Allow me, please, to present to you, in no particular order, some things that are not healthy for the Daily Kos community.
Thing the first: not being factual. For example, here is the verbatim quote from Markos about the NSA thang:
I don't give a shitAs evident in the quote, Kos' failure to "give a shit" is limited to Greenwald/Snowden and is not directed at the NSA abuses.
Seriously, I just don't care.
NSA spying is bad! So is stop and frisk. So is splitting up families by deporting children to countries they've never been to and don't speak the language. So is harassing American muslims.
Government overreach is bad. But to act like having the government track who you call is the height of government abuse is a very white privileged view of the privacy issue.
But as for Greenwald and Snowden? Seriously, I don't give two shits.
The emphasis in the quote is mine. Yes, Kos described something as being a "very white privileged view of the privacy issue." Again, emphasis mine. So let's review, shall we?
Things Kos described as constituting a very white privileged view of the privacy issue: acting like what the NSA was doing is the worst thing a government could do
Things Kos did not describe as constituting a very white privileged view of the privacy issue: what the NSA is getting up to.
In fact, he said the NSA spying is bad, but according to a lot of people, Kos doesn't think it matters, or doesn't care if it does. Misconceptions like that enable risible notions along the lines of Kos has sold site member data to the NSA, which of course explains his alleged lack of shit-giving on the NSA issue. It's all very nice and epistemic closeure-y, but it's, as I said, risible, not to mention straight-up CT. Which brings us to:
Thing the second: All this talk about how some people are here only to disrupt, etc., and are quite probably paid to do so, is nothing but toxic to this community. It's divisive and beyond pointless.
Whether or not there are people paid to comment here, for whatever reasons, couldn't matter less and here is why:
1. Debate-free zones.As long as this site remains debate-centric and opposed to having debate-free zones, there is, seriously, zero point in wondering what motivates someone who disagrees with you. Disagreement is disagreement; you either agree to disagree, make your best counterpoints, or ignore it. Whatever prompted the commenter to disagree with you doesn't change one thing about how to handle disagreement, the rules of logic, or the principles of debate.
Some users have asked about the ability to declare their diary off-limits to their detractors, so that they can discuss a topic without having opponents intrude...
While I find some validity in the request, and considered it deeply, fact is it conflicts with the debate-centric focus of the site. We're not an echo chamber, nor do I want it to become one. So if you want to be spared dissent, Daily Kos just won't be the place for you. If you can't handle dissent, then maybe political activism is not the thing for you.
And here's the thing: since one is required to have proof to make the allegation specifically, what is the point in making the allegation generally, where there is no evidence and nothing to be done about it? Absent proof of paid shillery nobody can know whether disagreement stems from an honest difference of perspective or from someone here to post propaganda.
And no, spidey senses don't count as proof, nor does whatever Cass Sunstein has mused about working PR on social media. In fact, let's assume everything about Sunstein's wishes is true and even go so far as to stipulate he has been wildly successful in recruiting a cadre of forum liaisons, if you will, whose job it is to whitewash and do PR and what have you.
Everything I've said still holds true. But if that isn't enough to convince you of the futility in getting everybody all worked up about the monsters on Maple Street, take Kos's word for it:
15. Unfounded accusations of being paid hacks or zombies"Such claims are toxic to debate and are, as such, now banned." So there you have it: not only is it, imHo, worse-than-futile to carry on and on about how some people are here only to "disrupt" and there are people being paid to argue here, but such talk is now banned, per Kos. That means it's HRable.
Charging that a commenter is a paid troll or formerly banned user is a great way to delegitimize a user, and is particularly problematic against new users or those who seldom participate. As noted above, extraordinary claims should require evidence. People are too quick to jump to the conclusion that "the only reason anyone would disagree with me is because they're being paid" and such claims are toxic to debate and are, as such, now banned.
And really, all they have is words; are we really so afraid of words?