Everyone can acknowledge how toxic the threads on the Democratic primary candidates have become. Many, including myself, are a part of the problem, and I attribute this to the passion with which we all approach the primaries. But sometimes comments become inappropriate, and our desire to see our candidate elected sometimes compromises our ability to refrain from typing words we later regret.
I want to direct everyone's attention to the following:
You're posts make you seem very smug. (8+ / 6-)
Recommended by:
ROGNM, Elise, aaraujo, Geekesque, Jennifer Clare, Grannus, 0wn, Rippen Kitten
Trollrated by:
DBJ, hopscotch1997, Salo, Chaoslillith, Unduna, okamichan13
I think you're a yellow dog democrat who can't stomach voting for a black guy, a woman, or a northerner. That leaves John Edwards. I think you're the single issue voter.
by nolalily on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 01:29:36 PM CDT
[ Parent | Reply to This |Recommend ]
Notice how many rightfully rated this comment unfavorably, and notice how others rated it positively as a result of their support for Obama. I take the latter as an endorsement for this type of blackmail, a blackmail that exploits the shameful legacy of racism in this country in order to invalidate those who support Edwards for his policy positions. This is neither fair nor dignified, and it is certainly not worthy of a favorable rating.
I wonder if the Obama campaign endorses this statement. After all, Obama has uttered the following on many occassions:
I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other.... I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason. And that's been in short supply over the last several years.
What is the common sense and reason undergirding the comment I cite? How does this comment unify? How does that comment address real divisions that exist in our society? How does this comment help the Democratic Party, when this comment implies that the few Caucasian Southern Democrats who still vote with the party are inherently racist Dixiecrats? Since Obama supporters approve of this comment with favorable ratings, I will have to assume that the Obama campaign endorses it. But I hope this is not the case.
Elise, an ardent Obama supporter who did not rate the egregious comment I cite at the time of this diary's posting, wrote a thoughtful diary on troll ratings, and I agree with most of it. She noted how the primary diaries have created a condition in which zero ratings are unfairly distributed. But she also noted the following in her first paragraph:
Trusted Users are given the ability to hide comments that are outside of community standards (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.)[.]
Although the comment I cite is not racist, it relies on the discourse of racism in order to quell debate by reinscribing stereotypes about Southern Caucasians. One can say it is an inverse reflection of the Southern Strategy. In fact, it is, for Louisiana Republicans and the national GOP use this same blackmail in order to coerce Caucasian Democrats into voting for Bobby Jindal, a Republican of south Asian descent who is running for Governor of my state. Because Bobby cannot win on his platform, the Louisiana GOP has to drop the racism card, and they have done so since Blanco beat him in the 2003 runoff.
Elise also noted the following:
Uprating- It takes approximately 3 troll-ratings to counteract one recommend. I have seen uprating of the most obvious kind of rule violation this week.
Because the comment I cite violates the rule I just discussed, the eight users who rated it favorably abused the ratings system in order to rescue someone who supports their primary candidate. On many occassions I have avoided rating a comment unfavorably by those who support my candidate of choice if I felt that comment was factually incorrect or just plain belligerent. There exists too much bellicosity on this site, and it is upsetting and counterproductive. For as Elise states in her diary, which relies heavily on the rules of the site,
It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory
If users invoke the history of slavery and of racism in order to blackmail and intimidate Southern Caucasians, how will that yield votes? It is a tired strategy, and it will backfire. Instead of creating divisions, we need to find a way to avoid exploiting naïve notions of identity and of geography in order to expand the party, not shrink it through offensive rhetoric. Obama's campaign, according to their public statements, certainly does not endorse such a strategy, and I imagine Daily Kos, which is dedicated to creating a Big Tent that can yield electoral victories in all 50 states, does not view such rhetoric favorably.
Notice how I can cite Elise, an ardent Obama supporter, when I believe Elise is right. Elise and I also expressed our support for Vivian Figures, an African-American woman running for Senate in Alabama, when Sparks's resignation from that race was announced on this site's frontpage. Even if we support different candidates in the Presidential primary, Elise and I, despite our differences and despite our many fights, can agree on some issues and on some candidates. And she and I agreed that an African-American woman was worthy of everyone's support, even if everyone thought she did not have a chance of winning in Alabama. For we believe we should try to defy the stereotypes and see if history can be remade in 2008.
When engaging in debates about candidates in the Democratic primay, I trust we can adhere to the rules while keeping the debate civil. For we will have to mobilize behind the nominee, whoever she or he may be, once the Convention ends. To create unnecessary divisions, especially along the lines of race in a region where that legacy still surfaces in unexpected and bizarre manners, will not assist us in our attempts to win the Presidency. We need every vote, and some of those votes will be cast in the South.
But moreover, such comments contradict the platform of the candidate the author of that comment supports. I imagine his campaign would not want his supporters to engage in such tactics, for they are inimical to his message of unity. And yet, many of his supporters have either defended the comment or have rated it favorably. Does the campaign also endorse it? I hope not, for we have to win an election in 2008, and this use race and racism as a wedge issue will not help us attain that very important end.
This is my sincere attempt to help purify the poisoned water of the primary diaries.