Yes, a meta diary.
This is the first diary I've been moved to write in a year and a half, because of a few arrogant and condescending people with low UID's who talk to people whose posts they don't like as Q from Star Trek spoke to Picard.
As per DKos policy, I won't mention the name of the commenter who brought this on, although I will give a text of such a comment as an example. While this is the first time I've been targetted in this way, I see it far too often, and see a pattern of doing it in this person's comments, although this person is far from the only one guilty of it.
I've been at DKos long enough, on and off, to have some sort of record here, a good enough record to have been a TU whenever I've been active enough, and to have never had a comment of mine hidden.
Yet, when I state my opinion that no liberal who is not misled will support HRC in the primary (I do not back those who say they will oppose Hillary in the general election, though I understand how one can get so angry as to feel that way right now and many will calm down between now and then), it devolves into such comments as:
Trust me idiot, my mother can run circles around your pathetic little mind.
And it says so much about you thgat you use the DLC canard. Only the extremely stupid think that that group has any life left in it.
A change of UID is in order./
This is one of a few condescending comments from the same person, and he has made similar comments toward others. I don't think they're appropriate even when talking to those who say they won't vote for HRC in the general election. I certainly don't think they are appropriate when someone opposes HRC in the primary, or in my case, says she is not liberal enough to deserve liberal primary votes.
My statement is one of opinion, and disagreeing with it is fine. Acting smug and superior and calling me an idiot for holding it is not.
I do differ sharply from those who feel we should not be overly critical of HRC now because she might be the general election candidate and, if so, we need to elect her. I think it's too important to prevent her from being the general election candidate to pull punches during the primary.
Should we have pulled punches about Lieberman during his primary battle with Ned Lamont because Lieberman might have won the primary and become the Democratic candidate? The vast majority made it clear that had Lieberman been the Dem nominee we'd support him (though perhaps largely ignore the CT Senate election had that occurred), but that our intent was to prevent this from happening.
Again, disagreement with the analogy is welcome, and I'll be the first to say that HRC is certainly more of a true Democrat than Lieberman is. It's the attitude of the criticism noted above that needs to go.
The commenter and his very low UID also seemed to comment on my 90,000+ one, as if it mattered. I joined during the "get rid of Lieberman" period, and that cause was the impetus for me to join; which means I've been around for a while.
In summary, we should be able to disagree without calling each other "idiots" with "pathetic little minds." We don't have to be civil towards candidates. They put themselves out there running for high office and have to take whatever is dished out; but we should be civil toward each other, as long as we are all Democrats.