Is this "PC UTOPIAVILLE" or a "DEMOCRATIC Underground"???

[dR. O]

so I suggested a REALISTIC compromise to the 'gay marriage' issue but dissent isn't tolerated and so the moderator posted this:

Full civil rights for all people is the progressive aim. DU doesn't support "separate but equal"

now someone else in the thread suggested my idea was pushing a 'seperate but equal' agenda not ME....and then the moderator locked the thread....

I also received this recently...

I'm writing this to you because I think you, yourself, represent 'average' America more than the average person at DU. I believe the average American understands their position in this country, and generally, are anti-establishment. I mean that in that they question and are skeptical of big government and big business and want both to be accountable to the people (and consumers). As such, IMO, most people are not so much Democratic or Republican, but they weigh the costs and benefits of voting for one or the other and vote accordingly.

I read your post concerning a compromise on the gay marriage thing. I've thought about posting a similar post on abortion ie: offering some compromise to get it off the table. My suggestion would have been to propose an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing the right in the first x months, but then banning "on demand" abortion (not rape,incest,health, etc) after x months. My suggestion is 3 and 6 respectively. The point is that I saw other people TOUCHING upon the abortion issue and being HAMMERED for not giving a woman the right to choose WHENEVER.

The point is that after having read the 'tone' here, I learned not to even SUGGEST such a thing. Perhaps that's what you mean by political correctness?

The point is that yesterday I saw some threads about Hillary running in '08, and I found the whole thing a waste of time (ie: Hillary hasn't a chance). I posted a poll to get it out of the way so we can stop talking about it. 10 to 1 people agreed with me that Hillary wouldn't be a good choice to run in '08.

ANYWAY (whew!) this guy started coming down on me... "Why are you talking about '08 when '06 is next year? What are YOU doing for the party for '06? Are you trying to distract us?" "Call here SENATOR Clinton and show respect!" etc etc.

No one came to my defense ie: "let him be" etc.

It's been almost a year since I started logging on here. Maybe ONCE someone PM'd me to touch base with me, etc.

Of course, your video tape gave you a warm welcome here, but I'm thinking you can see that welcome wearing out quickly. So much for open minds, big tent, reaching across the isle etc..

I'm looking at the time I've spent here posting almost 800 messages, and I'm now beginning to think it's been wasted. People continue to think what they want to. Nobody's changing their mind but worst of all, no one's LISTENING.

So, given the recent 'flaming' you got, I thought you would like to know you're not the only one here who's been 'piled on' because you happen not to agree with the 'program' in its entirety.

I've had some fun here, but I realize I really haven't made any friends here. I remain open minded, but I think that's where I'm different from most of the people here.

Good luck in the reconstruction!

[billbuckhead]

1. Clinton nostalgia will be invincible

Only one question needs be asked, "Were you better off under Clinton than Republicans?"

[dR. O]

2. um

what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

[billbuckhead]

25. Criticizing the Hillary on "DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND"?

How the hell do you know Hillary is unelectable? We heard she coudn't beat Guiliani and then Rudi was too scared and dropped out. The we heard she didn't match up well against Lazio. It just sounds like a rightwing meme to me and not a positive contribution. I really wonder who the "Hillary can't win crowd" really represent?

[renie408]

33. Its them goddam FREEPERS sneaking in here!

And trying to undermine our belief that one of the most beloved and respected women in the whole United States would ever have any trouble getting elected. It would have to be a FREEPER to suggest that Hillary couldn't take the ENTIRE mid-west by storm. Or that she would not be LOVED in the Southeast. ONLY A FREEPER would suggest that Hillary, whose health care reform package was so widely respected, might be a detriment to the Democratic ticket.

Or maybe it is just somebody who doesn't live in either southern California or Manhattan.

[soleft]

9. Bill Clinton back in the White House will be irrestible

The same way electing a movie star in California was irresitable.

She will probably win for all the wrong reasons, but at least they know how to run a govenment.

[marmar]

3. Understood, but this is a Progressive website...

not the Alan Colmes show.

[NYCGirl]

4. You say you "remain open minded," but labeling anyone who disagrees

with you "PC extremists" proves that is not the truth.

[renie408]

18. I don't think it is just because people disagreed

I think it is because they disagreed extremely and along PC lines.

[NYCGirl]

27. What the hell does "political correctness" have to do with it at all?

I don't believe the OP has expressed that adequately. Does wanting equal rights for all make us PC?

[Cary]

5. The rightists' ploy is to disregard moderates.

And it's been working for them. Unless moderates band together and marginalize the extremists, the only choice is to go with the extremists that best represent your p.o.v. So half of the extremists win, and everyone else loses.

[xchrom]

6. try living my reality and get back to me.

why are people so anxious to compromise on other peoples full rights?

this is the 21st century -- some dragons need to simply stay dead.

[renie408]

29. Because running around and screaming "Don't Tread On Me"

Doesn't seem to be working? Because, technically, 'marriage' is originally a religious concept and the state cannot force religious entities to recognize a union said religion does not condone. Civil Union would be a secular equivalent. If a civil union allows all the same rights and freedoms of a marriage, why is it not acceptable? I feel strongly, adamently that every adult should be able to determine who their next of kin is for themselves. And I don't think that homosexual marriage defaces or endangers my heterosexual marriage. And I really don't care who ANYBODY marries. It ain't none of me.

As for the abortion thing, I thought there WERE limits on when a woman could have an elective procedure. And I agree with that. I don't think a woman should be able to electively abort a viable fetus after a certain point in her pregnancy. If that means I am going to get kicked off the Progressive island, whatever.

[dR. O]

7. um

am I the only one who sees hypocrisy in naming a site 'democratic underground' and then locking threads that discuss what most people would call MODERATE positions???

now i have attempted to explain my definition of "PC FASCIST UTOPIA" bc it is the far left wing flip side of the right wing busheepism....

so let me try once again to explain it...

changing the DEFINITIONS of words to suit ones political views is CENSORSHIP in the worst form imaginable...

this week it is changing marriage from a historical definition of a male/female relationship to same sex relationships then next week it is mandating the sterilization of all males after collecting their sperm samples after all what do we men need testicles for anyway???

[xchrom]

14. you're tripping.

[Cary]

19. There are some wicked disrupters out there, and there are plenty of sites

where you can have at them. Private message me. I'll give you a good one.

As for keeping them out of here, I see the value in that. This is a good one of what it is and it should stay this way.

I say the same thing about Free Republic, as well, where I'm sure I would be unwelcomed.

[Toots]

26. You are on a Private site and use their rules none of which are free speec

If the Mods don't like what you post they eliminate it. Don't like it tough. Try Frei Republik. They are even less tolerant. This is a Liberal board mostly and DLCers are not thought of highly. If you wish to be Republican Lite then have at it but don't bring the garbage here.

[Arkana]

28. I think I speak for everyone here when I ask:

What the hell are you talking about?

[Richard Steele]

39. Well, you should know that when you make statements like this:

QUOTE "this week it is changing marriage from a historical definition
of a male/female relationship to same sex relationships
then next week it is mandating the sterilization of all males
after collecting their sperm samples
after all what do we men need testicles for anyway???"

...a lot of people are going to suspect
that you are some sort of unpleasant idiot,
and will respond to you accordingly.

And bitching and moaning about how everyone is
so MEAN to poor little you, while you are simultaneously
insulting them and putting words into their mouths
is not going to win you much support from ANY group,
Internet-based or otherwise.

The time you spent composing this whiney post
might have been better spent improving your social skills.

Failing that, would you consider learning
how the English Language is typed?
(Since you are such a stickler for proper use of it)

PUNCTUATION was invented for a reason;
you should look into it sometime.

[soleft]

8. Such is life on an anonymous internet message board

For the most part you don't know who is reading what you write and who is responding to it.

People are often emboldened to respond on an internet message board in ways they would not respond in life, and if a topic is controversial flame wars will errupt.

People who take it to personally often end up writing farewell posts in the lounge and are quickly forgotten, or end up being banned.

Take what's great about DU and let the rest roll off your back.

[rodeodance]

11. "Take what's great about DU and let the rest roll off your back."

good advice overall.

[mandyky]

10. I wonder if you and the other DUer (PM) are men

Abortion is an issue for women, individually. Not for govt.
Being a mother is a lifelong job, and taking away the right to decide if one is ready to be one belongs to the person who does 100% of the birth and labor and usually 80% if not more of the parenting.

Personally I would probably NOT have an abortion, but I believe the only person to make that choice is a woman and her doctor.

Since that is the issue you two really mentioned other than Hillary, that's what I addresssed. Flame wars do happen here. And many folks do not wanna have in depth discussions (I have had many a serious post drop like a rock without a post). I hope people feeling like you and your PM friend realize a lot ofthis lack of conversation is just the medium. An internet message board is anonymous and many people don't take time for more than a line or a link.

[dR. O]

13. well

I see abortion as the lesser of two evils and so I am pro-choice as well

[renie408]

40. I am a woman, had two miscarriages, two kids and one abortion.

Is it OK for me to have an opinion? I agree with him. I think there should be limits on elective abortions after the first trimester. These days you can take a pregnancy test the first day you are late and most women can know that they are pregnant by time they are 2-3 weeks along.

[personman]

12. If your really so anal about definitions...

Why are you using the word "gay"? it has traditionally meant happy.

Does anyone REALLY believe he is this passionate about a fuckin word definition? Give me a break.

I think most of us are beyond being that petty.

While we're broad brush painting, anyone who disagrees with me is a Bush-lover!

-personman

[lateo]

15. Indeed dR. O....indeed...

But don't let the bastards drag you down ok? Recognize the fact that during this sort of political discourse these people exist and they will be vocal with their contempt. Just don't take it to heart. Roll with the punches...

[SheepyMcSheepster]

16. what was your "compromise"?

what was your compromise that others percieved as a "seperate but equal" approach?

[NYCGirl]

17. It's here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2103579&mesg_id=2103579

[SheepyMcSheepster]

21. thanks

i don't get it? if it's the same thing, then why do we need different names? it's redundant and would cost more to administer (differing forms etc...).

this question is addressed to the op and not NYCGirl :)

thanks for the link NYCGirl!

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. a well-intended suggestion for Dr. O.-- please don't call people fascist

If you wanted to argue that gay marriage (full equality) is an admirable goal--but civil unions are an achievable step in the right direction -- not everyone would agree--but I do not think you would have caused quite so much offense.

And if you would make it clear that you empathized with people (ie:
gay people) and understood that they were indeed victims of discrimination in a number of ways (the issue of marriage being only one) you might get a better hearing.


sincerely,
doug

[mandyky]

23. And people with less than 100 posts

who come in talking about "realistic" solutions are often seen as trolls. I am not accussing you, but it crossed my mind and probably those of others.

[BL611]

30. Yes who else but freepers

would dare come on DU with "realistic" solutions, I can hear Rove thinking now: we'll destroy the Democrats with reality BWAHHHAAAHHAHA

[personman]

24. Did you read his post?

"And if you would make it clear that you empathized with people (ie:
gay people) and understood that they were indeed victims of discrimination in a number of ways (the issue of marriage being only one) you might get a better hearing."

He obviously doesn't believe that or he'd have said so, that is contradictory to his stated opinion on this.

[BL611]

22. I agree with you 100%

I only post here on a sporadic basis,as I myself have gotten extremely agitated at being lambasted for questioning (not even condemning, just questioning) the prevailing "progressive" logic on many social issues. All I can say is this being evidently the biggest "Democratic" forum it is important that people who are willing to put forth a pragmatic, measured agenda let their voices be heard, even if it means having children call you names sometimes....

[dR. O]

32. well

"i don't get it? if it's the same thing, then why do we need different names? it's redundant and would cost more to administer (differing forms etc...)."


you prove my point with this statement bc basically my solution gives both sides exactly what they want as far as a REALITY based end result but since you can't have 100% everything your way the the idea is condemned

and i didn't call any specific posters on the thread 'pc fascists' they outted THEMSELVES

"He obviously doesn't believe that or he'd have said so, that is contradictory to his stated opinion on this."

not true...i said it is not discrimination to not change the definition of a word for any group....of course homosexuals are discriminated against and that should never be tolerated but refusing to change the definition of a word is NOT discrimination

[personman]

37. Not true?

"And if you would make it clear that you empathized with people (ie:
gay people) and understood that they were indeed victims of discrimination in a number of ways (the issue of marriage being only one) you might get a better hearing."

So then your saying you think marriage is part of how gays are being descriminated against? No? OK then you don't agree with this, just as I said earlier.

-personman

P.S. I want you to know I don't blame you for dodging post #12. If I was backed into a corner with logic, I'd probably be hesitant to reply as well.

Edit: I must say I love what you said to Cheney.

[leesa]

35. Many of us have learned enough about the so-called 'centrists'

to know that their proposals are neither pragmatic or measured. They have produced the wishy-washy weakness that continues to re-elect Republicans because it is indeed a 'blow with the prevailing wind' type of agenda. Don't make the GOP mad!

[BL611]

38. Actually

I'm not a centrist, there is plenty of room between the center and the rigid dogmatic extreme...

[zanne]

31. If you don't want to advocate for Progressive values,

You're on the wrong message board. It's a huge internet, and there are many, many political forums. Why choose one you don't agree with? The fact that you're complaining about feeling left out should tell you you might have a more favorable response elsewhere.

[dR. O]

34. hmm

last time i checked this site was named 'democratic underground' not 'progressive underground'

[zanne]

41. Well, of we don't agree with you, we're "extremists", right?

Since, obviously, we're mostly "extremists" in your view, why the hell to do you want to continue with DU unless you want to create an opening for "your" kind of extremism? Know what I mean? Seems to me, the only reason you're here is to disrupt.

[BL611]

36. Not at all what I said....

Where in my post did I say that? If you put quotation marks around something that usually means you should take an actual quote, instead of twisting words to support whatever it is your trying to argue. I said that I question the conventional wisdom of what in the minds of many seems to pass as progressive values. I would assume the point of this website is for a discussion between all those who fall within the spectrum of the American left, if everyone has to agree with everyone on everything (or their labeled a freeper troll) whats the point of having a forum?

[OnionPatch]

42. Since you said no one stuck up for you

I will post and say that I might have had I been reading that post at the time. And I want to add that I have been reading your posts and keeping an open mind. I like to hear from more independent types to self-critique.

I also see a close-mindedness here sometimes regarding the more emotional issues. Gay marriage is one of them. I'm more of the mind that compromise is something we need to use more often. There are 6 billion people on this planet and if we can't find a way to compromise we may as well just give it up and start killing each other right now.

As far as the gay rights issue, I'll take the chance and voice my opinion: Gays must be treated equally in pay, benefits, etc. I think they should have all the rights a married couple has. However, I don't see why it can't be technically called a "civil union" merely for the sake of compromise. (If they want to call their union a "marriage" unofficially, no one will stop them.) If we can't compromise, we risk losing it all. People are dying all around the world and the environment is being destroyed because of neo-con politics. The neo-cons must be stopped and we aren't going to be able to stop them if we're sitting around crying over whether gay unions should be called "marriage" or not. Sure, it's not exactly fair and I understand the arguments but it just seems to me we're splitting hairs while Rome burns. I apologize to gays who may suffer some indignity over this but I don't see their suffering as even in the same league as the people that are DYING from neo-con policies.

As far as the PC thing: I think the right-wing has promoted the idea that we on the left are all PC Utopians. I would argue that sure, we have those people on our side but the right has the KKK, etc. on theirs. We are no more all PC Utopians than the right wing are all racists. There are two major parties in the US. There's no way we will all fit perfectly into one of two tents. IMO, the Dems are way, way less of an evil than the other side.

[Moderator]

43. Locking

If you have a question about your locked thread, I ask you to please contact the administrators:

[e-mail]

Thank you
DU Moderator