past each other and finally they end up calling each other doody heads.

      Rinse and repeat and there you have 90% of the discussions on Dailykos. It's not going to change.

      I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

      by jbou on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 07:39:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  sadly, there are people who won't look at (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erratic, jbou

        "facts" as "facts".  

        if more folks linked to where and what and why they base their arguments, then others do the same, the next step isn't name-calling - it is then then re-evaluating your own basis for an opinion or agreeing to disagree.

        what floors me here in the last few years is the demand that people MUST agree on contentious or they must be "trolls".

        people disagree - they bring different life experiences to the table upon which their disagreements are based.  if one's feelsing are that strong - bring stronger arguments and factual support to try to persuade the other side to re-think their position.

        unfortunately, again, around here for quite a while now, there are folks whose validity in life seem to depend on others agreeing with them no matter whether or not they have brought a persuasive argument to the conversation.

        calling someone a "doody head" (as you aptly described it) is NOT persuasion - it is force.  plain and simple - it is forcing someone to agree or else risk ostracisation or attack or bullying.

        i can't begin to say how many times i've seen folks who hold differing views called ugly names and insulted personally because they see the world from a different standpoint (myself included as a recipient).  some of the most hurtful and hateful things are levied, generalizations made, others telling others what "they" think - all done with closed minds and without asking what their opinions really are and how they formed those opinions.

        it is stifling and sad - and this place has lost much because of the hard-liners.  when people talk past one another and label and lock positions without being willing to explore the possiblities that others might have valid reasons for their opinions, we get this stand-off and deterioration of ideas - AND we lose effectiveness as an influence in the political arena.

        someone else put it succinctly:  if we can't convince each other, how in hades are we going to convince the republicans?

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:32:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site