Skip to main content

View Diary: Walking on Eggshells - Are we asking the wrong questions? (183 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Cui bono? (24+ / 0-)

    Another more important question attaches to that. Why? What is the motive?

    Some may disrupt a conversation out of passion for a position. Or because they enjoy the joust of debate. Or because they hope to cause disruption and dissension to the group as a whole. Or perhaps intending to bully others into accepting their position - or at least not arguing against their position.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:01:37 PM PDT

    •  All of those, and likely more. And the disruptors (16+ / 0-)

      may not have a clue as to why they're drifting toward the RH margin. Some pie fights are purely habitual and have very little to do with the content of the diary they occur in.

      Why is almost always ambiguous, except in cases where a commenter has an Aha! moment in the middle of a conversation and shares it afterwards. Rare, but it's happened. Still, we need to ask, because "human" tends to equal "curious". Assuming we know someone's reasons though, tends to kick the fight to a whole new level.

      At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

      by serendipityisabitch on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:14:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  heh (10+ / 0-)
      or at least not arguing against their position.
      Ding ding ding

      Some people do not argue in good faith. Their only purpose is to disrupt and cause strife. Best to not engage them.

      by Drewid on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:28:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Catte Nappe: I see that here every day. (10+ / 0-)
      Some may disrupt a conversation out of passion for a position. Or because they enjoy the joust of debate. Or because they hope to cause disruption and dissension to the group as a whole. Or perhaps intending to bully others into accepting their position - or at least not arguing against their position.
      Pick an issue.

      LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

      by BlackSheep1 on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:57:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Cui bono? The Republicans. (6+ / 0-)

      If we shut down our discussions and become afraid to analyze certain policy issues we become intellectually weak. Only the Republicans benefit from this.

      I have always viewed DKos first and foremost as a tool for getting Progressives elected. We encourage activism. We fund-raise. We educate each other on issues. We discuss and analyze policies. We get smarter. We get sharper.

      In a few weeks, many of us will begin knocking on doors and phone-banking. A few of us will be interacting with elected officials, their staffers, lobbyists, and candidates for office. I strongly suspect that some of us actually are such.

      The time will come (it always does) when we will be asked a TOUGH QUESTION about Progressive policies. Why does the Democrat in the race support ABC? Why is the Republican wrong for supporting XYZ?

      When this time comes, will not be able to press a button and hide-rate the voter who asked the question.

      When this time comes, I hope each of us will have a well-framed, reality-based answer. One that has been tested and made stronger by a free and open give-and-take discussion.

      Some discussions may be painful -- especially depending on an individual's personal real-life experiences. These Diaries should be elevated to a special, higher level of the site. Similar to the IGTNT Diaries, these "safe zones" would be places for healing and understanding -- and less for crunching budget and survey numbers.

        1) We need the tough policy discussions to discover how we must win.

        2) We need the personal and healing spaces to discover why we must win.

      We should not let one damage or drive out the other.

      •  Since the question was who, on the site, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        churchylafemme

        benefits from the kind of community disorganization that has been happening in the last week, are you actually saying that it is caused by Republican shills?

        Otherwise, your comment, while it may be coherent in and of itself, is meaningless within the context of this diary. You do not appear to have been following this particular area within the site, so let me start by suggesting that you do some searching beginning with the date of 5/30/14 under Rodger, women, #yesallwomen, rape, etc, and more recently in the diaries tagged Walking on Eggshells.

        You might, also, wish to go back and re-read the diary. It appears you've skimmed it, at best.

        At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

        by serendipityisabitch on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 12:41:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't read it that way at all (5+ / 0-)

          (in terms of blaming RW shills)
          And it isn't totally OT. I think what he's saying is that avoiding controversial discussion prevents us from strengthening our arguments against Republican policies. So, tying it to my comment he was responding to, we see another "why" people might make comments that appear to disrupt. Not because they enjoy the joust of debate, but might see it as a way to hone their debate skills.

          “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

          by Catte Nappe on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 06:46:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not saying... (7+ / 0-)

          ...nor do I believe that there are any RW shills involved. Just because somebody benefits from a crime doesn't mean they committed it.

          The Diarist states:

          "Cui bono is almost always the first question to ask in a power struggle..."
          I agree 100%, and this Diary is important and interesting because it asks that tough question. Asking, "who benefits?" often shines a spotlight on the culprit(s).

          But sometimes it doesn't.

          After reading the responses -- as well as a few of the other Eggshell diaries -- I just can't bring myself to think that there is evil afoot on DKos. I don't see any conspiracies on one side or another.  I see a bunch of mere mortals who made mistakes. Mere mortals often do that.

          We need to remember who the Real Enemy is.

          Lastly, I think the most insightful part of this Diary is hidden in the middle:

          "...certain topics, that a majority of the members of the site agree on, will immediately lead to highly contentious argument if they are brought up in any but the most judicious/palliative terms?"
          Boldface is mine.
          We need rules on how to discuss these TOUGH QUESTIONS. We need safe spaces for the most sensitive discussions and guidelines for the rest of the discussions.

          For example, most of my contributions to this site are on Economics and Education. Nobody experiences deep emotional pain or has flashbacks triggered over Economics and Education! We need some "judicious and palliative" rules under which more sensitive topics can be discussed.

          But the last thing we should do is shut the discussions down -- we know exactly "who benefits" from silence, darkness, and ignorance. The enemy benefits.

          •  A second apology. I wasn't thinking about what (5+ / 0-)

            you said, I just thought I was. Sleep is good.

            I'm not so sure we need more rules for these questions, since there tend to be two types of responses - the ones that try to work within whatever rules there are and the ones that are determined to game whatever rules there are. Persistent gamers' rewards are in scored points, rather than in new insights or understanding, so a new rule is like a fresh box of chocolates - irresistible.

            At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

            by serendipityisabitch on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 09:49:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  My apologies. I've since slept, and my reaction (6+ / 0-)

        to your comment was a bit much. Sorry.

        At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

        by serendipityisabitch on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 09:28:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  All of the above. (10+ / 0-)

      But I suspect one of the biggest and deepest ones is that they, themselves, feel that they're entitled to equal sympathy. And they sense they're being denied sympathy they're entitled to when we concentrate on the issues of one group.

      So you see people tossing up all the ways THEY themselves lack privilege (whether it's because they're gay, have struggled financially, are disabled, etc), while they're derailing diaries about the very significant problems ohers deal with every day.

      This happens in not just the diaries about women, of course.

      And some members aren't as aggressive as others. But their comments serve to hijack good diaries just the same. In fact the less aggressive comments are harder to call out because it's hard to know if they're just obtuse, being passive aggressive or what.

      So instead of being able to stand back and listen to others, they concentrate on their own situations, and then they do their derailing dance. If someone does it once or twice, I think, "they're just being empathetic." When they do it in every freaking diary about other groups of people, I strart to see an uncomfortable pattern.

      Unfortunately, "I've also suffered" comments get uprated like crazy. So it's hard to respond.

      So I, personally think, "well, that worked again." And I close my browser. Another conversation shut down.

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 09:14:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, my, yes. I saw it tried again last night (5+ / 0-)

        in Nicholas Powers' diary. I won't say successfully, but I haven't seen a really good comeback for it yet. Eventually some brilliant commenter will find one, and the day of the "but you're ignoring me" troll will be mostly over.

        At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

        by serendipityisabitch on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 09:36:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think some of the comments of that type . . . (6+ / 0-)

        are genuine attempts to relate to the subject matter at hand, to apply insights to one's own life, put the matter into a familiar context, or even show solidarity.  When they really miss the mark, it's often out of ignorance, not malice.

        And I will admit that one of my own hobby horses is that I think the progressive cause would be greatly furthered if the various groups within the coalition could better recognize the commonality as well as the distinctives of our struggles, that which binds us being so much greater than that which divides us.

        •  absolutely agree (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jgilhousen, serendipityisabitch

          Saying things like "I feel ya, person-with-chronic-illness, I have similarly-debilitating-but-different-chronic-illness" is a very common way of relating to people. It makes them realize you're on their level, that you too have experienced their pain.

          What's the phrase? Misery loves company? Yes.

          •  While I understand the discomfort expressed . . . (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CroneWit

            about such comments, and even the "It's not the same thing!" responses, it seems a serious disincentive to empathize.

          •  Person with disability to another person with (9+ / 0-)

            Disability? Absolutely agree.

            But someone here once said, "try being a black lesbian single mother...." She was tired of others telling her how their experiences were just like hers.

            I see a lot of that. And I'm not sure it's all compassion and empathy.

            I don't know. I know what my struggles are. And I know I just shut up when people tell me what their struggles are.  When people are telling their stories, they don't want to be upstaged by "yeah, well I have it just as bad" stories. They don't want others to offer solutions (if they did, those are different diaries).

            They just want to be heard.

            There is a way to offer empathy based in experience. And there is derailing. The difference is usually pretty clear-- at least, I think so.

            © grover


            So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

            by grover on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 12:54:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site