First, let me say this:
I value this place. It is one of my places on the net, and the people in it are some of my people on the net. This matters to me, because I need to have a place where I can visit and connect with the people and the politics that I most closely identify with. When it goes this badly here, it hurts. It hurts me, others, you, whether or not you realize it.
Community moderation doesn't work, unless a significantly large fraction of said community adheres to some basic standards.
That isn't happening.
Additionally, DK4 is set to scale to a much larger size, with a lot more discussion, actions, advocacy, news, and community in play. Whether or not you buy into the idea that will have some real impact on the politics, and I do frankly, it's very difficult to deny the negative impact of such a hostile, divided community will have on a larger, less close DK4.
Come on folks!
This is the same crap the GOP has done to the nation, pitting us against one another, convincing us that our priorities involve some fucked up memes really only useful for division and dilution, not solidarity in our common needs as people.
Do we really want to scale that up? Do we really believe in the Progressive movement, or is it more about who is right and who is wrong?
**this diary may be republished, or used for any purpose, with link to original published here**
UPDATED AT BOTTOM
Over the last coupla days, there has been some very ugly meta discussion, and the product of that is entirely ugly across the board, for reasons I just gave you.
Not ok.
Additionally, it's been made known that the administrative moderation has been scaled back, but for the most serious offenses.
Do you all know what that means? Let me tell you what that means. It quite simply means this place is going to slowly turn to shit, unless we make some decisions as kossacks to avoid that.
I strongly encourage you to read the following information. The technique here is to simply pose the question, "why" first and foremost in response to contributions that are not productive and inflammatory. Why.
The reason for this is so that the group dynamics here better reflect what should be fairly high standards of discussion, advocacy and debate. When somebody is just in the crowd, particularly a crowd that's already operating on fairly lousy norms, it's no big deal to get a little personal gratification, or practice some intimidation, because it's not going to matter in the bigger scheme of things.
Think hard about that for a moment, and the impact it's going to have on the quality of discussion and advocacy. Do you think the more aggressive and self-serving norms we are headed toward would do more or less to attract new writers like this?
Of course it's not.
What about advocacy to action efforts, like this one?
This will not be a short diary. I apologize for that, but I can tell you it's a very empowering diary for anybody here.
The number one solution we've got to the amount of simply useless pie fighting is to shine some daylight on contributions that are not adding value to the discourse here as a whole. When we do this, while also asking "why?", the other party is pressed to reconsider what they are doing, and do so with the understanding that it's about the community as much as it is them.
Now, what are we doing here? This diary asked that, and I want to add my own two cents:
We are here to do a sales job, among the many other things we do here. We are selling positive politics, a vision of a better future, and a movement that's growing to make that all happen.
You simply cannot sell that by devaluing other people here. WE are Kossacks. It's not those Kossacks, and those other Kossacks over there, but just Kossacks.
We have the following very basic things in common, that unify us, and make entertaining this place worth while:
1. We are often not being valued as people the way we should be. I'm talking discrimination in many forms, and as a non-elite class.
2. Our labor is not being valued properly. This makes it difficult to meet our own needs.
3. We are wealthy enough to be able to spend time here with one another trying to make things better, or sell people on who might be good to help us, or ways that it can get better.
Many people are not wealthy like this, and remember what wealth is? Just for the people reading at home, let's review very quickly: Wealth is having a sufficient measure of your time to do what you will that your existence here is personally desirable. Consider yourself among the fortunate people. There are a lot of people not so fortunate. And when we waste that on shit? How does that reflect on this community, and impact it's ability to get the job done, bond, grow, do as we all know it can?
I've two things to present here today.
1. The list of losers. THERE IT IS!!!
I published this during Health Care reform, after observing, listing and clarifying those comment post forms that equate to a instant loss. What does that mean? It means the opportunity to be successful in advocacy has ended. The other party shuts down, your credence drops, and it's all non-productive from there.
2. A set of "how to" instructions that can empower you to avoid being made the subject out of hand, and redirect the conversation back to being a productive one, and finally, protect you when you ask the question, "Why would you do that?"
I'm doing this because I value this place, and again, this is one of my sacred places, valued highly, and you are among the people in that place, and where I come from, we don't take this kind of shit in our places among our people.
So, number 1: how to lose?
I'm writing it to empower all of us by sharing some observations I've made, and some truisms that I have come to understand from my time online here, and elsewhere.
On one of my earlier advocacy meta diaries, I was asked for a diary on how to win the argument. Frankly, I've thought about that a lot while watching the carnage going on in the HCR corner of Dkos. And folks, there was a lot of carnage, but there is less of it now!
You win an argument, by not losing! This diary is about not losing, thus keeping the potential for a win, or conversion on the table.
Resolution is then a matter of will and character, not overall skill.
Now, of course most of you being the slightly smarter bears are going to cry out, "What kind of Zen, potato-shit is that?" Please entertain me for a while on this, is all I ask.
In formal debate, it is often possible to come to a resolution on something because the rules of debate are well structured, as is the sport. In science, we can do similar things, because we have enough structure and precision to render judgment. And in law, it's there too.
Here, we do advocacy. Advocacy is different. It's different because it's a mixture of facts, emotions, ideas, strategy, and that all boils down to value judgments, where we weigh it all and commit on various levels. The key point here is that none of us can actually force any of the others to see it our way! Advocacy is like selling things. Selling is all about helping the other person buy something. Advocacy is about helping the other person, or people to commit to an action, or share an idea, join a movement, or come to believe something is just and true.
Only the target of the advocacy can come to acceptance. This is not under the control of the advocate, but is under the influence.
Now, we do debate on Dkos, and we do just have fun, and we share facts, and check them, debug them, and so on. It's not all advocacy, but an awful lot of it is, so that's the focus here.
Let me share a few truisms, that will seem rather obvious. Forgive me for that, but after what I've experienced, these things absolutely need to be said:
1. Nobody makes anybody else feel anything they don't want to feel.
2. We cannot be held accountable for those things, or actions we do not have control over.
3. Successful advocacy involves both the emotional and the rational.
4. There are few absolutes in this world, opening the door for advocacy.
5. When it becomes a fallacy, you lose.
6. When it gets personal, you lose as well!
7. We are peers here, each worthy of the consideration we grant to others.
The debate on Obama discussion is very interesting to me on this level because it's actually debatable as to which advocacy path is the better one! We have real tension here, because the matter has real ambiguity!
Where this is true, the magic of online advocacy comes into play, and that is quite literally why our American Founders created the First Amendment. We resolve this condition through just, true and robust discourse, eventually reaching consensus, then movements, then action!
The interesting thing about this is the conflict not only being unavoidable, but it's completely necessary! If we don't entertain it, we risk going down a non-productive path risking any number of things, with no real return on that risk being possible!
Now, as we render judgment on a matter like this, factions form, little pools of consensus build, and we get invested in them on many levels, both emotional and rational, and when a greater consensus begins to form that is not aligned with the one we favor, that's a threat, and our natural inclination is to fight threats!
When we fight, we generally need a goal, or some conclusion that makes sense, that we can point to and validate our actions, where in the most simple sense, that goal is "winning" the argument! Because this is advocacy not debate, we often experience considerable frustration over not being able to "win", largely because the matter being an advocacy one means the other person has to come to acceptance, and we don't control that no matter how well we present our "case".
Here is an ugly list of things I saw people do when confronted with others not only failing to come to acceptance in a way that was favorably aligned with their view, but were building a whole consensus movement that was badly aligned as well!
When one of these things is done, you lose!
It's that simple.
The reason you lose is because doing one of these things is an expression of your acceptance that the other side just isn't getting sold, and rather than go and do the work to build a better case, or consider acceptance, it's easier to entertain some denial this way, avoiding the reality of the situation.
When we fail in these things, we often get personal gratification that cannot be denied, but we are worse for it too, and that's the brutal truth.
1. Claim of association with controversial figure.
eg: "THERE IT IS!!! FDL, Sheehan, etc...
The idea here is that the target of the advocacy must be failing to come to acceptance, because they have some artifact of this association that makes their intent self-serving, and not just and true.
2. Claim of less than mature outlook, or diminutive
eg: "THERE IT IS!!! Ponies, stars, rainbows, purple
The target(s) of the advocacy effort are characterized as childish, or do not have a reasonable grasp on the norms and expectations typical for the scenario at hand.
3. Threat of implied violence!
eg: "THERE IT IS!!! Implied violence / threatening
The target of the advocacy is presented with the idea that the advocate is a real bad ass in real life, and a meeting would result in a hostile and violent interaction with consequences. Folks, this one is really low.
4. Claim of self-serving or nefarious intent to manupulate
eg: "THERE IT IS!!! claim of nefarious intent to manupulate
The target of the advocacy is tagged with their arguments being self-serving in some way that is harmful to a discussion, movement or consensus at hand, often coupled with number 5
5. Full on personal insult!
eg: "THERE IT IS!!! Dumb, Simpleton, Thick, ass[hole]
The target(s) of the advocacy effort are tagged with their character or person being devalued in some basic ugly way.
6. Invoke bull-shit, cliche' meme
eg: "THERE IT IS!!! Lemmings, train wreck, bus...
The target(s) of the advocacy effort are characterized in a way that is commonly accepted to be futile, foolish, worth reproach, without actually backing the claim in a way that is of note, or merit.
7. Claim of exclusive membership required for participation of note
eg: "THERE IT IS!!! Exclusive Membership Required
The target(s) of the advocacy effort are characterized as not being "in the club", whatever that club may be. Club of "smart" people, people who get it, etc...
8. Claim of poorly characterized intent being true
eg: "THERE IT IS!!! "Kill the bill"
The target(s) of the advocacy effort intent and or motivation is distorted to appear counter-productive, hostile, futile, etc...
9. Claim of willful ignorance or denial
eg: "THERE IT IS!!! Willful Ignorance [ignorant]
The target(s) of the advocacy effort intent and or motivation is distorted to appear counter-productive, hostile, futile, etc...
10. Repeated queries to incite non-productive conversation
eg: "THERE IT IS!!! Threadjack! / Trolling
The advocate engages in contributions known to be inflammatory, incite passers by to conflict, disrupt, render discussion futile / moot
11. Undesirable label attached
eg: "THERE IT IS!!! Shitty Label Attached
The advocate labels the target(s) of the advocacy in a personally unpleasant way, without bringing the claim to merit*
*This one isn't a loser, if the label is just and true, but the advocate has a very high burden on that, and could easily see community moderation.
12. Claim of indifference due to privilege
eg: "THERE IT IS!!! Claim of indifference
Target of advocacy is characterized as a person "out of touch", "in the bubble", or of a station in life that marginalizes their commentary
13. Claim of inability to contribute further
eg: "THERE IT IS!!! GBCW threat
Target of advocacy, or advocate threatens to leave community, with the intent of harm to reputation of another, or group
14. Claim of paid activity
eg: "THERE IT IS!!! Blogging for dollars!
Advocate claims the target is not acting from a true, personal advocacy position, instead contributing material on paid basis, failing to demonstrate how the payment differentiates said material from being personal advocacy.
In a prior advocacy empowerment diary, I detailed ways that others try to marginalize either you, or your advocacy. On a personal level, those ideas work to push back and empower you to continue with few worries. Use them.
Group dynamics are a funny thing. When people don't have a high risk of standing out, it's easy to pile on for a bit of cheap entertainment and personal gratification. We've all been there. It's quite a bit different to stand out, because then the attention on that builds right on a person, fueling inhibition, and that desire to not be seen as one of the negative elements of the community.
We all have an interest in being excellent to one another. When you see these things, know the other party is done. Ask them why they would want to do that to themselves, and offer to help them move on and forward. This will raise the bar here, and it will do it in a very organic way.
Winning the argument then is all about engaging with others in a just and true way, doing the work to bring a compelling case to them for their consideration, and being a good enough human to follow through, until some resolution is arrived at. Perhaps you make your case and see consensus! Perhaps, you find they made their case with you, or you are mutually unconvinced and continue on.
And Finally, number 2: How to win, or make the sale, and keep the door open for successful advocacy and action?
Before I start this one, I must say, Kossacks demonstrate every single dodge on simple acceptance I've ever seen, and we do it every day. This is not a bad thing! We are smart, passionate people, whose only real problem is attacking one another more than we attack the issues and the coin operated politicians we struggle with each day.
I've been keeping a list of behaviors I see being done in an attempt to marginalize successful advocacy efforts.
These things most often are seen when somebody passionate, but standing in a not so defensible position on matters, ends up frustrated and unable to press their point home.
This is not YOUR problem! It is their problem, and often others will try to make their problems your problems.
Here are the most common ways they do that, and some nice suggestions you can use to push back to maintain the quality of discussion, and the focus of it on the policy matters, not you.
1. They make you the subject.
Most of these are specific variations of this, where you can take the general approach here, and add the elements of the others as needed to redirect the discussion back to the topic at hand, and deflect attempts to make you the focus.
This can be anything they can find to rope you personally into the discussion. Could be your position on a wedge issue, implying some association with another organization that has negative connotations for the discussion at hand, to simple name calling and other things that trigger meta discussion, detracting from the real discussion.
This, people, does not prove a point. It only makes rational discussion more difficult.
When you see this and you find yourself the subject, simply call the other party on it, restate your position, ask them if they understand that, and keep pulling the conversation back to the subject at hand, emphasizing the quality of discussion, not meta-discussion, when attempts to do that are unsuccessful.
Do not be afraid to just move on, leaving them the burden of sorting that out, not you.
2. A claim of too many like minded opponents is made!
This one is laughable at best, but often very effective. They can play the "lone warrior" card, or some other silly thing.
Make them the subject of this one, ask how you can help, and help them clarify exactly what it is they are trying to say. Take this discussion up in earnest, until they realize it's probably better to just carry on the main topic, avoiding this one. Thank them for their time.
Often people making this claim really want to speak out, but they will find that doing so very quickly results in a negative statement against that "other group" or "other people", then ask them why they are talking about that, when the point of the discussion, is... and return to the primary advocacy at hand.
If they are the focus of attention, while in this mode, it will be difficult for them to change the subject, as they will own that change, which they actually want you to do. Usually stops this one cold.
3. They claim you are a member of some club, or association, where said membership does not qualify you to speak.
Tricky, and very often seen here lately!
Reduce your argument to the core elements, express those, without invoking that association at all, then focus the discussion back on the subject at hand, leaving them with the burden of rebutting the actual advocacy. The key here is to not validate that at all and get sucked into a pissing contest, or cat fight over who favors who. That's not productive at all.
Restate the advocacy position, and ask for a rational rebuttal to it. That's all that needs to be done here. Never ever validate this mid-discussion. If needed, take it to e-mail, or start another discussion to clarify that, if warranted, but never validate it in the middle of a discussion in progress, and let them know that is bad form to do as it simply is not productive for anybody.
4. They claim the subject complexity is too high, or that you lack qualifications, or some other thing.
The moment they do this, put the pressure back on them to "educate" you, with exactly how and why your position is flawed, thus redirecting the discussion back to the subject at hand. At all times, focus on the rational clarity of their response, and yours, ignoring personal issues.
You may find they are more knowledgeable, thank them and move on. You will often find, they dig themselves into a contradictory hole, handing you exactly what you need to escape this! When they do this, highlight the contradiction, and then end the line of discussion with that contradiction being the case in point as to why their original claim doesn't warrant any further talk. Focus on the rational elements of their statements, and call them on fallacies as needed to end that quickly.
5. They will restate your position as a false comparison, or extreme position in an attempt to get that difference to be the discussion, not the actual point at hand.
Stop. Restate what your position with as much clarity as you can, letting them know, if they need help understanding this that you are there for them, but that it's important that they understand exactly what you are saying, not argue over what they think you said.
Entertain this once, maybe twice, then state you are moving on, and will be glad to entertain this at another time. Done.
6. They will make a rational argument into an emotional one, accusing you of being "cold" or something similar.
Facts are hard things, and they have ugly implications sometimes. They want you to own that emotion, but you can't so make that damn clear, then restate the position they have issue with, and ask them what they think could be done to reduce the emotional toll of the implications of it.
Empathize with that emotion, validate it, then move on to the advocacy, "understanding" where they are coming from, but making it clear the policy implications are greater than that one sob story case, or personal horror story indicate. Often they are just focused on that, and this is not malicious. It's just human, so be a good human back and hear that and move on. Sometimes we all need this.
7. The Bible says...
'nuff said, we know about this one, I am sure. Separation of Church and State. Scripture is not authoritative in a court of law, as the entire body of religious writing is hearsay. "Bob says God says." Move on.
When doing this, it's important to state that you are not threatening their faith, and that you understand and hope they understand that freedom of and from religion here demands we all get along on these matters.
8. They engage in redefinition of common words
I absolutely am annoyed at this one. Easiest thing is to call them on the redefinition, cite the original, then express your position again, with emphasis on the accepted definition, and ask them what word they would use to avoid this, and thanks! This keeps the discussion on the point at hand, keeping you out of it.
9. They attach a shitty label to you.
On this one, deny the label, and call them on bad form. Then, make them the subject on anything you can think of, asking them how they enjoy the treatment! Let them know you stand ready and willing to grant the consideration they give you as consideration due. Once this has occurred, let them know you are moving on, until such time as they can engage you with good form. They started that one, you can end it, and the frustration left over is their problem, not yours.
Frankly, an insult, or label is only as potent as you allow it to be. Standing strong and quickly debunking that, while not validating their issues is the quickest way to extract yourself from that mine field.
10. They claim some higher authority. Use the general approach that works for the claim of poor qualification, or "ignorance" of the "complexity" of the issues. Let them know you really are interested in hearing how "they have it right" and then catch them on a fallacy, or when they stumble and fumble as they almost always do.
Be ready to accept that they do, in fact, have it right, and thank them for that, potentially entertaining the discussion in the hopes of refining your advocacy later. This is always worth your while as future advocacy will be much stronger and you can thank them for the experience, while avoiding you being the issue in a negative way.
Everybody admires the strength of character it takes to really have a conversation and grow from it. Do not avoid these, should they occur.
11. Obsfucation, thrashing, simple anger, ranting...
Or otherwise known as "what the fuck was that?" Call that out, and ask them to clarify it, and watch for points that favor your position. Restate "agreement" with them, on one of those, and move on. These people are difficult to talk to. Full on ignoring these is always good too.
Sometimes less is really more.
Another option there is the "Hey, let's just talk" bit. This can diffuse all of it rather quickly. Invite them to tell you all about it, let them just unload, then ask them how you can help get it sorted! I've had some absolutely amazing conversations where we actually found we agreed and I made a great friend this way. Don't just react to this. Stay rational, and engage them a little, keeping yourself out of it, of course.
12. "I forgot, could you remind me again?", used to force other parties to tire of the subject and move on.
Sometimes this one is repeated queries to the same issue, over and over and over. We call that stalking here, but the line is tough. Highlight that, making them the subject with something simple, and not offensive, but potent. "You know, we had this talk, but if you insist..."
Then get out of it, after tagging a number of those with the potent statement / question as to what they are doing, and why keep doing it. Let others see this and they will marginalize themselves.
So there you go. These are all effective tactics used to derail otherwise solid advocacy efforts, or attempts to see consensus through distraction, not any kind of successful means of communication of merit.
When they try to make you the subject, generally speaking, you are winning, unless you have some nefarious intent, then it's really your issue and will end badly for you. For the rest of us, this is just a simple and effective list of things we can look for, not validate, and once identified, be used to redirect the conversation to productive things, not personal thrashing that's fun, but generally useless otherwise.
Have a great next week everybody! Please take these things, use them, grow the numbers, take the seats, own the party, and change the future!!
UPDATE: I forgot one of our new tools and it's implications.
Please, please, pretty please with "jimmies" on top of your ice cream, consider using the message system, before delivering some full on ugly on the thread. We have the thing, use it!!