Glenn Greenwald writes:
These right-wing bloggers operate at a level several beneath the National Enquirer, literally. They simply fabricate facts and recklessly and maliciously launch serious accusations against the media whenever doing so advances their political agenda.
They leap on any innuendo or gossip from the Internet swamps and tout it as fact whenever doing so bolsters their ideological view or can be enlisted to destroy the credibility of a journalist who reports unpleasant facts.
A few days ago I wrote:
The daily kos community and management demanded adherence to facts. Argue for any view you wish, but stick to the facts. Daily Kos has always been rigorous on this point. Or used to be anyway.
This policy is/was good, imo, for its own sake, for how can we really have discourse without commitment to truth, but also for the sake of credilibilty. We do not want to become like the Wingnuts do we? More.
That said, a good point was made to me by Eugene and Pyrrho about the need for full time commitment to facts.
Eugene and I had this exchange:
dKos has been very inconsistent on this (38+ / 0-)
If you want facts and respect it must be insisted upon and showed at all times, including - perhaps especially - campaign season.
My very rough sense is this: the site gave free rein to the worst kinds of attempts to silence people and enforce orthodoxy during the recent elections, when it was considered good form to tell people to shut up if they were criticizing Dems or mentioning 2008 or doing whatever else they were doing aside from 'rah-rah Dems'.
Once that was considered tolerable, it was like letting the genie out of the bottle, and as we've seen, people kept at it even after the elections, on different subjects.
The attitude of silencing that went on during the election was utterly ruinous. And I say that as someone who didn't often fall afoul of it. . . .
by eugene on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 12:17:37 AM EST
*
Wait up (4+ / 0-)
An election is a little different.
We are polemicists then.
More at TalkLeft
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 12:21:55 AM EST
My point is that it doesn't matter (38+ / 0-)
The site is a social group, and once you allow a certain social dynamic to flower, it's not so easy to say on the day after the election "OK everybody, turn off the flamethrowers and the silencers, let's respect folks and ask for reality-based conversation again."
Communities don't turn on a dime.
by eugene on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 12:23:51 AM EST
Pyrrho's diary focused on the issue of leadership:
What happened is loyalty to some imagined common cause is more important than those facts.
The other thing, relative to item 2, there have grown different standards... people don't feel respected. They are told rather than asked. They are told who the netroots candidates are, they are told the plan, they are told that the netroots is going to be closely integrated to the Democratic party like it or not, and we are supposed to accept that as "I'm only speaking the truth" and "I only mean it in a particular way"... but the point is people are being lead now. They have "leaders".
I'm so sick of leaders I could spit. Idiots that think they know best for me. We need self-assembly, not a new set of leaders. Leaders create disrespect among the people, they generate resentment as they go around shaping things. Fuck all leaders, I'm here to shape myself . . .
These are valid points that require discussion. First on Eugene's point, I really have thought a long time about it and I do not have a good answer. I think the criticism is valid. Moreover, as I thought about it some more, I did not see any substantive benefits to NOT respecting critical factual diaries during the election cycle. I think the whole SYFPH syndrome against FACTUAL criticisms of Democrats at any time is counterproductive. There is no pragmatic justification for it and it does have negative consequences. We insist on a "reality" that is uniformly favorable to Dems during elections and of course AFTER the elections that mindset will insist on a "reality" that is uniformly favorable for progressive activity. We will believe "facts" that we like then too. This diary was a prominent example of that. It was an impossibly idiotic diary that was on the top of the Recommended Diary list. We WANTED to believe those "facts" no matter how impossible they were.
But that diary thread also demonstrated something else -- that insisting on a Reality Based Community does not excuse rampant unprovoked abuse. And that was me in that thread. I also like to preach that I only respond to attacks. That thread proves that I created my own "reality" on that point, as my unprovoked abuse was nonstop there. It was shameful of me. I do sincerely apologize for that. But I also want to make a larger point. Being called on bad behavior, or bad facts or a bad argument does not make you a bad community member. The idea of a self policing community requires that. We should all strive for it. When we calm down, we should try and consider the point being made to you. Of course, it may be full of shit. But think it through first.
Which brings me to Pyrrho's point on "leadership." I think it is a bit of a copout frankly. Daily Kos has very few restrictions on what someone can write about. They are familiar to everybody by now. But if you do choose to write about something, people get to disagree. Including the "leaders" of the site. You can listen to what they have to say. Then agree or disagree. They can't make you NOT write about something.
The cries of "thought police" and "groupthink" are just as insulting as anything hurled at the so-called oppressed. Look, people have the RIGHT to disagree with you. If it is a lot of people disagreeing with you, that does not make you wrong, but it also does not make them "groupthinkers." If you believe what you are writing, defend it. Stand up for it. Repeat it. If the arguments brought against you are convincing, accept them. Acknowledge them. Grant the point. Even I can not be right on everything. Heh.