Skip to main content

Some DailyKos-specific housekeeping, and then to some controversy.

First, I want to make something clear. It has been standard site policy for a long, long time now that forcibly "outing" other posters -- referring to them with any information that identifies them, if they don't want to be identified, or attempting to do so -- is an instantly bannable offense. I don't know if an admonition against that behavior in the FAQ or not, but I'd be damn surprised if it needs to be. I don't care what someone's interest in being anonymous might be, and it doesn't matter. There have been several recent occurrences, and to say that there is literally zero tolerance for it wouldn't be expressing the policy forcefully enough.

Second, I want to get into an argument. Or rather; I want to skip abuse, head into the argument, and if possible have us all avoid the getting-hit-on-the-head lessons altogether. If I know this site and the progressive movement in general, we're a day or two off from being due for some damn good live-and-let-live diaries to try and bring people back together. Before then, I'm going to put some medicinal leeches on this wound, and see if we can't guide the eventual results into something better than what we had before.

Here's the thing. I'm tired of aggressive, controversial posters complaining about aggression and controversy. I'm tired of posters lambasting others for being sexist, then jumping into their sexism pool with both feet the next time they feel like it. I'm tired of posters telling us that characterizing people according to their generation is wrong-headed and offensive -- then telling other posters that the only reason they don't understand that is because of their crap-headed generation.

I'm tired of Kos or prominent diarists absolutely crucifying the DLC at every opportunity, to much consternation from others, only to have numerous posters opine mere days later that they are possibly paid operatives for the DLC or for right-wing interests because only an operative could make statements that disagree with your own personal thoughts on matter X, Y, or Z. Are you serious?

No offense, purity testers and halo-wearers, but MetaJesus is coming to kick your ass.

What we need around here -- and by that, I mean all progressives, not just on this site, but everywhere -- is a big, heaping bowl of Get The Flying Hell Over Ourselves.

Yesterday, I linked to a well-written, very prominent diary that took someone else's words, characterized their meaning in accordance with their own understandings, and used them as a general jumping-off point for their own opinions. This was a good and perfectly fine thing.

I then took words from that diary, characterized their meaning in accordance with my own understandings, and used it as a general jumping-off point for my own opinions. This was also a good and perfectly fine thing... unless, hold the phone and prepare the TiVo, you're on the disagreeing side. Then it's a heartbreaking attack; a terrible manipulation; an unfair extrapolation.

Yes, I know. Funny how that works.

Now I'm going to do it again.

Here's one response I got yesterday. Out of a sense of basic fairness, of course, I'm not going to identify the poster. But I am going to use it as a drop-dead clear example that everyone might actually understand of what I'm going to be talking about.

watch out for the swinging dick

It's ironic that you use your privileged front pager status to respond to a diary that had to be recommended by many to gain any substantial readership at all.   You're no better than the SCLM that has to include a nutter to "give the other side" of every fact no matter how commonsensical it happens to be.

Your post is a classic case of the stubborn insistence to maintain masculine and male domination on dKos.  I can't decide whether I'm reacting so strongly because of my annoyance at your incorrigibility or a painful sense of fardo.

Oh.  look.  Here come the pledges earnestly shouting, "thank you sir, may I have another?"

Fortunately, the majority of readers are intelligent enough to recommend diaries like the one you undemocratically responded to, using your bully pulpit (and I do mean bully) to beat it into everyone how you fratboys really aren't that bad.

And for completeness, my response, so you get to yell at me too:

I'm sorry that you feel that way,

but somehow I doubt that a poster of the high caliber of the one I linked to, in a highly recommended diary, is being unnecessarily picked on by another poster on this blog answering back. Yes, even if it's a frontpager entering the debate.

This is all about me being a man? With a "swinging dick"? Imposing "male domination"? A "frat boy", no less?

I'm sorry, but if -- no, when -- male posters posted such utter sexist nonsense against a female poster, you and forty other posters would be writing deeply offended diaries in every progressive blog from here to whatever about the obnoxious, bigoted men, and how they can't have a single conversation without devolving into grunting sexist imagery, and patting yourselves on the back for your conversational evolvedness.  You and I both see it happening.

So I don't have to feel sorry for you when you do the same exact thing you accuse others of. I'm not going to be impressed when not one of the people who is so concerned about sexism and civility calls you out on it, and is instead shocked -- simply shocked -- that with calls of "swinging dicks" and "frat boys" you don't get to play the sexist-hounded victim.

I'm sorry, but if you're honestly that unserious about the whole issue, you can't honestly expect the rest of the progressive blogosphere to lick your wounds for you.

Fine, there, whatever. Now both sides of the argument are steaming, right? Oh my God, mild-mannered Hunter responded crossly. Oh my God, someone said "dick". Oh my God, he's using a specific recent example to make a broader point about the transparent hypocrisy of the perpetually offended. Oh my God, he actually recognized that there are people on the planet who spend their time being perpetually offended. Oh my God, a blogger had the audacity to be irked about something -- only I have that right! Oh my God, he said "God", like, seven times in a row!

I'm glad both sides are sitting up in their chairs, now. But now comes the productive part of the discussion. Posts like the one I cited, above?

I'm sick of them. From all sides.

Hopefully, the sexism, noble self-puffery and self-righteous indignation of that particular "swinging dick" post, since it was directed at men, is something the men in the audience can finally actually understand as an example. Right? Get it now? So now use that example -- if you do that level of thing to a woman, here, you can expect to get called on it. If not before, then starting right now. And vice versa, and in all debates, among all parties, about all similar over-the-line invective.

We have an imperfect but effective tool here for telling people what is and isn't acceptable behavior. It's the rating system. And as a shocking experiment, I'm going to encourage everyone to use it.

If you see a post that is pointlessly ad hominem, rate it a two. Women: if you see a particular post as unintendedly sexist, rate it a two. Men ditto, for that matter. Don't leave everyone guessing about which mysterious offensive posts you're talking about, in this forest of sexism and bigotry that supposedly clouds every mind but the most pure and noble here. Mark them, so that others can begin to see the offensive behavior you're talking about, and correct it.

Deeply and intentionally offensive posts, of course, should always rate a one (or zero). But two is a fine rating, in and of itself. A "two", unlike a one, isn't a reduced enough rating to affect someone's trusted user status much. That makes a "two" a fine rating for saying to someone, I don't think you meant to be sexist, or meant to be offensive, but it definitely came out that way.

And let the poster know why, if necessary. Politely.

And if that gets known as the "Hunter Two", then fine -- I'll be a happy camper.


Now, here's the problem. If you're going to start rating people more quickly for ad hominems and unintended sexism, as I think we all need to start doing, you better make sure your outrage meter is tuned properly. Because if you're one of those very few people that are offended twenty times per day by things that nobody else can fathom, guess what -- I'm trying to get rid of you. Not because I don't value you as a person, but because I don't value you in our coalition. I don't have enough time in the day to keep you happy, if you're intent on being pissed off. If your single-issue is "look at me, and be impressed with my halo of righteousness", then forget it.

Whether it be "single-issue" fights, or sexism fights, or Nader fights, or "hippie" fights, I have news for you -- I haven't seen anybody who gets to wear that halo. Not a damn person, on any of the sides. All I see, at the point when a conversation becomes an argument, is a bunch of people declaring that their sex, or generation, or issue deserves more respect than any other, and the other sex/generations/issue people don't deserve the same. With nine-tenths of the site rightly staying the hell out of it, I might add.

So if you're going to start giving Hunter 2s, meaning "can we please not post this stuff here?", you'd better have your outrage meter tuned waaaaaay down. If you're giving more than a few a day, turn it down again. If you're rating the same poster more than once in a blue moon, look upon yourself with deep suspicion. This is one circumstance where I, for one, am going to be looking at both the posters and the raters, and trying to figure out where the problems actually lie.


Here's the next thing on the list, something I'm calling people out on. I'm especially sick of the posters most responsible for aggressive, mean-spirited attacks being the most self-righteous when they themselves are treated in similar fashion. You don't like someone else's tone? Then you need to figure out if maybe they're responding to you in kind. Because I've never seen a fight here in which one side was dishing it out, and the other was meekly taking it. The same posters, time and time again, are responsible for the same attack threads. Then, surprised, they bleat about their injuries.

No. If you post a controversial thread, and are met with controversy, you don't get to act hurt and astonished. If you post a mean, divisive comment, you don't get to be outraged when someone responds back in kind.

With great regularity, to give an off-site example, I visit other sites with connections to DailyKos. And with great regularity, I run across diarists who post strongly opinioned threads to both that site and this one, and comment about eagerly waiting to see the differences in response on the two sites.  Will they get to be offended? Sometimes. Sometimes not. Luckily, the experiment is repeated often enough that there's always something, at some point.

Here's the thing. Let's suppose you get two divergent response threads. You want to know why that happens? Because the community interactions of ten thousand are not the same as the community interactions of a heavily-self-selected few hundred. You haven't invented the phenomenon, you haven't proved your own group's noble self-enlightenment, and you haven't discovered anything but that self-selected groups agree with each other more often on the topics specifically of their own choosing.

It's a game, a kind of online Munchausen by Proxy. Oh, look how rude everyone else is -- I think I'll start throwing punches and see what happens! Oh no, I've been hit! Pity me, everyone!

No. No dice. You can have your Fortresses of Pissitude if you want, but don't think for a moment that the rest of us find you as impressive and enlightened as you find yourself. Don't post here with the eager anticipation of getting to have your feelings hurt.

Betcha that quote ends up somewhere, in precisely one of the cross-posted threads I'm talking about.


And you know, that's precisely one of the problems, with the current progressive Democratic movement. We demand aggressive, unafraid, in-your-face leaders.

But at the same time, if someone is being that aggressive, in-your-face leader that we worship, and accidentally goes over a line or steps on the wrong toe, a great many of us declare that person finished, and opine at great length about how we will never, ever trust them on anything again.

Gee, can anyone guess why they might be a bit skittish? Exactly what kind of leaders do you think you're going to get? Which ones have we been getting? And why do you think the entire DLC strategy is predicated on their candidates holding their breath, smiling, and for the love of God not saying anything of substance?

You want cowards, you've got cowards. You want fighters, figure out how to back them up even when they slip in the bathtub and break a rhetorical tooth or two.


I don't like playing policeman. I'd rather spend 3,000 words, say, pondering what a cross-Nevada drive and a visit to the lights, dust, heat, sin, chaos and concrete of Las Vegas can teach about America. But I see my job as doing both, and damn it, sometimes I have to put on the hat I don't want, and leave the rest of it in my desk drawer.

You don't have to like this post. You don't have to agree with it. You don't even have to read it. But you are required to spend as much time trying to understand the rationales for someone else's deeply held opinions as you do being shocked and outraged over the thought that they exist.

There are a lot of very, very skilled political voices on this site. Now, activists, welcome to the largest audience you've probably ever had. Use it wisely.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:48 PM PDT.

Poll

The proposed Hunter 2 for unnecessary invective is:

50%431 votes
9%83 votes
39%343 votes

| 858 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Some stuff about ratings, (3.93)
    Since it keeps coming up...

    • DO NOT use the "two", or any other rating, to signal that you simply disagree, or have hurt feelings. "Hurt feelings" I don't care about. Disruptive posting, I care about.

    • DO NOT use ratings to rate down garden-variety swearing -- the founder of this site has made it clear that the language police are not welcome here.

    • DO NOT use ratings to punish someone else who has expressed their opinion, or reasons for having that opinion, to you. They're explaining themselves, not attacking you, and if you can't figure out the difference, you need to start trying harder.

    • Don't rate anyone that you are in an active, hostile argument with. Argue or rate, but don't do both. If you find yourself marching across the page in a one-on-one ongoing argument with someone, you need to give up and move on. You aren't going to convince them, and the rest of us find your argument boring, or we'd be replying too.

    • Don't uprate someone else's troll-like comment just because you're friends with them. This abuse has been rampant, and don't be so ridiculous as to assume we don't know who the prime abusers are.

    • Don't follow people around giving them continued bad ratings. Rate the post, not the poster.

    Yes, there are a multitude of types of ratings abuse. In the end, I don't advise losing sleep over it.

    When in doubt, I suggest only handing out fours, and only when they are truly deserved. Handing out any other numerical ratings should be used only after you have been here a while and are very accustomed to the typical everyday community usage of those ratings.

    And note that this post is marked Hunter not Kos. Just want to make that crystal clear.

    •  Amen Brother Hunter! (n/t) (none)

      "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato

      by Bcre8ve on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:56:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I second the "Amen". n/t (none)
         

        "conservatives are the worshipers of dead radicals".

        by gandalf on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:18:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Amen Thirded... (4.00)
          ...motion carried.

          Hunter, most of the Big Screaming Controversies you mentioned are ones that I have managed to avoid, simply because the diary titles let me know, right off the bat, that somebody out there is having yet another It's-All-About-ME party cunningly disguised as a rant against some percieved evil.  

          In other words, it's long since past time for us to practice DNFTEC.  You know -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creatures.  If you see a patently silly thread, here's what you do:  Ignore it, and watch it slide down the thread list and into oblivion.  Do NOT feed the Energy Creature by posting in the thread.  It's really that simple.  But too many Kossacks are themselves so addicted to being wound up that they refuse to heed this simple advice.

          •  Front-page envy (4.00)
            When someone in a comment says a post didn't deserve to be "on the front page" or accuses the poster of being egotistical because "you can post on front page" or expresses resentment at Kos or Hunter or Armando or anyone else just because their posts appear "on the front page" -- that's the tip-off for me that the comment and the commenter can be ignored henceforth.  They're jealous and thus they are not saying anything sensible.  

            Do not go gentle into that good night. Blog, blog against the dying of the light. CathiefromCanada

            by CathiefromCanada on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:23:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not neccessarily ... (none)
              I'd have to disagree with that notion because, if jealosy or "front page envy" becomes the defacto reason that everybody takes, then what happens when that "front pager" let's it all go their head at some point in the future? The answer is the quality of their contributions could go down and/or that front pager could "jump the couch" and the majority of the community won't notice it because that whole "ignore those with front page envy" meme has narrowed the scope of the debate beforehand to the point where that conclusion is simply out of sight and out of mind.

              Personally, as a moderator of many discussion boards over the years, I've find that the whole "rating/reputation" system is more trouble than it's worth exactly because of everything Hunter laid out and disabling it (if possible) is really the best way to go in the long run. And to think that people actually put stock in that shit?!? Are people on this blog actually losing sleep over how many 3 or 4 star ratings (or lack thereof) they're getting from each of their comments here?!?! It reminds me of all the bankrupt yokels over at FutureMark's forums who upon losing 300 or more points benchmarking their souped-up computers over a 24/48 hour period act like it's the end of the damned world and I'm left sitting all wide-eyed at my own computer thinking, "Gee, it's a benchmark; not a game!"

            •  of course (none)
              it's like when people criticise Fox News, The New York Times, or the Moonie Times.

              It's like when people complain about Microsoft's or Halliburton's business practices.

              Just jealous.

              Little jealousy little jealetons.

              bleh!  nonsense!  logical fallacy of esteemable history you have there.

              very conservative minded too.

              perfect for the new Reform Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

              •  Yeah (none)
                That jealousy schtick only goes so far. At some point, it stops being a justified reason and becomes a pathetic excuse. Another contention with the point/ratings system I have is one of self-censorship. I don't read the comments section much, but when I do, I'm hoping to read some sincere and heartfelt opinions from people and not some pre-crafted and pre-scripted "sing the right song / do the right dance" jargon that a person said just to earn a few ticks from this rating system. The former I can respect (regardless if I agree with or not) but the latter I can never respect because it's compromising one's true feelings just to be accepted among the status-quo. It's the weak conforming to the strong. Bah! Let's the Republicans corner that fuckin' market.
      •  United we stand and divided we fall (none)
        Great diary. I notice there are over 300 comments. I haven't scrolled through all of them yet. I'm wondering how much bickeing will insue and how far off the point the comments will get as each person gets on their own particular tangent. I will remind everyone once again: "United we stand, divided we fall" Let's work together toward the common goal of taking our government back.
    •  Address the Comment, Not the Person (4.00)
      Because, nine times out of ten, you're wrong or operating on incomplete information about the person.  That's what drives me crazy about so much of the "operative" bullshit.  "Oh, of course you think that, because you are [fill in attribute of personality, vocation, various affiliation, gender, religion, etc]."  

      Who fucking cares?  Is the comment dumb?  THEN ADDRESS THE COMMENT.  

      Now, in an attempt to play "gotcha," a couple people have tried to flay me for attacking the person instead of the comment, or calling somebody stupid.  And I have attacked people, and called them stupid. But in almost every case, it's because they attacked me, and attributed to me beliefs or claims I didn't make.  Which leads to another thing, which is really a corollary of the previous point: address what is written, and the logical implications of what's written, but don't accuse the person of saying or implying something they neither said nor implied.

      For the most part, on DKos we're just blips of light.  emptywheel, GOTV, David Boyle, Dump Terry McAulliffe, spyral, kidspeak, Shirah and a few others I've met in person at our Michigan gatherings.  Other than the secretive James, I've talked by phone with all my compatriots at The Next Hurrah--Meteor Blades, DemFromCT, Trapper John, Plutonium Page, Kagro X, RonK, Seattle and of course emptywheel.  And I've talked numerous times with Markos.  But the rest of you?  Other than what you reveal about yourselves, you're all just blips on a screen to me.  And I'm just a blip on a screen to you.  So I try not to attribute personal characteristics to you.  And you shouldn't do the same to me, or anyone else.

      Address what's written and not what's neither written nor implied.  And criticize the comment, but not the person.  If we all try to do that--including me, I need to remind myself of the same--there will be far less acrimony, far fewer misunderstandings, and much better discussion.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:00:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  One addition, if I may.. (4.00)
        from one blip to another: keep in the back of your mind that one collection of words forming a sentence can easily be interpreted differently - in good faith - by different people.

        In the KO diary, I had a memorable and educational exchange with (I think) debraz parsing one of Markos' statements.  Turns out we had exactly opposite interpretations.  (Thank you debraz for being firm but civil in that discussion.)

        Power to the people 'cause the people want peace.

        by socratic on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:05:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sometimes, Sure (4.00)
          But I'm constantly surprised at the fairly high basic standard of writing at Kos.  Few people post particularly ambiguous comments or diaries, so I think it's less often a case of people parsing something with two equally valid interpretations then it is somebody interpreting the comment or post in a way that's not supported by what's actually written.  And I see that problem occurring with some of the same people over and over, and these same users are the folks who also tend to get abusive or dismissive with regularity.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:24:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's reasonable. (4.00)
            In either case, the proper response is not an immediate, heated screed but, perhaps, a moment to ask if the person really said what you think they said.

            I'd never ask anyone to stifle their passions here, but I do hope that people ask how productive their passions are, and how they help us win.

            Power to the people 'cause the people want peace.

            by socratic on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:30:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If i could jump in (none)
              it seems to me what you are saying not to do is what Bush does in every press conference.  instaed of answering the journalists question he always says "What you're asking me is..."  I hate when he changes it to meet his needs.  We shouldn't change someone's comment's to meet our needs whether we are for or against that comment.  Check to see if that's what they mean.

              did I just repeat everything you two were saying in differnt terms?

      •  Mea culpa (none)
        I've been rating (downwards) the person lately, rather than the comment.  I'm guilty, and will try to reform my ways.

        So Hunter's a dude? Because I wouldn't know from the screen name.  It's pretty gender-neutral.  I assumed Hunter was male, but I could easily have been wrong (which would have been a first for me).

        In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

        by Paul in Berkeley on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:21:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No Lolas in your past? (none)

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:24:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Lolas? (none)
            What are those? (Really, I don't know...just as I've never been quite sure what "n/t" means)

            Now, Lolitas, I know what those are!

            In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

            by Paul in Berkeley on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:26:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Kinks (none)
              Google it.

              The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

              by Armando on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:29:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Lola (none)
              was a song by The Kinks way back when.  Good song.  And the lyrics are funny:

              I met her in a club down in old soho
              Where you drink champagne and it tastes just like cherry-cola [lp version:
              Coca-cola]
              C-o-l-a cola
              She walked up to me and she asked me to dance
              I asked her her name and in a dark brown voice she said lola
              L-o-l-a lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola

              Well I'm not the world's most physical guy
              But when she squeezed me tight she nearly broke my spine
              Oh my lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola
              Well I'm not dumb but I can't understand
              Why she walked like a woman and talked like a man
              Oh my lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola

              Well we drank champagne and danced all night
              Under electric candlelight
              She picked me up and sat me on her knee
              And said dear boy won't you come home with me
              Well I'm not the world's most passionate guy
              But when I looked in her eyes well I almost fell for my lola
              Lo-lo-lo-lo lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola
              Lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola

              I pushed her away
              I walked to the door
              I fell to the floor
              I got down on my knees
              Then I looked at her and she at me

              Well that's the way that I want it to stay
              And I always want it to be that way for my lola
              Lo-lo-lo-lo lola
              Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
              It's a mixed up muddled up shook up world except for lola
              Lo-lo-lo-lo lola

              Well I left home just a week before
              And I'd never ever kissed a woman before
              But lola smiled and took me by the hand
              And said dear boy I'm gonna make you a man

              Well I'm not the world's most masculine man
              But I know what I am and I'm glad I'm a man
              And so is lola
              Lo-lo-lo-lo lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola
              Lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola

              "We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead."--Donald Rumsfeld

              by sunbro on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:32:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Fun to read those lyrics again (none)
                Wonder if Lola is on Bush's iPod.  Kinda reminds me of Ann Coulter, whom I shall now call Polythene Ann (reference to the Beatles' song).

                In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                by Paul in Berkeley on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:44:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Amen DH (none)
        Addressing the comment rather than the person is the more effective way to go in my opinion. In fact, that works in communications with others in general. When debating, attacking the idea and not going after the person speaking that idea, I have found works well. As a psychologist, I even apply that to family and marriage counseling. As one can dislike what the other does or says, but it is more effective to discuss that word, that action that is hurtful or how  action, behavior affects oneself than it is to heap criticism upon the person's character. Going after a person implies a great deal deal more and is often quite destructive. But debating and arguing viewpoints and actions seems to open up the lines of communication.

        Another Day, More Recycled Republican Rubbish-- PA Democratic Committee

        by wishingwell on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 11:15:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It is about time this issue was front paged (4.00)
      Thank you Hunter for this diary.  You may get lambasted over it, but it needed to be addressed.

      There has been noticeable abuse of ratings over the past several weeks.  Especially prevalent are the people that rate all the comments of someone they disagree with 0s and 1s with no explanation, because they either disagree with the poster or have had a previous disagreement with them.  It often appears as if they haven't even read the comments they just rapidly troll rate all of someone's comments. I have not been the recipient of one of these attacks, but observing them has been depressing.

      It all went to hell when Reagan got elected President. -- DinStL

      by Disgusted in St Louis on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:07:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you DinStL (none)
        You said exactly the words that I was thinking to myself.  And I agree with you that it is depressing.

        There are a lot of different types of people in a community of 60,000.  A Great Community is one in which well-meaning people, even if they make an occassional mistake, are still treated with courtesy.

        If you don't agree with someone's point of view, show that your viewpoint is more practical through logic, rather than tearing someone down or demeaning someone.

        "We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead."--Donald Rumsfeld

        by sunbro on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:42:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well said!!!(n/t) (none)

          "They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program." - G.W. Bush; 11/2/00

          by pilotweed on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:48:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Right or wrong I rarely rate (none)
          only when it is is a really good post and then only 4's. But then my main purpose  for being here is to read and respond and recommend those diaries I feel are important discussion or information points whether I necessarily agree with them or not.
      •  Empower others (n/t) (none)

        "We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead."--Donald Rumsfeld

        by sunbro on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:46:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is so true(n/t) (none)

        "They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program." - G.W. Bush; 11/2/00

        by pilotweed on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:46:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I got 2 zero ratings this weekend (4.00)
      for just honest opinion, with no ad hominem attacks, by some anonymous coward, with absolutely no explanation or counter argument.
      I am not a troll, and  I hand out
      hundreds of 4, and rarely a 1 or 2.  This is bullshit.  Are there some rethug moles around here? or have some become infected with the Republican mind virus.  Democratic circular firing squad comes to mind.
      •  All of the above. n/t (none)

        This Far and No Further
        Tons of info and opinion on the right's attempted takeover of the USA

        by Black Max on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:22:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  re:What I Really Hate to See (4.00)
        is low ratings on a thoughtful comment that some readers apparently consider a wet blanket.  While I'm consistently thrilled by the level of intelligence and thought that go into diaries and comments here, we have to fight a never-ending battle against groupthink around here, people.  

        Sometimes, instead of posts rated down, they are suspiciously unrated--suspicious because they are surrounded by highly rated comments often saying little more than "hear, hear!" in various ways and because they are, IMHO, voicing important points.  I saw one such post in the diary on San Diego's financial plight.  The tenor of that diary and most of its comments was fervently anti-Republican--a sentiment that's likely to find a warm home in my heart.  But one poster had the courage or sense to say, hey, don't just blame the Republicans in San Diego.  If the Democrats in Sacramento had more backbone, the problem wouldn't be so severe.  No low ratings there, but also no kudos for an important point well-made.  We may mostly be no more than blips on a screen to each other, but we ought to have enough sense to discern the difference between mere trolls and sensible--or cross-grained--fellow-travelers.

        It's time for Trogdor to do some burninatin' on the Republicans' thatched-roof cottages.

        by deminva on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:48:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's okay (none)
        I got four 1s and two 2s for pointing out without swearwords or _ad hominem_s that lots of people voted for Nixon because, not in spite of, the hippies. Yeah, gimme them happy sunflowers.
    •  Hunter (4.00)
      To make up for my wiseass comment (yes, you'll see it), just know that I am really fucking glad you wrote this.

      Thank you.

      More deep thoughts later...

      •  I'm not (none)
        because it's a statement that...

        "this is not really an issue, this is just about a few toes and people that need to get over themselves.

        It's really about respecting each other"

        What? yeah, it is about that... and it's about the fact that all we can do is demand some respect we won't get.  that's the problem.  none of these rules are for kos, just for the peasants.

    •  some more offenses (4.00)
      a couple more things that perhaps people should know are considered impermissible:

      • no impersonating politicians or other celebrities  if you sign up as "barack obama (D-IL)" you damn well better be the son of a kenyan goatherder.

      • no sock-puppeting you can't have more than one userID that you use to rate your own posts up, or other people's down.  for that matter you're not supposed to have more than one user ID. this applies to intentionally tag-teaming with a buddy as well.

      both these things have occurred tonight.

      and one more request, or piece of advice from me: if there's something you don't personally care for because this is supposed to be a "serious political site" you'd do better to just skip those diaries until you get the hang of the community.  specific examples would include humor and religion.

      i'd like to add my hell yeah to hunter's list of do's and don'ts here, and to his rant as well.  including the "hunter 2" which has been my operating definition of marginal since we came to scoop.

      and while hunter is being modest, if you have serious disagreement with what he said here, you should seriously consider leaving this site.  he is characteristically able to articulate the spirit of this community in an inspired fashion.  more so than markos, i'd say.  yeah he's wrong sometimes, but on a rant like this he's not.

      we'd better decide now if we are going to be fearless men or scared boys.
      — e.d. nixon, montgomery improvement association

      by zeke L on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:56:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You still don't get it (none)
      Yes, I'll take responsibility for my literary license.  I was trying to get your attention.  Apparently it worked!  

      But here you are scolding me from your position of privilege and here I am posting a comment lost in a thread somewhere.  Do you get how skewed the power distribution is in this particular instance, and how this is exemplary of an undemocratic power differential in the larger sense?

      And so what?  So what if you have way more power than the people you disdain, and whom you then call out when they finally get sick of being called whatever

      •  To The Barricades! (4.00)
        All power to the Soviets!  Change the power distribution!  

        I fucking love this stuff.  Hunter essentially write a post imploring people to not be rude to each other, and includes himself as a target of his admonition, and he's perpetrating some unjust power arrangement.  

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:20:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  perpetuating (2.66)
          PERPETUATING an unjust power arrangement.
          •  Big Difference (none)
            So I suppose he should smash the blog and let a syndicalist alternative spring up organically?  And are you doing the same by submitting to this unjust power arrangement?

            George Sorel's theory of blogging!

            Psst, there are better things to be outraged about.

            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

            by Dana Houle on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:36:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I Can't Resist (4.00)
              (from Monty Python's Holy Grail):

              ARTHUR:
                   Please! Please, good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
              WOMAN:
                  No one lives there.
              ARTHUR:
                  Then who is your lord?
              WOMAN:
                  We don't have a lord.
              ARTHUR:
                  What?
              DENNIS:
                  I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,...
              ARTHUR:
                  Yes.
              DENNIS:
                  ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...
              ARTHUR:
                  Yes, I see.
              DENNIS:
                  ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,...
              ARTHUR:
                  Be quiet!
              DENNIS:
                  ...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major--
              ARTHUR:
                  Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
              WOMAN:
                  Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Heh.
              ARTHUR:
                  I am your king!
              WOMAN:
                  Well, I didn't vote for you.
              ARTHUR:
                  You don't vote for kings.
              WOMAN:
                  Well, how did you become King, then?
              ARTHUR:
                  The Lady of the Lake,...
                  [angels sing]
                  ...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
                  [singing stops]
                  That is why I am your king!
              DENNIS:
                  Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
              ARTHUR:
                  Be quiet!
              DENNIS:
                  Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
              ARTHUR:
                  Shut up!
              DENNIS:
                  I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
              ARTHUR:
                  Shut up, will you? Shut up!
              DENNIS:
                  Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
              ARTHUR:
                  Shut up!
              DENNIS:
                  Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
              ARTHUR:
                  Bloody peasant!
              DENNIS:
                  Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?
          •  Unless you're a god, they all are. (none)
              It could be Hunter and Prey.

              Words, ideas and well-drawn thoughts can be great equalizers.

               

          •  Hunter 2 w/ explanation (none)
            --(Useless nitpicking)--

            And, on the subject of the "Hunter 2," that's what I always figured "2" meant-- you either know and like the poster, or don't know beans about them yet, so don't feel ready to troll-rate them, but the comment is so borderline-offensive that you feel you have to signal, "hey, dude(ss), that's not cool."

            And while I like everything that Hunter said about the ratings system and so forth, I have to say this post in general mystified me-- it exemplifies the kind of perception of personal power the poster (i.e., Hunter) claims he does not have.  That is, "if I decide enough bickering is enough, even though I admit I'm one of the guilty, then everyone should now get into the mood to reform themselves."

            I've been mostly absent from this site for about a month, and every time I check back in there is all this -- excuse me-- CRAP going on.  Did I just not notice it before, when I was totally enmeshed, or have things changed lately? (That's a real question, not snideness.)  Why do we hate us?

      •  premature ejaculation above (2.08)
        And so what?  So what if you have way more power than I in this particular exchange?

        My point is that you have the power and therefore you have the responsibility.  You demand equal treatment, but you ignore that underlying all this so called give and take, it's still hugely unequal. You and your colleagues on the front page have a responsibility that the women's studies majors, hippies, freaks, and general riff raff do not. And when you call someone out from your position on high, you are exploiting your privilege to its fullest.  Or swinging your dick, if you want to get literary.

        You sure are sensitive for a despot!

        •  Make your own blog (3.83)
          The great thing about the Internet is that it makes despotic control of the media much more difficult.

          Certainly the "front page posters" have much more power than the "typical" poster here. But, this is a little corner of cyberspace carved out by Kos, and he is free to use it as he sees fit. (Ain't freedom of expression great!)

          You are free to start your own blog, and exercise as much (or as little) control over any other posters as you wish.

          That is the essence of the "marketplace of ideas," and that is what makes the Internet such a wonderful place. There's room for everyone!

          •  It's all hahaha til it's boohoohoo (3.00)
            Here's a newsflash: I'm not the one taking all this personally.  

            I don't give a crap if my own particular voice is heard.  I'm a long-timer at dKos and relatively silent on most matters.

            What I was pointing out was Hunter responding as Hunter-not-a-representative-of-dKos to someone's diary, using his power as Hunter-the-dKos-frontpager.  It's not democratic.  That's just a fact, not my own personal FEEELLLIINNNGGGGS.  Given the size of the community, no doubt there is at least some small contingent of short-sighted hypocrites who don't think democracy is important either philosophically and practically.  Whatever!

            •  I don't get the brouhaha about ratings... (none)
              ...on this site. IMO, the Scoop ratings system on this site doesn't really work too well in elevating the most interesting comments to the top in a sortable manner, like slashdot.  

              As a non-diarist and lurker who looks at this site frequently but posts in smaller communities of more "special interest" to my concerns (criminal justice and drug policy reform sites and listservs), I don't think the ratings particularly reflect the best comments, since the vast majority of comments are unrated.  

              That's because to get rated, you have to be a frequent poster and the frequent posters just high rate each other.  That's my perception anyway, so I really don't pay any attention to ratings.  

              I would say, however, that the inability of lurkers and infrequent posters to ever get rated even for a particularly unique insight, adding useful information to a thread or funny comment (like on /. or many other boards/sites) is kind of a downer and a moderate disincentive to participate and join the fray.

          •  "If you hate america so much... (none)
            then you can get out! with people like you in our country..the terrorist will surely win. you must hate our troops because you're not 100% for the war!

            you're either with us--or your with the terrorists.

            Who are you for--george bush or Michael Moore? eh just what I thought -- you're a socialist commie!"

            Dude -- just because someone isn't 100% with the front pagers or 100% behind hunter does not mean they are not welcome here. I'm sure hunter himself would agree with THAT simple point.

            "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause..."

            by CrazyDem on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 12:04:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Did I say anyone is not welcome here? (none)
              Hell, I'm a complete noob to this blog. I'd be the last person to make any kind of statement about who is and is not welcome.

              All I meant to say is that the Internet is a big place, with lots of room for everyone to express their opinions, and if people feel that this blog is ruled by despots then there are plenty of ways they can express themselves without submitting to the despotic regime of Kos and his evil minions.

              I really can't believe that my earlier comment would be construed in such a way that someone would lump me in with the "if you hate America so much" crowd.

              Wow.

              I'm trying to figure out why you would insinuate something like that from my comment, but the only reasons I can think of require me to assume things about you which I'd rather not assume.

              I've been spending time with right-wingers in my community, being patient and tolerant and trying to gently bring them around to a reality-based way of thinking.  It's been difficult, but I think it's important.  I never expected that I'd have to devote that same level of anger management to dealing with the people who I substantially agree with on the big issues of the day.

              It reminds me of a joke:

              I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!"
              "Why shouldn't I?" he said.
              I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
              "Like what?"
              "Well ... are you religious or atheist?"
              "Religious."
              "Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?"
              "Christian."
              "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
              "Protestant."
              "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
              "Baptist."
              "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
              "Baptist Church of God."
              "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
              "Reformed Baptist Church of God."
              "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"
              "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"
              To which I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

              •  I was kidding to make a point (none)
                the point was--that he/she/it can disagree on this blog and still be perfectly at home. The R's always jump to the most extremes to get everyone to agree with them--or else!

                I guess I thought you were suggesting that he/she/it should go somewhere else if they didn't agree with the front pagers. that's what I thought by reading your first line. but in the end it doesn't really matter. all these blog arguments are silly.  

                your joke was funny btw.

                "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause..."

                by CrazyDem on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 02:25:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  well yeah (none)
                well behavied Hunter said above who he doesn't want in the coalition.

                And that is people that can see offense that doesn't appear to the rest of you.

                Like abolitionists in the 4'th Century AD.

                What so many don't seem to understand is "Where the progress comes from?"

                HINT!!!! not from the conformists.

          •  poor reasoning (none)
            one might as well say, "don't criticise the Washington Times... start your own paper!"

            Printing presses are real cheap.

            "don't criticize the Moonies that own the Washington Times... start your own CULT!"  That's free!

            "don't criticise America... leave it!"

            cliches on the topic of "how not to understand the sensitivities of others because..."

            •  Criticize away! (none)
              I didn't mean to imply no one should criticise.

              My response was primarly motivated by the hyperbole of refering to Hunter as a despot.

              Despotism is much more difficult to maintain in an online media environment because the threshold for setting up alternative outlets is much lower than for traditional mass media outlets.

              Do I think criticism should be allowed here?
              Certainly.
              If Kos clamped down on anyone critical of him, it would probably destroy the character of the site.

              Do I think calling Hunter a despot should be allowed?
              Sure.

              Do I think calling Hunter a despot is a productive, mature way to have this discussion?
              Nope.

              I'm not trying to force anyone to conform. I'm just providing my opinion in response to someone who I feel is going a bit over the top with their rhetoric.

              •  Hunter is great, in general (none)
                I'm just reacting to this theme.

                I have read MANY times in the last couple days about how people can just leave, just start their own blog.

                In fact, it's kos' main line of "defense" when he makes mistakes he doesn't want to apologize for... mistakes of, revealing too much I guess, not of being wrong.

                I understand the context of your comment... I admit you have a point.

                But there is also still my point which is that the "love it or leave it" framework has serious problems... it's a conservative framework, it's a bad framework.

                If it were true, we should all shut up and not say anything wrong about any established institution or politician.

                •  I agree totally (none)
                  I should have made it clearer in my earlier comment that I was mostly responding to the overblown charge of despotism, and not meaning to speak against dissent.

                  Any organization which refuses to listen to dissent is not an organization I want to be a part of.

                  "Love it or leave it" seems equivalent to "if it's broke, just let it stay broke" in my opinion. As you said, definitely a bad idea.

                  For small issues, leaving the blog isn't a good way to deal with it.  But if the behavior of the front page diarists ever did truly rise to the level of despotism, the situation would be self correcting, because they would end up being despots over a very small corner of cyberspace while other blogs stepped in to take DailyKos' place.

                  I'm glad our discussion stayed civil, so that we could come to realize that we agree more than we disagree.

            •  Unfortunately, no (none)
              You can get a blog over at Blogger.com real easy.  Hell, you'd be hosted by the same guys that host Atrios.  Real nice property.  And you can set the rules there.  Real easy.  Incomparably easy.  So easy in fact as to render you're argument inane.  Now, you can tell me that you won't get eyeballs like Kos's by posting on your own, but I've been around these blog daisy-chains for a couple of years, and its occured to me, write or do something really good, and it'll get linked to.  Check out what happened over at Neatthings.blogspot.com this weekend.  Just a kid got a few thousand hits cause someone noticed him.  Sure you can't start a WaPo for yourself, but you can start something, and by all means, embrace it and make it your own.

              "Man is a useless passion." -Sartre

              by adlai lives on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 10:48:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Well, hmm. (4.00)
        First, both you and another poster have tried to pass that post off as intentional performance art. I don't buy it -- but if it was, that makes it much, much worse. Everyone needs to take their mud-slinging performance art somewhere else too. I'm aware of the literary value of "swinging dicks", which apparently is an automatic license preventing it from being offensive here and in perpetuity. The rest of it, not so much.

        You don't want to get lost in a thread? You want democracy? It's not some Illuminati conspiracy -- post a diary; if it's good and recommended it'll be on the frontpage longer than one of my left-side stories will be. But don't expect the world to beat a path to your door just because you demand it. What, you think I inherited this utterly undemocratic guest post from my distant ancestral heritage?

        If I do have a tiny, insignificant, volunteered shred of power in a tiny part of the universe, then yes: that does give me more responsibilities on this site than other people. Namely, I'm one of the people on the site that has an obligation to call out other people's crap, rather than watch this entire community dissolve into diary after diary of useless, mean-spirited slug-fests. There are a great many people here who make an online career out of acting pissy and self-righteous towards the community itself, as a way of attracting cheap attention to themselves. Doing performance-art-like posts, and a half dozen other ways of grabbing attention but then not being quite successful at actually accomplishing anything with it once obtained. "Opposing DailyKos" is not a respect-worthy goal of any progressive subgroup -- they should have better things to do. I need to have better things to do than play a damn meta-cop for these strategyless, negatively-contributing people.

        Fine, you say you intended to get my attention, and you did. Other people intended to incessantly call out other perfectly innocent posters as "shills" and "plants" and worse, and they've got the attention too. Everyone doesn't get to act all astonished that their own plans worked. Congratulations to each, I now think they're all insufferable and, based on their poor choices of rhetoric, despair at the notion of working with any of them.

        •  It wasn't worth a diary (none)
          You could at least give me credit for not doing another one of those meta-diaries you object to, which are all your fault by the way.

          I gather that you think that in your position of power you need to make a front page post because someone said something you personally find especially curious or confusing or negative.  I think as a rule you should not because it's unnecessarily undemocratic.

          I guess we'll disagree.

    •  rating system is for people not posts (none)
      Your DO NOT points reflect the most common of all reasons people take the initiative to rate posts. Rating posts is not painless. This is especially true for those who do not use the Dynamic Threaded mode.

      If the rating system is truly intended to be void of internal politics, clich wars, and the advancement of personal vendettas, then names of posters should be obscured until the rating has been made. Yes, this would suck because: (see subject)

  •  Does This Mean That (none)
    There is going to be a Hunter-Armando Smackdown?

    If so, I'll be ringside.

    Fox News is a propaganda outlet of the Republican Party - DNC Chair Howard Dean

    by easong on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:46:57 PM PDT

    •  I think that... (4.00)
      ... Armando needs to get angry a lot less, and that I maybe need to get angry a bit more.

      I feel some guilt at not reining in the most outrageous crap around here. Not as a guest poster, but as a community member.

      •  Armando (4.00)
        I was about to say, does this mean that, officially, Not Everything Is About Armando and, furthermore, that It's Okay To Disagree With Him and not have him call everyone "asshole"?

        Patrick Murphy for Congress (PA-8) -- Murphy06.com

        by Adam B on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:56:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  At last a post not by Armando (none)
          And a good one, to boot.

          But Hunter is basically arguing that people discussing viewpoints better have the same viewpoint.

          "I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."

          by SteinL on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:57:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not sure I agree (4.00)
            Seems to me Hunter is saying that a lot of blogs are more like mutual admiration societies.

            The nature and size of the Kos community means that there's going to be a lot of cross-pollenating, this is not accidental, and members of the community best get used to it, 'cuz it ain't changing.

            AND that unlike in the real world, vomiting bile on people WHILE being oversensitive, kinda sucks the air out of a room. While in the real world you'll get great ratings for that sort of stuff. 'round here, probably not so much.

            Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

            by mdhatter on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:19:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  oh what a crock! (4.00)
            1)Use some common sense when you post.
            2)Use some common sense when you rate comments.
            3)Grow up and accept some constructive criticism once in a while.
            4)Quit thinking that only your opinion rates.
            5)Jump off the band wagon, get some critical thinking skills and quit getting pissed when someone disagrees with you.

            Not directed at you specifically, but c'mon!  Hunter is not suggesting that we all have the same view points.  I didn't get this from his post.  People are so damn sensitive if someone doesn't agree with their viewpoint sometimes.  It is irritating and frustrating.  I have been hanging out here for about a year and things have degenerated recently a bit to the point where some cannot handle criticism or critiques of their arguments.  Learn to support your arguments and be prepared to, well, argue them!

            "They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program." - G.W. Bush; 11/2/00

            by pilotweed on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 10:09:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  First of all ... (none)
              I did write good post - and then I kind of thought people would get my snark.

              Secondly, I have a fairly impeccable rating history - I don't rate posts. I smile at the constant ra(n)ters here.

              "I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."

              by SteinL on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 12:38:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  For the record (4.00)
          I attacked no hippies or war pragmatists.

          I attacked no feminists or swinging dicks.

          I am prepared to be Trotsky to your Stalin, but I was in Mexico City chillin' during the recent contretemps, so I think maybe you need to blame Bukharin or somebody on this one.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:20:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  How About Indignant Sundays? (none)
        It's nice to have guess posters setting standards of tolerance and civility most days, as you do, but unloading on the weekend might be therapeutic and OK.

        Fox News is a propaganda outlet of the Republican Party - DNC Chair Howard Dean

        by easong on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:56:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I swear (none)
          I thought it was "indigent" for a second.

          Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

          by mdhatter on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:20:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The Problem With That Is... (none)

          the perpetually indignant never see that trait in themselves so the only people that will join a voluntary catharsis thread are those who already recognize their own weakness and are riffing for fun and practice.

          I had the same "just make a place to air it out" idea during the Great Tinfoil Hat Purge earlier this summer but came to same conclusion as above. It wouldn't work because a true Tinfoiler believes that their black helicopters are real.

          As long as the prerequisite for that shining Paradise is ignorance, bigotry, and hate... I say the Hell with it. --Inherit the Wind

          by kingubu on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:50:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  guess poster? (none)
          so whats a guess poster?

          No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. Margaret Sanger

          by bayprairie on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 11:08:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Sometimes it's better (3.40)
        to just leave things alone -- let them die or cool down, cool down a lot.

        I then took words from that diary, characterized their meaning in accordance with my own understandings, and used it as a general jumping-off point for my own opinions

        Since you didn't, and felt compelled to rationalize your prior FP posting (and I don't have the same access to the FP), I will repeat that your "understandings" were so wildly off the mark that they constituted gross intellectual dishonesty as most people understand that term.  To abstract one example out of several that was making a single point, and then dissect that one example (one I still stand by) to the point that I found myself engaged in numerous debates that had nothing to do with the argument of my diary, felt abusive.  (And for the most part, it was the same old gang beating up on me that I do my best to avoid around here.)

        •  Oh please... (3.50)
          Since you are still defending your comment, without offering an explanation to dispel others perceptions, I'll just reiterate that it was offensive, divisive and innacurate.

          It was a feeble bullying attempt to make gay men feel as though they must agree with your view on abortion rights.

          Fuck that shit...

          I'm not going to sit back while you try to demean  and characterize the existence of some gay men and their own volitions as some pathetic bunch that has no moral authority to have a varied view when it comes to choice.

          They'll have any fucking opinion they want.

          Personally, as a gay man, I'll have any view I want on abortion and, if I so desire, I'll post it loudly and proudly when and where I want.

          Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds - Albert Einstein.

          by GregNYC on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 11:16:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  wow (3.00)
          speaking truth to power...

          what a concept..

          way to go marie!!!!!

          No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. Margaret Sanger

          by bayprairie on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 11:17:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What you wrote was offensive (none)
          And when you write something offensive, you run the risk of people calling you on it. Even if it is just one line buried deep in your diary.

          At any point you could have said that what you wrote didn't come out as you intended, but apparently it really did come out as you intended and instead you chose to stick by it, and compound it with ranting that anyone who doesn't toe the line on abortion is a misogynist discriminating against women (which is, frankly, stupid).

          You feel abused? Too bad.

          76% of dKos readers think I'm a secret wing-nut operative!

          by Gustavo on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 02:49:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I have absolutely no problem (4.00)
      with aggressive, angry posts.  I do have a problem with these same posters getting angry about others coming back at them with their own anger and aggression.

      It's a give-and-take thing, folks.  Most people who post here seem to understand this and not try to turn DK into just another flaming hellpit of "fuck you!"  "No, fuck YOU!" and so forth.

      For those of you who want to see what happens to political forums when they go down these roads, take a gander at just about any political "discussion" forum at Delphi.  Then come back here and breathe a big sigh of relief that DK hasn't sunk to those depths...and take measures to ensure that it doesn't.  

      Disclaimer: there are many good people posting rational and thoughtful entries on Delphi.  I'm talking about the crazies who insist that, for example, any woman who disagrees with their rantings must have a rotten crotch, or any guy who argues against the war wants to take Saddam's penis up their chute, and so forth.  We've all seen it in other forums.  It's on us to make sure that it doesn't happen here.

      This Far and No Further
      Tons of info and opinion on the right's attempted takeover of the USA

      by Black Max on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:06:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Occasionally (none)
        a commenter or diarist may be begging for a helping of "right back atcha". When they subsequently flip out and attack, ESPECIALLY when they clearly didn't read what you wrote, well, it makes me sorta glad.

        the sociopaths are harder to spot, face to face.

        Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

        by mdhatter on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:25:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yup. (none)
          Like I said, anyone who wants to see what a real shitfit looks like, take a long hard gander at what passes for political discourse on some of those Delphi forums.  It ain't pretty.  And for some, it seems SOP to respond to criticism or rejoinders by posting names, addresses, kids' names, etc -- or complaining to posters' employers about their "unacceptable" posts in attempts to get them fired.  It's happened to at leave five people I know of over there.  As for the numbers of marriages broken up, people harassed into leaving the forums entirely, and so forth, I wouldn't even guess.  I don't want to see DK even take a single step down that particular path.

          This Far and No Further
          Tons of info and opinion on the right's attempted takeover of the USA

          by Black Max on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:30:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is sad (none)
            That anyone loses perspective so thorougly.

            That sort of behavior, that desperate need to be 'right', even when it means choking down all your self respect, is what is troubling.

            That said, sociopaths are often easier to spot on the internet.

            Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

            by mdhatter on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:55:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  oh YEAH?!? (none)

        "What they found is a silver bullet in the form of a person."

        by subtropolis on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 10:02:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Is this a come to Meta-Jesus meeting? (4.00)
    'Cause if so, I want in.

    The UCC: to believe is to care, to care is to do. Also, they have cookies.

    by pastordan on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:48:28 PM PDT

  •  Shorter Hunter: "Stop the BS." (4.00)
    And "Take a look in the mirror."

    ==
    As an aside, one of the reasons why more Democrats won't advocate for gay marriage is partly because HRC (and other groups) won't push that far believing that if they do, the backlash would push the gay rights movement backwards.

    Visit my blog Penndit.
    The Republicans' worst enemy is an informed electorate.

    by Newsie8200 on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:48:43 PM PDT

    •  That's succinct (none)
      I like it.

      Another option:

      Listen. Understand. Accept.

      Also:

      Let your neighbor speak, then move on.

      "...psychopaths have little difficulty infiltrating the domains of...politics, law enforcement, (and) government." Dr. Robert Hare

      by RubDMC on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:05:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Or this one - (4.00)
        Opinions are like a**holes.

        Everybody's got one and thinks everyone else's stinks.

        Maybe more people should look at other people's opinions like dogs look at each other's, well.....you know.

        They're interesting to sniff around for a while, but nothing to get too excited about.

        "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato

        by Bcre8ve on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:25:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Really? (none)
      I don't know how sure I am about that one. If most Democrats were only keeping quiet because of fear of backlash, then I don't know why some of them have repeatedly blamed gays for Kerry's loss. I don't think most of them care about what HRC thinks - HRC pretty much does whatever Democrats want anyway. As do most gay groups.

      I hope you don't think that people who are upset about Democrats and gay rights are causing trouble on this site. I think most of us have stayed very polite as we have been told over and over that we are the reason Democrats lose.

      •  I've seen the summary for (none)
        the polling done for HRC.

        When they find that one of the most effective ways of getting people to be anti-FMA is telling them that DOMA exists already and does pretty much the same thing, then you know that HRC isn't going to push harder and the Democrats aren't going to either.

        The region where anti-gay sentiments increased last year?  The midwest where a chunk of the battlegrounds were.

        Visit my blog Penndit.
        The Republicans' worst enemy is an informed electorate.

        by Newsie8200 on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:27:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  HRC's polling doesn't mean that much to me (none)
          Their organization was disastrous last year and their leader was replaced, although her replacement doesn't seem that much better.

          Saying "DOMA DOMA DOMA" is simply a diversionary tactic. Few Democrats to support gay marriage. Many of them don't even really want to support gays period. But it would certainly be nice to hear more arguments that discuss how these laws will devastate the lives of gays and lesbians and how many rights are being taken away through these federal and state amendments. Few people realize or care that wills, inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights are being stripped away for millions of Americans. And all they hear from Democrats is "DOMA".

          •  I meant few expect Democrats to... (none)
          •  Unfortunately the DOMA argument (none)
            fits in a 2 second soundbite.

            The best way for getting across the impact on hospital visits and wills is emotional pop culture venues (e.g. movies, TV shows...something that grips you emotionally and can't be cut off by a lousy news producer) and/or gay people coming out and explaining all of that to people.

            (BTW, I'm not saying that any of this is how it should be.)

            Visit my blog Penndit.
            The Republicans' worst enemy is an informed electorate.

            by Newsie8200 on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:37:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Tell that to Kerry (none)
              He used the DOMA argument, even though he voted against, and most people didn't know what the hell he stood for.

              The other problems with this argument are that it will be invalidated if or when DOMA is struck down, and it implies there is something wrong with gay marriage, or with recognizing the rights of gay couples.

              Democrats get millions of dollars and votes from gays. You'd think they could give these "emotional arguments" once or twice, since they have a national platform. Instead they are, as always, silent, and we are supposed to be ashamed.

      •  It helps a lot (none)
        when you know they're dead wrong.

        spinning
        misdirecting
        fuming
        scapegoating

        It is also easier to remain polite when you have a firm handle on the truth of the matter.

        Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

        by mdhatter on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:28:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  PS. I don't think that James. (none)
        It came to mind when Hunter's original post included something about backing up Democratic politicians.  The general point I was trying to make was that some of the center-left groups aren't going to necessarily push the issue in the way some of us want them to push the issue... and in those cases, it shouldn't be a surprise when the Democratic politicians won't push the issue or stand up for something in the way we may want them to.

        Visit my blog Penndit.
        The Republicans' worst enemy is an informed electorate.

        by Newsie8200 on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:32:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But why did you bring up gays? (none)
          There have been so many diaries here raging about Democrats being too timid on abortion, on the Iraq war, and very few about gays. Yet you brought up gays. You would be surprised at how many "liberal" people would happily sell out gays for a nickel. I have not heard a lot of gays doing the same to others, and when they do, they are raked over the coals.
          •  Because I've seen 2 polls (none)
            for issue groups.  One for HRC. The other for a pro-choice group. The choice group had less to do with reaching women on the choice issue, so I was left with the HRC poll which was primarily about gay marriage.  

            The choice group's poll was for microtargeting, and so it had all these other issues (e.g. education) lumped into it.  

            Visit my blog Penndit.
            The Republicans' worst enemy is an informed electorate.

            by Newsie8200 on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:43:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What does that poll (none)
              have to do with comments here? Your comments, coming in the middle of a diary about troublemakes at Daily Kos, seemed to be implying (to me at least) that people who support gay rights are part of the problem at Daily Kos.
              •  No. (none)
                It wasn't. Please go back and read in a previous reply.

                Visit my blog Penndit.
                The Republicans' worst enemy is an informed electorate.

                by Newsie8200 on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:50:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  James (none)
                Newsie's on our side on this one.

                The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                by Dana Houle on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:50:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I just wanted clarification (none)
                  because the original comment was very vague to me. I didn't accuse Newsie of being a bigot. I just wondered what those comments had to do with the point of the diary, since the point of the diary was that some people are causing problems at Daily Kos. So yes, I know Newsie is supportive, so I wondered what the comment was about.
                  •  I Think.. (none)
                    ...and Newsie, correct me if I'm wrong--it was addressing the "fuck the DLC/etc, and anyone who's not as pure as me at all times" bullshit.  I believe her point was that even some of the groups ostensibly pushing things like full equal rights for GLBT folks are sometimes going to be more "moderate" than we would like, and could be targets of the "purer than thou" stuff.

                    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                    by Dana Houle on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:09:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I guess (none)
                      I just don't think a lot of the criticism of HRC is that unwarranted, and I haven't really seen that much here anyway. Most of the fights over single issue groups seem to involve NARAL. But I get the general point.
          •  Oh, I forgot this. (none)
            Kerry lost because of multiple factors, and I don't like saying that one reason was THE reason for the loss. However, if I had to choose just one issue-related reason for Kerry's lost, it'd be terrorism. Just look at what most of the BC04 ads focused on (especially towards the end of the campaign).

            Visit my blog Penndit.
            The Republicans' worst enemy is an informed electorate.

            by Newsie8200 on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:47:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  YOU (none)
            might be surprised how many "conservative" people would happily sell out the christian fundamentalists for a nickel.  etc.. etc...

            Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

            by mdhatter on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 10:54:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'd be shocked (none)
              They certainly don't seem to be selling them out these days. The fundies run the whole party.
              •  Yes (none)
                but they have squadered just about all their 'political capital' with the fiscal conservatives.

                enough so to split both parties, is my point.  

                Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

                by mdhatter on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 11:00:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I should explain (none)
                I am from  such a Republican family. US Navy down one side, and 2nd generation Scottish on the other.

                I was raised Unitarian by a lifelong republican. My sister and her wife just had their first child. When all my (Navy side) cousins met my niece, all the questions as to who was accepting of whose lifestyle, they absolutely disappeared.

                that's christian.

                Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

                by mdhatter on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 11:05:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  re:Kerry lost (none)
        for a lot of reasons.

        I'd like to believe that, if a majority of Americans voted their real feelings, politicians would be afraid to harass gays.  I could be wrong.

        I agree with Hunter that Democrats need to become more thick-skinned and less interested in purity tests.  Why did Bush's base outperform Kerry's?  I think it's because there are too many fucking people that ought to be in Kerry's base that refused to cast their vote for a liberal candidate who failed some measure of theirs.  All those freaking "lesser of two evils" arguments we had around here!  Oy.  That anyone--ANYONE--on the Left could equate Kerry with Bush on the Mertz Scale of Evil continues to blow my mind.

        It's time for Trogdor to do some burninatin' on the Republicans' thatched-roof cottages.

        by deminva on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:55:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  One more comment (none)
      As we saw last year, the GOP are going to push against gay marriage whether Democrats bring it up or not. Democrats don't have to fight to the death for gay rights, but it would be nice if they could say something beyond "marriage is between a man and a woman" and "this is too much, too fast, too soon".
      •  Dean has the perfect reply (4.00)
        If someone tries to bring up the politics of gay marriage to him, he quickly and strongly responds, "I will not comment on a phony issue like gay marriage because that is a Republican talking point that they trot out to try to divide people for the sake of winning elections."

        He gets his point out in a short and sweet manner: Don't fucking play politics with people's personal opinions. Our country was founded upon individual rights, and the right to live a peaceful, PRIVATE life the way you want, whether others approve of it or not.

        So basically, we need to stop letting the Republicans define us and counter with our own frame. Are we the party that "supports" abortion and gay marriage? NO. Are we the party that believes in a culture of freedom and responsibility over one's private life? YES.

      •  I usually (none)
        take the conversation into the "civil unions for all" arena, via separation of church and state.

        It's amazingly palatable.

        Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

        by mdhatter on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:31:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Amen n/t (4.00)

    "Waist-deep in the Big Muddy, and the big fool said to push on." Pete Seeger

    by Caldonia on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:49:45 PM PDT

  •  But, but, but (4.00)
    Huuuunterrrrrr...

    My shit don't stink, and you are oppressing me!

    The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

    by RedDan on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:50:48 PM PDT

  •  oh, man. (none)
    Get away from the PC for a while and relax.

    You had good points in there but you spent way too much time ranting.

    *Springsteen for President*

    by hrh on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:50:54 PM PDT

    •  You should have seen what I cut. n/t (3.90)
      •  I will add (4.00)
        I didn't see most of what you were referring to - "outing" etc.   So I'm not denying that whatever you're complaining about is a problem.

        It's just that the meta-meta-meta-meta aspect of the diary is out of control.  It reminds me of lit classes in college: criticism of criticism of criticism.  Drove me up a wall.  I wonder if this diary is really going to get the result you want, or if it's something that should have been written as a purgative, and then filed away somewhere.

        *Springsteen for President*

        by hrh on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:00:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Instead (3.40)
          of looking at the subject through a typically complex liberal viewfinder as being a criticism of criticism of criticism, how about just this:

          Everyone use proper manners and critical thinking.

          Not that that wouldn't be just as doomed for failure...

          (Cross-posted in my pants)

          by Calishfornia on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:10:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I read it as (none)
            "this wasn't really about offensive rehashing of conservative stereotypes which drag down our coallition... it was about people not giving kos enough space to be kos... and themselves not being careful in exactly the ways kos cannot be expected to."
        •  Out of control (none)
          are the post-modernist poseurs, abstracting the abtracted abstracts to an ideal platonic plein.

          no no, bear with me, that was intentionally nonsense.

          I'm just saying that when it comes to a satisfying meal, what you bring to the table is as important as what is served.

          If you wish to find meta-meta-meta, you always will, because it's the way you're percieving it. My perception is that you were in my colelge lit class, and some part of you likes driving up there on that wall.  

          if criticism of criticism bothers you, then just stop indulging in it, yourself, first. Expecting more, especially the right to be 'more insulted than thou' or 'more smarterer than thou' over a pissant academic point, which is 60% of the content here, doesn't seem to be on the menu.

          If you feel a post is a waste of time, waste no time on it.

          pissant academic points have their place, but as justifications for insult or assault, not so much.

          I just want people to see their own filters before they open their mouths, and try to speak TO and WITH, rather than AT or ABOUT, other members of the community.

          criticism of (x3) does not happen to bother me, nor does it indicate the hopelessness of the community, nor any other grand theme. The musings here tell me that someone was particularly inspired one day, or not.

          case in point, this is i think, 'criticism of' (x4), and I'll bet you can just ignore it.

          Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

          by mdhatter on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:55:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  a break (none)
        Sometimes I think the front pagers need a little rest from DK. they get too entwined and emotionally caught up in the comment section.

        I think it gets weird when front pages spend too much time arguing with us plebs.

        there is a power imbalance.

        be a great front page poster -- don't get sucked in.

        the site is building a new breed of semi- professional journalists.  Ask yourself---would Krugman be caught floating around in the comment sections bickering with people? hell no!

        You've got the other front pagers--great writers - I feel lucky to read their stuff - yet their they are following people around in the comment section bullying them into submission - telling them they are whining etc etc--using their rush-like ditto heads to back them up. To me it seems thug like.

        my advice -- if you're a front pager--just say no to the comment section.  

        just my 2 cents.

        "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause..."

        by CrazyDem on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 10:54:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I got no problem with Hunter's post. (4.00)
      Although I don't post on here enough to see much of what he (she?)'s referring to, I've seen enough to know that Hunter's addressing real problems.  The idea is to keep it under control until it gets really, really out of control.  It's necessarily a game of Whack-a-Mole (whack a troll?), but absolutely necessary for forums like this one to continue on a rational basis.

      Now someone give me a 2 for kissing the front pagers' asses.

      This Far and No Further
      Tons of info and opinion on the right's attempted takeover of the USA

      by Black Max on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:08:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  mojo is for losers (3.42)
    I've wondered to myself about the folks who go to the trouble to rate posts with 3s, but that's just me.  We're all just junior Maoists, keeping an eye on each other so big brother Kos doesn't have to do everything.  I'm not attacking Kos - it's a great system for him.  But anyone out there who sees it as their keyboardist duty to keep the troops in line through dispensation of numerical ratings, well, I think Hunter said it well.  Get the fuck over yourself.

    barn's burnt down; now i can see the moon - Basho

    by sfgary on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:51:36 PM PDT

    •  What? (none)
      There are numbers between 4 and 0?

      I must have missed those.  Hmmmmmm...........

      "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato

      by Bcre8ve on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:08:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I want to give you a 3 so bad (none)
      ; ) just can't bring myself to be that big an ass, though...
    •  The point is (4.00)
      that ratings are mostly symbolic.  TU status isn't that big of a deal; you can get hosed on your ratings and still read 99% of what goes on here, and still post.  If your ratings suck because of a large number of low ratings from a large number of Kossacks, then you've either attracted the attention of a coterie of ideologues who have focused their wrath, such as it is, on you, or you're fucking up somewhere.

      My position is, say what you've gotta say and let the chips fall where they may, but keep the personal commentary and outings out of your posts.  Simple courtesy and common sense should keep things copacetic round these parts.  We can forcefully disagree with one another without going "Cheney" on each other.

      This Far and No Further
      Tons of info and opinion on the right's attempted takeover of the USA

      by Black Max on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:12:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just for the record (none)
        correct me if I'm wrong about the ratings.

        This Far and No Further
        Tons of info and opinion on the right's attempted takeover of the USA

        by Black Max on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:13:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  my ratings have been excellent (none)
          That's not the issue at all. I'm just questioning the enthusiasm so many of us seem to have to be TU or to keep others in line with our ratings.  I've been on Kos for a while and I've felt moved to give quite a few 4s, and one or two 1s, but those were extreme cases.  I think a lot of users are like that, and we're watching with bemusement while the mojo-hounds have a meltdown.

          Not you, of course.  I'm talking about some generic mojo-hounds.

          barn's burnt down; now i can see the moon - Basho

          by sfgary on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:22:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I rate (none)
            as I would be rated. For effort, clarity, and especially, for adding something. Not for spelling, and not for satan-advocay. But if your post is only halfway there, when you send it here, a 3 is an honorable mention.

            if mojo-hounds freak out, c'est la vie, they should try harder when they post, the leading members of a text based community should be consistently coherent.

            Personally I don't think I've recieved any 0's 1's or 2's. Don't know that I care, I'm just glad to hear your opinion.

            (also, i stumbled across the video in your diary the other day. awesome stuff)

            Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

            by mdhatter on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 10:40:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  It's not the raters (4.00)
      It's the whiny ratees.  Have you ever given someone a 3, by accident, and received either a nasty email or post because they felt like they "didn't deserve it".?  I have and I sat here thinking, "Fuck you, you whiny asshole because I could have just NOT rated you."  But people don't see that.  They see, "it's the only 2 in  a sea of 17 4s."  Oh.  Puke.
      •  well, this is a good point (none)
        what about 3's? 3's are like the ultimate no-man's land. what value can and should they have? cause they don't seem to have much now.

        Do it GREEN, know what I mean?

        by SonofFunk on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:35:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  America (none)
        is a land of perfectionistic people.  It's a common character flaw.  We're taught from an early age to "go for the Gold", not the "Silver Medal".

        That's why you see so many of our 12-year-old gymnasts with screws in their legs from surgery.  The triple backflip with the double twist just does not do it anymore.

        Many people would rather not hear from someone than get less than the "A" (4.0)

        That's why 3's seem to many like the joke rating.

        The Late L.A. Channel 5 Anchorman George Putnam: "And that's 'One Reporter's Opinion'"...
        -------------------------------------------------

        "We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead."--Donald Rumsfeld

        by sunbro on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:37:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's about damn time... (none)
    Thank you Hunter for this post.
  •  This is bullshit, man. (4.00)
    I was preaching tolerance hours ago.  Now you come along riding my coattails...

    (er, an aside for the humor-impaired:  I'm just kidding)

  •  BRAVO (none)
    Thank you, thank you, thank you.

    It's about damn time!  off the high-horses, one and all...

  •  Medicinal Leeches? (none)
    Sounds delicious. Also a great idea.

    Liberals eat their own over pet issue x. Oh the outrage. The outrage. How could they?

    Well spoken.

    inspire change...don't back down

    by missliberties on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:54:17 PM PDT

  •  freedom to post (none)
    It is not surprising the a heirachy at dailykos has developed. In every movement the cream rises to the top. Some can lead. Others can help them lead. Our job is to post, bring new ideas to others and hel Dems win. At the end of the day we all have to roll up our sleeves and start cavassing or phone banking. There is no substitute for retail politics.

    Welcome to Jamrock.

    by Albee090 on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:55:08 PM PDT

  •  Ummm... There's a hurricane coming... (4.00)
    100,000 lives at risk tonight.  Couldn't this have waited?

    My book Growing Up Red is now available at bn.com, amazon.com, and iUniverse.com.

    by ColdFusion04 on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:55:48 PM PDT

    •  I am truly not being snarky.... (4.00)
      (I bought and read and enjoyed your book),
      but how does this post alter the hurricane and its results?

      I'm serious, I don't get it.  Please explain, thanks,
      'spresso

      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." -Governor George W Bush (R-TX)

      by espresso on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:58:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It helps to get one's mind off the (4.00)
        pending disaster---talking about other stuff.

        Jesus arrived in a black helicopter, confusing the local militia.

        by Delaware Dem on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:05:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This isn't just another hurricane (none)
        Imagine we knew that a missile was heading toward New Orleans, and tens of thousands of people were holed up in the SuperDome as a bomb shelter.  Would we be bickering about political infighting or would we be saving that for another day?

        Sorry, but I have a really, really bad feeling about this one.  One of the four strongest hurricanes in our nations history, and in the worst possible city.

        My book Growing Up Red is now available at bn.com, amazon.com, and iUniverse.com.

        by ColdFusion04 on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:35:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Let me tell you something (4.00)
          They are NEVER just another hurricane if you have to live through them.

          I have lived through some bad ones. I accept that this one could be the worst we've seen in decades. But don't for a moment think this is the catastrophe of all time.

          Let's remain calm. Keep ourselves alert and see how we can help. Right now there's nothing we can do. Nothing.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:43:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  So we're suddenly weather.com??? (4.00)
      And I posted a hurricane diary earlier and know some folks down there for whom I'm quite worried. So I'm not at all dismissive of attention paid to what may be a true human and cultural tragedy. That said, I think, maybe, this -- while not OUTRAGED in tone, a crime of which I am plenty guilty -- is sort of what Hunter was talking about. A wee bit oversensitive. I won't rate it a 2 though!
    •  We Can Type And Chew Metagum... (4.00)
      ...at the same time.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:20:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Waited for what? (4.00)
      I gotta say, if you think it should have waited, what are you doing on this blog? Maybe your participation here could have waited?

      Certainly we all have our eye on the hurricane but other than that, what  do you suggest? Should I do a diary on the hurricanes I have survived?  

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:23:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There's a Hurricane in the White House (none)
      And millions of lives, the future of the free world and of the planet are at risk everyday the looter-in-chief remains in office.   I'm sure some see that as hyperbole or plain bullshit.  But I believe it literally.  

      There's a Hurricane in the White House.  Or Crawford.  Or where ever he is hiding from Cindy these days.

      And yes.  What is happening on the Gulf coast is shaping up as a great tragedy.  I fear for those in the path of the storm.  I worry about the people riding out the storm.  I hope those who got out will still have a place to live.  I am only reading this post to pass the time in-between some new hurricane news.  It is a great natural tragedy that we can not control.

      But Bush and his cronies are a man-made tragedy that people have some control over.

      In the long run, what happens at dKos and what happens as a result of what happens at dKos, etc, etc, in an ever expanding web, may affect and save more lives than this terrible natural tragedy. So, personally, I don't see the timing of the post as inappropriate.  

      Television is the opiate of the masses.

      by i dunno on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 04:35:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In light of (none)
      In light of the hurricaine, isn't this as good a time as any to rearrange some deck chairs?

      Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

      by mdhatter on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 11:23:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Could someone post an executive summary of this? (4.00)
    I'm getting ready to go to bed, and I don't have the time to digest the entire post.

    Look!  Hey, everyone, look!  Look at my navel!

    Too much of that here lately...

  •  pretty even poll so for (50 votes in) (none)
    almost equal for each option.

    good poll.

    good points.

    free the information

    by freelixir on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:56:34 PM PDT

  •  And can I add another? (4.00)
    STOP POSTING ABOUT CELEBRITIES' POLITICS

    I don't know how many diaries there were this week about Lance Armstrong biking with Bush or the Rolling Stones playing with Arnie in attendance which villified these people for not being the big activists some people around here consider themselves.

    Guess what, neither is 99% of the rest of the country. Just because someone is a celebrity doesn't mean they will agree with you or your specific politics. And if they don't, WHO GIVES A SHIT?

    Maybe you could direct that anger at celebrities towards something useful next time.

  •  Hunter 2: Useless (none)
    Because people will start preemptively rating up posts which they think others will give a Hunter 2.
  •  civility (4.00)
    Civility and allowing the benefit of the doubt can be very useful, especially if a group of relatively like-minded people would like to get some stuff accomplished.

    I have been tempted on many occasion to flare at some post, but I ask myself the question: Will it make a difference? I mean, a REAL difference? Will it have a positive impact? Is it worth my time to get into a potential flame war by reacting and most likely pushing someone else's buttons who is also likely to react and so on and so on? Will it get a good Dem elected? Will any of us learn something? Is it constructive, productive? If the answer is no, then, well, I stop typing. Why waste the energy?

    I don't agree with A LOT of what is said here, and I probably have opinions that many here would not agree with. But I still learn a lot here, and I still find community like today's hurricane threads to be of value to me, comforting, etc.

    •  I come here (none)
      to learn. There is so much unsifted information floating out in the universe and sifting through it is a herculean task. This is by and large an incredible community of amazingly knowledgeable and  well informed people.

      Yes, there are posts that at first read start the blood circulating a little faster and sometimes that first reading reflects the intent of the poster, sometimes not. Sometimes I sit back and wait for a few exchanges to see where it is going to go and feel no need to rate or post, other times not.

      I do find the pissing matches more than I want to deal with and perhaps they have been more frequent of late.  Hey, there's a lot of anxiety in the atmosphere these days. It gets reflected here as well as other places (like the freepers in Crawford for example).

      My needs are simple, good information, intelligent exchanges and a good dose of humor to help us all through these tense times. I am ever grateful for Dood Abides and others of his(?) ilk.

      "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

      by RevDeb on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:29:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh crap! (4.00)
    Do you realize what you've done, Hunter?  For the next week, we will be innundated with "Why I agree with Hunter," "Why I disagree with Hunter,"  "Why Hunter is wrong,"  "Hunter is wrong, but not about what you think," diaries...MetaJesus is going to kick your ass.  JM-halo'ish-O.  ;-)

    Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

    by Barbara Morrill on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:58:30 PM PDT

  •  Thank you (4.00)
    Though Miles O'Brien takes the award for "Outstanding Concise Smackdown" for his statement tonight that contra-flow sounded like "something Col. Oliver North would know a lot about."

    I've tried to tell people recently that I don't have issues with certain (not all) highly-opinionated people because they're highly opinionated but, instead, because they are simply ineffective.

    Being correct isn't enough, though it is a prerequisite.  We have to win, and sometimes that means not being so easily offended, and not flying so easily off the handle.

    Call me a pragmatist.  Call me a bastard.  I'm just trying to win so we can do some good in the world.  And that starts here.

    Power to the people 'cause the people want peace.

    by socratic on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 07:58:59 PM PDT

  •  With all due respect, Hunter (4.00)
    There's only one story tonight.  

    Katrina.  

    We may well lose one of America's greatest cities tomorrow.  This could be the last night that New Orleans, as we knows it, exists.

  •  Well said! (4.00)
    Now...can we get back to discussing the actual issues?? Like our support for Cindy, how we're going to help those in the path of this devastating storm (I'm more terrified for people every time I turn on the news), our fabulous winning strategies for 2006...etc. etc.

    I come here to discuss politics (and sometimes to have some fun (on the weekend nights mostly)...no offense to MetaJesus, but I think he's had WAY too much attention lately. Let's put him in solitary confinement for a while and move our debating skills on toward some actual progressive plans...

    •  yeah (4.00)
      I find all of the "how to get along on Kos" or "how to rate" discussions pretty boring.  Frankly I don't even understand this one.  

      I have gotten 30 4's on an offhand comment just cuz it's near the top.  And had what I thought were pretty great diaries that no one ever read.  Kind of the luck of the draw, and timing, if you ask me.  

      Oh well, I still love this site and love posting here whenever I have time.  But occasionally I feel like Rodney King: Can't we all just get along??!!!!

      The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

      by daveriegel on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:10:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Seconded... (none)
      ...to me it's as simple this, "You're OT: Get back to the main topic of the post/diary." It's almost like we're supposed to be handing out crying towels, and on a couple of occasions I've gotten personal and been fortunate enough to be called on it and have been attacked personally about posts.

      I know it's difficult at times to separate the politics from the personal, but we just have to consider what we're here for and what we're working toward before we hit "post." I think alot of us have  frayed political nerves with everything that has gone down the past five years, but the point, IMHO, is to layout different political perspectives to be discussed and mulled over in an effort to find greater understanding, better insight, and hopefully strategies and ideals to inform the future of the Democratic Party.

      I know it isn't for everyone, but I've caught myself a few times and I just ask myself, "What would Meta-Jesus post", er no, I just consider whether or not what I'm posting is on topic or not. Just ask yourself that question every time, before you post, and I think alot of the BS will be avoided.

      Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. -Tom Paine

      by Alumbrados on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:26:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The path is clear. (4.00)
    I am already contemplating a 14 part series on how this concept is like Hitler.
  •  To Sum Up: (4.00)
    "Less bitching, more figuring out how to win in '06."

    Russ Feingold for President!

    by Basil on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:02:05 PM PDT

  •  Speaking of sexist BS (4.00)
    Had any complaints on the beefcake picture yet.  Or does that only happen for bikini pix?  ;-)

    "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato

    by Bcre8ve on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:02:17 PM PDT

  •  Simply put: DO NOT CHARACTERIZE OTHERS (4.00)
    that is such an elementary part of reasonable discourse.

    it is so simple:   Don't say: "You are ....."    

    is that hard?
    Don't say: "You are ....."    
    Don't say: "You are ....."    
    Don't say: "You are ....."    
    Don't say: "You are ....."    
    Don't say: "You are ....."    

    Be a Carville, not a Colmes

    by seesdifferent on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:04:36 PM PDT

  •  This is a transformational opportunity: (none)
    Customers of McDonald's restaurants can now pick up a DVD rental along with their Big Macs and fries at a growing number of locations.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082701285_pf.html

    The best way to prove the DLC is out of touch is to build a vibrant Progressive movement

    by oratorio on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:04:45 PM PDT

  •  Hunter hunted? (none)
    n/t

    The best way to prove the DLC is out of touch is to build a vibrant Progressive movement

    by oratorio on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:05:45 PM PDT

  •  Phew (none)
    What a breath of fresh air Hunter! The fake outrage, über-PCness and rampant hypocrisy was getting out of control. Thank you for this, I hope you will be listened to.

    I HATE REPUBLICANS, HATE HATE HATE THEM!!!!!!!!! UGHHHHH

    by michael1104 on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:05:48 PM PDT

    •  fake outrage? (none)
      hmmm.

      name names or be forever silent.

      you guys keep making generalizations... so, I'll assume you are calling my outrage fake.

      If there is something fake it's the idea that the community leads kos.

  •  Hopeful (4.00)
    I am a relative newcomer here. I choose to work on this site because it is the most effective site that  I could find. The best analysis and the freshest ideas are here. However if I didn't support the political ideas here, then the best way, that I could hurt the site would be through inciting infighting. So I always assume that a real nasty post is doing just that, and I don't respond to it. We control our actions and our own responses.

    During a recent protest, two prowar protesters tried to provoke something and a whole bridge of people ignored them. Can we do the same?

    •  I've made this same argument before. (4.00)
      I won't hawk the old diary entry (I'd have to find the link for one, and I'm too lazy), but I said that if I were Rove, I'd have one of my minions delegated to keeping a weather eye on DK, Atrios, TalkLeft, and the other influential progressive blogs.  I'd also instruct them to stir up what shit they could by being inflammatory and trying to incite personal battles between posters.  Naturally, I imagine the vast majority of the shitstorms generated on this forum is started by our own, and continued by our own, but you just never know.  Be aware that if you get into some of these personal infights, you just might be playing into someone else's hand.

      This Far and No Further
      Tons of info and opinion on the right's attempted takeover of the USA

      by Black Max on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:18:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I dunno... (none)
        I think you're overestimating how important these blogs are.  They're becoming more important, sure, but when you take it down to the level of bickerings between individual posters it's pretty irrelevant.  

        I think the importance of these blogs comes from the organizing potential; I've already met a couple people from the internet IRL and we're organizing locally in the Lowell area now.  The discussion part is just what keeps us coming back.  A couple random people who are bored enough to argue points 3/4 of the way down the page aren't really hurting the movement any, and a paid staffer couple be doing way more valuable things with their time.

        •  Legal Junk Sifting (none)
          It takes me awhile to sift through stuff, and sometimes the best information is just beyond. It is a frequent second line of defense that goes like this

          • so you proved that X does this, it doesn't matter because everybody does X, the democrats (or fill in the blank) do it just as bad

          • slow down the opposition with anything. Even in legal cases, send all possible related information.

          • distraction, point at anything else and shift the focus

          • here's the evidence, followed by this is all just too complicated

          So yes, since I know of personal cases where stuff like this happened, I am willing to believe that there are more cases out there
  •  not leeches (4.00)
    to me, it's not like leeches.  Its like picking a scab.  We go from incendiary words, to conflict, to discussions ad naseum about the conflict, and we end up revisiting and revisiting things about which we don't agree.

    I think we all need to learn to walk away a bit earlier.  Otherwise you really get the sense that people are trying to get the last word, or be the last kossack posting, or something like that.

    My vote -- walk away.  if one diary doesn't convince others of the correctness of your point of view, another one with more invective or sanctimonious stuff probably is not going to do much better....

    Platitudinous speeches before friendly audiences won't calm unsettled minds. DMN

    by sophiebrown on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:06:48 PM PDT

  •  How About Some Meta Praise? (4.00)
    Earlier today, I saw a diary that I decided did not bear up under factual scrutiny.  

    I posted a comment and asked the diarist to investigate and to delete the diary if the facts stated were incorrect.  It is easy to get things wrong and I did not think the mistake was intentional.  I thought it was great that the diarist was receptive to self-policing his diary.

    Many people at Kos are willing to take another look at things when asked.  I find this refreshing.

  •  that 2 idea will help me out... (none)
    ..cause i'm onto tu status #3...i don't mean to be controversial, but sometimes i take a stand that i know isn't going to go over well, like talking shit back to china when china allows a general to threaten the US with nukes, but i feel like i have to say my piece for myself, not others... (got knocked off when i fell into the losing temper trap though...i fancy myself to have more control of temper now...)

    ...so, Hunter, how about getting Kos's new strategy group to put out some agenda ideas, put up one of those day-long polls for folks to vote on the proposed agenda, and get some forward motion on certain issues... there is a lot of untapped power here as some of recent elections have shown:  we need ORGANIZATION.  

    free-writing is great and should continue to be the engine that drives the rec list:  that's democracy in actoin after all...

    ...however, to "justify" your swinging balls (and i don't see to wide a swing radius from you guys and gals (any gals yet?)), why not do the organization/ agenda deal-i-o.

    Jesus: "Destroy this Temple" - Gospel of John

    by The Gnostic on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:07:19 PM PDT

  •  Let's not forget Bush IS the issue! (none)
    n/t

    The best way to prove the DLC is out of touch is to build a vibrant Progressive movement

    by oratorio on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:07:20 PM PDT

  •  As a teacher who is back-to-school tomorrow (4.00)
    I'd like to suggest teacher survival skill #1:  don't take anything personally.  People, these are STRANGERS.  If they act like jerks, what's it to you?  Just let it go, and spend your time conversing (or debating) with someone else on Kos who can actually offer you something.
  •  I didn't see the original post (none)
    so I don't know who posted it, but "swinging dick" is a well-known phrase popularized by the book Liar's Poker.  The Wall Street guys in the book liked to style themselves the Big Swinging Dicks.  (Tom Wolfe's version was the Masters of the Universe.)  So I wouldn't take that particular epithet as being a sexist insult.

    I've even heard the phrase applied - though humorously - to women.

    Just to add a bit of meta-etymology to your meta-meta-metadiscussion.

    *Springsteen for President*

    by hrh on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:08:02 PM PDT

    •  Liar's Poker (none)
      And how exactly were women portrayed in general in Liar's Poker? As equals or prizes to be won by wealthy and powerful men? I think you are making Hunter's point, not refuting it. Liar's Poker portrays traders as far more sexist than your typical NFL locker room.

      I said it. I meant it. I stand by it. - Major Paul Hackett

      by joejoejoe on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:34:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  but the traders (none)
        called themselves that, as a kind of raunchy version of Big Men On Campus.  I have always seen it used as a synonym for egotistical swagger, not sexism.  Of course the two can, and often do, go together.  That's why when a man comes into a discussion and suddenly takes on the attitude of a Master of the Universe, especially when he's talking to a woman, it can be perceived as sexist.

        *Springsteen for President*

        by hrh on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:36:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  "Give him a chance to step on his dick" (none)
      is an expression I first heard from a young male lawyer.  It was advice from an older male in his firm, on how to deal with a plaintiff's lawyer -- obviously also male, and full of himself -- at trial.  I don't think you have to be sexist to use that expression or references to "swinging dicks".  They certainly apply more easily to men than women, but they might be all the more striking applied to a woman.  

      Imagine either Ann Coulter or Hillary Clinton saying about the other, "Give her a chance to step on her dick."  It'd make the news, or at least the Daly Show.

      We're all pretty crazy some way or other; some of us just hide it better.

      by david78209 on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:34:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A technical solution to some of this mess. (none)
    Here is a request for a very simple small change to dailykos.com that would cool some of the friction, particularly between the diarists and the front-page people (and maybe this exists, but I couldn't find it).

    Please give us a page that lists only diaries, but ranks them, as the front page does, by recommendation level.  I'd like to see the top 30 most recommended diaries at any given moment.  In this sense the diaries would become their own mirror kos, able to do their own thing without feeling like they were relegated to a narrow column on the front page or to search results.  The diary page as it is is insufficient, since it lists all diaries, and the whole recommendation thing was invented to figure out a way to filter the deluge.  

    Failing that, merely allowing the search function to search by recommendation level, or number of comments, would allow me to bookmark a search for, say, diaries ranked by recommendation level or number of comments.  This would be a community page, and cost the the front page absolutely nothing.

    How about it, guys?

    •  Or Maybe (none)
      a way to rate diaries, rather than just a way to rate comments.

      "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato

      by Bcre8ve on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:15:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  i wish this were an option also (none)
      how hard would it be from a programming standpoint to add a sort option that would arrange diaries with the most recommended ones on top (much as we can already sort comments within threads)?

      Sometimes I want to see the most recently written diaries, to check whether something new has already been posted, or just to get the sense of what is going on.

      But there are times when trolls are roaming or when there are several similar diaries on a topic and I'd like to be able to see quickly which non-rec list diaries are the most recommended. I don't mind scrolling down to see which ones have the most comments, but there's no quick way to see the recommends.  Maybe that would be an even easier way to do it--to list the # of recommends with the # of comments?

      Maybe I'm the only one who enjoys metadiaries but I feel I always get a lot out of examining and talking about process.

      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 10:42:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This should not be a front page post (none)
    When Kos does some BLog cleaning he post it as a diary.

    This should be more of a diary.  

    Stop Corporate Influence; buy DEMOCRACY BONDS!!! http://www.democrats.org/democracybonds.html

    by timber on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:09:07 PM PDT

    •  I've tried that before, (3.50)
      as have others, and the people who need to see them don't. So now I'm going to up the ante, and bring the full force of frontpage hell down on these problems, if only for a brief twenty-minute span of time.

      This isn't just about DailyKos. This is about the entire progressive movement, as the last paragraphs make clear, and its persistent failures to get its house in order.

  •  I think Armando (none)
    is am aggressive, controversial, halo wearing sexist shill for the rwnm... and I'm sick and tired of it.

    So I'm going to let you all in on something...

    ...his real name is Al From.

    "We have the power. Sorry if you don't like the fact that we've decided to use it." Posted by Jeremey*in*MS at February 3, 2005 01:59 PM

    by Andrew C White on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:09:45 PM PDT

  •  who knows how to (none)
    eliminate their old diaries? can it be done? i would like to do this, as most of my old diaries are simply a waste of bandwidth.

    when i push the "edit diary" button, i get a message that says "sorry, you may only edit your own diaries."

    somebody throw me a bone, people.

    No member of our generation who wasn't a Communist or a dropout in the thirties is worth a damn. Lyndon B. Johnson

    by maskling11 on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:10:25 PM PDT

    •  can't (none)
      if it's old enough to be archived (a few weeks), you can't edit it (and that includes deleting it).
      several of us have emailed the "tech support" address about this, got no response.
      so much else going on for the site and the country and the world right now, but maybe someday we'll get old-diary-deletion privileges.
    •  I just tried to do that (none)
      And it gave me the same "Sorry..." message. I deleted one a few days ago. I think these diaries are now archived since the technical changes that were made recently, but I'm not sure.

      War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

      by Margot on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:32:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can't erase the past, dude. (4.00)
      Believe me-- I'd love to get rid of much of the early 90's.
  •  Small problem (4.00)
    There are a substantial number of people who hang around blogs who like being "offended." They live for it. They rant to get a response. If no one responded, there would be no reason to rant. But there are a substantial number of people who live to respond to rants. And, so it goes.

    This is a "problem" that many don't want fixed.

    Rate 'em down, sure. But if you want to hit them where it hurts, ignore them.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:10:39 PM PDT

    •  yeah, i know (none)
      Speaking of which, there's something I've been meaning to ask Maryscott O'conner:

      why was this okay?  

      Didn't you know the rules?  

      Q for Hunter or whoever:  how much of one's identity must you attempt to reveal before the offense is considered bannable?

  •  6 months here, Flame Wars like Spam (none)
    I skim it too fast to REALLY know all the details.

    disclaimer:

    my first job in the white collar world, the FIRST time I understood Dilbert, was in May 1997 when I was 37 and I got hired to work in the email SERVER support group as a contractor at MSFT.

    we used email alot. regardless of the proposed schema or rules for subjects, emails, underwear ... the proposed fell apart.

    math -
    I can skim 100 emails in less than 2 minutes, AND, of the 96 or 99 I delete, only 1 out of 200 or 500 is really missed. screw it.

    CONCLUSION:
    when harry met sally, when sally called harry, when harry cheated on sally - I haven't a freaking clue most of the time.  

    I have spent more time on this post than I spend skimming any freaking thread about any fight, cuz, as I skim the thread, there is so much insider jargon and insider commentary about prior fights that I just don't bother figuring it all out.

    Want a reference to tear up and piss on and worry about ?

    Read

    Judeo Christian Culture - looking for ... saviors.

    http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/8/25/222758/581/164#164

    sounds like too many are looking for too much from a site where we can  ...

    bob.

    Grassroots Organizing Should Be for The Community, By The Community - NOT for "Leaders" http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

    by rmdewey on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:11:28 PM PDT

  •  hehe (4.00)
    I think this whole kinda thing is pretty funny - not the diary just the meta stuff that goes on.

    I am amazed how people get so worked up over shit written on the internet - when their kids, or dogs are right next to them in their warm comfy homes.

    I think folks take this whole thing a little too seriously at times and need to get out more.

    I must admit, of late, dkos has sounded an awful lot more like Democratic underground that dkos. signal to noise ration is definitely up - here is hoping that it goes back down soon - because i want to get back to the business of kicking Republicans in the nuts (is that sexists or just aggressive? LOL) and us to stop acting like pussies (now THAT is sexist ! right?!)

    •  this is what most people think (none)
      and also why most people don't give a damn about politics and will stop you if you try to discusse it, "in the real world".

      The same real world where Brittany is important.

  •  i'd stopped posting... (4.00)
    ...my little satires and ironic number crunches because i was getting sick of being monotonously lambasted rather than challenged and/or engaged. hopefully this thread will clear the air.

    thanks, hunter...

    i'll check back in and see if anything changes - but i can only hold my breath for so long...

  •  I can't resist (4.00)
    Gaze.

  •  Damn yo! (none)
    Did you infiltrate the BBQ I was at yesterday?  Talking to another dKos poster, I made the exact same points you did, especially on the "sexism" complaint and the ratings abuse.  
    •  The sexism thing... (none)
      ... you know, the man-bashing that happened during the pie wars, made me want to kill people.

      My husband was very critical of a lot of that sexist man-bashing bullshit, but he was polite about it.

      Must have gotten 0 - rated by the same bunch of assholes - male and female - over and over again, on different diaries.

      And he's about as progressive as you can get, and abhors people who treat women as second-class citizens.

      I'm still pissed off about it.

      •  Me too (none)
        But some of the same people doing the male bashing are also the same people who treated the men of the site like assholes within abortion diaries.  I think  it's easier to dismiss a man with a "frat boy" remark, than to actually engage him and get him to say what he thinks, clearly and concisely.  Lord knows I do it to my husband ("You're a dick sometimes") and he does it himself ("What do I know, I'm just a man") and we work around it like adults generally do.
      •  what were the 'pie wars' (none)

        Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

        by mdhatter on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:00:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They were an excuse... (none)
          ...for a lot of people who don't like Kos (especially the ones who were the most vocal in calling him an anti-woman DLC tool because he didn't automatically condemn anti-abortion Democrats) to hive off and start their own blog.  (Which, I think, has itself now fragmented, much as the mutineers on the Bounty got less, not more, self-discipline after they ditched Captain Bligh.)

          The short version:  They were silly ads featuring Ginger and Mary Ann and pies.  If the ads had featured Ashton Kutcher and Brad Pitt, nobody would have said 'boo'.  As it was, they make the perfect pretext for the professional outrage machines to go hiving off into the night.

          •  I don't recall anyone (4.00)
            calling Kos "an anti-woman DLC tool." I don't know all of the people who left during that period, but I can think of at least three who were considered, for the most part, valuable contributors to the site. As well, they were neither extreme in tone nor critical of Kos.  
        •  It's pretty long and complicated (none)
          But it boils down to a couple of ads that appeared on the site, featuring two scantily-clad women. In one image they were about to engage in a pie fight and the other was an "after" shot.

          Some people on this site were offended by the ads and called for Kos to take them down. He refused, but complicated matters by saying that he wasn't going to cave to the "women studies" crowd. In my opinion, it was that statement that caused the biggest uproar.

          It didn't help that Kos up until then had been rough on NARAL and, in some posters' minds, somewhat dismissive of women's issues in general.

          It all added up to two weeks worth of diaries featuring the word "pie" and in the end, some of this site's brightest posters left, never to return.

          •  as I remember it (none)
            the whole thing began when one woman poster said something like "I am so sick of that damn pie ad", and a couple of other women agreed, and then some macho dude blurted "What's wrong with you?  Sex is good!" and then all hell broke loose.

            It was a classic case of "Men are from Mars and are Brutish Clods, Women are from Venus and are Oversensitive".

            *Springsteen for President*

            by hrh on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:45:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Someone did a diary, I think (none)
              There was a backgrop though, which is that a lot of posters thought there was/is a macho tone to this site that tends to push issues that are important to women to the side.

              I maintain that the true uproar began when Kos weighed in.

              Personally I had no problem with the ad. I look at stuff like that and see two women working women getting paid, which is fine by me.

              As this site has grown by leaps and bounds, I wonder sometimes if Kos doesn't think that his sometimes controversial statements and posts have contributed to that growth. I myself am not sure if that is the case or not.

              •  Sorry I Missed it then (none)
                Tying back to Hunters point, Oversensitive clods, who needs 'em?

                I see him as saying 'If you take yourself so seriously, you won't be a good part of the team anyhow, so go start your own blog', which sounds like the pie incident? no?

                So Kos basically stirred the shitpot? well, good for Kos, It's his front porch we're sittin' on, after all.

                and good for Hunter too. And for Armando.

                every shitpot needs stirring, lest it boil over.

                Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

                by mdhatter on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 10:09:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Naw (none)
                  It that case, the site could have lived without Kos's "women studies" blunder. Like I said, the handful of people who left left during the pie wars were quality posters, and I don't think it's a good idea to make a practice of driving aways people who are bright and write well.
              •  a Modest Proposal (none)
                Maybe we should ban discussion of abortion, sinced that always seems to get the gender wars going full blast.

                Not outright ban it - but agree amongst ourselves that we just won't talk about it.  Change the subject.  "How 'bout them RED SOX?" that's what we say in our house, whenever a potentially-explosive discussion needs derailing.

                I mean, abortion is hugely important and all, but does it really help one way or the other to have these knock-down drag-outs about it?

                *Springsteen for President*

                by hrh on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 10:16:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  MetaJesus will forgive them... (4.00)
    for they know not what they do.
  •  that was very moving (none)
    thank you. I hope everybody feels better now.

    As for ratings, I believe in positive reinforcement.

    Hopefully your new guidelines will be taken to heart by EVERYBODY here.  

  •  the problem (none)
    is that we are progressives (or even just politically active at all) because of our halos of self-righteousness.  Even this post that you're reading right now is a result of my own ego.  The only way to avoid it, however, is to not even respond, because response shows interest.

    So, my point is that your post here, Hunter, was counter-productive because it only draws attention to the fools.  Ignore them and, even if they don't go away, they'll be marginalized so that they'll be more likely to stop, anyway.

    More pointedly, 8 million people are enslaved in Haiti, 4 million are going to die of starvation in Niger, and 25 million are about to be ruined by civil war in Iraq: Those are much better places to direct our self-righteousness.

  •  Teachers can be right sometimes Moms always (none)
    It is time to be adults.  I enjoy good information with good argumentation and suggestions for action.

    How about personal attacks? Uh, yeah, and my name is Karl and that's what I do.  Right, guys?  We are all adult enough and smart enough to validate for ourselves when what we are reading is real and helpful.  The Rethuglicans can do the personal attacks and keep doing that.  It is such an obvious way to "out" yourself.

    Join us  in "blogistan" for progressives and ignore the "thugs".

    The SmartMom

  •  Why are they called Diary? (none)
    Because if you had a big sister she never wanted you reading her diary! I think journal is more correct as it is intended to be read. But what is the big fuss about at times I had been a little immature and gave someone a retalitory 1. However, as a more senior blogger once wrote s/he doesn't rate anything unless s/he can give it a 4. (which I agree with) I mean if you give me a 1 BFD..that's your choice.  I mean who cares unless their going to hand out name tags at next year dkos convention.

    As for rating people frequently, you know that Dood Abides.. has had two great post recently "Bush Scar" & "Bush cleans up camp casey"

  •  This is a test, right? (none)
    But only a test, right? We all know that the Republicans will gladly "out" writers of liberal blog posts if it serves their purposes. Why would they be threatened by the prospect of banishment? Or is this post merely to scare those upstart individuals who might, of their own curiousity or analysis, dare to question the veracity of the editorial authoritariate here? Please, "Hunter", or whoever you really are, think before you write.
  •  The DLC (none)
    deserves every bit of invective they get and more.  Tar and feathering would be much more suitable of course, but I'm not sure where to get that many feathers.
  •  etaoin (none)
    You don't have to like this post. You don't have to agree with it. You don't even have to read it.

    Damn, Hunter. I sure wish you'd put that boldfaced part higher up in the post.

  •  thank god (none)
    Reading the Kid Oakland diary a couple of days ago I wondered if this site had jumped the shark.

    It's ALL about egos. The whining has become incessant. But I understand, to a degree...it is much easier to talk about yourself - your hurt feelings, your feeling slighted, your whatever - than it is to talk about the subject at hand - Delay, WMDS, Social Security etc.

    I'm just a lurker, but irritated all the same.
    Save that crap for Yahoo chat or Teen Beat.

  •  My ratings suggestion (none)
    I think there should be three ratings:

    • I agree with this comment

    • I disagree with this comment

    • I think this comment should be hidden

    What more do we need?


    "It is a common delusion that you make things better by talking about them." - Dame Rose Macaulay

    by Zackpunk on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:31:29 PM PDT

    •  I think that's a bad idea (none)
      agreement or disagreement is something that needs to be expressed in words. If you start offering a rating for "I disagree", you'll get a lot of "I disagree" ratings, with no explanation for them. That's bad for the site.

      There's already enough troll rating for disagreement with no explanation as it is.

      Ann Arbor is a city, not my name

      by AnnArborBlue on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:45:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's why people can respond to comments (none)
        Almost all ratings are 4's. I'd wager that 99% of the ratings given are 4's. People rate comments a 4, because they agree with the comment. That how people use the ratings system, to indicate that they agree with a comment. Let's face it, 2 and 3 are vague and useless ratings. And one can find a comment valuable and still disagree. People should be able to rate a comment in a way that indicates disagreement, without troll rating.


        "It is a common delusion that you make things better by talking about them." - Dame Rose Macaulay

        by Zackpunk on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:18:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There should be a (none)
          "thumbs up" rating for posts you agree with/find hilarious. Then 4's could be reserved for preticularly well written/ insightful posts. I find that I personally give most of my 4's to posts I find especially clever/funny. Is this a bad thing? Maybe. But it's my way of expressing my apreciation when I don't have anything else to say that would warent a responding post.
  •  wow (none)
    Personally I still try to follow the advice my mamma gave me as a kid. If I don't have something nice to say about somebody, I keep my mouth closed.

    My philosophy is to hand out 4's only or not to rate a post at all.

    I guess there are a lot of loony tunes people out there and so called trolls. But heck, that ain't my job to defend the world against them.  I'm with Voltaire: I might not agree a whit with what you say, but I will defend unto death your right to say it.

    Fools rush in where fools have been before.

    by Marcus Junius Brutus on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:32:12 PM PDT

  •  tedious (4.00)
    All of this in-fighting and site analyzation is incredibly tedious.  Upon reading this diary (after the summer of pie hole controversies and what not), I can't help but wonder how disappointing someone from the "outside" would think of all this.  It disappoints me and I'm a regular.

    Does someone want to check out the hottest liberal blog on the web only to find repeated diary entries on the members within it, what there unique personality issues are, and how every member of this (growing) community thinks about it?  Jesus.  I know it's not as easy as saying "get over it, there is OTHER shit going on in the world," but people... come on.  If you don't like it, rate it accordingly and move on.  MOVE ON.

    I've often avoided posting in these kind of diaries because I believe it's better, bigger, and more productive to just move on.  There's so much more worth reading and getting pissed off about.  The inner-personality-politics of dailykos.com is NOT what I come here to read about.  I doubt anyone else is much interested as well.

    I respect you Hunter, always have.  You, among the many other posters here, frontpage and otherwise, are amazingly gifted people with insight I wish I had.  That's why I come here... to learn from you.  It's fucking amazing.  Can you please, please, please... after this diary, get back to business?  Can we all?  

    •  If this one post successfully prevented... (4.00)
      ... the next twenty metadiaries about everyone's hurt feelings from appearing in the right-hand diary list, it will have been a success. This post didn't appear in a vacuum, I only felt it necessary because of the months of nonsense before it.

      I'm trying to tell people exactly what you are saying, in fact -- enough. Enough with the boring nonsense, stop nursing your hurt feelings, now go post some good stories.

      Then again, this post may cause twenty metadiaries about everyone's hurt feelings and how outraged they are that I don't understand that. No way to tell.

      But I think there is more benefit to saying it than to not saying it, or I wouldn't have posted it.

      •  Let's hope so my friend... (none)
        I guess the key would be when those 20 diaries get written (which, inevitably, they will) to just ignore them and go about your business.  Walk away as you've said your piece.  You've got far too much other stuff to speak your mind to... and I'll continue to look forward to it.

        Good diary...  NEXT!

        :)
        kyle

      •  I totally disagree! (none)
        Quel suprise!

        I have a couple of ideas:

        1. next time you get a bug up your personal not-speaking-as-a-representative-of-dkos behind about something someone has written, why don't you post a diary about it instead of a front page item.

        2. better yet, post a comment to them in their diary.

        In return, because you will be more democratic, you won't spawn a bunch of metadiaries or women's studies types like me (if there are any others left since Kos ran them off) hounding you for your sins.

        You've had a great sense of humor in your more substantive diaries and it would be a shame if you redirected all your creative energy toward   self-righteous defense of your undemocratic acts of symbolic violence. (I feel compelled to place an emoticon right about here ;)

  •  Reflections of a newbie (none)
    So people really follow people around to give them bad ratings? Wow, that just blows my mind. If I like a comment (of course, amazingly enough I always agree with it) I generally give it a four. One day the drop down box changed and there was this new addition of troll. I guess I became a TU. Never have used it. I have to admit I have never wanted to be a policeman. There have been posts that I do not agree with but the beauty of this place is that I just move on unless I have something I think might be intelligent to say. I will say that I admit liking getting my ego stroked when I get a bunch of 4's. It bothers me a little that I like that so much. What I do like about this place is the fact I get to vent and every once in a while someone says something and I learn something new. That is the best time. I am so hard headed that it does not happen often. Someone explained to me why the religious love to torture people. The answer was obvious. Bothered me for years. So for me, I really do not get what the problem is. This is a good place.

    Change 10% of the electorate and we will have a landslide and a mandate.

    by Jlukes on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:35:42 PM PDT

    •  Yes, some people follow others around and (none)
      down-rate their comments. It happened to me just today because I gave her a two and then so she gave me 2 2's on 2 different comments and then so I commented once more and gave her yet another two.

      I'm not sure if it was the "Hunter 2" or not, but that's what we did. I would never want to date her, and I am not at all ashamed of my own testosterone or my generation, but mostly I think some people are just addicted to anger.

      It goes with the territory, engage a mad person, they sting you.

      In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

      by yet another liberal on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:58:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I found your diary provided a sense of relief (4.00)
    and then... I read the first 37 comments and noted several complaints about the topic not being about something completely different; others that were completely flip; and others that were bordering on being offended.  I had to take your third option on the poll as a result.

    I became fascinated with DailyKos at first because for the most part it seemed like a "constructive" environment of debate and discussion.

    More and more I am witnessing destruction for the sake of the act.  The name-calling is getting to be sickening.  

    Lately I am feeling that the only difference between this place and second grade is that people here can type.

    Maybe a little bit of Thumper's Mother's advice would help: "If you don't have something nice to say, then don't say anything at all."  That is extreme, but some civility is in order when dealing with other human beings.

    Please don't misconstrue the above to mean that I don't believe in or want people to engage in debate or arguments, but there is a line that is being crossed more and more - name-calling, troll-rating and more. A veritable cornucopia of agressive behaviors most of which seem to be very self-serving and never advance the cause or the discussion is cropping up daily.

    It is frankly pathetic to see people resort to name-calling or arguing just for the sake of arguing.  

    Just remember the mean-spirited things you said in the sand box in second grade do not live on in infamy the way that your comments do here on the internet.  

    Also please remember that there are people behind each and every typed word here.  Real human beings who deserve respect no matter how much you may disagree with them are behind these screens.

  •  I agree. (none)
    "I'm glad both sides are sitting up in their chairs, now. But now comes the productive part of the discussion. Posts like the one I cited, above?

    "I'm sick of them. From all sides."

    Me too. New rule:

    No posts that make Hunter sick. From all sides!

    What shall we do to punish them what don't obey?

  •  The Four Agreements of dailykos.com (none)
    #1 - Be impeccable with your words.

    #2- Don't take anything personally.

    #3- Do not make assumptions.

    #4- Always do your best.

    Maybe kos should create one of those "user agreements" that insists you click "I agree" before posting something.  It could serve as a simple reminder....

    Of course, I don't mean this, but these are four principles worth remembering, both in daily life and daily kos.

  •  Wake up assholes! (2.80)
    Stop this circle jerk and remember WHAT IS GOING ON:

    • We are well on the way to a coup by the American Taliban

    • Our economy may well implode from debt load and soaring oil prices

    • NOLA is about to be destroyed (and with it a big chunk of our petro-industry infrastructure)

    • We are in a war our government started that we cannot win, that is bleeding us and showing the world our might is a paper tiger, yeah we can blow shit up with planes but we can't secure the highway from Baghdad to the airport

    So why the FUCK is everybody so goddamned concerned about THEIR opinions and THEIR self-worth?  This has bugged me for a couple years now...too many bloggers think this is reality, when this is just typing shit into a computer.  You think the fucking Repiglicans waste their evil breath with this kind of shit?

    FOCUS!!!

    Peace in a world free of Religion, Peace in a world where everyone gets Heaven... -- Toni Halliday

    by Wintermute on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:45:57 PM PDT

    •  I love posts like this. (none)
      Anything with the subject line "Wake up assholes!" has to be good. Why are you so worked up if we're just "typing shit into a computer" here?
      •  Wake up Admiral Santa! (4.00)
        Stop commenting on shit and pay attention to me, me, me.

        I Am The King Of The Eleven Comment Diary

        by CalbraithRodgers on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:56:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I wish my name (none)
          was Admiral Santa.

          The revolution is ongoing.

          by The Gryffin on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:28:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  why things won't change (none)
          as evidenced by many of the comments in this thread.

          1st person:  I don't agree with hunter and this is why

          2nd person:  I do and your violating sentence 2 paragraph 3 subsection c

          3rd person:  I agree with both hunter and 1st person

          2nd person:  inane humor

          1st person:  So you can say what you want and I can't?

          3 person:  Yeah, unless it conforms to our acceptability quotient.

          I'm not picking on anybody in this post its just where I decided to hit reply to this.  But reading the thread this act is played out over and over and you know what?  It's fine.  We are here to argue.  We are here to learn.  We are here to feel like we are a part of a whole.  That's not a bad thing.  

          Yep, some take it too seriously.  Some don't like to admit when they're wrong.  Some don't have all the facts.  But that too is how we learn.  A comment is made.  A comment is considered.  A comment is corrected.  A fact is corrected.  Everyone goes away feeling like they've learned something (most of the time.)

          Yep, nobody is going to feel like they are getting a fair shake 100% of the time.  So what.  It seems to me that everyone gets roasted once in a while.  It also seems that everyone gets praised more than they get roasted.

          I haven't seen the glaring ratings wars of last year by any means.  During the election comments were either 4's all the way or 0's all the way.  People had no tolerance for disagreement.  I think its much better here since I returned.

          I didn't know that "outing" identities was a problem.  If so why?  What possible good does it do for one Kossack to give out anothers name or address or phone number?  I mean that is just a grow up issue.

          Anyhoo, I agree with everyone most of the time and no one some of the time and as Bilbo would say:  "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like and I like half of you half as well as you deserve...I'm going now, I bid you all a very fond goodnight...goodbye."

          I'm gonna buy a gun and start a war, if you could tell me something worth fighting for.-----Coldplay

          by CO4Kerry2004 on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:33:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's what you do with it... (none)
        To the extent that we raise money, mobilize people, spread information, and work for regime change here at home, then this "typing shit into a computer" is worth something.

        Anything else is worthless.

        Peace in a world free of Religion, Peace in a world where everyone gets Heaven... -- Toni Halliday

        by Wintermute on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:56:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Chuckle.. (none)
        Anything with the subject line "Wake up assholes!" has to be good.

        Or very, very bad.... (not safe for work or kids, via metafilter.com)

        Power to the people 'cause the people want peace.

        by socratic on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:01:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  psst (none)
      I think this is some of the self-righteousness that he's talking about, the "don't focus on your opinions, focus on what I think is important" stuff that really gets tedious after a while.

      Ann Arbor is a city, not my name

      by AnnArborBlue on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:55:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Should we (none)
        take the "Hunter 2" on a shakedown cruise?

        I Am The King Of The Eleven Comment Diary

        by CalbraithRodgers on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:57:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ab So Lute Ly (none)
          It almost HAS to be a plant, no-one accidentally walks into it quite that bissfully unaware..

          Often the ininspired, Off-topic, or dumb but correct posts will get a 3 from me, so long as they're trying.

          Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

          by mdhatter on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:14:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hahaha... (none)
        Yeah the
        So why the FUCK is everybody so goddamned concerned about THEIR opinions and THEIR self-worth?"
        ...as followed immediately by:
        This has bugged me for a couple years now...
        Was an unfortunate juxtaposition. But I can't in good conscience rate a good parody -- intentional or not -- with a 2, so I'm just going to stay out of it.
    •  what are you saying? (none)
      That the general opinions and environment on a weblog isn't the most important issue facing us today?

      Shocking.

      You know it's all beginning to feel like it's ending.

      by hstokes on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:58:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  so... (none)
      "So why the FUCK is everybody so goddamned concerned about THEIR opinions and THEIR self-worth?  This has bugged me for a couple years now"

      So you're concerned about your opinion, for a couple of years now.   Speaks for itself.

      You may even have a point in there, but calling everyone "assholes" shows you're not serious.  Just self-righteous.

    •  I had to let you know (none)
      I gave you a two.

      It's nothing personal, but if you read the original post, it;s sort of exactly about how YOU are repsonsible for stopping the 'circle-jerk'.

      So, you walked into it. I apologise. You are correct in what you posted. i agree with you regaring the bigger issues, but I also find you to be so unbelevably off topic, that, well, I find your contribution to THIS conversation to be "marginal".

      You, personally, smart, bright, and well spoken. We agree very often.

      Your comment, in My opinion, totally worthless here OR intentionally so. Either way, it's just a number.

      Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

      by mdhatter on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:20:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I've never understood people.... (none)
      who say writing stuff on a comupter isn't reality.  Oh, it's not your real life, that's true, but to reduce it to something like robotic key punching when you are communication with people, it's as real as a conversation, or can be if the people you communicate with are for real and not pretending to be above this sort of relating to one another through written words on a screen.

      "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

      by Cathy on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:35:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is (none)
        certainly a 'meta-conversation', if you will.

        I liken it to an auditorium full of people with megaphones. Noisy and cacophonous, but also capable of blowing the roof off.

        Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

        by mdhatter on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 10:15:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Metadays (none)
    It might be useful if we informally adopted a community understanding that Meta Diaries were highly encouraged only on a certain day - say Saturday. Meta Diaries on off days would be highly discouraged.

    A few Meta Open Threads during the week and a generous helping of spontaneous WYFP? Diaries and I think some of this counter productive shit stirring could be kept to a dull roar.

    I said it. I meant it. I stand by it. - Major Paul Hackett

    by joejoejoe on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:52:14 PM PDT

  •  pearls of wisdom (none)
    Don't rate anyone that you are in an active, hostile argument with. Argue or rate, but don't do both.  This single rule (if followed) would be a huge improvement -- IMHO.

    Might I add: Don't rate anyone that a friend is having an active, hostile arguement with?

    I Am The King Of The Eleven Comment Diary

    by CalbraithRodgers on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:53:07 PM PDT

  •  *claps* (none)
    This is a good example of why some cycle regulation is necissary, be it economic, or sociological.

    But I won't be frustrated by the fire in your eyes as you're staring at the sun

    by Izixs on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 08:56:46 PM PDT

  •  Hey, I'd be thrilled if someone just read my stuff (4.00)
    I seem to have the opposite problem - nobody ever reads or comments on my 'contributions.'  I would much rather someone went ballistic on me in one of my never-read diaries or comments, even if they troll-rate me!  Feed me Seymour!

    Let justice reign though the heavens tremble

    by Viceroy on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:07:16 PM PDT

  •  The 65,000 need the riot act read to them, sure... (none)
    but there's not enough understanding in this post for what some of the arguing is about.  There's too much effort here to say "well, if it's pissing you off, then look, somebody else gets pissed off about their thing, and anyway you're probably just as subjective as the people who can't see that their beef is no more or less legitimate than yours, all beefs are the same subjective thing..."

    Um, they are not.  Some arguments are well worth having and are from people who have a high threshold for fairness.

    I don't abuse with ratings.  I don't even think of them half the time when I'm moved to strong disagreement; I'm ready to say what for and why.  I don't even think of applying a number to it.

    And thanks for telling us you're on the look out for abusers and saying up front that you want them gone. But, to my mind that's never been the worst thing about what can happen here.  It's all the other things you very accurately portrayed:  the purity tests and the rampant hypcorisy.  I guess when that gets expressed in abusing the ratings system you have a point, but the diaries and comments, the words themselves are the problem for me.  NOT that there's a thing you can do about that, but as long as we're doing the shout out to the community...

    I find the two-facedness of writing here where you get the most exposure, and yet mocking this community and disparging the creator and the front pagers as the gestapo doing his bidding elsewhere a weasely thing to do.

    Otherwise, of course, I think people have a right to challenge the tone of the front pagers and the creator, just hopefully it would be done without excessive personal attacking.  Because the thing is to try to be understood not to do personality or ideological purity transplants.  Just accept people are who they are, but stress that here's behavior that isn't productive or condusive to good public forum standards and try to make yourself understood.

    "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

    by Cathy on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:09:34 PM PDT

    •  Yes, but (none)
      "Some arguments are well worth having and are from people who have a high threshold for fairness."

      also

      "but stress that here's behavior that isn't productive or condusive to good public forum standards and try to make yourself understood."

      and some people insist on complaining about the mud in their eyes when they're finished wrestling the pig, while others complain about the pig cheating. Complaints that some animals are more equal are also too common.

      Just let the stupid pig be, public forum standards, even in the real world and the real past, have NEVER worked perfectly, nor particualrly well, anywhere.

      but we get by

       

      Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

      by mdhatter on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:39:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So, as Hunter says some things aren't good.... (none)
        for the coalition here, I say some of these arguments flesh out things that are not good for the coalition here.

        "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

        by Cathy on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:52:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  My take on the hippie controversy (none)
    I am not offended. I am way too young to have been a hippie.

    What I am is dissapointed and disgusted that liberals and democrats alike have bought into the Reich Wing discourse. Substitute hippie  for blame-America-first and you will see how conservatives distorted and demonized yet another term of the english language. Except that this time they were so efficient that they got OUR SIDE using it.

    I would feel the same if Kos, Dean or another Dem of note said "I am not part of the blame-America-first liberals".

    The hippies of the 60's who are still around today got married, had kids, got degrees, got elected CEOs and even President (Clinton). They dress at GAP or DKNY and relax on jeans and t-shirts. Just because a few of the more radical didn't adjust and move beyond sex, drugs, etc.. it doesn't mean the  60's ideals are dead. They have evolved, just as the 60's generation has for the most part.

    Don't let the reich wing define liberalism and it's culture for us, that's what I'm saying...

    •  Blame South Park (none)
      Eric Cartman is the one who re-popularized 'hippie'

      and he had a damn good point, not that I really want to get into that... but wearing patchouli is like wearing sweatpants.

      They each have a time and a place, and neither should be worn in a public place by anyone wishing to be taken seriously.

      Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

      by mdhatter on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:43:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  nothing new under the sun (none)
    I'm sure that this has been said before, but as a newcomer, I'd like to know why these ratings are necessary. Stopping "trolls" with a ratings system is as futile as trying to stop missiles with star wars missile defense. It never works because trolls will always refine their tactics and become more insidious. There's only one way to stop trolls: ignore them. Why not replace the rating system with an ignore button that you could press on a user and make their comments invisible to you?

    Obviously this argument was settled a long time ago, and my side lost. But I'm compelled to say that that having crap like a ratings system, trusted user status, secret blogs, and mojo diaries brings out the worst in people. I'd rather live in an online world where people can say what they want, and if you don't like it you have the freedom to respond or ignore them. That's why I prefer to post on other sites (as Kos would suggest I do). On the other hand, one of the reasons that I keep reading this site is because the trollish part of me loves all of the silly internal drama. It's like a soap opera for liberal political junkies. It will continue as long as some people come here to be validated by others, and other people come here to argue about anything and everything. These two groups will always be offending each other and getting offended at the other's offense. Since the "leaders" of this site can't stop it, I think that they shouldn't condescend themselves to address it. Front-page posts such as this just add fuel to the fire. Get down to business and let the scrubs flounder around in this stupid shit.

    •  Basically true (none)
      Ignore the trolls and, as one person said up-thread, avoid the diaries with titles that give away the inanity of the contents. Hippie controversy diaries? I clicked on one, read for 10 seconds and clicked out. Booooring.

      Most of the time, I look at only a few comments in the beginning, middle and end of a thread.

      The silly internal drama, I guess I miss a lot of it using these techniques. I still don't get why everyone's always ragging on Armando, for example. If you get incensed with everything he writes, then don't fucking read his stuff! Or make an intelligent rebuttal, either way, but don't start with the name calling.

      Your opinion is that this is not front page news, so to speak. I, however, am glad Hunter stepped up to the plate to whack some of the naughtiest kids' butts--maybe they'll run home now. The sandbox was getting messy. I don't think many of us will miss the loud, whiny twits.

    •  "secret blogs"? (4.00)
      News to me.  Oh well, I'm always the last to know.

      And FrostyKotex - that is one hideous username you got there, buddy.

      *Springsteen for President*

      by hrh on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 10:20:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Meta (none)
    I no longer pay attention to diaries like this that aren't about actual news. There's too much damage being done by Republicans to pay attention to this stuff.
    •  but... (4.00)
      ...You just DID pay attention.

       

    •  proxy for coalition (none)
      all the jibes about metajesus and navel gazing and the real world.

      No. NO NO NO.

      This is the core problem.  We have no coalition.  We cannot count on people like kos to embrace the whole coalition.

      OH, the fucking greens are supposed to swallow their pride and vote for John "yes, WAR!" Kerry, but it's just not supposed to be reciprocal.

      you can forget about the real world if you don't get your house in order.

  •  hmmm... (none)
    I'd actually like to read about the adventures in Vegas of someone named Hunter. It probably entails a lot less of the self-righteous taking themselves so seriously.  But whatever.

    Took me a while to learn to not freak out at everything I saw as freakworthy.  20-something years, in fact.  So I have patience for those who still do.  Even if they're being silly and they don't know it.  Especially if they have a reason to freak out but keep cool and merciless.

    Anyway...

  •  Huh? (4.00)
    " I would've written a shorter letter, but I didn't have the time."
    The whole `look-how-outraged-I-am' schtick -- it works a lot better when it's crisp and clear.  This is like the Siege of Verdun, muddy and interminable.  
  •  Hunter 2 is good except for one thing (none)
    It will crowd out the strength of "2" when used for marginal posts. Y'know; not necessarily offensive, etc., but just kinda shitty and annoying; that disrupt the thread and are lazy and so forth.

    Yes, yes, they're not mutually exclusive, but the more that "2" is understood to be a policing rate, the less it will be believed it was a content-quality rate.

    Anyone else thinkin this?

    Do it GREEN, know what I mean?

    by SonofFunk on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:42:09 PM PDT

    •  hmmm (none)
      i see two sides of the same coin here.

      Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night - Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

      by mdhatter on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:47:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So what exactly is the Hunter 2? (none)
      It's this right?:
      1. Rate the comment a 2
      2. Reply once explaining why

      Then, if the original poster replies, and/or downrates you, then you walk away.

      So the idea then, is you said your piece and there is no flame-war.

      And to me, no flame-war = thread is not disrupted.

      Now I see, this will take self-control. Earlier today, I did NOT do a Hunter-2. Meta-Jesus forgive me.

      In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

      by yet another liberal on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:52:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wonder how many people will (none)
      know how to use it.

      I have to admit that even though I've been here for over a year I rarely give out anything other than 4's.

      I also admit that I didn't understand Hunter's example of what deserves a Hunter-2. In reading the post I thought I understood it but then the example "I know you don't mean to be sexist but..." left me grunting "huh"?

      I actually agree with my interpretation of the meaning of the diary and get pissed off myself often when I see attacks based on disagreement rather than content.

      I made the mistake ONCE early on in disagreeing with the tone of a commenter and was blasted. I never did it again because I immediately understood the culture and protocol.

      I'm amazed at how many people don't see this dispite occasional posts somewhat similiar to this diary.

      In any case, I think diaries like this are necessary and I love them. There are always rules of behavior in a group and it helps to be taught them explicitly rather than having to guess.

      Even though I voted "Doomed to failure" for a variety of reasons, I can say and mean - Thanks, Hunter.

      Someday, after the forest fire of the Right has died we'll say "Whew, I'm happy that's over."

      by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:58:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Amen Brother Hunter! (none)
    Can I get a hallelujah? What you've said is brilliant and to the point. The thin skinned need not apply because they're a bigger pain in the ass than they're worth.

    Now, if only I could convince myself that your post will actually change anything. I wanted to vote for both the first and the third options in the polls. shrugs I guess I'm just cynical like that. Oh well, what does my opinion on this matter anyway? If I knew how to reunite the divergent strands of Liberalism back together in to a cohesive whole I'd be making millions as a political consultant instead of posting on the tail end of the discussion on a Sunday night. I wish you luck and success in your endeavors because I get the feeling that rabid cats on speed would be easier to herd.

    BG

  •  After reading your post twice, Hunter (4.00)
    I still have no idea what you're saying, other than you are very unhappy with some posters.

    May I suggest shorter sentences, fewer sentences, and less whining?

    •  I guess I applied meaning by (none)
      reading between the lines with absolutely no idea whether my interpretation matched his meaning.

      But, part of what makes writing great is that people get what they want out of it. Sometimes obtuseness is labelled "brilliant" because it gives people the chance to show how brilliant they are because they understood what was being written.

      I found your post funny and worthy of a "4".

      Someday, after the forest fire of the Right has died we'll say "Whew, I'm happy that's over."

      by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 10:04:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  here's what it's about (none)
      It's about what a brilliant and wise person Hunter is and how we should all listen to what he says because he wrote thousands of words saying it.

      What I want to know is, what happened to the Hunter who wrote that brilliant and angry exposé of Tucker Carlson's "jacuzzi cases" attack on John Edwards for  his work getting justice for a 12 year old girl who had her intestines sucked out.  That article is seared in my brain, and I referred it to many people, and bring it up whenever Turker Carlson is mentioned.  This article, OTOH, I am already in the process of forgetting, and it should be well gone by tomorrow.

  •  Sorry if I offend you but ... (3.00)
    that example you gave was not useful.  The person who posted that comment was obviously giving the men here a dose of their own medicine.  It's not like the sexism is equal on both sides.  Sorry but you know it isn't.  
    •  But thank you Hunter (4.00)
      for at least trying to resolve some of the bad feelings around here.  
    •  So, (2.87)
      Because some men are dick waving shit for brains all men deserve to be taken down a notch? I don't buy it.

      By all means, let me know if I misunderstood your point, but that's what it sounds like you're saying to me.

      And thus is given out my first "Hunter two".

      BG

    •  Ghandi... (2.33)
      once said:

      You know what?  I'm not even gonna quote him.  If you don't know, look it up.  

      He was a man, so I guess his wisdom wouldn't be useful, anyway.

      "If I am not for myself, then who is for me? But if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?" -- Hillel

      by TheCrimsonKid on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 10:57:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  then why am i responding to you? (3.33)
        I like men.  trust me.  

        and you get a stefanie 2 for suggesting that I don't.

        •  Let's break it down (2.83)
          The person who posted that comment was obviously giving the men here a dose of their own medicine.

          "the men here".  Not "the misogynists here".  Not "the scum-suckers here".  "the men here".  In other words, "the men here" are sexist pigs, so, if the women are sexist, it's OK, cause the men started it and deserve it.

          Your comment indicted every man posting to this site, which, if one were to accept that the men on this site are among the more liberal and tolerant in the world, one can infer that you have indicted ALL MEN.  If the men here are not, then why do you waste your time on us?

          If you don't want to appear as though you are painting with a broad brush, then DON'T PAINT WITH A BROAD BRUSH.

          I'm only going by your words, which are indicitive of someone who does NOT like men very much.  Don't tell me to trust you, when the only evidence you have given me to work with undermines that trust.

          Oh, and by the way, ouch!  That 2 really hurt!  I mean, I've never been given a 2 before!  That's never happened before!  And a "Stefanie" 2?  How original.  Cause isn't that what that front-page poster guy said?  A "Hunter" 2, was it?  You are so clever! </stewie>

          "If I am not for myself, then who is for me? But if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?" -- Hillel

          by TheCrimsonKid on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 11:12:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm tired of you putting words in my mouth. (3.60)
            This is a frustrating conversation.  I didn't mean to paint with a broad brush or to indicate all men here.  

            Are you really the same person who just posted this rant about people being easily offended:

            http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/8/28/224837/319/334#334

            •  Why Didn't You Just Say So? (2.33)
              I thought that might be the case, which is why I only gave you a two (nice suggestion from Hunter, btw). And in the future be a little more careful about the words you put in your own mouth and you won't have to worry about finding your foot there.

              My name is BlackGriffen and I, too, have chronic foot-in-the-mouth disease. The affliction never completely goes away, but it does get better.

              BG

            •  I wasn't really offended (3.00)
              Well, maybe I was... I was simply pointing out that, because of the phrasing you chose, it appeared that your answer to sexism was more sexism.  That kind of thinking gets my dander up, and I told you so.  Maybe the snark was a bit much, but that's me, like it or lump it.  It's hard not to read "the men here" as including me, considering I am, in fact, one of "the men here".

              I am not putting words in your mouth.  I only went by the words you used.  I outlined above why the words you used can easily be interpreted as a generalized indictment of men.  If that wasn't your intention, then I can accept that.  You are certainly not the first person to say something and have it come out sounding like you meant something else.

              However, that does not absolve you from taking responsibility for your words, and, when you notice such an error, from admitting that your words were perhaps imperfect and then clarifying your meaning.  "I like men" didn't accomplish that, so I let you know in more detail why your comment warrented my reaction.  I'm sure you would not want a reputation of misandry if you didn't espouse misandrist principles.

              I'll leave it at this: I accept that you are not a misandrist, and that your meaning was wholly well-intentioned.  I hope that you can accept that  the words you chose in your comment led others to believe differently, as indicated by the number of negative reactions you received.

              Pax.

              "If I am not for myself, then who is for me? But if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?" -- Hillel

              by TheCrimsonKid on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 12:10:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  who the fuck cares (4.00)
            if she likes men or not??  Is there a law that says all women must like men?  Why do we feminists constantly have to keep establishing our "credibility" by saying "Oh, no, really, WE LIKE MEN!"

            Fuck that shit.

            *Springsteen for President*

            by hrh on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 04:40:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Erh (4.00)
      The person who posted that comment was obviously giving the men here a dose of their own medicine.

      So the solution to sexism is more sexism?

      •  You are a Better Netizen Than I. (4.00)
        You're clearer, more polite, more concise. Even my praise is far verbose than it need be.

        Well done, though some might feel "better than I" is not the highest praise one such as myself could give. ;)

         BG

      •  Oh lovely (4.00)
        Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make.  Okay, I'm leaving.  I don't even know why I bother.
      •  my apologies for being pedantic (none)
        Not to go swinging my dick into discussions that don't involve me, but I don't think a little "sexism" aimed at men is necessarily a bad thing.  Despite all the good work of the last century, women are still pretty much under the ol' patriarchal boot.

        It is impossible to grow up in our society without getting some racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. ingrained in our perspectives (there's a reason such things are called systemic), and completely wiping them out, even in adulthood, isn't really possible either.  Call me a second-waver, but I think it's vital for the oppressed to shake up the complacency of the powerful by holding up a mirror, even indiscriminately.  That façade of egalitarianism we've erected in front of our society's dirty little iniquities sure is pretty, and we need periodic slaps to the face to snap us out of our happy stupor.  

        Yeah, it sucks to be read as a sexist bastard when you're trying really hard not to be one, but chances are, at some level, you still are one.  And even if your sexism isn't really showing, the discomfort you feel at being smacked down is nothing compared to what your accuser has had to put up with her entire life.  If it makes you think, for even a second, about whether or not you harbor a shred of sexism, it's well worth the sting.

        And sexism from men is worse than sexism from women: words mean a whole lot more when they're backed up by power.

        OK, I'll shut up now and wait for the Hunter 2s (and probably some 1s) to come a-rollin' in.  Adios!

  •  Bra-Fucking-Vo, Hunter (none)
    Though I think I would have to turn my outrage meter up, to participate in some of the shit you describe, and I mostly skip the reading of...
    Well said.

    I'ts too wet to work. Let's buy a DVD.

    by emmasnacker on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 10:18:49 PM PDT

  •  As one who defies authority on a regular basis (none)
    I have to give you props.  Respect and authority seldom go hand iin hand.

    You offer wonderful carrots.  And the use of the stick is relatively clear.

    So, I'm with you Hunter.

    If we're dumb. Then God is dumb. And maybe a little ugly on the side.

    by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 10:36:46 PM PDT

  •  Get over yourself already! (none)
    :-)

    The GOP and the Elephant are both Introduced Species

    by roboton on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 10:46:34 PM PDT

  •  Hunter you're one of the smartest (4.00)
    writers here. If you wrote it, I read it. So I don't mean to offend but this diary is of the 'outburst' gendre and as such it's a bunch of shit. This site would be a lot better off if instead of threatening, defining, arguing and purging, people just let the big kos ant farm run on scoop technology the way it's supposed to - all on it's own with slight adjustments here and there. As with most political sites, the search for purity intrudes. The purity was there to start with and is only muddied by all the helping hands. Whatever you think you're doing you're not doing it. No more proof needed than the fact that this self-involved mission statement is up on the eve of the possible destruction of N.O.

    Darkness washed over the Dude...darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonlight prairie night...there was no bottom

    by moon in the house of moe on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 10:47:20 PM PDT

    •  I Disagree (none)
      I've seen discussion forums degrade before and would hate to see the same thing happen here. Just look at all of usenet, for instance. Even without the commercial spam, the signal to noise ratio would be terrible because of all the major assholes, trolls, and other irritants who only seem to give a damn about one thing in the whole world: themselves.
  •  Word. (none)
    nt

    Anything's possible with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge. -Homer J. Simpson

    by Cheez Whiz on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 11:01:27 PM PDT

  •  Two Things (4.00)
    Because if you're one of those very few people that are offended twenty times per day by things that nobody else can fathom, guess what -- I'm trying to get rid of you. Not because I don't value you as a person, but because I don't value you in our coalition. I don't have enough time in the day to keep you happy, if you're intent on being pissed off. If your single-issue is "look at me, and be impressed with my halo of righteousness", then forget it.

    BRAVO!  BRAVO!  BRAVO!!!!!

    In all my life, nothing has ever annoyed me quite like the "vocationally offended".  It's like 7 different layers of egotistical nonsense.

    As much as it hurts your ego to hear this, NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT YOU!!!  I'll be honest: things not about me sometimes hurt MY ego.  So, you know what?  I accept the bruise.  Empathy is fun to talk about, but practicing it is a bitch, isn't it?

    The next time someone has the gall to believe something different than you, or state something outside your limited purview... walk it off.

    "If I am not for myself, then who is for me? But if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?" -- Hillel

    by TheCrimsonKid on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 11:04:11 PM PDT

  •  won't someone think of the metakittens? (none)
    thanks, hunter.  many things that needed to be said.  but you could have spared yourself much typing with a simple

    "be excellent to each other"

    : p

    if i may make an addition of sorts to your first point:

    the first caveat about not posting personal info of other kossacks is also true of non-kossacks.  it is not cool, appropriate, or acceptable to go posting home addresses and other contact info of people who behave atrociously (northern, slayer of crosses, the JINOs at fox, et al).

    not only it is unproductive, but it is borderline legal.

    namaste!

  •  I rarely see anything less than a "4" (1.00)
    This board is too politically correct, I can count on one hand the number of ratings less than "4" I've seen. I include myself: I gave a "1" to a post in jest, and I followed it up with a post to explain it. I felt GUILT...ALL NIGHT! But the receiver got my drift, and gave me a "4". Since then I have ventured out and tried a "2", and a couple of "3"'s.

    Hey, I'm Miss/ter O/T...I need to be "1"'d, sometimes. (No, alot!). But, I've NEVER gotten anything less that a "4"! I'm leftist as hell, but I still like to have a little fun...sometimes a little TOO much fun. We're all working here to save our country, maybe our world. Knuckle-heads like me who feel the need to work out their comedy lines need to get "zapped", as well as those who are just a little TOOOO angry.

    Can I get a "1" here?

    The news happens 3 hours sooner on the "left coast"

    by bleeding blue on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 11:14:29 PM PDT

  •  tires my ass out too- (none)
    there are some things that will never be agreed upon-but face it- people do what they want and what they need, it has always been that way and it always will.
  •  Nice post Hunter (none)
    very well said
  •  Ratings (none)
    You know, I'm new here. I haven't even posted a diary entry yet. I've read and re read again this post by Hunter. It occured to me, during the second reading, like the second coming I guess, that this kind of gets to be like eBay when a deal goes bad . You know, you pay for an item, you either don't receive it or it turns out to be a dud, and things turn ugly. I don't know how many times this has happened to me, finally, I just stopped leaving bad feedback, because then I would get retalitory bad undeserved feedback and be just sick about it because instead of having a 100% pure rating, I would have like a 99.6 rating and think oh my god, people are going to think I'm a really terrible person, or what's WRONG with her? Plus, eBay never removes the negative feedback even if it's undeserved. Then, you have to report bad deals and it takes forever to straighten it out, sometimes you never even get your money back, or the rip off person just splits, or their membership is revoked after ripping off about a thousand people, but there you are, still left with negative feedback. I guess my point is that I'm tired of fighting, and what the heck is wrong with us? Why is it that there are all these ridiculous personal attacks on these sites? Why is it that the Republicans just purr like kittens over each other, you never see them fighting with each other on their sites, never. Pisses me off. So, I'm here to learn, not to fight. Plus, goddamit I want to go the Vegas convention and be around some sane Liberals for once in my life. You can rate this if you want.

    Bush has got to go. Keep surfin.

    by Pargie on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 02:06:34 AM PDT

  •  Okay (none)
    Who's the wise guy who gave me a 1, an UNO. Goodnight Irene.

    Bush has got to go. Keep surfin.

    by Pargie on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 02:20:43 AM PDT

  •  Recipes (none)
    The unspoken rule is:

    If you post a recipe do Not troll rate!  A recipe in is in lieu of a troll rating.  Sometimes a non troll will say some stupid shit, (yours truly included).

    Recipe = possible troll

    Troll rating = definite troll.

    Recipes are posted to change the subject.  

    If you post a recipe on a comment, don't troll rate the comment.  If the poster persists in trollish comments, then ok, troll rate subsequent trollish comments.  Just don't do both on the same comment.

    The concept of war is outdated. Dalai Lama

    by x on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 02:43:41 AM PDT

  •  A very wise post, Hunter, but... (none)

    I'm offended just the same.  I mean, how can you...

    How can you...

    Eh...I got nothin'.

    Except to say that I wonder how my perspective will change when I become a female hippy.  That'll be kewl!  Yeah!!

  •  Paid Operatives (none)
    I don't think Kos is a paid operative.  But sometimes, I think there are a number of people with a vested interest in certain policy stances, who use Kos as forum to guage public raction and to tailor their message to be more acceptable.  If that means my representation is more, um, representative, then that's fine with me. If that means a congresscritter is educating me, well that's fine too.  However, what I don't want is Kos to be a PAC sounding board.  
  •  Good job Hunter! (none)
    You are a brave soul!
  •  The can't we all get along post (none)
    had to happen.

    I left the blog after the election (not really related, just coincidence. Sort of) and just started looking at it again. Couldn't help but notice a lot of this, er, controversy, seemed to be about.

    Just a reminder: The biggest intercine meltdown since they took over in the mid-90s is underway amongst the extreme right. Squandering it by an excess of infighting on the saner sides would be a shame.

    It feels a little like that scene in WWII movies in which the Sergeant comes to break up a barracks brawl, saying "Awright, awright, ya big galuts, save it for da enemy!"

    Everybody's pissed off and frustrated. The country is finally waking up but a year too late. It's like having a blind man at the helm, heading you straight into a hurricane, and you can't remove him, and even if you did the psychotic who's been whispering into his ear would be the one who takes over.

    Or something like that. Of course we're frustrated. Take it out on da opposition, not here.

    One little suggestion, useless though it may be: These rating guidelines might want to be posted front and center, easier to see or get to. When I was new here last year it took a while to get it, there are FAQs but then that directs you to some other long diary to read-- easy to lose interest along the way. Just a thought.

    Peace.

  •  My recent signature change (none)
    I recently changed my signature to a quote by Nietzsche that gets at some of these issues in his characteristically brillant and counter-intuitive fashion. Here's a fuller quote from The Anti-Christ (Section 55) (with apologies for length):

    -- One step further in the psychology of conviction, of "faith." It is now a good while since I first proposed for consideration the question whether convictions are not even more dangerous enemies to truth than lies. (Human, All-Too-Human, I, aphorism 483.) This time I desire to put the question definitely: is there any actual difference between a lie and a conviction? -- All the world believes that there is; but what is not believed by all the world! -- Every conviction has its history, its primitive forms, its stage of tentativeness and error: it becomes a conviction only after having been, for a long time, not one, and then, for an even longer time, hardly one. What if falsehood be also one of these embryonic forms of conviction? -- Sometimes all that is needed is a change in persons: what was a lie in the father becomes a conviction in the son. -- I call it lying to refuse to see what one sees, or to refuse to see it as it is: whether the lie be uttered before witnesses or not before witnesses is of no consequence. The most common sort of lie is that by which a man deceives himself: the deception of others is a relatively rare offence. -- Now, this will not to see what one sees, this will not to see it as it is, is almost the first requisite for all who belong to a party of whatever sort: the party man becomes inevitably a liar. For example, the German historians are convinced that Rome was synonymous with despotism and that the Germanic peoples brought the spirit of liberty into the world: what is the difference between this conviction and a lie? Is it to be wondered at that all partisans, including the German historians, instinctively roll the fine phrases of morality upon their tongues -- that morality almost owes its very survival to the fact that the party man of every sort has need of it every moment? -- "This is our conviction: we publish it to the whole world; we live and die for it -- let us respect all who have convictions!" -- I have actually heard such sentiments from the mouths of anti-Semites. On the contrary, gentlemen! An anti-Semite surely does not become more respectable because he lies on principle...

    P.S. In the spirit of Hunter's post, don't flame me about all manner of problems with Nietzsche's thought. I'm aware of them and with the exception of his admittedly weird and difficult remarks on women, he gets a bad wrap on everything else--unless your a Germanophile (see above).

    P.S. an added little treat: ...mankind prefers observing poses to listening to reasons...

    I [once] proposed...whether convictions are not even more dangerous enemies to truth than lies. --Nietzshe

    by hoipolloi on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 04:38:16 AM PDT

    •  Well done (none)
      I was just thinking, between my post and yours, about this issue, and the writer who came to mind for me oddly enough was Kurt Vonnegut.

      Well, both of German background at least.

      HE said once somewhere that after reading Slaughterhouse Five, with its critique, in part, of those on his own side who were fighting "pure evil" in WWII, people sometimes approached him to remind him about the horrors of the Nazi camps. All he could do, he reported, was to shake his head and say "I know, I know".

      He said somewhere else that he's not very good at debate, writing (I'm paraphrasing, sorry) "My ideas are too soft and complicated to stand up to argument like that".

      I would maintain however that his literary arguments are among the most eloquent and effective ever written.

      Sometimes truth is not very pointed, not very certain. Scoring points, winning every exchange, making sure you're not bested-- these are not always very important in the overall scheme of things.

  •  Practice what we preach (4.00)
    What we need around here -- and by that, I mean all progressives, not just on this site, but everywhere -- is a big, heaping bowl of Get The Flying Hell Over Ourselves.

    One wonders about the utility of a long, long essay about ratings and getting over ourselves.  If we're to get over ourselves, the first step is not to write long, long essays about ratings.  The second step is to not tell other people what or how to rate posts, I think.

    •  thank you (none)
      I admire Hunter's diaries but this one committed the sins he was so roundly denouncing.

      *Springsteen for President*

      by hrh on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 07:00:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm glad someone said it. (none)
      I've never seen anything that told me as clearly that the author was full of himself.  And the positive response to this sermon suggests that many Kossacks are treating DK more as a church -- or a cult -- than a political blog / discussion forum.
  •  calming down and going forward (none)
    If one rereads all those posts to Hunter's original post, there was lots ands lots of heat, yes, but there was also lots and lots of good stuff.

    We will make something better if we listen to each other. Getting pissed over some post is probably not a big deal one way or another, being able to get over it and get to the meaning, and to a NEW IDEA, is.

    And why is there so much heat in these discussions, we all know why, because it REALLY matters and we really do want united progress (and we all pretty damn frustrated with the state country).

  •  Shirky: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (none)
    I was just asked for my opinion about the recent, growing troubles here on dailyKos.  My short answer is this always happens to online forums.  

    Clay Shirky calls it the "constitutional crisis".  I encourage everyone to read his very insightful essay:

    A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy

    Shirky explores the phenonemon of bad behavior online, the psychology of groups, the tension between groups and individuals, the role of hard core users, and then wraps up with some hard earned advice and wisdom.

    Learn it. Know it. Live it. -- Brad Hamilton

  •  Why have a ratings system at all? (none)
    Why not just have vigorous debate, and allow that debate to be the corrective to objectionable behavior?  If an egregious offender cannot be handled that way, then the group moderators can deal with that person.  This whole ratings system seems to cause more problems than it solves.  Yes, it feels good to get those 4's but it feels better to make a comment that engenders a good debate.  By good, i don't mean everyone agrees with one, but one actually starts an argument, in the best meaning of the word.  And the use of 1's is punitive in many cases as opposed to constructive.  A humble request.  Please scrap the ratings, it will make this a better site overall, IMMHO.  It eliminates the knee-jerk reaction, and requires that anyone who wants to respond to the diary has to articulate that response.  I know, it would be hard to give up the occasional "star-on-the-forehead", but do we, as adults, really need that?
    •  I agree (none)
      On quite a few occasions, I've made a comment, it got two or three 4 ratings, but no responses (or one response). My take on it is that the comment wasn't viewed as worth following up on, so why did some people give it a 4 rating?

      On the other hand, if there were no ratings, maybe there would be a large number of "I agree n/t" reponses. Perhaps if instead of ratings, there was a brief mini-poll displayed in the "reply" page that included choices along the lines of

      • Well said!
      • I agree
      • I disagree
      • I don't get the point of this comment
      • This comment is offensive
      • This is a troll
      The results could be displayed briefly as a vector over the number of ratings, such as (0,0,5,3,2,9)/19, with a button to display it as a bar graph (this is the obvious extension of the current ratings display).

      Greg Shenaut

  •  peace and love (none)

    Let our object be our country,our whole country,and nothing but our country (Daniel Webster)

    by Luetta on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 07:16:00 AM PDT

  •  About damn time! (4.00)
    When I first started reading dKos, I did just that. I read. It was months before I signed up for a user account and weeks after that that I finally posted for the first time. Now I'm back to rarely posting. Why? Because it's easier to hold fire than to set mylself up for attack. I'm not saying I don't want to engage in debate. If I was afraid to defend my ideas or to discuss things civilly, I'd be a Republican.

    There's a level of intolerance for differences here--as Hunter called it, a purity test. I consider myself a progressive, but I'm also a realist--and part of being reality based is knowing that you're not going to please all of the people all of the time. The problem is, I'm the kind of person who likes to post comments when I DISAGREE. And that's when the knives come out. I don't attack people personally, though I have been attacked more than once. (I'll admit that I sometimes fire back without considering things like 'decorum' in my response).

    Listen, if we're going to sit around listening to ourselves in an echo chamber, we're never going to move the country in a progressive direction. And if we dismiss everybody who disagrees with us on an issue, nobody's going to want to play in our sandbox.

    So Bravo, Hunter. Thanks for saying what I didn't feel like getting into.

  •  As a former (none)
    moderator at another site, the issues described by Hunter are universial on every forum. Now here will be a downtick of irresponsible posters for awhile until something starts to rock and roll, then all of the "bad behaviours will return.  Most of the time I love this place for a cup of coffee and a good thoughtful read from many points of view. I'm here because I want a Dem in the White House in 2008.

    This long list of comments regarding Hunter's post could easily be titled:
    How to fall on your face and get up knowing more than before the fall.

  •  Tangentially: On that analogy... (none)
    It's a game, a kind of online Munchausen by Proxy. Oh, look how rude everyone else is -- I think I'll start throwing punches and see what happens! Oh no, I've been hit! Pity me, everyone!

    That's "Munchausen's Syndrome". "Munchausen's by Proxy" is when you get someone else hurt (usually, this is seen with a parent abusing a child) to gain sympathy. This, of course, has nothing to do with your point, but still...

  •  The power of humility. (none)
    Worthy post.

    If I had to reduce it to one basic idea--

    The bottom line of the post seems to be a commonsensical call for.... HUMILITY!

    And humility is always based on an understanding that one might not understand others (or oneself)with as much fairness or objectivity as one would like to assume is usually the case.

    I totally share your frustration that something so basic to productive discourse (and life!) as humility is, needs to be called for, demanded by you in a policing role; nonetheless, I'm very grateful and appreciative that you took the time to do it.

  •  It's hard work...but necessary (none)
    I applaud Kos for his effort to tone things down. It's a reflection of the times as much as anything else -- the impotence felt by progressives, their anger at the party they claim, their fury at the Administration.

    But you can't let it get to you. You're useless to yourself and the cause when you lash out at others in the way you do.

    Kos, you have your next book as this moves through you, so take careful notes.

    And good luck.

  •  I only give 4's... (none)
    I have only given 4's to diary's with tip jars, and an occasional 4 to a comment that I find to be particularly wonderful.

    But far too often I have stopped reading the comments because of the kind of discourse you are talking about.  And from now on, I will consider dishing out a "hunter 2".

  •  Once more, with feeling! (none)
    I have been debating with myself about posting commentary on this thread.  In doing so I am, as are all of you, assuming that my interjection will be considered by all and sundry as pithy, or simply welcomed regarding its harmony of content.  I create these posts, as well as others of this ilk, as a kind of mental break - an escape from editing, and re-editing the fiction that composes my livelihood.  Quite simply - I get tired of re-forming thoughts with an eye toward the commercial; yet I desperately want those thoughts published and widely read.  Perhaps this hubris is human, perhaps it is personal - I have yet to suss that out.  It does prompt a curiosity regarding the intense interest expressed by some whose sole focus seems centered around the ratings game.  Once again, for me, there is a bit of a dichotomy here.  As a writer, I am deeply interested in how my personal view of the world and its environs is received.  At the same time, though I adore informational exchanges, I have no specific interest in cataloging anyone's response (re: positive or negative).  I started out my career as an actor.  Reviews are invidious, and therefore easily dismissed.  

    With this in mind, and considering certain trends I have been chronicling, I found Hunters essay personally relevant on a number of levels.  There seems to be a dearth of identifiable women posters on the multiplicity of sites I monitor.  Where the gender of the poster is readily apparent, I have noted a tendency toward anger, irritation, or even outright dismissal of their perspective, especially if it references the feminine.  This comes from both sides of the political spectrum.  Whether alluding to Cindy Sheehan as some kind of `whore', or questioning Ann Coulters sexuality in graphic terms, certain posts smack of a misogynistic bent that I find troubling.  

    Now, I am not specifically citing the scatological - though there seem to be more female-centric derogations than male.  Hunter - you are right to take umbrage over the blatancy of a `swinging dick' reference; but I would ask you to also note how much more likely it is for a woman to be alluded to in derogatory sexual terms. What's even more disturbing seems to be the source of all this strum und drang.  Gleaning what I could from certain cultural earmarks, as well as some profile investigation, the worst of the dissing seems to be originating within 20-something male culture.

    Hang on there, folks!  Put the knives away - at least until you hear me out.  I am not making sweeping generalizations, nor do I intend tarring everyone with the same brush.  I am hoping to open this up to discussion amongst the lot of you.  A good friend of mine is a teacher, and she has been noting this trend in male/female relations over the last few years - young men relying upon abusive language when discussing women in general.  She has seen it degenerate into actual violence, and cites the women involved as willing participants.  Now, these observations are from within the confines of her particular world, and may, therefore be limited to it.  I must say, though; I do see the same trends myself, both here in our virtual world, as well as the one outside my door.

    If you think my cheese has slipped off its respective cracker, then tell me so - sans the gender-specific cat calls, if you please.  I know I have opened up the subject beyond Hunters original intention.  I just think it involves much more than the quick sting from a slap directed toward the thin skinned.  By the way - the subject has come up on a number of sites.  The Daily Kos is not alone in addressing it.  At any rate - this, in my opinion, goes beyond a basic discussion of civility or manners.  I think we have to really address sexism - female to male as well - before a kind of mutual disdain replaces amused affection as a reaction to the differing approaches men and women take toward life.  One last thing - I do not think dismissal of women is specific to western culture.  Look at Iraq's attempts to secure a constitution.  Women's rights, (and gay rights, and minority rights in general) are being ignored as unnecessary to the creation of a democracy.  Think it ludicrous to suppose such an opinion could take root here?  Do we really want to wait till then to address it?

    Ah well - back to word juggling!

    The Fat Lady Sings

  •  Credibilty Loss (4.00)
    This is well said.  I come on here in an "official" capacity, and most of the time people are great - I love the discussions and input from everyone, even when they don't agree. I posted on the NRA bill before the August recess, and not only was I called an asshole because someone didn't see a link I included, but a Front Page Diarist posted a comment that he/she wished he/she could give the person who called me an asshole multiple 4s.  This is absurd and counterproductive - I certainly don't read either of their comments or diaries with the same level of respect that I used to.  

    I think it's especially aggravating because we're wasting energy, time, and brain power beating on our own instead of focusing on how to win.  There is so much potential here to GET THINGS DONE, but not when we can't focus.  I am on here all the time - the sheer volume of diaries, comments, ideas, etc is fantastic, and I use it to see how we can be doing more to be a strong part of the online community.  The abuse and nastiness distracts from the great things that happen here....

    "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die." - Senator Edward M. Kennedy

    by Crystal Patterson on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 11:41:05 AM PDT

  •  The REAL problem with the ratings system (none)
    ... is that there's a single metric for rating posts when there should be four of five. In other words, when people assign ratings, they may be scoring a post based on its: a) insightfulness b) relevance c) offensiveness d) humor e) any of the above My feeling is that the ratings system is ineffective when the default it choice "e", which IMO isn't specific enough to be of much use. On the other hand, if we had four separate ratings "channels" like the ones I mentioned above, it would give the site more flexibility in how to use them, either by constructing a more complex formula for filtering, or by giving users the ability to filter/sort posts based on their own personal assignment of weights to these properties.
  •  If you're tired of arguments and defending... (none)
    ...your position...maybe you ought to just go offline and withdraw from the debate.

    Democracy and the debate that is the heart and soul of democracy, are messy things.

    So Hunter is "tired" of those things?  Tired of contradictions?  Tired of the back-and-forth?

    Sounds like the people who want the Democrats and Republicans to "put aside their differences" and "work together for the good of the country"--problem is, the Democrats and Republicans have very different ideas on what exactly is "good for the country"--and so do the people posting here on DKos.

    And a member of Kos' inner circle complaining about the hypocrisy of OTHERS?  The irony may escape him, but it certainly does not escape me, nor many others.

    Perhaps Hunter ought to use his vast influence with Kos to have people (like me) banned...and ONLY have people post on DKos with whom he agrees, and who never display the slightest sign of inconsistency nor any of the other oh-so-human failings which he has enumerated.  Certainly Kos does need to get rid of some more people; the presence of dissent and differing opinions on this blog is surely cause to horrify a gentle soul like Hunter.

    There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

    by Shadowthief on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 12:55:36 PM PDT

  •  Someone called for a Swinging Dick?... (none)
    ...Yes...What?

    "Wonderful things can happen ... when you plant the seeds of distrust in a garden of Assholes" -- Elmore Leonard

    by Blue Shark on Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 02:45:51 PM PDT

  •  oh, a lot in extended (none)
    well, before I read it over lunch, let me say I already see you missing most of the point, while making quite acceptable and nice sounding side points.

    Kos et al bashing the DLC... fine with me except when they act like the DLC.

    get over ourselves... I agree.

    e.g. how about if bloggers stop and realize that a bunch of internet loving political geeks are actually FAR LESS MAINSTREAM than "hippies" are.

  •  omg (none)
    "Because if you're one of those very few people that are offended twenty times per day by things that nobody else can fathom, guess what -- I'm trying to get rid of you."

    and I don't want you handling sign up for the coalition then.

    Indeed... THIS APPLIES TO PEOPLE OFFENDED BY THE WAR JUST A COUPLE YEARS AGO.

    Things that no one can fathom are exactly what we need... start fathoming people.

    Of course, you are no doubt thinking of some specific cases when you make this false generalization.

    But so what Hunter... it's still bad generalization.

    And "get over yourself" is a reason to cancel blogging altogether how about.

  •  as I go (none)
    "All I see, at the point when a conversation becomes an argument, is a bunch of people declaring that their sex, or generation, or issue deserves more respect than any other, and the other sex/generations/issue people don't deserve the same."

    You have poor vision then, Hunter.

    I'm in the hippie fight, all IN.

    And I know my hippie activist freinds will still be fighting when that 9/10'ths gets bored again.

    I'm instructed to choose sides.

    Sides chosen.

    And if you think defending my self, the culture of many of my closest friends and families, is being too full of myself... take it up with Armando... he can tell you if it's legit to defend yourself against aspersions.

    Coalition building is not telling people what to think, it's asking.  It's not saying, "don't be stupid and care about X"... it's finding out how to integrate different people that have alliances.

    The democratic party is fearful and soulless, and if you get withing 1000 miles of giving it a soul, it recoils.

    Hey!  Reform Democrats... go reform the Republican Party if your really just a hawk that happens to dissent this time.  Go seek you're real audience... FINE!

    I'm pissed, you can give whatever reason you want and have a psychologist certify it for all I fucking care.

    Yeah... we're all supposed to be really careful, follow the rules of decorum... but hey!  I don't have an editor either and sometimes I just have to say, fuck you conservative democrats... you learned progress too late now your dumb ass backage is a noose around my neck.

    As you wander through my village like a 100 ft tall toddler... just know that I think you are fucked up.

  •  on tone (none)
    "Here's the next thing on the list, something I'm calling people out on. I'm especially sick of the posters most responsible for aggressive, mean-spirited attacks being the most self-righteous when they themselves are treated in similar fashion. You don't like someone else's tone? Then you need to figure out if maybe they're responding to you in kind. Because I've never seen a fight here in which one side was dishing it out, and the other was meekly taking it. The same posters, time and time again, are responsible for the same attack threads. Then, surprised, they bleat about their injuries."

    Ok.  That's fair.  Yeah, I'm applying this all to me, because I'm pissed and your generalizing.  If you meant someone else, name names.

    I have been, for now, convinced by the anti-tone briggade.  Fuck tone.  This argument deserves no respect from me.  It's war.  Fuck the democrats.  My chances are better letting the republicans boil the nation quickly so maybe the people will wake up.  At this point, if they chose the Democrats instead... not sure that helps.

    Oh.... How offensive of me.  I may take my vote, and use it however I like.

    otoh, I have not written diaries or essays in the last few days because.

    I hope my sense of civility and tone of respect returns.

    But how long can I wait.

    Subtitled: the ugly thing about Democrats.

  •  thousand vs. hundreds (none)
    "Here's the thing. Let's suppose you get two divergent response threads. You want to know why that happens? Because the community interactions of ten thousand are not the same as the community interactions of a heavily-self-selected few hundred. You haven't invented the phenomenon, you haven't proved your own group's noble self-enlightenment, and you haven't discovered anything but that self-selected groups agree with each other more often on the topics specifically of their own choosing."

    no, it's because the group of ten thousand is now being selected for their biases against sanctimonious women and dirty hippies.

    these excuses won't work:

    • it's a blog, I have no editor
    • it's big, I can't help if my comments help weed mine into the bigot garden
    • you just don't like disagreement

    et cetera.

    missing.
    the.
    point.

    no, not me, you.

    PS: I hope you know I do respect you Hunter, it pains me to be so angry with messages like this, obviously earnestly intended, with so many sub-points I would endorse if not for their misaplication here.  And many other names I have found myself at serious odds with here recently.

    I, I'm still stunned by Mitch Gore's "ugly thing"... really.  If I were Jesus, I'd weep.

  •  hunter (none)
    "No. No dice. You can have your Fortresses of Pissitude if you want, but don't think for a moment that the rest of us find you as impressive and enlightened as you find yourself. Don't post here with the eager anticipation of getting to have your feelings hurt."

    it should show up.

    DailyKos is the one in danger of being the Fortress of Pissitude.

    But way nice smack at the rest of the lefty blogosphere... the FAKE blogosphere... not like the real deal but not a leadership and no need for careful responsibiolity or something flagship of the left, DailyMarkos.

  •  FALSE (none)
    "But at the same time, if someone is being that aggressive, in-your-face leader that we worship, and accidentally goes over a line or steps on the wrong toe, a great many of us declare that person finished, and opine at great length about how we will never, ever trust them on anything again."

    WRONG.  We don't want a warrior that is a maniac and kills anyone near.

    We want them to fight the fucking enemy.

    They can have their own positions, remember, but must fight the enemy.

    "But it was just a toe!"

    "Ready, Aim, FIRE!"

    "but sire, we've run out of feet to shoot off"

  •  back up my attacker? (none)
    "You want cowards, you've got cowards. You want fighters, figure out how to back them up even when they slip in the bathtub and break a rhetorical tooth or two."

    Back up someone that attacks ME?

    Dream. On.

    And this bullshit about toe stepping and just a little mistake... that only washes where there is real apology... not this kind "I'm sorry I told you how I feel about you.  I'm sorry about the ugly truth of you.  I'm sorry you found out how I think."

    Don't apologize for that.  I'm happy to know it.

    You want some sort of forgiveness for a mistake, though, or on kos' behalf, then fucking admit you've made one (if your kos' et al) and CHANGE THE WAY YOU THINK.

    Otherwise, no.

    No way.

  •  If you want to be a successful troll (none)
    you've got to be more subtle.
  •  transparent hypocrisy of the perpetually offended (none)
    I think that sums up Hunter's post, but not in the way he intended.
  •  I basically sense some bias (none)
    I feel we should all be permitted to express ideas providing we adhere to Kos rules.  We know what those are, but then ratings can be spiteful and/or irrelevant, as it's really up to the reader in the final analysis to agree or argue against any point of view.

    There are times when the frustration with the Democratic Party's MIA stance has perhaps provoked goning  overboard vs. criticism of the DLC.  But the leadership of the Democratic Party have not formulated a message that grassroots want to hear.   DLC does involve some fine people, but also, DLC has failed to correct the ongoing notion that it is infested with Corporate donors who change the landscape to emphasize a centrist stance on issues that othwerwise would be more liberal.

    We really should encourage discourse, not rants that are basially useless and destructive. Ratings, I have found are not always on target, and no one could totally agree anyway.  Let's just continue to enjoy Kos and its diarists [and comments] as it is unquetstionally the finest blog, or one of the top five best!  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site