So there's a diary up that has the very noble intent of improving community. It's about building broad coalitions and peaceful coexistence, but then it takes a turn toward making that impossible. You see, it raises the idea that the groups created by DK4 have a balkanizing quality:
But the very same traits that make this community so great and such an asset in the political arena is also set against itself. The very same disagreements slowly rip the very fabric of the userbase here apart, and as ideological rifts turn into chasms, the community begins to drift into very different directions.and
What is feared is that the way in which we disagree with each other and build factions and coalitions, organized or unorganized, in direct opposition to a competing faction or coalition may rip us apart if we are not careful.Why? Because
the building of factions and coalitions, if perspective is lost, can tear the community apart. People who share something in common tend to form systems of alliances, and these alliances can often be in direct opposition with another, competing alliance.When the only difference that's mentioned (and celebrated) in a diary is the fact that the Kossack community is spread out along more of the political spectrum than you might expect, I wonder what else I'm not picking up on,
You know, there's a reason why a lot of these groups exist.
This is what I had to say in the comment section of that diary that nobody wanted to have anything to do with:
I know that I might be the absolute wrong person to address this, seeing how I'm probably one of the main "offenders" here, but some of the discursive sub-communities are here because the default "non-" community here at DKos can be, well, dense about some of the issues that those of us who are not-default because of gender or race or disability or sexual orientation or gender identity or some combination of those present.Of course, it's probably not about that; we get to know each other (and generally like each other) in the diaries that talk about our own issues, and we usually don't find ourselves in pie fights. It's not that we don't have them, it's that they don't bleed out into the larger community to the point that you'd be likely to notice them.
I don't think that was directed at the groups devoted to education (Readers and Book Lovers, Backyard Science) or the community diaries like Top Comments and Connect!Unite!Act! and Kitchen Table Kibitzing. Yes, we all know and mostly like each other in the community diary groups, and there's some cross-pollination there as some of us write for more than one. Nor at the local groups, which give us the opportunity to meet each other and learn that we like each other even more. I don't think I'd find myself in a pie fight with any of the Kossacks I've met at various events.
I suspect that this diary was directed at one particular group that would be even more obtrusive if their more obstreperous members and followers (yes, some of their LOUDEST voices don't even belong to the group) weren't in the habit of getting themselves banned - I'd guess two or three a year. I can understand the reluctance to call them out especially since I think this responds to a recent diary that DID that , but don't tar all of us with the same brush.
So two things. First, when, in 1897, Grover Cleveland found a bill on is desk that required all immigrants to be able to read English, his veto message to Congress included this:
The best reason that could be given for this radical restriction of immigration is the necessity of protecting our population against degeneration and saving our national peace and quiet from imported turbulence and disorder. - snip - Violence and disorder do not originate with illiterate laborers. They are, rather, the victims of the educated agitator. . . . If any particular element of our illiterate immigration is to be feared for other causes than illiteracy, these causes should be dealt with directly, instead of making illiteracy the pretext for exclusion, to the detriment of other illiterate immigrants against whom the real cause of complaint can not be alleged.If you don't MEAN all groups, don't say all groups. Second, this "groups bad" thing sounds like the opponents of marriage equality who say that if same-sex couples can get married it will "ruin" marriage.
If I'm being dense here, you all could have saved us some trouble by replying to what I said in the diary to which this responds.