Skip to main content

The reasons, broadly, are as follows - in order:

+ To promote civility and support those who are civil in their discussions
+ To be part of a group of people who put civility first - whatever our views may be
+ To promote candidates in the Democratic Party who I feel represent good positions on important issues
+ To learn about the views and experiences of others
+ To ask questions in order to see if some of those others agree with me on issues
+ To provide information about my views and why I think that they're correct

I've done the same at many other political websites - for Republicans, for Democrats, for 3rd Party groups, and for general discussion - under different usernames. I ultimately decided on this one because I think that more people want a limited government than realize it, and mistakenly assume "limited government" to mean something that it doesn't - if they even know the term.

Though some have assumed that I'm here to push my worldview and that I want all government to be small, I came here primarily to focus on civility and coalition-building, and do not mean "small government" by my username "LimitedGovernment".

That I made my first post  and my username about "limited government" surely would prime many to have a negative reaction to who I am and what I'm doing here, but those who read what I write and have written for the totality of the meaning that I convey will find that I'm not disruptive, and that I am well-written, thoughtful, courteous, and valuable to the causes of this site.


If I find that most here refuse to read my posts and comments for their intended meaning, that I'm treated disrespectfully, or that people believe - regardless of whether they are right or wrong - that we have more in conflict than in common, I'll leave the site of my own volition.

I would like to discover that the members of this site - or at least of a sub-set of them -  are of better character than those at other places that I've been posting at recently. It seems that at least a few individuals here are.

Thu May 31, 2012 at 11:22 AM PT:

Since I have now read more diaries about civility on this site, how things operate here, and the intended purposes of the site, I'm adding the following to my preamble:

1) Whereas Kos has asked that debate about conservative and third party positions be kept to a minimum and only exist on areas of general agreement, I will not be posting some of the content about my views that others have asked me to.

2) Whereas Kos and others have sought to generate focus on electing Democratic Party candidates once their primaries are over, I will only contribute articles of support for those candidates that I favor at such times.

3) Whereas Kos and others have made requests that diaries/posts contain links to sources when material may be controversial or less well-known, I will endeavor to provide an amount of information that is neither insufficient nor overwhelming.

In sum: My intention is to only provide posts that come from a "moderate-left, progressive perspective" and that aim to directly advance candidates, improve impressions of progressive Democrats, and help to persuade opponents of positions favored by people on this site.

As well, I will not respond to requests for elaboration on my views when such elaboration will turn discussion toward avenues that go against the goals of the site.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (9+ / 0-)

    Left-leaning independent and limited government advocate. Classical liberal on some issues; social liberal on some others. + Civility first + Follow the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle + Constructive comments

    by LimitedGovernment on Mon May 28, 2012 at 11:44:50 AM PDT

  •  I don't agree with everything you've written... (9+ / 0-)

    ...but I applaud your quest for civility.

    There are, in every age, new errors to be rectified, and new prejudices to be opposed. ~Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)

    by slksfca on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:04:41 PM PDT

  •  OT, but (4+ / 0-)

    when I see everything you have written here and read this

    I've done the same at many other political websites - for Republicans, for Democrats, for 3rd Party groups, and for general discussion - under different usernames.
    I just feel sad.

    Go find a political movement that you can work within, or find some other constructive and nice things to do. I just don´t think it is a healthy or meaningful way to spend your time and life, being a loner with eccentric ideas on all kind of political sites.

    Best wishes.

    You may not pretend to be someone else, claim to be a race or gender or class or nationality you are not. Hunter

    by Mariken on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:08:44 PM PDT

    •  I appreciate what I think is your intent (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AaronInSanDiego

      The problem is that what I've discovered is that attitudes about national politics are inseparable from people's general attitudes in life, and that - contrary to what might be expected - engaging on the subject of politics is actually more effective than engaging on other aspects of life.

      In other words, I've always been "a loner" who has tried to bring people together and sort out good information from the bad. In all of my efforts, politics has been the best "gateway subject", if you will.

      To date, I haven't found a welcoming political movement - or religious movement or any other kind of movement. I think that speaks to how isolated and divisive everyone has become. Often I'm told that "the other side is just full of horrible/ignorant people who have to be stopped".

      Thus, if I can bring enough people together politically, it is my hope that people will not just cognitively recognize that people may not truly be split into camps, but will actually believe it and feel it.

      I've had small successes here and there. I'd like to one day be able to put everyone who understands "agree to disagree, and still keep talking" in touch with each other. My hard work will be worth it if that happens.

      If it doesn't happen, then I'll at least still feel good about who I am and what I stand for.

      Left-leaning independent and limited government advocate. Classical liberal on some issues; social liberal on some others. + Civility first + Follow the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle + Constructive comments

      by LimitedGovernment on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:20:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I would think that everyone would be (14+ / 0-)

    for limited government; after all, every one of us can make a long list of things he or she would not permit the government to do (warrantless eavesdropping comes to mind, for example).  That's why our Constitution exists, not just to create a government, but to restrict what it can (properly) do.

    It is unfortunate that "limited government" has come to be equated with "small government".  I'm not really sure what people mean by that latter term; after all the government of a nation of 300+ million people could never be "small".  What I and I believe many others on the left think is that "small" is used by the Right as a code word for government that won't get in the way of bullies and raptors but will always be big and powerful enough to be their enforcer.

    So to me the issue isn't whether we have limited government or not; is it where those limits should be.  I come down on the side of the belief that if a thing ought to be done, and individuals can't do it, then the government can because it must.  Others, naturally, can reasonably differ.

    Civility, however, has never been a hallmark of the left.  We ought to try to maintain it, but keep in mind that nothing of value was ever won by civility alone.

    Scisne me e terra ea naso tolere posse?

    by penguins4peace on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:17:16 PM PDT

    •  Radical individualism; Civility (5+ / 0-)

      The results of a poll that I put up at one site in particular were very disturbing to me. It was very clear that by "small government" that a sizable portion of that particular group of people meant "My views or no one's views should be law". It was a site that I expected more people to be "live and let live; put justice first" at.

      Their radical, absolutist individualism really scares me. I wouldn't live near them if I had a choice.

      Regarding civility - you're right that civility doesn't result in political victories, but I think that's partly because it hasn't ever been a feature and partly because many people don't see the value of it.

      I don't think that it has always been this way in political discourse.

      Civility can reach those who already understand its importance, and other tactics can get out the vote among those who think that shouting over their opponents and smearing others is good practice.

      Left-leaning independent and limited government advocate. Classical liberal on some issues; social liberal on some others. + Civility first + Follow the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle + Constructive comments

      by LimitedGovernment on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:28:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I hope you aren't disappointed. (6+ / 0-)

    We can be pretty rough and tumble here, and argue a lot. The thing is, there are as many viewpoints as members, so there is lots of room for disagreement. The founder of this site says politics is not for shrinking violets and encourages a multitude of viewpoints, so you need a thick skin, too.

    You might want to just read a bit before jumping into the fray, get familiar with the site and the various groups. Find a group or three that interest you and join them, test the waters to see if you and Daily Kos are a good fit. Don't set your expectations too high.

    Just a few words of advice. I lurked here for years before registering - it took me quite a long time to jump in, but it was the right way to do it for me. Ultimately, you'll have to find your own way, of course, but be prepared for a potentially wild ride!

    Good luck.

    „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

    by translatorpro on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:24:48 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for the well-wishes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      translatorpro

      I've become quite used to needing a thick skin, and have learn a lot about how to deal with disagreement, hate, and trolls as a result.

      I've also found that jumping in head first and jumping in hard tends to make it pretty clear whether a community is more "attack-oriented", "defense-oriented", or "respect-oriented" - and whether or not people in those communities tend to actually engage with others (whether to insult them or to learn from each other).

      I do intend to wander for awhile and see if I can find some like-minded people. I've become adept at using search engines to sort through forums.

      Thanks again. :)

      Left-leaning independent and limited government advocate. Classical liberal on some issues; social liberal on some others. + Civility first + Follow the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle + Constructive comments

      by LimitedGovernment on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:33:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here is a good place to start in case you hadn't (4+ / 0-)

        discovered this feature yet: http://www.dailykos.com/...

        This group feature was introduced with DK4 last year (Feburary/March - somewhere in there) to facilitate communities. It gives you a good idea of how diverse our interests are. I'm sure you'll find several groups that will match your interests.

        „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

        by translatorpro on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:48:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Just an observation -- your self-perception (9+ / 0-)

        of being thick-skinned does not match up with my perception of you. Refraining from swear words and overt insults is a good first step, but does not by itself create civil discourse. When I returned to one of your early diaries, I found quite a few examples of what appeared to be disdain and disregard for your readers. A few examples:

        "I'm not going to keep responding to your strawman arguments." [a response to the poster's second comment, and the first in the thread, and not a strawman argument]

        "You're being unfair again ... The next time that you state something that clearly contradicts what I've been saying, I'm going to ignore it."

        "I don't appreciate your sarcasm"

        "I don't see how anything that I wrote is deserving of ridicule or sarcasm." [you seem to have been outvoted on that, even by people who were bending over backward to be polite to you]

        "I don't think you've got a good grasp on my ideas"

        All of those statements can be understandable after long or repeated argument threads or other frustration-justifying events. Yours appear almost immediately whenever someone doesn't validate you. My sense is you have little time left to recover from first impressions, and your username only exacerbates the situation. While you cannot simply change your name, you can abandon it and start over, I think. But, as the Irish nuns used to say, "please yourself."

        •  Broad perspective (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AaronInSanDiego

          As I said elsewhere, I've had a lot of experience with people who have a completely different mindset, or who are prone to certain kinds of behavior. The statements that you're referencing have been effective in getting more positive results. You're likely unable to see that perspective because we'e had vastly different experiences.

          And, frankly, your reading me as having disregard for readers, falling into argumentum ad populum, and suggesting that I should hit the reset button because of your perception that I'm here to look for immediate validation suggests that you won't come to an understanding of my reasoning for quite some time.

          Perhaps one day you'll come back and look at your comment and the ones you based it upon and have a different reaction than you do now.

          Left-leaning independent and limited government advocate. Classical liberal on some issues; social liberal on some others. + Civility first + Follow the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle + Constructive comments

          by LimitedGovernment on Mon May 28, 2012 at 02:24:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Real advocacy... (3+ / 0-)

          Yep.  You highlighted something I was struggling to put down.  Thanks!

          Real advocacy has three basic components:

          1.  Our character.  Nobody hears advocacy from a poser.  This is part of why community participation is so important.  We aren't some resource to be exploited.  To get at the answers you seek and be heard, you've got to give some answers and be heard.  And it's got to be genuine, not a set piece or formula.  Kossacks are way to sharp for that.  Trust me dear Diarist.

          2.  Our reason.  Sure, we can all toss out complex logical reasoning tools and such.  It's fun sometimes, but this isn't really debate here.  It's advocacy.  You've got to do the work to be part of this thing, and that means not dismissing others out of hand or on minor league technicalities.  

          Ever consider they may be less formally inclined?  You should.

          3.  Our emotion.  Emotional resonance cannot be ignored.  Does the emotional content work as well as the reason does?  Often with formula based policy preference the perfectly logical would result in something emotionally terrible.  This is why politics and policy are complex.  People are complex, and understanding them means interacting with them on every level in a solid way.

          (Not aimed at Rhodes --I'm just riffing to the Diarist here)

          ***Be Excellent To One Another***
          IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

          by potatohead on Mon May 28, 2012 at 02:24:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  LG, let me give you some friendly advice. (26+ / 0-)

    If you sincerely want to be a part of this community, then you have to, well, be a part of this community.

    Joining and then immediately posting diaries about something that have that "once I explain everyone will get it" feel sends up a red flag.  It makes you appear that you think we're lacking some much-needed insight and that we really, really need you here.

    You also barely exist here outside of your own diaries.  Most of your comments come from them and the scant nine comments that you dropped some mojo on were all from your diaries.  In addition, you've only rec'd one diary.  Surely you have opinions on more than one issue.  Go out and mingle with the community, drop some mojo, interact.  Show some respect.  Earn some respect in return.

    Finally, I'd suggest a tagline that explains the username you chose.  

    Good luck.

    •  Still learning the ropes (0+ / 0-)

      To be frank, I've written these diaries mostly because I felt the need to defend myself before people more deeply expected me to be an enemy infiltrator (which I was accused of before I'd written a single diary).

      The "once I explain" feel is, I think, a consequence of my first diaries being about defending myself, rather than being the entries that I had otherwise planned to write.

      I expect that the diaries that I've written will do a sufficient job of explaining  to people who click on my username where I'm coming from at large.

      I've been considering what to do with my tag/sig since the terms that I referenced don't seem to be doing the job.

      Thanks for the well-wishes and insight.

      Left-leaning independent and limited government advocate. Classical liberal on some issues; social liberal on some others. + Civility first + Follow the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle + Constructive comments

      by LimitedGovernment on Mon May 28, 2012 at 12:44:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  To clarify the "once I explain" feel (5+ / 0-)

        It's a site dynamic that you stepped into.  Those of us who've been around for awhile have seen it and we've watched the efforts culminate in GBCWs.

        That's the red flag I mentioned.

        •  GBCW vs NWMT (0+ / 0-)

          Thanks for the clarification. My entries and comments are absolutely in the trend of "defend and defect" behavior, and often my first posts are.

          As I said in another comment, I prefer to jump in hard and fast to get a snapshot view of the people who are most likely to respond. Very often, that snapshot is broadly accurate for what will happen in the first three months of posting, and what will happen sporadically thereafter.

          I can't say that I'm sure of why, but it does seem that there's almost a mix of schadenfreude and and bad history that's responsible for treating new people who pose alternate views as though they are trolls or people who will ultimately cause trouble.

          The communities that largely lack such behavior or who have a balance between that response and a supportive response tend to be the ones worth sticking around at.

          It's actually helpful to me to provide as few details about my background and to come out of the gate with civil but challenging posts, in that it makes the culture much more clear.

          One thing's for sure - I stopped doing GBCWs long ago. Now I just fade away when a place seems to be - more or less - Not Worth My Time.

          And for every NWMT, I tend to find at least a few people who are worth keeping conversations going with off-site.

          Left-leaning independent and limited government advocate. Classical liberal on some issues; social liberal on some others. + Civility first + Follow the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle + Constructive comments

          by LimitedGovernment on Mon May 28, 2012 at 02:39:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The rest of us are here for Democrats. (12+ / 0-)

    That's why we're here.

    Santorum: Man on Dog; Romney: Dog on Car. Ren and Stimpy: Dog on Cat equalitymaine.org

    by commonmass on Mon May 28, 2012 at 01:13:04 PM PDT

  •  We're 70 Years Along in the Concept "Limited (9+ / 0-)

    government" having very specific and broadly accepted meaning, given to it by the forces that are presently taking over the developed world and certainly our society. They're taking it over for the purposes of undoing the spectacular successes of our party in the US and liberal forces around the developed world, that were accomplished by huge expansions in the engagement of democratic governments in society. So limited government as an overarching goal is a pretty low priority in a community that's far more progressive than concentrated private power is.

    That aspect of your idea about limited government being in particular limited national government in comparison to the more local levels is also one that that is championed by those same forces taking over society. They've worked for decades to shift powers and services from the federal to the local governments because that has enabled their forces to dismantle them and take over more of society faster. Meanwhile the people and the world are facing a set of eventually-existential threats that only the largest governments are able to address to any adequate degree.

    And so that subset of the idea of limited national government compared to smaller jurisdictions is also one likely to be low priority to this type of community.

    But there are definitely Democrats who consider limited government a significant priority so I'm sure we'll be hearing a great deal about this.

    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 Mon May 28, 2012 at 01:20:16 PM PDT

  •  For some reason (5+ / 0-)

    I feel I've "seen" you here before...deja vu?

  •  Would you kindly name a few (5+ / 0-)

    Democrats that you believe are taking a good position on limiting government?  It is not an issue I normally associate with the democratic party, but I am no expert.  Who do you support, and how do you propose to form a coalition around that person or persons?  And are you suggesting people on this site need some gentle prodding to coalesce?

    •  Representative #1 (0+ / 0-)

      Dennis Kucinich is far and away my favorite guy. He supports a much different cultural idea of militarism and internationalism, is a strong advocate for civil liberties, and wants to rid corruption in both government and the corporatism that it supports.

      I also think that Elizabeth Warren is right about her views on regulation. As far as I can tell, she's not in favor of micromanagement, but is in favor of putting safeguards in place.

      I've made donations to both of their campaigns.

      I've also been working on the other sites that I pointed to to increase support behind both of them. Elizabeth Warren in particular - as I'm sure all of you know - has been vilified. I've been fact-checking for more conservative groups in order to turn their opposition to her into support. I've also reached out to other political independents and gotten them on board.

      Among the Ron Paul groups, I've been working to help them understand Kucinich's views on the Department of Peace, education, and a single-payer healthcare system.

      What further information would you like?

      Left-leaning independent and limited government advocate. Classical liberal on some issues; social liberal on some others. + Civility first + Follow the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle + Constructive comments

      by LimitedGovernment on Mon May 28, 2012 at 02:48:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you wasted your money on Kucinich (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AnnetteK

        And not only because he lost his primary.

        If he's your idea of a deep thinker or a responsible and effective public servant, well, let's just say that we don't see the world in the same way.

        Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. -- K.Marx A.Lincoln

        by N in Seattle on Mon May 28, 2012 at 06:29:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This doesn't resonate with me. (7+ / 0-)

    Sorry, but I can offer up some of why that is.  Maybe it will work out.  Don't know.

    I've seen this before.  Many of us have.  

    If you were really interested in what others think of your views, simply expressing them would suffice. There isn't any need for a preamble, and the username as conflict just to make it all just a bit harder isn't needed either.

    Not like you are married to it, are you?  You've used different names in the past, right?

    I disagree with you on civility.  Sometimes the world is an ugly place, and sometimes there are ugly people in it, expressing ugly ideas, doing ugly things.

    We have ugly language for that, and the reason is simple:  Act like an ass, and get called out as the ass.  This helps reinforce simply not being an ass.

    Just think about that one for a while.

    Here, it's MORE and BETTER Democrats.  Promoting ones you like is good, but it is all about Democrats.  Those other guys, with the notable exception of people like Bernie Sanders, aren't what we are about.

    Community...

    Well, it was said above.  Become part of it.  That means coming to know others here, giving as well as taking, and real dialog, not some broadcast of an agenda.  

    Maybe I've read you wrong.  We will see.  At this point, I really don't know and thought I would give you precisely the feedback you asked for.

    Cheers and welcome to Dkos!

    ***Be Excellent To One Another***
    IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

    by potatohead on Mon May 28, 2012 at 01:38:36 PM PDT

    •  Why "LimitedGovernment" (0+ / 0-)

      As I pointed to in a different comment on this diary, I purposely chose my UID both because I believe in the message of only making laws through a careful process, and in being bold with one's beliefs in order to sort out whether or not a group of people will react negatively in general to you in the long term.

      I also believe that those who get a negative reaction should step back and reflect on their actions in order to discover how they may have contributed to the reaction that is worth revising for the future. Moreover, sometimes it's worth it to stay at a website filed with people you disagree with and not post anything, in order to encounter conflicting information that may change your beliefs.

      In other words, I disagree with people who feel that all conflict that can be easily avoided should necessarily be eliminated, and that the person who receives the most flak is the one who is most likely wrong.

      It's been my experience, actually, that the person who gets the most flak often has something important to say if he/she doesn't show up with buddies or reference a sub-group of people as justification for his/her beliefs.

      I do think that you "read me wrong", but I don't expect it to be a problem in your case. My initial impression of you, based on this comment, is that you are too civil and intelligent to get caught up in groupthink and attacking people perceived to be outsiders.

      Thanks for the welcome.

      Left-leaning independent and limited government advocate. Classical liberal on some issues; social liberal on some others. + Civility first + Follow the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle + Constructive comments

      by LimitedGovernment on Mon May 28, 2012 at 03:05:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  good luck! (0+ / 0-)

        I will correct your assumption though. I don't do civil, instead I do real.  

        Real is different from civil in that I've enough self respect to not want to be coddled, and respect due is respect given.

        Read my tagline and think that over too.

        Being civil at all costs is a lie and it breaks the most potent value conversations have.  Know you might actually look stupid, or feel hurt, or actually get mad.

        I expect no less and that checks fucknuttery, assishness and all around masturbation quite nicely.

        This is not Disneyland.  That kind of conversation is for the chumps and fools.

        Again, you are packaging up what appears to be yet another grand theory of government up with a lot of thick, expensive baggage.  Do not be surprised to see that tepid value to noise ratio be received in like kind.

        Take care.

        ***Be Excellent To One Another***
        IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

        by potatohead on Mon May 28, 2012 at 05:06:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree with your view of civility. (0+ / 0-)

          I don't see an incompatibility between being civil and being real. Most comments that I consider to be uncivil are not what I would consider real.

          "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

          by AaronInSanDiego on Tue May 29, 2012 at 12:02:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You want to impact people right? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AaronInSanDiego

            Civil implies that all parties in the conversation have equal standing.  Our own Senate would be an example of that.  They have rules that prohibit impacting standing, and they have those rules because the conversation MUST happen, because the process MUST happen.

            Because of that we get liars, asses and clowns up on the stage validating racists, bigots and theocrats, for example.

            Our media is another example.  Our media has this "always two sides to the story" mantra.  Know what that does?  It means completely irrational propaganda gets positioned as important, or "the other side of the story", validating those same people.

            Know who I've seen pull the civility line hard?  Pro lifers and the very religious.  Know why?

            So they can advocate we discriminate against people, that's why.  They don't really want to be called out, and believe that discrimination based on lies and fairy tales is OK, and it is very important to them to get that message out, so that it appears normal, valid, "just another point of view" kind of thing.

            Never mind that people get beat up or killed over their "point of view", right?

            Right.

            Really what they are, more often than not, are bigots and theocrats, and actually calling them out on that is just as important, because when we don't, we get asses like Rush Limbaugh, who thinks it's OK to attack a woman like he did, "for entertainment"

            Never did buy that.  The First Amendment isn't some shield.  It doesn't have a "nice" clause in it, and when people say stupid stuff, lie, or advocate that some people are worth less than other people in the real world, they get called out.

            When they are in Disneyland, maybe they don't, because it's Disneyland, not the real world where we live and work.

            That is what real means.  It means holding up that mirror to others so they can see the impact of their words in a material way, ideally choosing them so as to add value, not devalue people or promote policy that does the same.

            Generally speaking, people who advocate for policy preferences that have a negative impact on a lot of people are also strong advocates for civility, because it benefits them more to do so, and I find not engaging that is a fantastic bull shit filter.

            There are some boundaries.  Here, there are some rules, and I'll follow them, because I value being here, and have been here for quite some time.  Doesn't mean I have to be nice do you.  It doesn't mean whatever you are selling is as important as what others are either.

            To sum up:  Of course you disagree!  Want to know why?

            You value the message more than the people.  Seen it before.  Civil indeed.  Like I said, good luck!

            ***Be Excellent To One Another***
            IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

            by potatohead on Tue May 29, 2012 at 07:49:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Very different images of "civility" (0+ / 0-)

              To my mind, civility means addressing others based on the facts as much as possible, trying to get into their point of view in order to be more effective in communicating with them, and responding only as much as may be effective when attacked on policy or personal character.

              It's not at all about a broad idea of equal standing.

              Comparatively, incivility is focusing on facts only a little or not at all, only considering one's own perspective and background, and responding to others based on one's own feelings of how important something is, how justified one's responses might feel, or wanting to feel like others paying attention will regard one as the victor.

              Essentially, the difference comes down to responding with a reflective, scientific, and informative approach versus responding with an impulsive, personal, and assumptive approach.

              The root of the word is in being non-primitive. I think that's the basic standard to follow. That isn't say that that passion, self-defense, and other primal/visceral elements aren't involved; it is to say that they must be tempered by reason.

              My sig contains a link to the Wikipedia article on the cooperative principle. I think that things like Grice's maxims say a lot about what people generally understand civility to be.

              So, I'm not advocating for "political correctness" or "coddling" or other nonsense that people load those terms with. I am advocating for measured engagement - like this comment is to yours, though you ended with something that I could have responded personally to: "You value the message more than the people. Seen it before. Civil indeed."

              And to be honest, I don't even know what that last line is supposed to be saying. But it doesn't really matter, because you'll either understand what I'm doing soon enough, or you won't.

              Left-leaning independent and limited government advocate. Classical liberal on some issues; social liberal on some others. + Civility first + Follow the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle + Constructive comments

              by LimitedGovernment on Wed May 30, 2012 at 04:31:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  That last bit is a mistake. It's early for me (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AaronInSanDiego

            and I did not realize you were not the diarist!

            Go ahead, nail me for it.  It's ok!  I apologize.

            ***Be Excellent To One Another***
            IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

            by potatohead on Tue May 29, 2012 at 07:51:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Listen jerk face (5+ / 0-)

    It is 'well written' not 'well-written', you frigin' moron. As written, 'well' is an adverb describing the adjective "written." A couple of examples for you, not that I think you have the mental capacity to understand.

    It is a well-written book.
    He is well written.

    Do you think you can get that through your Neanderthal skull? [/snark]*

    VetGrl gave some good advice. Visit other people's diaries and  post comments.  Would it kill you to recommend a LOL Cat picture?

    One other observation for what it is worth. It seems to me that many of the successful diaries are informative in nature. They present facts and policies that perhaps people like me missed. They offer something you can put your hands around so to speak. I am not suggesting that their intent is not to persuade, or that philosophical diaries are not welcome here. I am only offering it as a way of making your diaries more accessible. It can be hard to tell what someone is saying without examples. What's the old Woody Allen joke? "I was thrown out of N.Y.U. my freshman year for cheating on my metaphysics final, you know. I looked within the soul of the boy sitting next to me."

    Maybe a diary about Big Brother and drones? I don't think there are many of us here that are comfortable with being spy on from 6,000 feet. It would inform us and maybe advance your views on limited government.

    *If you read my past post, you will quickly ascertain that I don't need to be giving grammatical advise to anyone. :)

    It is possible to read the history of this country as one long struggle to extend the liberties established in our Constitution to everyone in America. - Molly Ivins

    by se portland on Mon May 28, 2012 at 01:49:02 PM PDT

  •  I've got a few questions for you. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    on the cusp, potatohead

    Do you think Social security should be cut back, or privatized?
    Do you think Medicare should be privatized?
    Is the planet warming because of human activities?
    How old is the earth?

    By answering these questions you'll quickly find out how well you'll be accepted in this community, and how rational you are.

    •  Answers (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pollwatcher

      These are my feelings based on what information I have, not policy positions that I stand for.

      SS should be fully protected as it stands for all people. Everyone who is under age 55 should prepare for the starting age of SS to be moved to a later age, in line with the original intent of the program as I understand it.

      Leave medicare alone.

      Global warming is a 'fact', not a myth. There is far too much scientific research behind the idea to dismiss it. The ultimate outcomes of global warming can't be clearly ascertained, in my view. I don't know how much of the warming is caused by CFC, etc. What I do know is that it makes the most sense to err on the side of caution.

      The Earth is however old it's currently estimated at by scientists in the relevant community or research. I'm an atheist, though I used to be a fundamentalist Christian in my teens.

      Left-leaning independent and limited government advocate. Classical liberal on some issues; social liberal on some others. + Civility first + Follow the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle + Constructive comments

      by LimitedGovernment on Mon May 28, 2012 at 02:55:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmmm, don't see what the problem is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AaronInSanDiego

        From your answers, I don't see you having any unusual problems here.  Like other sites, there are some people who can get nasty, but they're a minority.  I have had plenty of disagreements with people here, but most of the time, people are persuadable and as long as I am open to persuasion, they are respectful.

        •  The problem is labeling, bad history, and fear (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AaronInSanDiego

          I expect a lot of people here to come after me because they associate my username with something that they're against or things that assholes and ignorant people have said in the past.

          I expect others to come after me because they view me as a symbol of outsiders, trolls, or some other hated group or boogeyman.

          I expect others to come after me because of the bandwagon effect, wanting to be seen as intelligent/witty/whatever, or because they feel like I'm getting personal when I correct them or point out flaws in their statements.

          I'm quite used to all three groups of responses, and very happy that people exist who won't come after me based on assumptions or others' reactions.

          If I decide to stick around, it will become pretty clear over time that I encourage constructive criticism and fact-checking of what I say and how I say it, and that I have a pointed way of refuting and subsequently ignoring people who are immature - even when they're trying to reach goals that I'm in favor of.

          Left-leaning independent and limited government advocate. Classical liberal on some issues; social liberal on some others. + Civility first + Follow the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle + Constructive comments

          by LimitedGovernment on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:36:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Your questions caught my eye. (0+ / 0-)

          They could pass for an entrance exam for participation on this site, maybe even for membership in the party.  Be that as it may, I read the entire thread here because I am trying to see other points of view - yours is most definitely one.  Consider this: the results of any poll are influenced by how the questions are framed.  Let's play with some rewording on just one of your questions.
      Do you think Social security should be cut back, or privatized?
           How about this: do you support a compulsory savings plan, where the responsible agency is a monopoly (has first claim to over 12% of your income), takes that money whether you can really afford to pay or not (during the time in your life when you probably have your heaviest family responsibilities), holds the money until you reach a certain age, keeps the money if you die before then, determines at what rate you should get your money back, makes that determination regardless of whether or not you really need the money at that point in your life, continues to pay you as long as you live (the rich get richer because they tend to live longer), represents (at any moment in time) a transfer of wealth from working young to non-working old, injects the friction (cost) of a considerable bureaucracy into all this redistribution of money, and doesn't actually maintain a real trust fund at all?
           Here's the funny part.  I would have answered 'no' to both your question and mine.  I think like Ron Paul on this one - that's why he's so popular with young people.  Honor the promises already made to old folks, but let young people out, to look after their own money.
      By answering these questions you'll quickly find out how well you'll be accepted in this community, and how rational you are.
           I'm not looking for acceptance - I guess that makes me a troll - but I do consider Democrats (and Republicans) Americans too.  That means, like it or not, we're on the same team.  We should really think about what we're advocating, defending, and forcing on others.  And to me, rational means you can back up your point of view with logic - that's a little different from knowing the secret handshake.

      Very respectfully,

      •  the government is not a "monopoly". (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tardis10

        It is not a business or profit-oriented corporation, not should it be. I see your framing as biased and dishonest. And Ron Paul is not as popular among young people as you'd like to think.

        "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

        by AaronInSanDiego on Tue May 29, 2012 at 12:09:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Government is a monopoly (0+ / 0-)

          It is not a business because it is compulsory.  It is the original corporation though, being an organization which claims personhood.  Unless members of governments are selfless angels, they are in fact profit seekers, if government income didn't exceed their expenditures (Borrowing counts as incoming funds) they would collapse.

          Government is more profitable than anything else.  The ability to print money digitally and force market actors to accept it is the most profitable enterprise in the world.  You would be shockingly naive to think governments and their allies in nominally private business don't take advantage of these and other profitable tools only government has at its disposal.

          His framing is biased towards reality and is honest.  Your perception is shaped by growing up in a culture of statism that has been created over millennia.

          Families, religion, education, media, etc... all these institutions have been successfully co-opted and used to brainwash people to believe in and rely on government.  The U.S. Government has been particularly adept at building up its legitimacy in the minds of the American people despite its relatively short history.

          I ask that you prove him wrong and logically refute his points about social security.

  •  "I've done the same at many other . . ." (9+ / 0-)

    May I suggest a little humility?  

    And participation beyond your own diaries?

    "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution." - Emma Goldman

    by CamillesDad1 on Mon May 28, 2012 at 01:58:28 PM PDT

  •  I think limited government is impossible. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    potatohead, se portland

    The constitution reminds me of a chastity belt on a sex addict while the sex addict retains the key to the belt.

    •  That's funny! (0+ / 0-)

      ***Be Excellent To One Another***
      IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

      by potatohead on Mon May 28, 2012 at 02:17:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

        But I am completely serious, no government can be limited for long.

        It has every incentive and every ability to violate any limitations placed on it by any document.

        A state is an ultimate decision maker in its given territory.  That means it makes the ultimate decisions on how to interpret and enforce the very documents meant to restrain it.  Constitutionalism and limited government is a preposterous idea.

        The history of our country is a solid lesson in this.  Even the early U.S. Government a rather small government, full of limited government politicians, lacking in resources and legitimacy, rapidly expanded its power and wealth.

        It is now the superpower of the world and involved directly or indirectly in every aspect of our lives.  The Constitution at best was a speed bump.  At worst it is used to legitimize government committed crime.

  •  Limitedgovernment (0+ / 0-)

    I sent you a message!

  •  Civility is a great thing. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LimitedGovernment

    You need to have some other issue you write about though, IMHO.  Maybe you could keep your civility theme while promoting issues that are important to us.  I think you can find a place here if you really want one.

    One can never consent to creep when one feels an impulse to soar.

    by The Nephew on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:29:03 PM PDT

    •  Civility is just #1 (0+ / 0-)

      I write on a lot of topics and do a lot of analysis of issues based on original research. As I look at the community here, I'll decide if I'm staying and what I write about based on the culture.

      Thanks for the feedback. :)

      Left-leaning independent and limited government advocate. Classical liberal on some issues; social liberal on some others. + Civility first + Follow the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle + Constructive comments

      by LimitedGovernment on Mon May 28, 2012 at 04:38:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site