Skip to main content

I know I am considered an asshole/dick by many that hang out here. I'm pretty sure both sides of the argument know I don't give a fuck.

Read this thread look at the tips and donuts and learn the definition of discussion.

Tags

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

  •  interesting thread. Laurence Lewis makes a lot (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, wader, duhban, Cedwyn, fcvaguy

    of sense. I agree with his take on it. I don't see any donut there

    •  "Central Government" == Articles of Confederation (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, duhban

      troll. Libertarian RW.

      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 Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 06:51:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, ZhenRen, poligirl

      that's very surprising

      ;)

      Victim of the system~Bob Marley

      by LaEscapee on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 06:55:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You don't see any room for agreement (7+ / 0-)

      Anywhere else?




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

      by DeadHead on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 06:55:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I meant to ask you (5+ / 0-)

      while you were looking for donuts did you count the tips?

      This is a learning experience

      Victim of the system~Bob Marley

      by LaEscapee on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 07:45:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm tired of your small group (3+ / 2-)

        acting like you all self reccing each other in long dead threads means anything other then you all have entirely too much free time on your collective hands.

        Yeah it's a learning experience but not the one you think

        Der Weg ist das Ziel

        by duhban on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:18:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Would you mind fucking off, now? (6+ / 0-)

          Thank you.




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

          by DeadHead on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:47:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  thanks for your insult (0+ / 0-)

            I'll be curious to see who recs this clearly hidable comment. Should be interesting.

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:56:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Fuck off" isn't an insult any more than... (6+ / 0-)

              "piss off" or "buzz off" is.

              The word "fuck" doesn't change it.

              If I would have said "fuck you," you might have a case. But i didn't.




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

              by DeadHead on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:04:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  uh huh like I said (0+ / 0-)

                it will be interesting to see which of your group wants to rec your comment.

                •  why don't you take kos's advice: (7+ / 0-)

                  and stop visiting the diaries of people you don't like?

                  kos on this:

                  Honestly (40+ / 0-)

                  I don't understand why it's hard to ignore someone you don't like.

                  by kos on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 03:02:34 PM CST

                  why is that sooooooo damn hard for you to do? do you have no self control or something?

                  "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." ~George Orwell "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." ~Charles Beard

                  by poligirl on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:28:04 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Why don't you take your own advice? (0+ / 0-)

                    No one is making you or Deadhead comment here either so why do it?

                    Do you have no self control or something?

                    Der Weg ist das Ziel

                    by duhban on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:39:17 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Because *YOU* came in here (3+ / 0-)

                      and decided to instigate.

                      And now you try to blame others for responding to your instigations.

                      If someone shows up in a pootie diary to talk shit, are you gonna sit silent and let it happen?

                      Would the regular readers of ericlewis0's or TomP's diaries just ignore people who show up to incite a flame war?

                      No, they would not.

                      And, in a legitimate case of trolling, I wouldn't blame them for doing so.

                      The onus is one YOU, as the antagonist who wants to avoid getting banned, to exhibit self-control.




                      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                      by DeadHead on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 04:10:10 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                        I instigated nothing. Dissent is not instigation Deadhead no matter how many times you scream otherwise.

                        Der Weg ist das Ziel

                        by duhban on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 04:37:54 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You call this dissent relevant to this diary? : (2+ / 0-)
                          I'm tired of your small group

                          acting like you all self reccing each other in long dead threads means anything other then you all have entirely too much free time on your collective hands.

                          Yeah it's a learning experience but not the one you think

                          by duhban on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:18:50 AM PST

                          That's antagonistic, no matter how many times you say otherwise.




                          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                          by DeadHead on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 08:15:14 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  considering how unobjective you are (0+ / 0-)

                            your 'concern' is noted and dismissed

                            Der Weg ist das Ziel

                            by duhban on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 08:29:46 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My objectivity is not relevant (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poligirl, priceman

                            I did not render my opinion, nor did I express "concern."

                            I asked YOU a question, which you refused to answer.

                            Because that's what you do when you know you're wrong.

                            You deflect and try to turn it back around on the person asking you the question in order to escape from answering, because if you answered honestly, you'd be admitting your guilt.




                            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                            by DeadHead on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 01:40:21 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Considering you are currently on a Time Out... (0+ / 0-)

                            I think your activity in this thread is soooo telling and soooo hilarious.

                            Tick Tock, hartnäckige kleine Entlein...

                            Retired Pie Warrior. Substance over Sh*t Flinging (as best as I am able). Sarcasm for - and derision of - True Believers / Entitlement "Reformers" / NSA cheerleaders (yes, significant overlap) still available 24/7, you betcha!

                            by JVolvo on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 09:39:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  so you like the diarist? and the commenters (3+ / 0-)

                      that generally come in his diaries?

                      see, you know damn well you don't. you're only in here to antagonize. it's your MO. and a *whole* bunch of kossacks can see that.

                      "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." ~George Orwell "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." ~Charles Beard

                      by poligirl on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 06:12:25 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  My guess: (6+ / 0-)

                  People who also want you to fuck off piss off buzz off screw off pound sand, er, I mean GO AWAY.

                  Yet here you are, causing trouble for yourself and making others miserable in the process.

                  For as long as I've commented at you, you've been pulling this crap. In fact, most of my comments to you have centered on one theme: your compulsion to inject your inflammatory comments that serve only to derail discussions.

                  You've blown-up countless threads by planting a single comment that offers little more than some jab some perceived group of people here, usually far to the left of your center-right, fact-free world.

                  People take your bait, and proceed to help perpetuate the endless back-and-forth that, more often than not, ends-up on the right side of the page. I'm as guilty as anyone for succumbing to the temptation to respond to your inane commentary made in diaries discussing topics about which you clearly know nothing, yet somehow profess expertise.

                  It's beyond tiresome.

                  When you get called on your crap, you usually start crying that people are bullying you, stalking you, or following you around.

                  They just want you to stop. They want you to stay the fuck out of diaries if you have nothing to offer the discussion aside from petty snipes or clearly clueless pontifications that only muddy the discussion with misinformation.

                  No one gives you trouble until you ASK FOR IT. On the occasions I've tried to directly respond to whatever points you tried to raise, you respond with "You burned your bridges with me and I'm not going to waste my time replying to you because I don't like you" kinds of crap.

                  Your comment history is replete with examples of your emotionally-driven, knee-jerk reactions to anyone who proves you wrong or tries to offer you constructive criticism.

                  And you don't listen. Instead, when people finally have had enough of your crap and start HRing you, you run to the helpdesk and start threads complaining about ratings abuse, completely oblivious to your own behavior that might be instigating others to respond this way to you.

                  As usual, you claim you're the victim, yet in actuality there's few people currently still here on DailyKos that have been as successful at destroying discussions in diaries you don't like or understand, than you.

                  So spare me your "ZOMG. Let's see who uprates this insult that isn't actually an insult" crap, okay?




                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:54:52 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  and yet as I keep asking you (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ord avg guy

                    if you so ardently think I am baiting you why do you keep responding? Face it DeadHead you need the last word, you need to prove you're better and cleverer then anyone that dares disagree with you.

                    And yeah I tend not to listen to liars, bullies and stalkers all of which you are. Oh wait I'm sorry is calling what you do stalking going to hurt your feelings again? I meant "following" because it's just so accidental how you find so many of my comments and reply to them long after everyone has gone away.

                    Der Weg ist das Ziel

                    by duhban on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:00:57 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I didn't say... (3+ / 0-)

                      you were baiting me, I said "people take your bait."

                      Baiting, the verb, is badgering and cumulatively provoking someone into a reaction, usually spread over several comments of an increasingly provocative nature.

                      Bait, the noun, as I used it, implies a single instance used to incite others into a reaction.

                      I don't care about "needing the last word." It makes no difference to me whether you or anyone else considers "needing to have the last word" to be an unflattering personality trait.

                      You continue to post bullshit, I'll respond until the cows come home, or until you stop posting bullshit, whichever comes first.

                      And I don't need to prove anything to anyone about being more clever. That's some concoction of your own puerile worldview, not mine. So, if you think I'm fucking off countless minutes of my life replying to you merely for my own ego gratification or for points, you're sorely mistaken.




                      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                      by DeadHead on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 02:00:36 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  huh (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ord avg guy

                        so let's see you don't need the last word and yet you do, you don't really need any ego gratification and yet here you are stroking that ego.

                        Nice back flips

                        Der Weg ist das Ziel

                        by duhban on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 02:32:16 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Would you care to comment on this... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          DeadHead, priceman

                          http://www.dailykos.com/...

                          I mean, that is what you do, right? Are you ever going to apologise for being so wrong? You continuously request apologies from others for what you think they had wrong, so it's only fair that you give yours.

                          'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

                          by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 11:20:22 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Please read more closely: (2+ / 0-)

                          This is what I said:

                          I don't care about "needing the last word." It makes no difference to me whether you or anyone else considers "needing to have the last word" to be an unflattering personality trait.
                          I didn't eschew having the last word, I said it didn't bother me if other people think I insist on having it, because you made it sound as if insisting on having the last word is something that's inherently bad.

                          And I'm telling you I don't mind insisting on that last word for as long as you post comments that I feel need to be refuted.




                          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                          by DeadHead on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 12:47:16 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Here you go... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          duhban

                          A little primer on how to deal with dh(s) that infest many parts of the internet;

                          http://blogcritics.org/...

                          "Many children want to have the last word, of course..."

                          If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

                          by ord avg guy on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 01:24:46 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Hey, remember this? (2+ / 0-)

                            As true today as it was then.




                            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                            by DeadHead on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 02:23:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Remember? How could I forget (0+ / 0-)

                            The most childish and insipid response I've ever received? Now we can add unoriginal. Take pride that in the fact that this is the most cleverness you can muster.

                            It's the kind of dickish reply that someone who is too intellectually dull and lazy to reply with substance comes up with. It really does define you in more ways than you could possibly ever understand.

                            But the fact that you choose a brainless, cartoon sponge as your avatar reveals a surprising self awareness that I didn't know you possessed. Kudos!

                            The fact that you choose to post it in response to a comment I posted in which I point out that it's a childish trait to always want the last word is an irony I'm sure you missed.

                            And the kicker is that both times you've used it as a dickish insult directed at me it was under comments that had recs, making it empirically false. Not the first falsehood you've posted here, and it won't be the last.

                            I love this comment, DH. It is the perfect representative of what you have to contribute to this site.

                            If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

                            by ord avg guy on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 12:29:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh yeah, one more thing... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            priceman

                            Weren't you just whining in another thread about how I supposedly followed you around in "diary after diary after diary?"

                            Well, I noticed something rather interesting, and I think you might like it:

                            You awoke out of a two-week break since your last comment here on DailyKos, November 08, to post one, two, three, four, five, six comments either to me or to someone else about me, in another diary, and then, 3.5 hours later, appeared in the long-dead thread of THIS diary to post your comment above, indirectly, to someone I'm arguing with.

                            How about that?

                            If anyone's doing any "following," it's you.

                            :-)




                            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                            by DeadHead on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 11:15:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  hahaha (0+ / 0-)

                            Nice try. But you obviously don't know what following means.

                            Tsk tsk on dragging something from another thread into this one. Site rules don't apply to you though, right? Of course, in that thread the context of my comment would be clear that it was a different poster that initiated the observation (yet again) about your penchant for following people to harass them. When you drag it into here you take it out of context so that you can dishonestly smear me with yet another bullshit insinuation. That's what someone without integrity would do, and of course you did it.

                            And no, liar, I wasn't whining about your stalking behavior, liar. Nice try.

                            Come back and talk to me when I've followed you into FIVE seperate diaries over four days to jump in with insults and dishonest smears like you did to me.

                            What's interesting is in the eight years I've been on this site you're the first to ever accuse me of following them. Yet you can't seem to get through more than a few weeks without someone calling out your harassing, following behavior. The record is clear. Your smear attempts can't change it.

                            How about that. Another DH deflection/projection fail.

                            When will you learn that dishonestly smearing others doesn't negate your behavior?

                            If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

                            by ord avg guy on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 01:20:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Naaaaaaaaaaaillllllled it! (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    DeadHead, LaEscapee, poligirl

                     photo 04FQZG6Ju.gif

                    'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

                    by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:10:44 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Let me satisfy your curiosity, (5+ / 0-)

              duhban.

              I have no problem with tipping Deadhead's comment asking if you mind fucking off now.

              I read in a comment that you've had over 250 hiderates.
              You've been here only a year or so.

              No one should be proud of all the hiderates you've had in your short time here, and yet your conduct does not change, so perhaps those are like a badge of honor to you.

              People here, some that you might even respect, have given you good advice about commenting without causing so much discord. Please try it.

              For our fallen solders who come home from Afghanistan in a coffin to Dover, "God bless the cause for which they died."

              by allenjo on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:26:57 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  DBAD (6+ / 0-)


          "Information is power. But like all power there are those who want to keep it for themselves" Aaron Swartz, 1986 - 2013
          TheStarsHollowGazette.com

          by TheMomCat on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:44:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Uprated. As far as I can see, there is no (5+ / 0-)

          particular reason to hide this comment. It's not particularly positive, but it certainly doesn't break any rules that I know about. "I'm pissed at duhban" is not, last I heard, a legitimate basis for an HR.

          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 Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 04:33:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Are you trolling again, duh? Quelle surprise. nt (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poligirl, DeadHead, TheMomCat

          'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

          by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 04:58:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You don't make me tired (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poligirl, TheMomCat

          you make me laugh.

          People like you are like water off a ducks back to me. You have one objective and it's very obvious to any honest broker.

          Go back to the kiddie pool grownups are talking.

          Victim of the system~Bob Marley

          by LaEscapee on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 05:46:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  A suggestion, duhban... (12+ / 0-)

          Have you considered simply ignoring diaries and comments with which you disagree and in the threads of which you're likely to encounter other commenters with whom you have a history of combative interaction?

          No one questions your "right" to comment wherever you like, but the fact that you purposefully interjected yourself into this thread goes some distance to belie your complaints at the HelpDesk.

          There are a few dozen commenters who are on my mental "ignore list" now, and my experience of the site has improved tremendously. Perhaps you should give it a whirl.

          Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

          by angry marmot on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 05:48:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  regradless of whether I have 'injected' myself (0+ / 0-)

            here or any where should matter not as to the enforcement of the rules.

            And yes largely I ignore some people here angry marmot but the fact is they don't ignore me. And I'm just not going to take their smears, insults and outright lies in silence. I've asked the admins repeatedly to intervene. All that happened was that once Clive was told to leave me alone. He broke that in under 24 hours, I started a private thread letting the admins know. Nothing came of it and the thread was seemingly ignored.

            More over as I said above I'm sick of the argument from this group that by gaming the rec system they can make it mean whatever they want it to. Personally I'm not going to let that slide and I'm also not going to let their abuse and bullying slide. At this point it's pretty obvious that the admins have let moderation on this site go to hell completely and as such well we are where we are.

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:49:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The flip side of this coin... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TheMomCat, LaEscapee, poligirl
              At this point it's pretty obvious that the admins have let moderation on this site go to hell completely and as such well we are where we are.
              ...is of course that the admin have seen your behaviour as disruptive and that the rest of us are right, you are a troll and that it's a minor miracle that you aren't bojo.

              You know the comment you added to your latest whinefest? It's full of ad hom attacks and that's why you got donuts.

              'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

              by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 06:20:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well... (5+ / 0-)

              Allow me to articulate a few thoughts:

              1) the user-driven moderation system of HRs, while imperfect and susceptible to a bit of gaming, nonetheless works fairly well. The recent tweak to the system whereby TUs can only HR a particular user once a day has improved the system and limited much of the gamesmanship.

              2) the admins needn't be, and clearly don't want to be, involved in every petty squabble that arises on site. The presumption is that we're all adults and, should we run into a pattern of combative interaction with another user or group of users, that we can simply ignore him/her/them. As kos himself expressed:

              I don't understand why it's hard to ignore someone you don't like.
              Or, as you yourself said in a HelpDesk thread:
              You all want to know an easy way to stop the 'disruptive posts'? How about you just ignore them?
              3) a fair number of diaries here function as "community diaries" even if they aren't in an official series. They speak to (and are rec'ed by) communities of interest. There are diarists and communities of interest here for which I personally have very little tolerance. On the off-chance I decide to participate critically in those threads, I assume the risks.

              4) you do yourself no favors by complaining at the HelpDesk, particularly in public posts outside of the "Community and Moderation Issues" area, especially when you're complaining about problems that could have been avoided by a mature and judicious decision to ignore diaries, comments and threads by folks whom you don't like/respect and who don't like/respect you. I think that anyone, including the moderators, surveying the "wrong" behaviors you cite within the fuller context of your own decisions and behavior here would simply shrug and say "meh, it takes two to do the dickish tango."

              In sum, then, don't take the bait and don't stir the shit if you're unwilling to accept responsibilty. Really, it's just that simple...

              Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

              by angry marmot on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 05:46:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  okay (0+ / 0-)

                We're just not going to agree here and my opinion on this is based on a pretty fast experience. I've been playing and socializing on the nets since usernet. I've seen maybe not every kind of moderation there is but certainly damn close to every kind. And I have to tell you strict community moderation like what is here fails badly for sites the size of daily kos. If you don't believe me try and find a site that is open to public discussion on a host of topics like daily kos is that relies solely on the community to police itself. I doubt you'll find it. It's true that on the level of a couple thousand people where every one know each other and trusts each other that it can work but it fails to upsize. That's not to say it's not useful but there's a number of reasons why most moderate to big websites use a combination of some form of community moderation (even if it's just flagging comments for review) and a system of moderators. One of those is present right here and now in that I trust nothing Clive says, he has been abusive and stalking me for months. And frankly that by logic has to extend to those that consistently uprate his comments. The whole purpose of a moderator is to have someone(s) that can step and stop the whole mess.

                And yeah that generally means dealing with petty squabbles but that's what you have to do to keep a site healthy and free of divisions like the one that has been growing on this site. It's not that I don't sympathize, I do I've moderated before and it burned me out. But by refusing to get involved all you're going to do is make it worse and likely slowly strangle the site or at least this specific discussion. It might take years it might not.

                It would be nice to assume that we're all adults and will behave as such but really that assumption never holds up on the nets. Clive's behavior is certainly prove of that. Gods know I want all of fucking nothing to do with him and I certainly have politely asked him to just leave me alone and he refused. That is why you need moderators because they enforce the rules for all and hopefully manage to do so roughly neutrally.

                As to the community diary thing again sorry but no. Diaries are either officially community diaries or not. The same people tried this bullshit with shutting down criticism so they could have their echo chamber and Markos himself stated that that was not going to happen. There are no special rules for this diary and it's not a peusdo community diary.

                As to complaining to the help desk there are no other options. The moderators as you yourself noted seem content to allow this anarchy to continue and for the same group to continue to violate the rules. Thus I choose to make this public. I don't really care if you think that violates some form of accepted behaviour or not. I will say that being required to  make this public is a new experience for me. Right or wrong I've never had to take a dispute or grievance public before.

                Or if you want the shorter version, asking someone for proof of a borderline conspiracy theory is no justification for being accused of being a troll and/or shill. A large part of my behaviour is frankly derivative. I didn't start this shit and given a choice I would rather discuss the issue like adults. But I'm also not going to back down from bullies especially if the implicit response from the moderators is 'whatever goes, goes'. Being critical isn't 'stirring shit' and if people can't take criticism I suggest they go play pick up sticks or something.

                Der Weg ist das Ziel

                by duhban on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 03:20:17 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Good luck LaEscapee. (12+ / 0-)

    But most discussions of "the role of government" that I've seen on the Internet seem to be by people who could use a good solid education in the history of the capitalist system.

    "this is the worst of all worlds, and that is how it was designed to be." - Ian Welsh

    by Cassiodorus on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 06:52:24 PM PST

  •  Didn't have time to read the whole thing (28+ / 0-)

    But I'm really glad I saw Zen Rhen's comment.

    It helped me solve an equation.

    You want to thank those who gave minorities, the poor, women, the working class, every paltry benefit they have ever received from "government"?

    Then thank the people, the activists, the anarchists, the communists and socialists, the agitators and strikers, the labor protestors. Without them, and all they died for at the hands of government violence, we would not have the minimal, inadequate rights we have won from government.

    It was government that made the pro-slavery laws to begin with.

    It was government that stood in the way of equality for years. It was government that wrote the 3/5ths law into the US constitution, which, as a law, was very difficult to overturn.

    It was government that took the lands of free people in the New World, and practiced genocide. It was government which took one third of Mexico for itself by force, and now during Obama's term deports more Mexicans from their own lands than any other administration, while liberals like you pat themselves on the back for government protection of minorities. My god.

    It was government that refused women and minorities, and white men without property, the right to vote, so that in the first election of G. Washington, only 6% (the wealthier Americans) voted.

    It was government that provided enforcement of property "rights" of the owning class over other men during the slavery years.

    It was government which allowed and provided police to violently and murderously suppress worker's strikes to oppress the working class. It was government that tried to break up the unions, and has largely succeeded.

    It was government which has lied the nation into countless illegal wars.

    It was government that took us illegally into Iraq, and Vietnam, the Indian wars, the colonization of other lands.

    It was government that supported fascists regimes, while undermining democratic, socialist states.

    It is government that does nothing about climate change, the hegemony of the banking industry, the enabling of the disparities in wealth between the rich and the rest of us.

    It is government that incarcerates more citizens in the US than any other industrialized country. It is government that sanctions legal murder in capital punishment.

    It was government which has drug its feet for years on environmental protection and still does, bringing human kind to possible extinction in the next 100 years due to inaction.

    And that same government which now ignores international agreements against various war crimes made by a federation of nations to which it is a signatory.

    It isn't government that gave people their rights, it was the threat of revolt, of direct action, of losing support of the people, that forced a perpetually reluctant government to give in and respect rights.

    People are not given rights, but rather have their natural inherent right to live taken away by governments, and when some of these rights are returned, we thank government for the "gift" as if we need government to grant to us what was already ours.

    The only reason we got the "New Deal" is because Roosevelt and the existing plutocrats were worried about the unrest in the population during the great depression. The smarter ones like FDR realized a bone or two had to be given to the workers to keep the peace.

    For fucks sake, women still do not get equal pay in the work place, thanks to government top-down intransigence and imperviousness and inaccessibility to common people. And Blacks are still by far the least employed.

    Your deluded notion it is the central state which provides rights to the people ignores the years of struggle against government to repeal the horrible laws which have allowed all the atrocities to begin with.

    All of these same social rights and benefits can be provided by the people to themselves by free association, with agreements, and bottom up federations participatory communities. It is the people, not some separate, top down, central authority, who demand and fight  for economic and political equality. If not for the enormous struggle, these rights would not exist, if left to the elites in control of government.

    This was done in Spain during the anarchist revolution, and we are yet to provide all that the Spanish provided to their own communities during that period. In the '30s they built hundreds of free public schools, provided universal health care, pensions for all retirees, retirement at age 50, better safety in the workplace, healthier environments for food preparation, more respect for woman's rights, etc.

    In short, they gave themselves egalitarian equality on a scale that the US government has yet to come anything close to recognizing.

    It is never central government that does these things, but the people. When government gives respect to the people, it is only due to preserving the interests of its own existence that it does so.

    by ZhenRen on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 12:43:41 AM MST

  •  Introducing the libertarian Left (6+ / 0-)

    One needn't be a statist to pursue justice and equality, in fact it helps not to be.  Us, in our own words:   Libcom

    “Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. ” ― Paulo Freire

    by ActivistGuy on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 07:26:40 PM PST

  •  Evidently the person selling the T-shirts is, (11+ / 0-)

    but I don't agree that the saying itself about the NSA being the only part of government that listens is "right wing libertarian" whatever.  Rails on the government like that are as old as the hills, and a lot of it is justified, not just at the top level, but down to the city and town level.  Those sentiments didn't come around for nothing and are certainly not limited to right wing libertarians who hate all government.  The recs on the diary show that.  We have to get past the manufactured divisions and join together on the issues.  The right wing libertarians might not be on our side for some things, but they are against war, empire, spying, torture, assassinations, all that bullshit Imperialism stuff for the benefit of the ruling class.  Hey, even our government works with those it doesn't agree with, like the Al Qaeda terrorists in Libya and Syria.  Politics make strange bedfellows and at this point we all need all the help we can get.

    "It is easier to pass through the eye of a needle then it is to be an honest politician."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 08:17:58 PM PST

  •  You think you've got it bad... (13+ / 0-)

    being considered considered an asshole/dick by many that hang out here.

    You wrote three sentences and got 18 comments, make that 19.

    I busted my ass for hours writing The Sad End of 5Pointz and they wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

  •  Define "government" and people might agree more (12+ / 0-)

    That confusion runs through the thread.  That thread sparked a long discussion by a few of us off site.  I'll just say here that it depends on the particular government whether "government" is serving the interests of the people or "government" serves the interests of the elite.  The Third Reich was a government, as was Soviet Communism, as is the government of Sweden.  As concerns that diary, the question is really whether the US government currently "listens to us".  Ironically, the behavior reported in that diary stands as a strong mark in favor of those who say, no, the government does not listen--in fact, it tells us to stfu under threat of law.

    I agree with Zhen that government always trends toward serving the elite.  A more depressing possibility is that government always serves the interests of the elite but nonetheless operates democratically at historic junctures when the elite perceive their best interests as being served by a relatively empowered working class, with economic power and political power always going hand in hand.

    But I know your point is one of meta.  It is my impression that such promising, honest discussions were more common here.

    Secrecy is a hot bed of vanity. - Joseph Brodsky They who have put out the people’s eyes reproach them for their blindness. – John Milton 1642

    by geomoo on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 08:40:48 PM PST

    •  I'm OK with those analyses, (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      geomoo, poco, ZhenRen, Cedwyn, poligirl, duhban

      but tended to nod my head more often to Lewis's comments.  I felt that he was talking to the long-spreading, libertarian notion that people should tune out of government and let it serve the elites by their lack of caring and currency in the governmental process.  That is, let the elites do as they please by accepting that elected officials - and their business Executive and/or otherwise wealthy partners - send public monies increasingly in the direction of wealthy welfare recipients.

      That promoted culture of blind obedience in the electorate continues today, although efforts such as seen at this site attempt to minimize its effectiveness by widely sharing better, objective information on such subterfuge of public interests by the very few.  I don't think we want to give it a free ride or promote it as such - problems in government can be looked at as driven by the very same, greedy and selfish interests which invade its halls, rather than a necessary feature of our government, itself.  We'll never root out greed in any political system: that should be accepted as human nature and impossible to eliminate.  But, perhaps we can minimize its broad impact more often, going forward?

      Zhen also had good points about why we should not trust government to do all we require - it takes movements and even mutant, touchstone events which can catch fire and support over time from the population that inevitably leads the government representatives in better directions over time (however begrudgingly).  That doesn't negate the value of government to focus public monies towards broad needs in a society, when the greedheads can be minimized long enough to make it happen, IMHO.

      I didn't learn much about conversation from that subthread, though - seemed rather typical fare.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 09:10:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Reading between the lines (9+ / 0-)

        I would guess that knowledge about conversation might be gained by those who confuse the standard dishonest, ad hominem-infested, posturing sneerfest with conversation.

        I hear what you are saying, and I see it as a problem, but the context had me nodding my head more with Zhen.  LL has a personal interest in perceiving our democracy as at least moderately responsive, otherwise his job here loses meaning--his commenting has changed dramatically since that became the case.  In addition, the story the diary reports hardly makes it an ideal place to take such a stance in favor of responsive government.  Finally, to my way of thinking, President Obama is exhibit A of government not being responsive to the millions of people who got him elected and instead responding to the millions of dollars that got him elected.  So in context, I would say this government right now is terrifyingly unresponsive, both to the people and to the problems that are crying out to be addressed.

        Really, for people who care, it is a rock and a hard place.  Those of us who want functional, representative government are caught between a party which wraps itself in the image of government for the people while acting like government for the elite on the one hand, and on the other, naive radicalism fueled by corporate interests who understand that government is the only potential challenge to their hegemony.  What to do what to do.  It is small wonder that such a small percentage participate in this no-win situation.  LL is correct to point out that viewing government as the enemy only serves the elite.  But pretending the current government is responsive is certainly as destructive a mistake.  And LL's error is accentuated by the specific behavior he seems to be defending, behavior not befitting a democracy yet all too typical of the current administration.  It would be more convincing were LL to be actively proving his point by decrying the censoring behavior in the full expectation that the executive branch would respond.  Instead, he strikes me as running interference, pretending it's not a problem rather than insisting that it change.

        I'll read any response in the morning.  Good night.

        Secrecy is a hot bed of vanity. - Joseph Brodsky They who have put out the people’s eyes reproach them for their blindness. – John Milton 1642

        by geomoo on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 09:37:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, that's a poopy opinion and . . . so, there! (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duhban, geomoo, poligirl

          Sure, though I see the current Administration as one which must necessarily be compromised to even keep existing function running before anything changes, and it's led by a person who has a history of testing, testing, testing status quo and only effecting more significant changes in such after things are proven to be entirely broken across the board of interests he surveys.  Obama was like that when it came to housing projects in Chicago and continues in that benignly cruel, awfully slow experimenter mode until this day.

          I never pretended he was going to turn the aircraft carrier around and realize he does show signs of wanting to do more, but can't help himself or his deference to the tradition of how things were run before him.  Which includes respecting the placement of lobbyists for the most wealthy in permanent D.C. residence, the necessary evil of playing their game to do anything at all in that town, and how he worries that no support from even his own party to take on severe powers would only lead to minor points of chaos and not much else.  So, he stalls, looks for places to feint by keeping people who know the rules and players close and . . . does very small things over time.  He's hoping it will all add up beyond his Administration to enable real changes, I bet, and that may be so.  But, he's not the change we seek - only a minor, first step to soften parts of the electorate and perhaps some key, international partners.  But, not in ways we can see, if that's happening at all.  It's possible he's acting just as impotent and bought by the existing momentum of government in private, as we often see in public actions.

          I don't have a lack of hope in Obama, because I never saw him as more than part of much longer path.  I have more hope in better representatives over time . . . and, only by non-governmental groups of people making the elite radioactive in the rest of the public's eye.  Blaming those radioactive wealthy and corrupting power-brokers and their governmental partners - not government as an institution, per se - for our loss of pensions as a long-term gift to investment houses, for our slow, unsure move away from environmentally damaging means to power our physical needs, for the increasing cruelty of character we display by accepting less assistance and protection for Main Street residents and non-white, non-males, etc. seems the right way to continue the proper path from a socializing standpoint.

          I think we should be loud to our Democrats even more than we are to Republicans, many times.  Republicans right now deserve a total lack of respect and assumed scorn until they realize the value of shame and insignificance to all other forms of life.  Democrats should feel the pressure of responsibility NOW and until real attempts to pull back power from the momentum (that mostly Republicans) put in place for wealthy elites in D.C. are as frequently seen as Republican attempts to repeal the ACA, I feel.  If we can't leverage them and win ever-more or larger battles, this will only go into oblivion and Rome will fall.  Maybe that's inevitable, but I can't see not speaking and acting up until that happens - what else is there to do?  Maybe some local groups will begin to spring up like communes and such, but I can't see that taking root in a big way with all the fear this current system hosts from (again, mostly wealthy libertarian and Republican-enabled) leads in politics and the mass media.

          I'm generally glass half-full, but I realize it's a cracked glass and contains some of its own, broken shards.

          "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

          by wader on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 10:16:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  President Obama is exhibit A (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          geomoo, poligirl, LaEscapee

          To my way of thinking also, geomoo.

          Finally, to my way of thinking, President Obama is exhibit A of government not being responsive to the millions of people who got him elected and instead responding to the millions of dollars that got him elected.  

          So in context, I would say this government right now is terrifyingly unresponsive, both to the people and to the problems that are crying out to be addressed.

          For our fallen solders who come home from Afghanistan in a coffin to Dover, "God bless the cause for which they died."

          by allenjo on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:42:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Well (9+ / 0-)
        That doesn't negate the value of government to focus public monies towards broad needs in a society, when the greedheads can be minimized long enough to make it happen, IMHO.
        People often ask me for examples in which an anarchist society has existed. While there are several, they fail to turn this question on their own assumptions about the presumed necessity and value of government.

        Look at the world today, and all that is done in the name of the wealthy class. Can you name a state that is not ruled by the tyranny of the elites in control at the top?

        When I refer to "government" I'm referring to central, top down authority. Community self-management by the people is governing with a small g. No one is suggesting eliminating organization, but rather specific forms of organization that are detrimental. I think it was Emma Goldman who wrote that top down, hierarchical, central authority is NOT true organization, since not all members are able to participate freely or equally. In what way is a forced, hierarchical structure an "organization" if by organization we mean social order not by force, but with complete willingness and voluntary association by all members? How is anyone able to "organize" if it is done through coercion?

        Representative democracy always tends to move toward control by elites. In the words of the founders, it was actually intended to dampen democracy, since they feared too much influence by the common rubble, whom they distrusted and thought to be unable to rule. Some liberals actually agree with this, but was Bush a great leader? The result of top down representative democracy is usually terrible for the people themselves.  

        In the beginning, if you recall, it was congress who selected the Senators. And it was the party conventions who selected the nominees for presidential candidates.

        It was never intended to be direct democracy, because the wealthy elites feared losing their wealth if the poor ever won control.

        Our entire culture would change if people could manage their own affairs. Most people just want to live their lives in peace, take care of their kids, grow old without too much strife. It has always been the elites who take us to war, who want more lands for markets and resources, who use government to enrich themselves. And it has always been the people, the workers (people who work for a boss) who invent, who create change, who engineer, who employ the sciences, create the art, teach the kids, build the bridges, pave the streets. Those same people can run the participatory communities, the worker councils, the industries, the schools, the networks of worker federations on regional, national, and international scale, because they are doing everything already.

        If people are not smart enough to self-organize and self-govern, then why are they deemed smart enough to determine who best to vote for, to be their leader? Frankly, when people are faced with creating their own communities, they see the direct results of their decisions, and this teaches them to be true adults. When they are treated as if children too stupid to know how to manage their own communities, they are infantilized and kept in an underdeveloped state, with all decisions made by the elites, who most often are completely out of touch with the needs of the people. But was Bush a good father? Thatcher a good mother?

        We can do far better, managing our own communities than some distant, remote, central state, which forces its own lordly dictums on our lives.

        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

        by ZhenRen on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 10:21:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right on. I often think of the state initiative (5+ / 0-)

          or referendum process where citizens can vote for certain things like marijuana legalization or the reduction of a certain tax.  Anything that can get on the ballot basically.  And then I think why we can't do that nationally.  Direct democracy.  Social Security, put it to a vote.  The next fucking war, put it to a vote.  The bullshit excuse that the people can't be trusted to make these kind of decisions and that the political representatives know much more about the issues and can thus make those decisions for us is just that, a bullshit excuse.  I don't fall for that anymore.  I'd rather have it in the people's hands then these corrupt politicians who are clearly working for the rich ruling class.

          "It is easier to pass through the eye of a needle then it is to be an honest politician."

          by BigAlinWashSt on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 10:30:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly right (5+ / 0-)

            It isn't claimed that people wouldn't make big mistakes. But the State is not only making big mistakes, they are gargantuan. They are on the verge of destroying the biosphere as we know it.

            With direct democracy, and without immutable laws, but with community agreements made by free association, which can be more readily changed when things go wrong, people learn far more quickly. Eliminate hierarchy, and we eliminate the stuck, intransigent status quo that so often ends up killing us.  

            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

            by ZhenRen on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 10:36:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Having lived in California for so many years (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BigAlinWashSt, poligirl, LaEscapee

            and at times pages and pages of issues on the ballot to vote on, real democracy in action, was great.

            Where I live now we do not have that.

            Anything that can get on the ballot basically.  And then I think why we can't do that nationally.  

            For our fallen solders who come home from Afghanistan in a coffin to Dover, "God bless the cause for which they died."

            by allenjo on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:49:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Of course it's not a direct democracy, otherwise (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duhban

          we'd not be a Republic.

          The notion of state and local governments is meant to ensure that there's not a central responsibility for all things small and contextual - but, the heirarchical need ensures more potential for cooperation along community (which can be as large as a state) lines.  Otherwise, you're just whistling about removing even the buildup past our former Articles of Confederation and going back to potentially feudal states (or, city-states, or villages, or . . . )

          It's when you go there that I find lack of value in your statements: people will be corrupt and selfish at all levels and I can name specific town councils, county boards and district officials which are choking their respective constituents from proper, public-minded use of taxes for increasingly private interests.

          It's just a smaller variety of how a larger hierarchy can have more members of the selfish, power broker-aligned political membership up through federal government.  You're solving nothing that I can see by taking the Republic out of our system in how you seem to promote that idea, just hoping that some pockets might be able to manage their own needs and somehow coexist, trade, etc. appropriately with peer communities and without a centralized structure to keep it all organized and equitably (ha!) funded or enabled.

          Change our national elections to be more directly related to votes and remove some of the gerrymandering impacts as a start, perhaps.  Work out from there where we can alter the status quo that enables horrid incumbents with track records of nothing more than destruction and dismay to stay aloft in guaranteed, monied positions during and after their residence in D.C.  All of that would seem to come from process changes that begin locally, as you would seem to most emphasize: education and awareness can only lead to better choices and pressures to not only vote better, but push for improvements in the system which minimize the advantages of elites to necessarily consolidate their strength over time.  If you have that much faith in communities to act responsibly, then you must have faith in their abilities to understand the need for lobbying such changes and even promoting more like-minded people of goodwill and intentions to higher positions as their stalwart representatives.

          "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

          by wader on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 10:41:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not at all true (4+ / 0-)

            The town councils you refer to are central authorities. Local governments, as you conceive of them, are in fact, a form of central authority. And thus money, wealth, and the lust for power through wealth is as much a problem locally as on a large scale. People have long terms in which they can rule autocratically, and are extremely difficult to impeach or recall. They rule from their own whims, serving their own needs, serving the interests of their economic class.

            What you're missing is that in this alternate system, of which there are numerous proposed variations (there are a lot of ways to go about this), the small horizontal, non-hierarchical community assemblies group together with other assemblies, councils, and associations, forming federations. Federations group with other federations, forming regional, national, and international councils whose "authority" rests completely in the basic, small, local communities.

            There are no campaigns. No money is involved in selecting delegates for the federations (most likely selected by majority vote, but some communities might decide to rotate delegates, or use some other method). The delegates are answerable to the communities who select them. The delegates would normally be intimately known by their communities. They are immediately recallable, and have binding mandates, which, if betrayed, can cause them to lose their appointments rather quickly without much trouble other than calling a community meeting.

            This entire structure is thus grassroots, bottom up. No elites can achieve control. No national army would be at their command (but local militias could combine through federations, and would be completely under the control of the small communities). Corruption would be rather lacking since there is nothing to profit from by individuals, since no one would be anyone's boss, no one would monopolize property used in production, no one would profit from rents, interests, stocks. All of this would be eliminated.

            And with profiteering at the expense of the working class eliminated, the greed and corruption would be directed to better ends. You underestimate the degree to which acculturation plays a role. Change the structure, make it more egalitarian, and people will acculturate. Most Americans are actually, literally taught that greed is the basis of capitalist economy, and that it must be tolerated and even harnessed for society to function. Hogwash.. Let's teach people a different side of their natures for a change. Most people help others when asked. My worst, most hateful neighbor would give me a cup of sugar if I knocked on her door.

            I'm a very slow typist, and I don't  generally like to belt out quips as answers. Sorry for the delay in replying.

            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

            by ZhenRen on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 11:06:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, if you're in la-la land about (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban

              establishing self-sufficient communes - which, btw, have already attempted at various points in even our past - by ignoring the fact that structural changes can't take the selfish factor out of humanity (i.e., it can only keep it better monitored and sometimes placed into partial check) - then, please go ahead and try.

              You seem to be under a blanket illusion that someone not signing up for that idealized fantasy solution is not aware of how socialized people are to understand greed as an implicit motivator - perhaps you didn't account for various folks who find your larger proposal as naive and simply bringing it's own pluses and minuses to the table to already understand the nature of fairness between neighbors being undermined by a mad race to send all power and attention upwards - by design of those wealthy and connected who continue to consolidate their positions and ownership of both assets and public disinformation away from a more cooperative and equitable manner of holding values in society among its members, rather than supporting artificial constructs based on worship and aspirational struggles to become part of the elite.

              I find your blanket denunciation of how existing processes can be improved by increasing roadblocks and visibility to entrance by the already-powerful in government as merely the simplistic denial that anything but your ideal view of regional, communal bodies that somehow change their values of "success" in life on a dime by virtue of being organized more flatly from the top-down.

              Funny thing . . .  it's easily arguable that current political structures can be tweaked to support a similar enforcement of new values and measures for "success" in life among individuals and logical groupings called communities or somesuch, with a faster path there by virtue of reusing existing infrastructure and processes without having to toss it all away for brand-new agreements across existing, governmental boundaries (i.e., state, county, town, village).

              You seem inebriated with the notion that a new structure will necessarily come with new values, and that benevolence will shine between communes in a fashion such that cooperation within and between such establishments will lead us all to a more harmonious relationship with neighbors and other locales.  I've read plenty of sci-fi/fantasy, as well.  It's all fine for abstract discussion of how we can bring better values into society, but our structure is not the problem: even in past attempts at self-sufficient communes, interpersonal aspirations were inevitably the downfall of loose regulations.  Any system with better checks against fairness is corruptible, but any system without such checks fails to account for human nature, IMHO.

              Have a fun time with your proposals, though.

              "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

              by wader on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:00:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Man, this is tiring and useless. Why do I bother? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DeadHead, poligirl

                I'm a bit physically and mentally fatigued after working all day in service to my quite dimwitted bosses, but I'll respond. And after the "la la land" comment, and your reference to my alleged "inebriation" you're really not someone worth taking seriously, if you think capitalism is realistic, and every other alternative is just a fantasy.

                There are many examples of successful anarchist societies which have historically existed, ranging from tribal cultures during paleolithic periods, to medieval peasant villages, to the Paris Commune, to the Makhnovists in the Ukraine, and to anarchist Spain involving 3 to 8 million people for nearly three years. But you just go ahead and keep making up your own facts. In the last three examples they didn't fail due to some intrinsic flaw, but were suppressed and murdered at the hands of massive opposition from all sides, so much a threat to power anarchism poses.

                Check out this video of anarchist Spain, which lasted for almost three years:

                http://www.youtube.com/...

                And anarchism isn't just any generic "commune" you've heard about that may have "failed", but a specific way of organizing, without surrendering one's autonomy, like sheep, to some external authority. Anarchism is present whenever two or more people collaborate, without a need for a pecking order. I pity those who just can't get their authoritarian heads around the concept, which is at work every day, all around the world.

                Moving along, your next two paragraphs are rather rambling and incoherent, consisting of one long sentence each, but seem to allude to your notion anarchism is some far off fantasy rather than a natural form of organization that is as old as time.

                Have you read Kropotkin? Bakunin? Anything about anarchism? But here you are feigning to know all about the topic, because you think the concept so childish and naive you don't even need to bother educating yourself even slightly as to its sociopolitical theory.

                So tell me, why should I take you seriously? You ramble about building on the "existing structure" or some such notion, as if all this talk of equality and workers' rights, and objection to unequal power relationships and unjust distribution of resources is mere whining, rather than vitally important issues pertaining to quality of life. Gee, imagine, some of us actually want to determine the course of our own lives,  and have a better standard of living, free of slavery and coercion, rather than allow a minority of wealthy fops to lord over us as if we were serfs, which in fact we are. For the conscious, awakened working class, this is a horror, a miserable way to live.

                You're raising the same old canard that most other capitalists raise. You say it is human nature to be at each others' throats, when in fact we have clearly evolved as social animals who find efficiency and strength by working together. You've bought into the capitalist brainwashing that only through the competitive side of our natures, through greed and avarice, can we prevail, and this leads you to absurdly conclude only a central state hierarchy can miraculously keep the greed (which thrives in capitalism!), in its place. Really? That somehow, the elites who end up in control will be in someway immune to this greed? That they will willingly check their own authority, rein themselves in out of a sense of... unselfishness? Any laws you would pass (which would those be, by the way?) will need the consent of the ruling class to pass. And laws can be repealed by that same ruling class, which happened with Glass-Steagall. At the moment, and for the last several decades, we're heading backwards. So, your notion of reform isn't working so well.

                Can't you see what a contradiction this is? Capitalism is the best model for human greed, because any other system will fail? How's that working out for the planet so far? Or are you blind to the sunami of rape and destruction of the ecosystem that capitalism unleashed in unprecedented levels, and the selfishness is actually thought by you to be good for us?  Are you daft? We've been at this for centuries, and so far, we aren't much closer to creating those checks and balances you speak of. That is the real fantasy at play here, the foolishness that power will rein itself in. Just look at the current example. Obama ignores international law with the flip of his hand, as if they apply to everyone else, exempting himself. He operates in secrecy, and wages warfare against whistle blowers. He expands executive power, and operates outside our own constitution and international law, while his admiring supporters ignore his overreach. If the most promising candidate in a lifetime behaves this way once in power, it seems your notion of power engaging in self restraint isn't very hopeful. The "la la land" fantasy more aptly belongs at your own feet, sir.

                Read the daily news, and witness the increasing disparity of wealth between the minority ruling class and the rest of us. Go back and read my earlier posts, I won't repeat them, but things are not at all going well for a lot of the people on the planet, if you've somehow missed this easy observation. And they're going to get worse.

                Even Sweden -- oh, you lovers of liberal capitalism and social democracy -- is moving more and more to privatization, and has had recent riots, and is treating the immigrants there in a racist, intolerant manner. No, even Sweden's capitalism is showing its ugly, authoritarian side as of late. Which tends to prove my point: The state relentlessly gravitates to concentration of power in a minority, elite class, exploiting the rest of the citizens.

                Which is why it won't work to simply try to moderate the worst effects, with reforms. Those who hold the power will never reform themselves out of power. They may be wise enough to make small concessions to ward off wholesale revolt, but they will never willingly give up their power, their elite status, and their wealth. They will not simply wake up some day and have an epiphany that they made an error, and turn the land, the means of production, the position at the top of the hierarchy, which they appropriated by false authority, back to the people, for their wealth and authority exists precisely at the expense of the poor. They need a working class to buoy them. They float with their heads above the water by standing on our enslaved shoulders.

                That you on one hand state that people are by nature greedy, and on the other naively believe that authority will unselfishly concede its power, is a contradiction. Make up your mind. Which is it?

                The only way to solve this is to remove from reach the throne. Abolish the concept of central authority. Take the ring of power and crush it. Take away the private profiteering, the lure of thieving wealth from others to enrich oneself. All excessive wealth in the hands of a few comes at the expense of the poor, and creates unequal power relationships. As long as this is actually permitted, and even lauded as heroic, as if exploitation through economic domination is something to be proud of, a respectable achievement, this problem will not go away.

                No one has the right to simply declare whole tracts of land, even whole regions, as his or her own. We all were born with the right to live, and we can't have that right if we are born into a society in which all property is already "owned" by a ruling class. The right to live means we collectively own the land, the resources, the air, the water, the very earth that gives us birth. When slave masters, feudal lords, monarchs, presidents, and corporate bosses own the very earth from which we all spring forth, leaving no place to stand without paying some form of rent, in subservient bondage forever, the very concept of life and liberty is destroyed.

                No, the state cannot liberate the people, since it is, itself, the barrier between people and liberty. It cannot cure the disease because it is the disease. Elites will never cede power and wealth voluntarily, since through economic inequality they maintain their unequal share of the resources they have commandeered for themselves. You're suggesting as a solution the mere improvement of the conditions of wage slavery, rather than eliminate the exploitation.

                This is why anarchists say "only the people can liberate themselves." As long as we look to the State for freedom and a fair distribution of wealth, it will never come.

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:53:22 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  So if we work real hard -- (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheMomCat, DeadHead, poligirl, ZhenRen

            our nobles leaders will be benevolent?

            Well anything is possible, though if you argue it on principle that way it sounds as if we actually were fighting for our feudal overlords.  So okay, realism.  How much has actually changed since the 12th-century Renaissance?  Omigod Elizabeth Warren!  More and better representatives of one of the moneyed parties Democrats!

            “All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.” – I.F. Stone

            by Cassiodorus on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 12:51:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm sorry, but your weird attempt at (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban

              simplification and mockery seems to have lost things in translation called accuracy (i.e., nothing has changed in governmental structures across the world since the 12th century) and substance (i.e., I'm somehow promoting elite worship).

              What are you proposing, other than making implicit claims that mean, wealthy and powerful people have an unbroken streak of influencing governing processes and bodies for at least 900 years (hint: it's longer than that)?

              "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

              by wader on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:41:32 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It isn't me that's justifying (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ZhenRen, LaEscapee, poligirl

                "benevolent leadership."

                Maybe it's you?  Go back and read ZhenRen's posts on how anarchist governance works.

                “All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.” – I.F. Stone

                by Cassiodorus on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:03:26 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I've read it and responded to it (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  duhban

                  Doesn't mean it's not full of holes based on idealistic assumptions of human nature.

                  Any system can be made to work well and fairly enough - the will to define "success" differently than today is key.

                  I really don't care who is in charge of one level or another of an organization, so long as the processes to keep them responsible are best put into place.  That's not justifying benevolent leadership, but noting that structure, alone, does not have a big impact on human nature.

                  How you run any system is based on the values you seek - even a type of monarchy can be run fairly for most folks, if the fair values are kept as highest priority and competent folks not only run the implementation of their processes, but there's also a mechanism to check the worst excesses - those excesses are not exclusively caused by which level in the hierarchy is considered, especially if checks on power are respected and put in place (i.e., even a monarchical system could be balanced by limiting the powers of a queen/king relative to local grouping in the larger domain).

                  "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                  by wader on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:11:50 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  OK, now go to Chiapas (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ZhenRen, LaEscapee, poligirl

                    and confront the Zapatistas, whose process is what ZhenRen wants it to be and which is based on local Chiapas traditions.  Tell them that what they're doing is "full of holes based on idealistic assumptions of human nature."

                    “All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.” – I.F. Stone

                    by Cassiodorus on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 12:19:50 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

  •  It's an amazing thread. (9+ / 0-)

    What stands out to me is just how far LL has traveled from Turkana.

  •  seems to be a lot of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    duhban

    talking past each other, on both sides.

    Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

    by AaronInSanDiego on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 01:45:26 AM PST

  •  um I didn't see any donuts (0+ / 0-)

    I did see Lawerence Lewis rather badly schooling the anti government crowd here.

    Der Weg ist das Ziel

    by duhban on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:16:49 AM PST

    •  Oh, NOW you agree with him (4+ / 0-)

      Wasn't he handing your ass to you the other day, to the point where you were getting all mad at him?

      And now you've found your way over here, only to oh-so-conveniently take his side of the argument. That way you have a reason to drop a troll turd in this diary.

      Go to sleep, already.




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

      by DeadHead on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:30:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  rotfl (0+ / 0-)

        I get this is hard for you DeadHead but me and Lewis sometimes agree and sometimes we don't. Here we do I find the vitriol thrown by some on this site at the very government we are in theory trying to make more Democratic and Progressive head scratching at best.

        And at worst well people will draw their own conclusions.

        And really this shouldn't be hard for you either DeadHead but all diaries go on this thing called 'Recent Diaries' and with as provocative a title as the one chosen who wouldn't click on it?

        But I'm sure you're going to espouse some convoluted conspiracy theory instead I mean why go with the simplest explanation when you can smear me and grind that axe? Hell why don't you go all in and accuse me of being Lewis? I mean after all it wouldn't be the first time you falsely accused me of such.

        About the only one that seems to be up past their bedtime is you. I have to say you sound very grumpy more so then usual.

        Der Weg ist das Ziel

        by duhban on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:41:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, you're shitting in all the diaries (3+ / 0-)

          I like. Again.

          That makes me grumpy.




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

          by DeadHead on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:44:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  then stop commenting at me (0+ / 0-)

            really obvious solution that you seem incapable of doing.

            I have just as much right to express my opinion on the matter as you do DeadHead no matter how much you think otherwise.

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:49:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I am interested to know duhban (3+ / 0-)

          why you find it head scratching? why you consider dissenting thoughts wrong? Do you want only to hear praise about government - no matter the actions of that government?

          Here we do I find the vitriol thrown by some on this site at the very government we are in theory trying to make more Democratic and Progressive head scratching at best.

          For our fallen solders who come home from Afghanistan in a coffin to Dover, "God bless the cause for which they died."

          by allenjo on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:59:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  wow (0+ / 0-)

            You who routinely blasts anyone and everyone for dissenting thoughts is now trying to claim that as your argument?

            Talk about irony overload.

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:40:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am interested to know, but you did not answer (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DeadHead, LaEscapee, poligirl

              You made a comment and I responded with the following questions.......

              why you find it head scratching?

              why you consider dissenting thoughts wrong?

              Do you want only to hear praise about government - no matter the actions of that government?
               

              Here we do I find the vitriol thrown by some on this site at the very government we are in theory trying to make more Democratic and Progressive head scratching at best.

              For our fallen solders who come home from Afghanistan in a coffin to Dover, "God bless the cause for which they died."

              by allenjo on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:57:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I answered allenjo (0+ / 0-)

                I don't it's you and your group that seemingly have a problem with it.

                Der Weg ist das Ziel

                by duhban on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 04:07:46 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  no, you didn't answer any of the questions, duhban (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DeadHead, LaEscapee, poligirl

                  You made a comment and I responded with the following questions.......

                  why you find it head scratching?

                  why you consider dissenting thoughts wrong?

                  Do you want only to hear praise about government - no matter the actions of that government?

                   

                  Here we do I find the vitriol thrown by some on this site at the very government we are in theory trying to make more Democratic and Progressive head scratching at best.

                  For our fallen solders who come home from Afghanistan in a coffin to Dover, "God bless the cause for which they died."

                  by allenjo on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 04:17:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  This diary is weird. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    duhban, LaEscapee

    "I don't give a fuck" what others think; please comment below.

    Seriously? That didn't set off your internal bullshit alarm when you were typing it?

    "Jersey_Boy" was taken.

    by New Jersey Boy on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 04:48:18 AM PST

    •  It's a rhetorical device (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poligirl

      It draws in people many of which have a discussion. Granted it does expose those unwilling, or unable to discuss show up they are exposed for their motives.

      If you read the comments here you will be able to determine the difference.

      Oh and good morning

      Victim of the system~Bob Marley

      by LaEscapee on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 05:22:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site