Yesterday I spent a half hour attempting to refute the characterizations of this site by the right wing media. I said, "It's an open forum, so there may be individuals who write hateful vicious diaries and comments,but they are usually ignored"
"No sale," said my conservative neighbor, but I had tried. Soon after returning home there was this diary entitled "Trolling Alert" that reported the increase of "trolls." I use the quotes since use of the term has implications destructive to this site, and the idea of free discussion itself.
I wrote this comment:
Why worry about trolls.... (
at worst they waste our time if they are unimaginative rehashing of Republican talking points. But there are a lot of trivial diaries on dailykos, many that are simplistic trashing of McCain.
Yes, he's old and has cognitive limitations. Just how many examples are enough for a given day, 10, 100...?
Personally, I found this morning a batch of really interesting diaries that were not specifically about the election, how great Obama is and how horrible McCain is. They were about policy, some issues, some personal experiences.
I seek these out and enjoy participating with the diarist and those who comment.
Vigilance against trolls can cause too many false positives. Any diaries or comment that are not recognized as from "Our Group" are trashed. I wrote one a few months back that I got 52 TRs, most by people who admittedly never went beyond the title.
We don't need this type of mentality.
The six recs showed that others shared this view. Later in response to a considered reflection on this I expanded my thoughts with this comment:
Easy way to deal with this.... (4+ / 0-)
If someone makes a sincere argument, one that is opposed to our beliefs, I am happy to engage the person, assuming they have a presence, as indicated by a first comment.
If they are programed operatives, they will not have the ability to respond to my questions, or my comments. If they are an individual with a different point of view, even one that is tangential or even contrary to our views, then I welcome them.
If they happen to be right, I will find it interesting. If they are expressing their perspective, and say as much, this is fine, as we learn about why people oppose us. Still no harm.
If someone has a polished screed, and no presence, I just pass it by and look for better fare.
Perhaps we should have the personal presence, the TJ as a rule, as this would avoid the mass trolling that seems to be the major problem.
I felt my defense of Dailykos, as locale for open discussion had been affirmed,even if I would never convince my neighbor.
Then in the evening, this diary, and the readerships reaction gave me another picture, perhaps the true picture, of a Dailykos that I refused to believe existed, or if it did was the exception.
It was a bold challenge to the strongly held opinion of those on this site that torture should be illegal and that those officials who commit this act should be prosecuted.
It was a legalistic argument, with imperfections in logic and presentation, but it was coherent, transparent, and well organized. The writer expected a negative response, and he was available to respond to comments.
However he received precious few on the substance of his argument. Rather it was insults, epithets and calumny, beginning with "Absolute Horseshit" and going downhill from there. When he tried to respond to the one or two serious comments he was showered with TRs.
And to complete the group attack, after a time there was this comment, "He's banned." He is no longer among those who can speak and express his opinions, he was virtually dead, "let us rejoice."
I wrote the following comment carefully considering whether I wanted to post it. With the diarist gone, would I be the only person for the readers to vent their anger at? Did I need this aggravation? Actually I have little choice other than to submit the comment, and to post this diary.
I have spend altogether too much time, have too much respect for many on this site, not to express these thoughts.
In defense of diarist
The diarist carefully presented his opinion, with his reasoning. He was not denigrating to those with different views, rather anticipated disagreement, but for whatever reason chose to present his ideas.
And he used the word "torture" the common term, not "enhanced interrogation" the euphemism that the administration uses.
He asked for a dialog, and he got castigated. His point that we accept worse, such as prison rape, happens to be true. Recent articlesin the N.Y. Times have chronicled the prevalence of this horror, and the lack of punishment for the perpetrators.
And this is not short term pain, as in torture, but a lifetime of degradation and suffering. This was never the convicted person's sentence, but it is tolerated without a fraction of the anger that "torture" has engendered.
The existence of Prison Rape does not make torture acceptable, but it does put the issue in a different context. And Prison Rape is never even theoretically justified, while torture, inflicting of pain to prevent a "24" like scenario, could be potentially, if rarely, arguably justifiable, as the diarist points out.
I spend a lot of time defending dailykos against the calumnies on it from sources such as Bill O'Reily. I maintain that it is basically fair, and open to differing points of view.
I have no way of knowing the motivation of the diarist, but, on it's face based on the content, the diarist did not deserve the treatment it has received.
This was an ugly event last night. Someone wrote on a difficult subject that could have been the nucleus for a reasoned, searching discussion. Rather this site, that is the defender of free speech, and hates those who attempt to squelch it, chose instead to brand the writer as an "enemy alien" what we call a "troll." And once so labeled, those people are to be castigated, eliminated and defamed.
Between the time I wrote the above diary, I read this articlein Atlantic Monthly that describes how absorbing information on the internet, is quicker, less thorough, and universally shallow compared to traditional reading. This article provided an explanation of how a complex diary would be abstracted into simply "not one of us" and attacked as such, rather than engaged.
Perhaps the fault is the medium, the way that we must condense and simplify complex communications. If this is what the writer who dares to deviate from the central message faces, God only know how this will be received, or whether it will even be read.
I will leave a tip jar for whatever purposes readers would like to make of it.