Prove 'em wrong.
Prove me wrong.
Flame wars happen, I know... general mayhem even... when this many people get together.
But there's a problem when quantity seduces quality... that is, quantitative success, as in site ratings and ad revenue, seducing qualitative - and crucial - core democratic attributes, like being open to criticism (let alone discussion of controversial issues).
DKos is valuable.
DKos has been important and helpful.
But some here have "fallen in love with their curveball", and don't seem to want to hear an ounce of criticism from anyone.
OK, go on, have it your way. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
But there's a problem, whether it is acknowledged or not.
I've made a few posts about it now, for one simple reason: I did not want to see DKos become too successful in the "mainstream" - because to maintain success in the mainstream, regardless of how you arrived there, requires a watering-down of tolerance, and thus the ability to speak truth to power. [Not to mention the average opinion of most on this site towards what is known as the mainstream media...]
I know, I know, DKos is simply about "getting good and better dems elected".
So OK, honest question(s): Where's the line between being a "watchdog", activist, etc, and becoming assimilated? How effective can we be at "getting good and better dems elected" if some of the very core principles of being a good or better democrat are compromised by those here whom have self-assigned ourselves at helping elect officials who supposedly follow those principles?
I mean it. Really, where is the line by which we're supposed measure good democrats? And how will we know if we cross it? Will anyone notice, or care, or listen if anyone warns of it? Would they even be able to? Would Kos? Would anyone?
Something about democracy, and grass-roots activism, hell, just about any example in life, tells me that the real cold sobering truth is no, many who help create a success will not be able to see, hear, or accept criticism of that success, until it's too late. [At least not without concerted and vigilant effort.]
Not even the supposedly more "open-minded" or "liberal".
The sad part, for me, is the hypocrisy it creates, has created, and that seems on the way to becoming a fundamental part of the foundation of DKos as it moves toward its next phase.
For the record, I understand the most recent point Kos made about his feeling a need to be more "reasonable" than some of the 9/11 theorists want to be at times. In fact, I agree with Kos in general on the issue itself.
I just know that there is a better way to approach the issue than stooping to Cheney-esque, juvenile, fascist-ish practices and treating loyal and valuable participants of the website, whom have helped make the site - and Kos himself - very successful, like shit.
There is a better way.
And my beef is that it is not even considered possible, nor necessary, to even discuss it.
Instead this whole meta issue is left to the few extremes and extremists, With the thinking being, I am sure, that the vast majority will be more reasonable and just ignore the tantrums and move on. But what if it isn't so simple an issue as a meta-tin-foil hat?
What if there really is a problem?
Well, from what I see, there is.
Is it critical? Well, sort of...
Is the house on fire here? Kinda, if only in a pan on the stove...
It's what happens when a big fat pot of success cooks too long and is really in need of a more appropriate pan in which to finish becoming the dish it's destined to be.
Or rather... when success suborns a rethinking/tweaking of what got you this far.
But I won't waste my time making the specific suggestions as to how, again. Lest I be accused, again, of "reposting".
But I will restate for the record:
I am being a squeaky wheel about this for two reasons - 1) I see a problem; 2) I prefer that the problem not be ignored and cause any negative progress in an entity I find valuable and worthwhile, like DKos. Or to put it more succinctly - I give a shit;
If the latter has to be derisively dismissed or impotently insinuated as evidence of some sort of an illicit "concern" post on my part, any intellectually handicapped person who feels that need, in complete error of judgment, can go right ahead.
The rest can ignore it if you like.
Doesn't make the seething jabba-the-hut type monster in the room any less real and problematic, nor the slippery slope caused by leaving it to slime up the floor any less perilous going forward...