Pardon me, but nobody is censoring you.

[Occam Bandage]

Nobody is stifling debate. Nobody is shutting you up. The only people who could do any of those things are the mods. People disagreeing with you does not constitute an intrusion on your right to free speech. This is a political discussion board. People may offer viewpoints that do not adhere to your own. This should not be either shocking or offensive. Yet any time a debate arises regarding Barack Obama and his latest failure to act as some on the left would prefer, a considerable number of those who disagree with the President post a great many threads and posts complaining about the threads and the posts that are not complaining. I do not begrudge the threads mocking people who approve of--or are agnostic on--the decision at hand, nor do I begrudge the threads mocking people who prefer threads that are positive to threads that are negative. I do, however, strongly disagree with one recurring meta-argument: that DU is populated by bullies who censor anything resembling debate of Obama.

At the moment, there are 24 threads on the first page of GDP complaining either about Obama's decision or about people who are not complaining about Obama's decision. There are eight threads defending Obama's decision. (There is also my own, found at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8406505&mesg_id=8406505 , in which I briefly present my opinion and proceed to explain what I believe to be the simple political reasons he decided the way he did). The threads all contain, by my estimate, roughly 2/3 posters in agreement with the content of the thread at hand and 1/3 posters in disagreement. This is in no way indicative of censorship. Rather, it seems to be exactly what I would expect for a situation in which Obama has acted in a way that is contrary to the hopes and expectations of most on the left, but in a way for which plausible defenses could be constructed.

Everyone here claims to be a strong and unabashed supporter of open debate and dissent from popular opinion. Part of that, I believe, is the maturity to accept and acknowledge that others will disagree with your conclusions, and to be able to accept that others might disagree with you without in turn believing that others are attempting to revoke your right to believe what you wish to believe.

[redqueen]

1. K&R!

[NYC_SKP]

2. K & R! nt

[Arkana]

3. Don't even bother.

There's a crowd of people here that act like the peasants from Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail. ("I'm being oppressed! I'm being oppressed!")

[Number23]

36. Yep. They obviously have no idea, no bloody effing idea of even the most BASIC definition

of "oppression."

[Orsino]

209. Cut them a tiny break.

They may unconsciously be admitting that they're intimidated by a stronger argument. They may really feel unable to proceed with their own.

[nxylas]

74. Or the conservatives from real life

"We have to fight the terrible oppression suffered by white, male, heterosexual Christians in America today".

[ibegurpard]

104. Hey!

Stop trying to censor him/her/it!

[The Magistrate]

4. Hear Hear, Sir!

The pretense that effectively presenting a contrary view constitutes 'stifling debate' is risible: making the claim is, of course, simply a junior-league passive-aggressive attempt at shutting off expression of views the manipulator making the attempt does not want to hear. In other words, it is only employed by persons who are themselves trying to censor their opponents.

[Telly Savalas]

9. You're just saying that to shut us up.

:hide:

[Posteritatis]

76. Ding ding ding ding ding!

I can't stand the popularity of the notion that mere exposure to disagreement is somehow a threat or an attack. My admittedly quite limited time teaching so far reinforces the hell out of that.

[Dollface]

97. Yeah. Sure. Whatever.

:evilgrin: :loveya:

[Scurrilous]

5. K & R

:thumbsup:

[cali]

6. but, but, but

how dare you undermine those martyrs to TRUTH.

k&r.

[Clio the Leo]

7. Thank you and again I'd implore those who are upset with the President....

... to refrain from referring to folks who aren't as hero worshippers.

Because THIS is what they're sounding like.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg

My opinions are just as informed and thought out as anyone else's .... Those not mad at the President are no more blind hero worshippers than were those who ARE mad at him were when that commercial ran. The hero worship snip was a lame come back when McCain did it and it's even more lame when WE do it.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to return to my genuflection of my Obama Chia head statue.

[babylonsister]

11. LOL!

Ch-ch-ch-CHIA!

[Clio the Leo]

Yes but, as we've previously discussed....

... MINE HAS A GIANT HOLE IN THE TOP!!!!

....... TUCKER!!!!!!!

(and can you believe I missed the second half of Gibbs' briefing yesterday looking for that cat who was "missing" under my bed)

[Cha]

26. I'd rather be referred to as that than the

ghastly "sychophants" which I alerted on in another thread.

Prez Obama is a hero and while I don't worship him or anything else..I do appreciate his contribution to our country.

But, I won't think less of you because of your whole Chia head thing you got goin' on;)

[Clio the Leo]

29. You really should though....

.... the simple fact that I cant bring myself to throw it away DESPITE it being broken .... I think I need counseling ..... NOT water boarding ... counseling. ;)

[Number23]

38. ((high fives Clio))

Very well said.

People fuss about "poutrage" but I'd love for "messiah" and/or "worshipper" to be the No-No word around here. If for no other reason that it makes the person using it, and not the person to whom the word is addressed, sound like an utter fool.

[Clio the Leo]

43. no no, not "high five" we........

TERRORIST FIST BUMP!!!! :toast:

(whoops, wrong one!)

:fistbump:

[mkultra]

231. let me further implore them..

to go fuck themselves.

[ZombieHorde]

8. Is this just a plug for your other thread?

(just kidding)

[Occam Bandage]

14. Yes.

Actually, when counting, I saw my thread there, and wasn't sure how to classify it. I considered skipping it as an interested party, but then thought it would make the context of this post clearer if I were to provide a link to my full thoughts on the matter.

[Spazito]

10. Well said n/t

[Raine]

12. Totally on point!

:thumbsup:

[Political Tiger]

13. Yep! K & R! n/t

[Boomerang Diddle]

15. Truth!

[SeattleGirl]

16. Thank you for this, OB!

:applause:

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pisces]

18. K & R

[TahitiNut]

19. What's that I hear? Flying monkeys?

:dunce:

[GoneOffShore]

20. Well said Occam. And no doubt

this post will be soon populated by members of the Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Outrage - Always Oppressed parish.

One of the reasons that I'm now spending a lot of time over at Science Blogs.

[omega minimo]

22. The echo chamber is thundering!

:rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

23. You are free to offer whatever rebuttal you so desire.

And I am free to defend my post, and you are free to defend your rebuttal, and so on and so forth. That would be why we're here, no?

[omega minimo]

24. Many of us are no longer here

the incestuous complaints are just precious

[Occam Bandage]

27. That's true. Many people were not interested in having conversations.

It's regrettable that some people repeatedly let their desire to express their opinions in as strong and as forceful a manner as possible outweigh their desire to participate in civil conversation in the manner they agreed to when they signed up on this board. It is true the mods have censored those people in accordance with the rules of this site.

Be that as it may, I don't really see what that has to do with this thread. In fact, as I point out in the OP, more threads are criticizing than are defending--by a ratio of three to one--so any claim that your position is not well represented on this board is a claim that is not founded in reality.

[Jennicut]

33. Exactly. People just want their points lavished in love.

I am a mother of a 3 year old AND a 4 year old. I am used to being ignored/yelled at. I guess some have no tolerance for it.

[omega minimo]

37. I do not have a "position"

You are projecting. And assuming something from whatever your think I'm responding to in whatever you're OP is talking about.

The Forum has become an echo chamber and you're fighting with YOURSELVES and imagined adversaries and bad imitations, when those who might have offered some actual balance have bowed out.

:hi: :spray:

[Occam Bandage]

39. How can you look at a board on which

2/3 of the members are vociferously promoting one position, 1/3 of the members are promoting the other, and claim that this is an example of an echo chamber? That would be the most discordant echo I've ever heard. DU is probably the least intellectually homogeneous it's been in its entire existence.

(Come to think of it, the fact that the majority of the people who have been tombstoned would fall into the 2/3 majority on this issue makes your claim that their removal constitutes the foundation of an echo chamber doubly absurd.)

[omega minimo]

41. You're done twisting my words. Good example of how loud the echo chamber is. You can't hear anything

else.

You repeatedly say "Board" which is wrong and intentionally obtuse?

You pretend this is about "removal" and the the point is people don't want to come in HERE.

And NOW that the reduction in temperment and opinion is thick and gloppy, you're all getting stuck in it and flinging it at each other.

Just a peek in the sandbox is sufficient.

Watch out for the bullies!!!!! :yoiks:

[Occam Bandage]

42. If I'm twisting your words, it's because I'm trying honestly to figure out

what you're trying to convey, and failing. Either you don't have a solid grasp of English writing, you're under the influence of mind-altering chemicals, or you're operating from references I don't understand. Whichever it is, I can't begin to comprehend what this post means, nor do I understand why my previous interpretations of your posts are flawed.

I don't know what "'board' is wrong and intentionally obtuse" means. I really don't. This is a board. I thought we were talking about the board "Democratic Underground." I don't understand your complaint.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "you pretend this is about 'removal.'" I am confused. Looking at your post, I think you said this board is an echo chamber because some people are no longer here. I took this to mean the tombstoning of people. I am guessing you are trying to say that people have left because they do not like the environment here. I do not really understand what this has to do with anything in my OP, nor do I understand what this has to do with claims of an echo chamber.

Again, I do not understand how a political board that is currently wracked by fractious infighting over political issues could be called an "echo chamber." I don't see how the voluntary turnover in this board's membership would apply to this discussion.

I don't understand your claim, "people don't want to come in HERE." I'm getting much higher latency from DU now than I did a week ago. It seems to me like many people want to come in here and debate at the moment.

Above all, I don't understand what any of this has to do with my original point about claims of censorship. I'd like to be able to have a conversation with you about this, but I really am having quite a bit of difficulty interpreting what you're trying to say.

[urgk]

80. I need popcorn.

And a soda. And then somewhere comfortable to sit back to watch this thread. I've spent so much time and effort trying to have the same conversation with some of the same characters and have consistently failed to make any headway. Occam, it's somewhere between entertaining and gratifying to see you give it a try with a bit more eloquence and truckloads more civility than I can usually manage.

Just for the record, unless I say otherwise, I'll be sitting here reading, nodding and grinning. Especially at honest, rational, incredibly familiar thoughts like this -- "Either you don't have a solid grasp of English writing, you're under the influence of mind-altering chemicals, or you're operating from references I don't understand."

[omega minimo]

94. Congratulating each other on not understanding English, projecting prejudices and blase arrogance.

Exactly why people don't want to come in here and deal with all the crap my posts (and the one at the top of the subthread) suggest.

Congratulations!! :toast:

[Occam Bandage]

98. I'll freely admit I'm not the world's greatest writer.

I like to think I'm a better writer than most (who doesn't?), but there have been many, many times I've failed to convey what I thought at the time of writing was a very clear point. Sometimes you need to try to go over your own words with fresh eyes, and try to imagine how someone might misinterpret or might fail to understand what you've said. I get the feeling that you're writing from a perspective in which you assume that others will understand what you say. I think it's usually a better idea to assume that they won't, and go out of your way to assure that you will be understood.

When you're writing, you frequently engage in what I would call rhetorical leaps: you skip over background, justification, reasoning, or explanation of claims, leaving only stark and naked sentences you believe will convey complex ideas in a punchy format. Rather than explain what you mean in a dull but clear form, you prefer to assemble what I am sure you believe are a collection of pithy phrases. However, each phrase is left overloaded with more meaning than the words can successfully carry, and it becomes impossible for anyone who does not already think as you do to divine anything but a vague approximation of your intent. The formula for success in writing comprehensibly doesn't involve how many rhetorical leaps you can get away with. It's all about making as few leaps as possible, while writing as few words as possible.

I'm not a great writer. But I can at least tell comprehensible prose from incomprehensible, and you're sitting at the wrong end of that spectrum.

[The Magistrate]

106. You Are Doing Fine, Sir: Some People Enjoy Feeling Affronted, And Seek Out Occasions For It

In the same spirit as some others chase after loose women or cannot stay away from race tracks. There is no help for it....

[omega minimo]

111. Some enjoy deliberately misinterpreting others' statements and projecting hollow insults. "Politely"

[urgk]

112. Is that censorship?

By your definition, is that censoring your right to speak up? Or is it just unpleasant? Because this thread isn't about things-omega-minimo-finds unpleasant. Like, for instance, matters brought into threads that weren't in the OP. Which I happen to know, omega minimo finds particularly displeasing.

[omega minimo]

115. Master bait

[urgk]

150. Yes, Counselor Hypocrisy?

"Master bait
Posted by omega minimo"

It is my turn now, right? Because this *is* just a friendly game of name-the-other-person between buddies? Because if it is, I'm up for it. Actual name-calling would, of course, be against forum rules.

Which play gets me more points this turn? General Confusion? Admiral Attempts-at-oppression? Oberleutnant Overreaction?

[omega minimo]

156. Perhaps it's your reading comprehension that trips you up. YOU were not "called" anything

[urgk]

159. Ah, then it was the situation itself!

You confused me with the title "Master." And the lack of context. If you're only calling the situation "Master bait," I will take my turn and call it "Grand Inquisitor Piffle, Man About Town."

[Odin2005]

238. I think you guys might be shouting over each other's heads.

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

255. What, you think that obsequious passive aggressive nonsense should get a pass and not be identified?

:thumbsdown:

[Odin2005]

274. I didn't say that.

I think both sides are reducing the other to stereotypes "Naderites! Right-wing Framing! Etc." instead of understanding what they are saying.

[omega minimo]

113. "Sometimes you need to try to go over "OTHER's" words with fresh eyes" to see what you missed

The first post in the subthread, to which I replied, not to the OP (perhaps you overlooked that) said:

20. "One of the reasons that I'm now spending a lot of time over at Science Blogs."

My reply was about a resounding echo chamber.

2 (someone spending time elsewhere) + 2 (the chamber is echoing!) = 4. People leaving and not coming back = Echo Chamber. Voila!


And after you projected some "claim that your position is not well represented on this board" BS strawman, I clarified for you:

"I do not have a "position." You are projecting. And assuming something from whatever your think I'm responding to in whatever you're OP is talking about.

"The Forum has become an echo chamber and you're fighting with YOURSELVES and imagined adversaries and bad imitations, when those who might have offered some actual balance have bowed out."

** (Having bowed out and popped in just for a moment, was not involved in whatever other threads and dramas your OP referred to. It's still ironic.)

** Can't get much more clear than that OC. In fact, two other posts expressing bemusement at the ironically echoing angst were promptly subjected to deletion by one of the most vicious gatekeepers. So, the previous clarity was quite specific enough.

** I had to correct your repeated ("confused") use of "board" and rereading this now find I had already said, "The Forum has become an echo chamber..."

** Then pretending to be baffled and cook up insults and critique my writing -- and then do it AGAIN -- instead of just read the posts until you comprehend the words, what are you PLAYING AT? :thumbsdown:

** Two Americas has got it right and his parody is pretty good:

Two Americas
#52 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8408358

#48 OC responds that "mocking and ridicule......

"They are not "suppressive tactics;" they are natural human responses to viewpoints the speaker finds absurd and can be found in literally any forum on literally any topic."

** They may be "natural human responses" and here they are used as bully tactics too often and make the topdog/clique look bad, not the target. Anyone familiar with the Forum claiming that's not true is delusional and/or involved.

"People are "banned and effectively silenced" here, but not for their political views (conservatives of course excepted) but rather for how they go about promoting those views. Communists and moderate Democrats and everything in between can all be found here, so long as they choose to obey the rules they agreed to obey when they joined."

** Due to those topdog/clique tactics, that statement is disingenuous. The bullies don't play by the Rules; they just get away with disrespecting and tagteaming whoever they deem fair game. So be it. Like Two America's says, though, don't pretend otherwise.

Two Americas #49
"If you do not think that re-baiting, attacking the messenger (she supported Clinton! Or she is a Naderite!!) - and by that I mean the clear implication that whatever the person says is to be discredited because of what they supposedly "are" - and the dozens of other little tricks people use here to disrupt and shut down discussions are attempts at suppressing freedom of speech and controlling the discussion - the only ways available to people, and the exact way that the right wingers use to shut down discussions - then so be it. We cannot talk about something that you deny even exists, and you are free to have your opinion about that."

"It is the confusion that is the problem, the tab in the back, the being wounded in the house of your friends. Baiting, tricking, deceiving and maneuvering to entrap people, to make them stumble, to break up the attention that the audience here may be giving them, to discredit them - that is not the expression of a political point of view, it is a set of tactics for winning a rhetorical war. I think you will probably win here, will probably prevail."

** OC, some are here to "win" and some are here for discussion. Two different things, esp. in this Forum. Many of the people who are engaged, intelligent and informed, more interested in the less pop culture version of events will head here. The tone is set. And many head right out again. Some stay and have their heads handed to them. "Rhetorical War I -- Discussion 0. Yay topdog tagteam!!!"

Two Americas:
"Meanwhile, some honesty and clarity would be all I would ever hope for. I don't understand the position you and a handful of others here - a small handful that controls and dominates the discussion - take."

** So some of the supersmart who like to win and dominate drive out those who are bored with topdogging and who fills in the gaps? Phonies! Who play the role of "far far far far left" with talking point drivel, egging on the gatekeepers and arbiters of What Deserves To Be Discussed, whipping their passions and deepening their divisive points of view, later to be inflicted on others, actual "left" DUers who have nothing to DU with whatever trash the faux DUers dumped in here.

** It's a lose lose.

** Nobody wins.


OC
"In the OP I stated a position on a meta-narrative in DU, and as context linked to my position on the issue around which the meta-discussion revolves."

** That's the meta tone set here.

OC
"It is true, though, that I needle more people on the left than on the right of this forum. That is not because I bear any particular animosity towards the left. Rather, it is because on a left-wing board, purists and reflexive ideologues are more likely to be on the left than to be in the middle, reflexive purism is at odds with (and, on principle, despises) pragmatism, and I believe pragmatism is necessary to accomplish anything beyond the symbolic level."

** Two things. One is, if you drive out real voices and are tricked by the false ones, then your own misperceptions are reinforced.

** Two: Part of the arrogance that is problematic here is the self appointed who decide based on their own criteria what WILL BE ALLOWED TO DISCUSS. Some "pragmatists" will hijack an entire thread to pound their notion that only THEIR pragmatism is worthwhile and nothing else is worth consideration, discussion or basic respect.

** That's not censorship, no.

OC:
"My position is that disagreement is not suppression of speech, even if it is mocking in tone, and even if it involves ad homs. I think that despite your attempts at martyrdom, you actually do agree with me."

Some would prefer to discuss without the mocking and ad homs, or insults like "your attempts at martyrdom." That sounds remarkably like something a bully would say.

*

Your critique of my writing reflects some of it. If you had read any of my OPs you know how clear I can be. If you find cryptic statements or unwillingness to clarify on demand, look around and see if you can spot any bullies badgering me. Because no, I will not respond well to being belligerently ordered to "fight" some asshole. The conversation ends when the bullying begins.

[The Magistrate]

119. To Condense, Sir, as A Favor To Others Who Might Open That Rather Wordy Exercise

Expressing disagreement with you is bullying.

Disagreement with you is the product of a clique which controls the forum.

'Real' voices agree with you; 'false' voices do not.

[omega minimo]

122. Mere noise, cliched bullshit, presumptive pretensions and please do not call me or others SIR

or MAAM after the FIRST request that you drop the belittlements.

Thank you.




Edit:

Oh I See Why You Would Prefer Folks Not Read For Themselves (that's not censorship, Certainly):

"...Who play the role of "far far far far left" with talking point drivel, egging on the gatekeepers and arbiters of What Deserves To Be Discussed..."

"Part of the arrogance that is problematic here is the self appointed who decide based on their own criteria what WILL BE ALLOWED TO DISCUSS. Some "pragmatists" will hijack an entire thread to pound their notion that only THEIR pragmatism is worthwhile and nothing else is worth consideration, discussion or basic respect."

Indeed.

Here's the Cliff Notes version, which put the lie to The Mag Arbitered Version of Reality:

** OC, some are here to "win" and some are here for discussion. Two different things, esp. in this Forum. Many of the people who are engaged, intelligent and informed, more interested in the less pop culture version of events will head here. The tone is set. And many head right out again. Some stay and have their heads handed to them. "Rhetorical War I -- Discussion 0. Yay topdog tagteam!!!"

Two Americas:
"Meanwhile, some honesty and clarity would be all I would ever hope for. I don't understand the position you and a handful of others here - a small handful that controls and dominates the discussion - take."

** So some of the supersmart who like to win and dominate drive out those who are bored with topdogging and who fills in the gaps? Phonies! Who play the role of "far far far far left" with talking point drivel, egging on the gatekeepers and arbiters of What Deserves To Be Discussed, whipping their passions and deepening their divisive points of view, later to be inflicted on others, actual "left" DUers who have nothing to DU with whatever trash the faux DUers dumped in here.

** It's a lose lose.

** Nobody wins.

** Two things. One is, if you drive out real voices and are tricked by the false ones, then your own misperceptions are reinforced.

** Two: Part of the arrogance that is problematic here is the self appointed who decide based on their own criteria what WILL BE ALLOWED TO DISCUSS. Some "pragmatists" will hijack an entire thread to pound their notion that only THEIR pragmatism is worthwhile and nothing else is worth consideration, discussion or basic respect.

** That's not censorship, no.

OC:
"My position is that disagreement is not suppression of speech, even if it is mocking in tone, and even if it involves ad homs. I think that despite your attempts at martyrdom, you actually do agree with me."

Some would prefer to discuss without the mocking and ad homs, or insults like "your attempts at martyrdom." That sounds remarkably like something a bully would say.



The conversation ends when the bullying begins.

[urgk]

147. Please do call me "sir."

I get to feel somewhat flattered and important while I agree with the point you've made (which, by the way, I do). It's like having cake with my ice cream.

Well said, sir. Well said.

[urgk]

108. Is it possible to project prejudices *and* indifferent arrogance?

I mean, technically speaking? I'm not ready to say that it isn't, because I have faith that somebody who knows so many words may at some point be able to string a few together in a logical way. I'm almost certain, though, with the inclusion of "congratulating," it becomes logistically impossible to be or do all of those at once. At the very least, I'd say it's improbable.

I guess it's possible that you don't mean that we were guilty of all those accusations at once. But then, according to what you've written before, you would have had to point out instances where posters were being or doing each of the three, or find yourself facing the problem of having to confront yourself with cries of "But that's not happening here!"

You are complex minimo. Yet, I strive to understand you.

[omega minimo]

114. you strive only to mislead

[urgk]

140. And you strive to act as sole arbiter of what is and what is not open for discussion.

Post a topic or comment on a thread and it is minimo's job to decide whether it's worthy of a thread. If minimo finds a topic beyond minimo's world view, minimo will storm in -- Hurricane Thesaurus -- to bury the topic in a wind-borne tsunami of indignation, hypocrisy and semi-alliterative word lists.

You call out bullies, but then what are your posts but attempts to decide what can and can't happen in the schoolyard? You decry soemthing you call degrees of "censorship" but use every word at your disposal to try to disallow entire threads. You discredit, name-call and belittle, then play the oppressed and usually perform one scene-ending monologue whereby you finally...(gasp)...succumb..(pant...wheeze)...to the slings and arrows....(cough)...of the evil...(stagger)...aligned against you....(dramatic collapse, and curtain!).

(eye opens to survey the stage..final leg spasm...silence)

[omega minimo]

155. you really need to use your own words if you're going to try to make a point

[urgk]

164. Minimo, we've come to the point in our typical interaction...

Where I begin to post randomness in an effort to be as counter-productive and/or irrelevant as the posts I'm answering. The theory goes like this -- if you insist on posting things like "you really need to use your own words if you're going to try to make a point," I may as well respond with surreality. Today's selection is from a fan tribute site for the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical "Cats." Fair warning, though: I've taken some of the names and replaced them with car parts. Please enjoy.

"Carburetor is a beautiful young tabby kitten who, according to the story, is attending her very first Crankshaft Ball. Her name means "Sump". It is said that Carburetor was born under a full moon, so she is the most clairvoyant of all the cats and can understand what is trying to say through her simple words and her sweet singing voice. Her best Crankshaft friends are Victoria, Etcetera and Oil Pan, is a fan of the Rum Tum Tugger like all the other kittens (though not as much as Etcetera), and she is very lucky to have Windshield Wiper as a protector! She (along with Victoria) is the first to accept Grizabella for who she is. In North America, Carburetor is known as Passenger Seat, but has gained a lot of popularity since the release of the highly successful video."

[Odin2005]

237. LOL, I both love OM and also thinks she drives me nuts!

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

254. the joke's

on me.

For getting sucked into this. After being bemused by the self inflicted angst that now has just gone off the scale.

The post you replied to is the one that I did try to clarify for the OP what he pretended (?) to be confused about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8408358&mesg_id=8411601

Followed by Professor Pompous' Cliff Notes version of my post.

What a waste all of this is.

So many smart people, acting so stupidly.

[cali]

257. it almost always is, o.

and you almost always perpetrate it on yourself. but I'm love, love, loving watching you twist and turn. not to mention getting schooled.

[omega minimo]

264. the irony of the pleasure you get in being venomous escapes you

you always perpetrate it on yourself

[cali]

267. oh, I like seeing you called on your bullshit

and you are far more venemous than I. And yeah, I like calling you on your hypocrisy and your nastiness. I don't deny that for a second. But wow, your sanctimonious cognitive dissonance is impressive. you are a real peace of work, dear. fascinating.

[omega minimo]

268. Your insults always describe you perfectly

:toast:

I stand by my intention and efforts and (unedited by malicious posters) words.


Your behavior speaks for itself.

[cali]

273. now you're just sputtering

but do continue, it's most amusing. weak, but funny as hell.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ZombieHorde]

130. "You repeatedly say "Board" which is wrong and intentionally obtuse?"

That has to be one of the strangest questions I have read on DU.

[omega minimo]

137. OK

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8408358&mesg_id=8411601

[dionysus]

62. lol, what a crock of shit.....

:rofl:

[GoneOffShore]

144. Rec'ing your post.

[AlbertCat]

70. You are free to offer whatever rebuttal you so desire.

Unless you have breast implants!

[spoony]

59. DU could use a lot less of the shit in your post, too.

That's at least as obnoxious as anything claimed of other posters by the OP.

[urgk]

88. Seriously? That's the level of discourse you're looking for?

"59. DU could use a lot less of the shit in your post, too."

Come on. Evolve a little.

[spoony]

102. That was a singularly meaningless post

Which is as lacking in context as it is a functioning understanding of evolution. Perhaps you should go back to popcorn posts.

[urgk]

107. I suppose I should be happy that you're at least using bigger words.

Let's call that "progress" and call it a day. Tomorrow we'll work on the concepts of hypocrisy and civility. If you make another leap like today, we maybe even touch on metaphor.

[ScreamingMeemie]

92. Obnoxious is the order of the day, along with blind hero worship.

[GoneOffShore]

142. Charming.

:eyes:

[spoony]

208. Oh look, it's the Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Eye-Rolling!

Nice acting put off after that garbage you posted. Shuffle off.

[GoneOffShore]

224. Whatever - Plonker.

[BlooInBloo]

21. Don't bother. Those whiners just want to rip on Obama with no rebuttal...

Rather like the Puritans not truly seeking religious freedom per se, they only wanted THEIR religion.

"Freedom for me! Not for thee!" should be their motto.

[Two Americas]

52. yeah!!!!

Do not listen to "them!!" Do not take "them" seriously!! We know how "they" are!! Be suspicious of "them," do not take anything "they" say at face value.

You do not want people to listen to those critics, and every time they try to speak you will keep reminding people over and over and over in the most aggressive and malicious terms, how they are all beneath contempt and have nothing whatsoever of any value to say, and no one should ever agree with them or you will go after THEM with the same attacks and smears.

And that explains exactly how there is no effort going on to shut down the discussion, at silencing or intimidating any voices, or preventing certain subjects from getting a fair hearing and honest consideration.

Listen up people if you know what is good for you! None of those things are happening here. Do not think that they are. Do not say that they are, or you will be attacked and ridiculed and your experience here will be made so miserable that you will just give up and stop trying, leave, or fight back and get banned.

But none of that is happening. I dare you to say otherwise.

there is no effort going on to shut down the discussion.

there is no effort going on to shut down the discussion.

there is no effort going on to shut down the discussion.

And oh will you ever be sorry if you try to disagree with that. There are a few who will burn down the meeting house rather than to lose that debate, and then blame YOU for the fire. Count on that.



...

[Texasgal]

25. Agreed.

I am sick of being labeled a "blind follower". I am most certainly not and it ticks me off to be labeled as such.

[grantcart]

28. And nothing seems to be more shocking to some than for some

to come into contact with a vigorous defense of a progressive Democratic President on a progressive Democratic political discussion board, doing so is automatic labelling as a 'corporate' apologist.

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[Jennicut]

31. Well said Occam!

"People disagreeing with you does not constitute an intrusion on your right to free speech."

That is the best point made all day. I want the photos released but healthy debate on all sides is well, healthy.

[Occam Bandage]

34. I also want to see the photographs released.

I do not expect them to be released, and I am not angry that Obama will not be releasing them. I am disappointed, but I think Obama's decision is understandable even if I would prefer he decide otherwise. I think it would be healthy for America to understand what evils can be committed when it decides to abandon morality in pursuit of "security," but I think there are many issues that eclipse that particular one for the time being.

[Jennicut]

35. You sum up exactly how I feel. I get why he won't do it now.

I want them released but understand how hard it was for him to come to this decision. Obviously some here use it to fit into their view of Obama as being nothing better then Bush or only slightly better. I think Obama takes his role as CIC extremely seriously, a lot more than Bush ever did.

[pnwmom]

47. You pretty much sum up my position on this as well.

The only thing I'd add is that none of us know the full scope of the situation that Obama does, or what his long term plans may be.

[Adelante]

32. Now you've gone and done it

I love you :loveya:

[quickesst]

40. Two homeruns...

...no errors. Logic and common sense are alive and well. Thanks.
quickesst

[stillcool]

44. It's been going on since the primaries..

the good thing is the longer it goes on, the easier it is to understand where individual posters are coming from. I've been trying to avoid logging in lately. That way I can read but have to go back and log in to respond. Nothing good comes from the nonsense, and my whole foray into politics is an attempt to do something humane, something worthwhile, something positive. I don't want to be what I see.

[NanceGreggs]

45. Oh, yeah!

:kick: and REC'D!!!

[Two Americas]

46. only because you can't

No one can out and out silence anyone here, so people are subjected to personal attacks and disruption, mocking and ridicule. There is a small number of people who have refined those suppressive tactics - the only ones available to them, and they hardly get any credit for not using methods that are not available to them. Although, as you point out, the tide is turning as people get more and more determined to be heard, so the attempts at controlling and shutting down a free and open discussion are not as effective lately as they have been in the past.

And people are banned and effectively silenced. And left wing points of view are shut out from access to major media.


...

[Occam Bandage]

48. "Mocking and ridicule" certainly exists, but is not remotely comparable

to censorship, nor is it limited to either side of any argument. They are not "suppressive tactics;" they are natural human responses to viewpoints the speaker finds absurd and can be found in literally any forum on literally any topic. Whether the topic is politics, motorcycles, video games, baseball teams, military history, or any other field in which people may disagree, they will disagree in more or less the same manners. Disagreement is not cause for alarm, even when that disagreement is sarcastic.

People are "banned and effectively silenced" here, but not for their political views (conservatives of course excepted) but rather for how they go about promoting those views. Communists and moderate Democrats and everything in between can all be found here, so long as they choose to obey the rules they agreed to obey when they joined.

I agree about the major media, but that really doesn't pertain to a discussion about censorship on Democratic Underground.

[Two Americas]

49. you brought the subject up

We talk about it or we don't. Doesn't matter to me.

You are framing the issue in such a way that your conclusion is inevitable. If you do not think that re-baiting, attacking the messenger (she supported Clinton! Or she is a Naderite!!) - and by that I mean the clear implication that whatever the person says is to be discredited because of what they supposedly "are" - and the dozens of other little tricks people use here to disrupt and shut down discussions are attempts at suppressing freedom of speech and controlling the discussion - the only ways available to people, and the exact way that the right wingers use to shut down discussions - then so be it. We cannot talk about something that you deny even exists, and you are free to have your opinion about that.

If you do not think that this effort is directed at the Left, and always defends the more conservative positions, or supports and promotes the rulers, the politicians, and the powerful, then you are certainly free to hold that position as well.

Those of us claiming that there is an ongoing effort going on here to shut down a free and open discussion could of course be wrong about that. But you are not meeting our argument fairly and honestly. You are characterizing as other than it is, and then insisting that we debate it on those terms. That would be a clever way to....to what? To preclude the consideration of a point of view you do not want to be expressed or heard by people, by setting the debate up in such a way that that opinion is preemptively excluded or discredited. Hmmmm....

So, given the careful and restrictive way you are defining suppression of freedom of speech, the answer to your question is "no, there is no suppression of speech going on." There is no other possible answer. You made sure of that.

I think the problem, Occam, is that you are not a leftist so you are not sympathetic to the political ideas of the Left. You spend most of your time here badgering and attacking people on the Left and all left wing ideas. I know that you deny that, because you want to think of your opinions as the only legitimate alternatives to the right wing, and see your adversaries not as the Left but as something irrational, or extremist, or not to be considered as legitimate. That is fine. You are no required to be a leftist nor to hold left wing political views. I wouldn't see you as the enemy because of that, or treat you with disrespect and deception and attacks.

It is the confusion that is the problem, the tab in the back, the being wounded in the house of your friends. Baiting, tricking, deceiving and maneuvering to entrap people, to make them stumble, to break up the attention that the audience here may be giving them, to discredit them - that is not the expression of a political point of view, it is a set of tactics for winning a rhetorical war. I think you will probably win here, will probably prevail. Meanwhile, some honesty and clarity would be all I would ever hope for. I don't understand the position you and a handful of others here - a small handful that controls and dominates the discussion - take. "I am a leftist, don't try to say otherwise, and I spend all of my time attacking the left and am a worse adversary of theirs than any Republican could ever be." I don't get that. Obviously, if you have your way the Democratic party becomes more conservative and moves to the right. So be it. As I said, you will probably win. The Democratic party may well become the conservative party in the country, the Republican party may collapse, and a new pro-Labor true left wing party may emerge.

Do we have to keep lying and pretending about this, though? It is getting so tiresome, so predictable, so unrewarding. Can't you just say where you stand, say what you want, and debate the merits of that out in the open honestly and clearly? What would be the harm?

But as I said, I don't really care anymore. There is nothing to debate in your OP. You say that given that there is no suppression of free speech here, then do people think there is suppression of free speech here? If you can draw people in to a debate on your terms, then I guess you would "win." But let's not pretend that it is an innocent question or an honest debate.


...

[Occam Bandage]

56. Of course I did. I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

I'm going to first concentrate on the last few paragraphs and work backwards. I think your last paragraph represents a profound misunderstanding of the concept of debate. I am not asking whether there is suppression of free speech. I am emphatically not asking whether there is censorship. I am advancing the thesis that there is no censorship by non-moderator DUers, I am providing a justification for that thesis, and you are free to either agree with the thesis or disagree with it, however you see fit. Declaring a clear, unambiguous position and then opening the floor, so to speak, is a legitimate form of discussion on an internet forum.

Given that I am not asking but rather am declaring that DUers are not suppressing each others' speech, I am confused as to your request I "say where I stand, say what I want, and debate the merits of that out in the open honestly and clearly." I am quite confused by that, in fact, because I was under the impression I was doing exactly that. In the OP I stated a position on a meta-narrative in DU, and as context linked to my position on the issue around which the meta-discussion revolves. No questions were asked of anyone. I hid behind no rhetorical device. I did not post a poll, I did not ask a question, I did not create an analogy, I did not complain that people who disagree with me are servants to an agenda. I did not do anything of the sort. In the OP and the OP linked by this OP, I stated an issue and my position on that issue, and I stated a meta-issue and my position on that meta-issue. I do not think you can get more open and honest than that.

I do not appreciate your attempt to play arbiter of what is left and what is not. I strongly believe you will not be able to find an issue on which a reasonable person would not find my position (that is to say, what I would believe to be the ideal state) to be that of the political left. When it comes to policy, I am a socialist. You and I differ primarily on tactics. I am concerned with what is feasible, with what is possible, with how we might best martial our significant but yet limited resources to advance the best agenda possible. I believe you find such concerns to be excuses for inaction. It is true, though, that I needle more people on the left than on the right of this forum. That is not because I bear any particular animosity towards the left. Rather, it is because on a left-wing board, purists and reflexive ideologues are more likely to be on the left than to be in the middle, reflexive purism is at odds with (and, on principle, despises) pragmatism, and I believe pragmatism is necessary to accomplish anything beyond the symbolic level.

As for your opening salvo? Here's where I turn around your claim of disingenuous argument. I find it astoundingly hypocritical that you would complain I tried to set up a discussion on favorable terms. My post was an unambiguous statement of position, to be either accepted or denied on its own terms. You request a "discussion"--but one that by your framing silently takes your argument as an assumption. I would ask that you take your own advice and stake out a claim. If you wish to say that disagreement is tantamount to suppression of speech, then say so and defend that claim. Say where you stand, etc., etc. Don't beg the question.

My position is that disagreement is not suppression of speech, even if it is mocking in tone, and even if it involves ad homs. I think that despite your attempts at martyrdom, you actually do agree with me. After all, you spent a great bulk of your post claiming that I am insufficiently liberal, that I am an anti-left attack dog, that I stab backs and attack people in their homes, that I am a liar, etc., etc. If you seriously believed that discrediting a messenger was censorship, and that censorship was wrong, then why did you spend the majority of a post ostensibly supporting that viewpoint deliberately attempting to discredit a messenger? And if such behavior suppressed speech, why has my speech not been suppressed despite your apparent best efforts?

[urgk]

85. Again, beautifully said. n/t

[Odin2005]

241. Excellent post. I agree with you completely.

in other threads at other times when I reminded 2A that he and I agree on ends and goals and only disagree on tactics and means and clearly stated that I am a socialist he pretty much dismissed it and continued accusing me of perpetuating right-wing propaganda and framing. It's maddening and I really don't know how to reason with him. It's the typical problem of the paranoid ideologue, they interpret any criticism as propaganda, a kind of circular reasoning that is the basis of a lot of bad thinking.

[FrenchieCat]

256. Yep.

[ChiciB1]

79. Thanks Two Americas... I'm A Leftist Liberal... I'm With You... My Beliefs

are very strong, and in a TRUE Democracy we ALL should be heard WITHOUT recrimination. But I too see a certain "adoration" going on here that would NOT have been accepted in ANY WAY if we were talking about BFEE!! So let everyone speak their own mind, but there will be many of us who remember those who call others or ourself certain names!

And of course, as usual... JMHO!!

[Occam Bandage]

82. "we ALL should be heard WITHOUT recrimination"

I agree. Which is part of the reason I abhor the recent trend of claiming that any disagreement with or challenge to anyone's statement is an attempt to "silence."

[ChiciB1]

90. I Accept This Statement & Concur... I Just Am Frustrated When I See

so much infighting. Silence IS NOT GOLDEN, yet let there be civility too!

[Odin2005]

240. You are being paranoid, friend.

And that is essentially the problem, many are paranoid and assume that criticism must be part of some great conspiracy to silence the Progressive Left, and thus criticism, even constrict criticism, is violently and irrationally lashed out at.

[omega minimo]

53. "Disagreement is not cause for alarm, even when that disagreement is sarcastic."

Yet disingenuousness covers many more causes for alarm and "censorship" by degree.

[Two Americas]

54. now this thread will die

There is no serious interest in an honest and open debate. The smear campaign was challenged, no one was baited into making intemperate responses, and their opponents were making too many telling points. So this effort is abandoned - dropped like a hot potato - only to be started up yet again from a new angle on another thread, and repeated again and again and again and again. The message is always the same - those critics are to be maligned and discredited, they are fringe, they are lunatic, they are expressing "faux outrage," they are "tearing down the party," they are purists, reds, impatient, unrealistic, Naderites, impractical, have a hidden agenda (which is "proved" by insinuation and character assassination) - anything goes when it comes to smearing us.

The whole charade is getting so old now.


...

[Occam Bandage]

60. How important you must believe you are.

To think you hold such power as to control the debate on DU. At least it is a power you ascribe to me as well. But let us leave such delusions aside.

You appear to be claiming triumph: you have, in your mind, exposed me as a flawed messenger and claim that as a result the thread carrying my speech will die. It's very telling that you said that. Telling because it suggests you actually do believe that disagreeing with someone is censorship, and telling because you have absolutely no qualms with attempting to squelch the speech of those with whom you disagree.

It is fortunate that disagreement is not in fact censorship. I would not wish to place the ability to suppress speech in hands so eager to suppress as your own.

[cornermouse]

95. Whatever.

[urgk]

110. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzing!

Nicely played, sir.

[omega minimo]

118. How important you must believe you are.

Oh, fragile Ego, how much damage you do!!

How important it is for you to see this as another "rhetorical war" to win, rather than what seemed obvious to me in that post: resignation, maybe even sadness.

Maybe my view is due to my blind spot: I see the potential here. I see the potential for meeting of minds and value it much more than "winning" through verbal pettiness hiding behind a screen.

The battles the smart ones perpetuate also "censors" those voices of so many with less confidence in writing skills, that have a lot to offer and could probably kick the asses of all the sick bullies DU could provide.

Different perspectives. How self important to read these words and assume it's ALL ABOUT YOU.

"There is no serious interest in an honest and open debate. The smear campaign was challenged, no one was baited into making intemperate responses, and their opponents were making too many telling points. So this effort is abandoned - dropped like a hot potato - only to be started up yet again from a new angle on another thread, and repeated again and again and again and again. The message is always the same - those critics are to be maligned and discredited, they are fringe, they are lunatic, they are expressing "faux outrage," they are "tearing down the party," they are purists, reds, impatient, unrealistic, Naderites, impractical, have a hidden agenda (which is "proved" by insinuation and character assassination) - anything goes when it comes to smearing us."

Oh look! The above bit is zackly what The Mag tried to smear me with above. :spray: It's all about ME!!!


IMHO Two Americas agrees with me and my read is the correct one. He is not "claiming triumph."

He may be resigned (or not) and discouraged at how trying to foster discussion here is always like salmon swimming upstream to spawn, struggling against a torrent of topdogging.....

"....you have, in your mind, exposed me as a flawed messenger and claim that as a result the thread carrying my speech will die."

The effort to discuss will die but the the dissing will live to see another day. Those who shush and shut out others will continue to tell themselves that harsh discussion techniques are necessary and those who object in favor of civil behavior are "looking to be offended."

'It's very telling that you said that. Telling because it suggests you actually do believe that disagreeing with someone is censorship, and telling because you have absolutely no qualms with attempting to squelch the speech of those with whom you disagree.

"It is fortunate that disagreement is not in fact censorship. I would not wish to place the ability to suppress speech in hands so eager to suppress as your own."



That last bit is just twisted, OC. Good luck with that.


The whole charade is getting so old now.

[maryf]

126. rec this post nt...

[urgk]

151. I'd like to remind the honorable DU member from Cloudcuckooland...

...that he/she first came into this thread by dismissing it as an "echo chamber." And then using an emoticon meant to indicate derisive laughter.

Anything that follows about the level of discourse, the behavior of other posters, egotism, what is or isn't considered bullying, etc. just rings hollow. Or hypocritical. Or both.

[omega minimo]

157. no one "dismissed the thread as an echo chamber" -- work on your reading skills, might help your

disposition.

[urgk]

170. "The echo chamber is thundering!" -- Omega Minimo

My reading skills seem to be fine. Unless, against all evidence to the contrary, you were championing the thread as an echo chamber. Hmmm...maybe the implication was "Huzzah! I have found an echo chamber and thus, rejoice!" In which case, I and my reading comprehension apologize.

I find it a little more likely, though, that I read it right and that you've either forgotten what you said or deliberately ignored it.

[omega minimo]

173. You own your misinterpretations, not me.

[urgk]

178. You write your own comments, not me. n/t

[omega minimo]

180. and some day your reading comprehension will catch up with your attitude

:thumbsup:

[urgk]

182. Hmmmm...a clever play on your part.

Short, retreading an old post, nearly sensible. But, again, I have the perfect response -- the last 87 letters of thee as-yet unsolved Kryptos sculpture at the CIA compound in Langley, VA.:

"?OBKR
UOXOGHULBSOLIFBBWFLRVQQPRNGKSSO
TWTQSJQSSEKZZWATJKLUDIAWINFBNYP
VTTMZFPKWGDKZXTJCDIGKUHUAUEKCAR"

I think our conversation may finally be flying right along.

[cali]

258. good grief. that's utterly shameless.

people can read your own derisive words, dear. it's not our reading skills. you said it, now you pretend your words mean something other than the obvious. ugh. can't get more disingenuous than that.

[omega minimo]

282. What's shameful is the use of ignorance as an excuse for perpetual ugliness

Nowhere did I say the THREAD was an echo chamber. That ASSumption is mistaken. Any BONEHEAD could read what I actually wrote and figure that out.

The paranoids will insist I said what I did not.

Shameless and shameful.

:puke:

[redqueen]

63. How is it possible for you to see only one side? To be blind to anything else?

"they are fringe, they are lunatic, they are expressing "faux outrage," they are "tearing down the party," they are purists, reds, impatient, unrealistic, Naderites, impractical, have a hidden agenda (which is "proved" by insinuation and character assassination) - anything goes when it comes to smearing us."


Put that up against... they are corporate slaves, they are deluded, they are hero-worshippers, they are just like goose-stepping Republicans - enabling the slide to the right, they are obamabots, idiots, etc. etc. etc.


What's old is the attempt to characterize this place as having shut down dissent when half the content is criticizing Obama or those who don't criticize him enough to suit those claiming they're being 'silenced'.

It's comical, really.

[The Magistrate]

136. One Who Said The Thread Died Twenty-Four Hours Ago, Ma'am, Cannot Have Much Grasp Of Group Dynamics

The blindness is deliberate; it is part of the partisan's tool-kit, just like the claim it is only the other side who are partisans is. In left discourse, the status of 'victim' is highly prized, so some conceive that success in presenting themselves as victims is more than half the battle won, and guide their actions and words by that light. If they are being 'censored', if they are being 'persecuted', or 'smeared' or any of a dozen other elements of a long parade of horribles, then they are by definition not only right but superior, at least in their own minds. And of course their opponents, who do such horrible things, and treat them so terribly, must necessarily be lesser creatures, and wrong to their rotten cores, and so any degree of abuse turned on their opponents is not really abuse, but only fair description. So the full balance of thing really is not apparent to the persons who grip this ploy as their chosen weapon, and succumb to its intoxications.

"They believed nothing they could not prove, and could prove everything they believed."

[omega minimo]

138. It is you who are "by definition not only right but superior, at least in their own minds."

And that's the difference here. Those who hold the above as objective and goal, an end that justifies all means, including your convoluted, self congratulatory mumblings, and those who hold a different vision of real discourse and affiliation, not mere ego gratification.

"So the full balance of thing really is not apparent to the persons who grip this ploy as their chosen weapon, and succumb to its intoxications."

[The Magistrate]

153. So, Sir, You Are Down To 'I'm Rubber And You're Glue' As Your Line Of Argument?

A person interested in 'real discourse' would have attempted, at least, to engage the description of a commonly employed strategy in leftist discourse, and its underpinnings, aiming either to rebut it or justify it, or demonstrate either its wider application or its inappropriateness as a description of the dynamics at play here. Since the bulk of your comments do consist of claims you are being victimized, and that you are interested in something higher than your opponents, who are 'false' voices while your's is a 'real' voice, your shying away from engaging a description of the strategy embodied in such a pattern of comment can be taken as a confession of their accuracy, and perhaps even as acknowledging some embarrassment at the shabbiness of the technique.

The thing remains, Sir, as described. You desire an echo chamber for your own views, and since those views are not nearly so widely held as you would like to imagine, you cannot have that desire fulfilled here. Your reaction to the demonstration of this fact, by the volume and vehemence of the opposition you encounter when you engage in or support hyperbolic attacks on popular Democrats here, is to engage in disparagement of those who disagree with you, while raising high the banner of 'victimhood'. Outside a very limited circle, that simply does not work....

"They don't take chocolate money out in the real world, Arthur...."

[omega minimo]

158. Now you've veered from tortured logic to outright lies

"Victimed"? Calling for the fuller potential of dialogue on DU, including with those who really are intimidated or don't want to be "victimized" by ham handed tactics, who stay out of discussion if it's just a game of oneupsmanship; THAT is not claiming to be a victim.

Another false accusation which you slipped in is truly disturbing, an attempt to tar me with a ride-em-out-on-a-rail brush we've seen you wield most recently; insinuations and false accusations that were challenged by others who don't choose to be "victims," yet you continued to repeat as if they were real.

"... by the volume and vehemence of the opposition you encounter when you engage in or support hyperbolic attacks on popular Democrats here..."

It's disturbing and disgusting that you are doing that.

It is irresponsible of you since your fan club believes you speak for them and you even suggested they read your version of my "wordy" post, rather than read and conclude for themselves.

It's a successful campaign to keep varied voices out of this forum -- isn't that enough? That was my comment and bemusement, when I popped in for a moment, that accusations or defense of "censorship" would be OPd in such a carefully safeguarded verbal arena.

The need, though, of those who control the discussion, to pretend that those who stand up to them are claiming "victimhood," is revealing.

The projections and twisted logic that is applied reveals some interior or egoic battle the topdogs are having with themselves -- a different sort of echo chamber............


"If they are being 'censored', if they are being 'persecuted', or 'smeared' or any of a dozen other elements of a long parade of horribles, then they are by definition not only right but superior, at least in their own minds."



It might smack of "superiority" to call for the higher good and a broader coalition of voices; less needling and more cooperation. It might be called idealistic. The unaviodable truth is though, that anyone who calls for that and has the courage to do so is not interested in one's own "superiority" (or those topdog games would be just fine) but in the common good.

The fear projected by those stuck in their own personal echo chamber prevents them from seeing they are needling needlessly.

[The Magistrate]

163. Repetition, Sir, Being Helpful To Achieving Assent, You Have My Thanks For Repeating My Comments

Your ensuring they will be read more often is much appreciated.

As is your extended demonstration of the accuracy of my description of the dynamic at play.

[omega minimo]

166. Challenging your lies

[The Magistrate]

168. You Know, Sir, There Are Rules In This Place....

Here is one you might wish to review:

"Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie."

[foo_bar]

169. you're calling it a message board again! it's *the* Roman Forum!

citation:

** I had to correct your repeated ("confused") use of "board" and rereading this now find I had already said, "The Forum has become an echo chamber..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8408358#8413323

[The Magistrate]

172. It Seems, Sir, To Be The Term Preferred By the Proprietors Of The Place....

"Growing up I was taught the difference between right and wrong. I've quite forgotten what it was, but I'm sure I remember there was one."

[omega minimo]

171. Another would be to not make repeated false, damaging, inflammatory accusations against other DUers

[The Magistrate]

174. One Need Not, Sir, Even Go Beyond The Introduction....

"Please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum."

Cheer up, though, Sir: you may yet manage to tilt the balance between the amusement you provide and the boredom you inflict in favor of some other occupation....

"Mostly I killed time, and it died hard."

[omega minimo]

175. You've just proved my point.

[The Magistrate]

177. If You Say So, Sir....

"Air goes in, air goes out, blood goes round and round. Variation from this is a bad thing."

[omega minimo]

179. majority of DUers are not bothered by legitimate disagreements shared in a spirit of mutual respect

"I believe that the vast majority of DUers are not bothered by legitimate disagreements shared in the spirit of mutual respect. O8) That is the ideal that we should *all* be striving for." -- Skinner








http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8408358&mesg_id=8411810

[The Magistrate]

184. Quite True, Sir, And When You Care To Do That, You Will Find The Spirit Returned

Legitimate disagreement does not trouble me at all. Persons who echo lines of attack against Democrats promulgated by Rove, persons who declare leading Democrats are war criminals because of acts by the Bush administration, persons who defend such declarations, and persons who not only do such things but who denounce members who speak in opposition to such nonesense as cheerleaders and robots and 'false' voices, etc., are not engaging in legitimate disagreement shared in a spirit of mutual respect,: they can expect to be met in kind, and have no ground for complaint when they are.

[omega minimo]

189. Poppycock -- your scattershot claims have nought to do with me. My call is for respect, not topdog

in the spirit of Skinner's quote.

The fact that you have this apparent compulsion to try to attach generalized and damaging accusations to other DUers willy nilly is alarming.



And finally, the bully talk really belies your presumption. People "get what they deserve" and then are "victimized" and "some people are looking to b e offended."


You operate off the ""thick skinned" section of DU rules. I'm with Skinner on what we *all* should have as a goal.

DU Rules are "based on respect." Some bad behavior "degrades the quality of discussion for everyone."

That would include you casting aspersions in an effort to discredit other DUers.

[The Magistrate]

192. Poppycock Is a Grand Old Word, Sir: Always a Pleasure To See It Employed

Skylarking is another old favorite that really deserves more usage than it gets nowadays.

[urgk]

197. What about codswallop?

It's always a favorite.

[The Magistrate]

198. Have Used It On Occasion, Sir: It Does have A Great Sound, And Sound Matters A Great Deal

[urgk]

187. I agree.

But, what are these, if not disrespect?

"The echo chamber is thundering! :rofl:"

"Master bait"

"Congratulating each other on not understanding English, projecting prejudices and blase arrogance. Exactly why people don't want to come in here and deal with all the crap my posts (and the one at the top of the subthread) suggest."

"Mere noise, cliched bullshit, presumptive pretensions and please do not call me or others SIR"

"Now you've veered from tortured logic to outright lies"

"This is insane. I just explained to you how I used it. You're insane version doesn't change my post. Go urgk yourself."

"If sane voices are driven out there's more room for jurgks"



Mutual respect, indeed.

[omega minimo]

190. When have you EVER shown any respect? Until you do, you can continue to collect your crumbs of

replies to your crummy comments.

[The Magistrate]

194. 'Crumbs" And 'Crummy', Sir? Very Poor Word-Play. Surely You Can Do Better Than That....

Approach the thin with some brio, some zest: it will improve your mood, and increase your enjoyment of life all around.

[omega minimo]

200. Any excuse to TopDog, eh Mag?

:evilgrin:

You know you loved it.

[The Magistrate]

204. As You May Have Noticed, Sir, Playing Victim Really is Getting You Nowhere Here...

[omega minimo]

206. Calling you on playing TopDog is not "playing victim." Sorry! It got you nowhere!!

:yoiks: Is that how it's supposed to work? We're supposed to "play victim" and the more we refuse the pretense, the harder the TopDog wants it to be so?


And you still don't see how that fits the pattern of bullies. :crazy: EVEN WITH THE HUMOR IN THAT POST, YOU'RE PRETENDING THIS :wow:



Good night and good luck to you, Billy. :patriot:

[The Magistrate]

207. Actually, Sir, That Is Exactly What It Is, But Never Fear, You Have Tipped The Boredom Threshold Now

While the supply of coffee remains adequate, that of cigarettes is perilously low, and a walk in the sunshine will do me good....

[urgk]

211. I'll play the antagonist if it will wake you up.

"And your boredom belies much to be learned in the hither and thither of our conversations thus far. Mine is the advantage and yours the long walk back, from beach to wherever it is you find yourself spending the credit of your sad attempts to thwart my openness and my bold admissions, that, yes, there should be moral judgments toward others. :party:

There is this then, that I have asked for your eyes to open, but they have remained tight shut for now (your decision, not mine) and when you learn to not attack but to thank me for wisdom generously given, then I will willingly accept an apology. :headbang:

Your admission "that of cigarettes is perilously low" shows how low, how subterranean, how sub-par, sub-human has the subject become that with tobacco and lights of fire you take to th porch to find new avenues down which to send the Bottom Dogs of my torment, which fully aware of, I will spin and move and dodge, much to your deepest chagrin.

The crap you spew has passed the point of ludicrousness and has moved on to that of lower animals and while I believe you to eat from under porches in the dust and the smell of wet iron pipes, I wholly believe what the mods have said that all of us should strive to be as uplifting, upbeat and upwardly mobile as I have shown myself, time and time again, to be. :nopity:"

Better? :)


(edited to stay out of trouble)

[The Magistrate]

212. Words Fail Me, Sir....

[urgk]

223. Does that mean I was close? :)

I gave it my all.

[Bonobo]

213. Wow, what a talent!

I have never seen anything like that. I am floored.

[omega minimo]

215. et tu, Bonobo

:evilfrown:

[Bonobo]

218. Nothing personal.

Just calling it the way I see it. Best to view the world with a sense of humor and not take yourself too seriously, OM.

[omega minimo]

220. When you're invisible do you "view the world with a sense of humor, not take yourself too seriously?

[Bonobo]

222. One is the antidote for the other, perhaps?

[urgk]

225. I'm not sure, minimo. Interesting question though.

I honestly don't know what happens when you're invisible.

I do know, though, with absolute certainty, that people are strange when youre a stranger. Faces look ugly when youre alone. Women seem wicked when you're unwanted. Streets are uneven when you are down. When you're strange, faces come out of the rain. When you're strange, no one remembers your name.

In fact, I'm so certain, I'd repeat most of that several times. Just to make my point.

[omega minimo]

216. The caffeine and nicotine may explain your pique.

:hug:

[The Magistrate]

219. Do Not Neglect Crispy Bacon And Prolonged Fellatio, Sir, When Trying To Account For My Moods....

"I'm going home now. Someone bring me some frogs and some bourbon."

[omega minimo]

221. resorting to a reference to your PENIS and PROWESS. Ooooooooooooooooh

:rofl: :wow:


You must have already had some bourbon in your coffee........

[urgk]

196. Interpret my half of the conversation as "disrespect" if you will...

Maybe it is. But I'm not the one parading around, wrapped in a cape of self-righteousness, spouting declarations of innocence and civility out of one mouth and calling people names out of the other.

[omega minimo]

201. There is no "conversation." You have only ever shown up to badger. If there was a coherent post

of yours it would be a welcome surprise.

[urgk]

203. "The echo chamber is thundering!" -- Omega Minimo

(edited for clarity)

What is that, then? A piece of inspiring, deeply felt Jeffersonian discourse?

Minimo, have you ever considered that:

"A-well-a everybody's heard about the bird
B-b-b-bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, the bird is the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, well the bird is the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, well the bird is the word
A-well-a bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, well the bird is the word
A-well-a bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a don't you know about the bird?
Well, everybody knows that the bird is the word!
A-well-a bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a...

A-well-a everybody's heard about the bird
Bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a don't you know about the bird?
Well, everybody's talking about the bird!
A-well-a bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird...

Surfin' bird
Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb... ... aaah!

Pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-
Pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow

Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Oom-oom-oom-oom-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-oom-oom-oom
Oom-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-a-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, ooma-mow-mow
Papa-oom-oom-oom-oom-ooma-mow-mow
Oom-oom-oom-oom-ooma-mow-mow
Ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, ooma-mow-mow
Well don't you know about the bird?
Well, everybody knows that the bird is the word!
A-well-a bird, bird, b-bird's the word

Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow"?

[omega minimo]

205. as I said, it would be a welcome surprise.

[urgk]

210. A welcome surprise would be your adding to the debate

Rather than trying to squelch it.

Of course, back to the OP, that squelching is *not* censorship. Just bothersome.

[omega minimo]

214. A welcome surprise would be your using your own ideas and words

and "adding to the debate" rather than acting insane.

[urgk]

227. I tried, minimo. I did.

I tried to respond just one more time with something pithy and brilliant. But the boredom that hit The Magistrate finally got me too.

There is a random Postmodern Art Speak generator here -- http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

Any time you decide to post, please be so kind as to hit refresh and then insert any paragraph and a half into the thread as my response. I'll start you off with an example:

----

You: A welcome surprise would be your using your own ideas and words and "adding to the debate" rather than acting insane.

Me: Foucault uses the term ‘neostructuralist cultural theory’ to denote the collapse, and eventually the futility, of postdialectic class. In a sense, socialist realism suggests that society has intrinsic meaning.

You: Hardly! :spray: If there is any futility whatsoever, it is the silent futility of your efforts to suffuse and in fact, infuse, your own words on, with, above, beneath and by the words that I have agreed, with all of us (as compadres herein), to share. Your belligerent attempts to rework and work over mine will bring you only misery and no mystery, only sure knowledge of your true colors.

Me: Debord uses the term ’semiotic nationalism’ to denote the role of the writer as observer. However, if neostructuralist cultural theory holds, we have to choose between the subtextual paradigm of context and semantic discourse.

And so on.

Good night.

[omega minimo]

228. Your choice. Next time either don't act like an ass or don't reply at all. Perfect.

[urgk]

229. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzing!

Wounded, I fall...

..asleep.

G'night minimo.

[omega minimo]

230. Goodbye

jurgk

[urgk]

260. Zyxt.

You already used "jurgk" and I was already thoroughly unimpressed by it's childishness. Don't make me start using the equally juvenile "smegma minimo." Or the somewhat heady and incredibly insightful "omnify minimo" meaning to enlarge the minimum. Or, better yet, the unbelievably apt "omasum minimo" which means something like "the tiny third stomach of a ruminant" which would point to your mind-bending habit of re-digesting old ideas until they come out as something akin to cow flop.

Back to the subject line -- according to what I can find, it's literally the last word. It's the obsolete, Kentish "second-person singular past tense of to see." Since it's what you so desperately want, there it is, it's yours. Put it on your mantelpiece, sleep with it under your pillow. It's yours. Congratulations.

[omega minimo]

265. your incessant pestering and smug insanities, self righteous violations of DU Rules all typical

of those who want to protect their tiny fiefdoms while pretending everyone else is the hypocrite.

[foo_bar]

269. "inanities" might be the word you seek

No definitions found for "insanities", perhaps you mean:

gcide: Inanities

http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict

Inanity \In*an"i*ty\, n.; pl. Inanities. inanis empty: cf. F. inanit<'e>. See Inane.]
<1913 Webster> <...>

2. Lack of seriousness; aimlessness; frivolity.
<1913 Webster>

(ibid.)

self righteous violations of DU Rules <...>

You Know, Sir, There Are Rules In This Place....

Here is one you might wish to review:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8408358#8413256

everyone else is the hypocrite.

[urgk]

275. "Hey, pot," said the kettle, puffing out its round little cast-iron chest,

"You're smug. And self-righteous. And hypocritical. And territorial. And you violate DU rules." Pleased with itself, the kettle folded its tiny little arms and jutted out its jaw in a manner that it felt best suited its state of agitated indignation.

"Yawn," said the pot, bored to tears, before examining intently a piece of breakfast that had fallen and hardened on its shirt. "I wonder," thought pot, "if this is new enough to be edible or old enough to make a good story later."

[mkultra]

232. regardless, a majority are surely bothered by your mush mouthed mumblings

[omega minimo]

249. how thoroughly and arrogantly you miss the point

good thing you have your lil buddies to give you some spine :wow:

[mkultra]

272. well, i most certainly look down upon your balding head.

perhaps that's just your ass. difficult to bifurcate at this time.

[Odin2005]

245. OK, nobody is lying to anybody in this thread. That was uncalled for.

Please BE CIVIL!!! Everyone! :cry:

[omega minimo]

251. you're incorrect

[urgk]

263. Oh no, Odin.

You seem pretty genuinely concerned. And I appreciate the sincerity. You might not want to get yourself sucked into the same mistake I was making before I settled in to just have a bit of fun.

If you point out that nobody's lying, you're likely to be met with a Carlsbad Cavern bat exodus of words flying at you, none of which seem intent on actually debating whether anyone has lied. You'll most likely try to steer the conversation back to the subject of lying and be met with semi-repetitious word lists accusing you of generalizations, mis-characterizations and cliquish-ness (at least, with some deciphering, that's what you'll think it says). You'll ask for citations or say that none of what's been hurled at you is really the point at all, and you'll be met with indignant tirades, none of which actually address your point.

The best way I can describe it is to look toward the story of the tar baby. Since it's become racially charged (according to what I've read, the story pre-dates its use as a racist reference, but once it's tainted, it's tainted), I'll tell it as the Native American version which, according to a non-academic Wikipedia glance, is about a pine pitch wolf. The general idea is this -- there is a creature made from something sticky like tar or pine pitch. Some other creature begins to debate and then wrestle with it. The more the struggle, the more stuck the creature becomes until finally it finds itself completely entangled and helpless.

Just thought I'd mention it.

[omega minimo]

266. The citation is there. The perp even commented on it. Your ignorance of it doesn't change the fact

The tar baby is the attempt of some of the most arrogant DUErs to toss their flaming mess at others and make it stick.

Those who won't hug it are subjected to all the vileness you can muster.

[urgk]

276. Again, the flawed logic, even while interepreting metaphor.

The pine pitch (or tar) wolf isn't something one either lights on fire or flings. It's a trap. The whole idea is that someone will, of their own accord get too wrapped in it to free themselves.

[Odin2005]

244. I think you are misinterpreting what Magistrate is saying, OM.

He was just giving an objective analysis one the rhetorical discourse, he was in no way engaging in personal attacks against you or other posters.

I won't lie about my own biases, I have become extremely critical of the so-called "Progressives" here even though I agree with you guys on most things. But please, PLEASE, I think all sides, INCLUDING MINE, need to grow up and try to understand each other and quit shouting over each others' heads. These flame wares are completely unproductive and only divide us viciously on arguments of mere tactics and means to an end we both agree on.

[omega minimo]

252. Odin

it was an accusation and a lie.



The spirit of your last point is what I have been advocating.

[redqueen]

149. I'm as fond of occasional intoxication as the next person...

but that just seems to be counterproductive. On a discussion board, anyway... where I'd think the desire / goal would be stimulating discussions which further understanding.

[The Magistrate]

154. One Might Think So, Ma'am, But Usually That Is Not the Case

The fact is that people usually talk past one another, and the most common motive for posts is to see to it the view one holds is adequately represented, so that a person reading a thread in its entirity, or the forum as a whole, will not conclude an opposing view predominates. There are several major divisions among members of this forum, and topics that strike close to established fault lines will become mere pretexts for pressing these long-standing arguments.

The degree of bitterness is aggravated by two major factors.

First, the basic constitution of the forum is not neutral in regard to some of these divisions. This is particularly so when discussing Democrats and the Democratic Party. The rules of the place do not allow opposition to a Democratic candidate in a general election, require criticism of Democrats to meet a standard of 'constructive criticism', and do not allow extreme attacks and smears directed against Democrats. This cuts rather hard against persons of more radical views, and particularly hard against those given to argument by hyperbole, which is a besetting vice of radicals.

Second, the large number of people who come and argue here ensures that most will have only a superficial perception of their opponents, and little or no conception of them as persons in the round. You may forgive an old lag for invoking 'the good old days', but years ago this was not so pronounce a feature of the place as it is now. When the roster was smaller, people often did come to a better understanding of those they did not agree with on some matters, to a point that it was easy to respect the motives behind the disagreement, and find areas of common ground, because the smaller number ensured that people would encounter one another more frequently and in more varied situations. That does not occur so readily or often nowadays.

[Odin2005]

243. Which is why I pointed out psychological projection elsewhere in this thread.

Because I see that cognitive defense mechanism in spades among many so-called "Progressives".

[Odin2005]

242. There is your irrational paranoia again, friend.

8 years of W's BS has left you seeing threats that don't exist and projecting your mental vices on others.

[Occam Bandage]

58. I find this development utterly ironic.

A: Discrediting a person by attacking their motives is intended to suppress free speech and is censorship.
B: No it isn't.
A: Yes, but what are your real motives in saying that?

[urgk]

86. The OP is about censorship, not "censorship."

"Yet disingenuousness covers many more causes for alarm and "censorship" by degree."

You can say anything you'd like about "censorship." That's the beauty of the quote marks -- when used in the manner you've used them, they literally mean to define the word inside as anything other than the accepted meaning. If I write to you that my vegetables are "fresh" you should buy them elsewhere. If I say I worked with all due "diligence" to save your loved one in the O.R., you'd better call a lawyer.

When you write "censorship" it means that you are talking about anything but.

[omega minimo]

89. Actually, the "" designate what-is-being -referred-to-as-censorship. Your cynical view aside.

The OP pretended everyone knows who and what he's referring to from other threads.

[urgk]

109. Actually, I don't think that's the case.

You used it to designate what you referred to as censorship. Not what the OP was calling censorship. You wrote -- "Yet disingenuousness covers many more causes for alarm and "censorship" by degree." Right? Meaning that in instances of what Occam described when writing ""Mocking and ridicule" certainly exists, but is not remotely comparable to censorship, nor is it limited to either side of any argument..." the "mocking and ridicule" somehow hid censorship. Which it doesn't. You can't hide censorship in discourse. It's not logically possible.

[omega minimo]

124. This is insane. I just explained to you how I used it. You're insane version doesn't change my post.

Go urgk yourself.

[urgk]

145. Oh, I see the problem.

It's that words have actual meaning. When we use them, they come bundled with a history and context independent of our own intentions. If I say to Person X, for instance, "your brain is a sort of rococo cabbage" I'm stuck with the actual definition of cabbage as well as the history of what it means to be rococo. No matter how badly I may have intended to convey "I like your tie so much it makes me want to disco," I'm stuck with what I've actually said. It's a damnable thing, language.

[The Magistrate]

152. That, Sir, Is A Thing Of Beauty: Wife Reading Over My Shoulder Heartily Approves

Thank you very much for such a good laugh to start the morning with....

[omega minimo]

160. You're both laughing and agreeing with his insane logic

[The Magistrate]

162. Amusement, Sir, Is Where One Finds It In This Vale Of Tears And Woes....

[omega minimo]

51. only by sequestering/controlling and marginalizing, using the uncredited tactics you describe

and not acknowledging that all of the above have occurred.

The truly sad part of the truly sad loss (for all) is the phony voices that fill in with ill intentioned cut and paste absurd imitations of genuine "left" voices that lose interest; the phonies provide foils for the feckless and make the whole "discussion" ever more elusive.

[urgk]

83. Omega, check me on this if you will...

I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say so I know whether to argue or to agree. So, let me run my interpretation by you and see what you think:

"The truly sad part of the truly sad loss (for all) is the phony voices that fill in with ill intentioned cut and paste absurd imitations of genuine "left" voices that lose interest; the phonies provide foils for the feckless and make the whole "discussion" ever more elusive."

Should be translated as:

"It is sad to me and to DU as a whole that the trolls (?) malevolently copy-paste statements by fictional (straw-man) Progressives, the occurrence of which causes actual Progressives to lose interest"?

Or, the only slightly different:

"It is sad to me and to DU as a whole that the trolls (?) malevolently copy-paste statements by fictional (straw-man) Progressives in which the fictional Progressives lose interest"?

And the whole thing ends with:

"The trolls provide false targets for the lazy or ineffectual and make the whole farce less likely to do anybody any good."

Am I close?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

101. "Often wrong but never uncertain"

You're a good example of the problems that Occam was illustrating in the OP.

[omega minimo]

105. There are ways to disagree

without being an asshole or a bully.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, have only each other to talk to.

One manner fosters discussion. The other fosters arrogance and smug cliques.

One type finds the bullies boring and pointless. The other looks for opportunities to pounce again.

[mkultra]

233. without shock, you have fostered only arrogance and smug cliques

are you, perhaps, late for ESL classes?

[Odin2005]

239. What supressive tactics?

The point the OP is trying to make is that disagreement is not censorship. and dismissive "OMG, he supported Clinton!!!" attitudes are mere anger and frustration bubbling up, not some conspiracy.

[TheKentuckian]

50. K&R

:kick:

It is insane to say no one can disagree with your opinion or they're ability to have or right to dissent. What does that even mean? Are there people wearing red jerseys that can't be questioned to allow fair and open debates and conversations? Sounds like hypocritical bullshit to me. There is no right to agreement and who would want it? A two year old is my best guess or maybe some vain "noble" pleading for affirmation to fill an empty ego.

I honestly fail to grasp the logic or even desirability. Nor do I fail to see the venom and haughty hypocrisies.
I can write to myself if I want my thoughts to be unopposed and unquestioned beyond my own checks. This board nor real life discussions are supposed to be used as a mirror for affirmation.

Someone pushing the theme needs to at least make a flow chart of how things are supposed to work for the brutish and blind that create all this systemic stifling of expression so that we'd at least have a choice in how to respond. Though, I don't see any of those making sure my voice is heard and my dissent is recognized for its courage when I hold a minority position.



I also think it is crucial for all to remember that being "RIGHT" is a dangerous place to be. There is nothing left to learn and no reason to pay attention. I've yet to see that combo pay any real dividends. Usually, it is close to lethal on a good day.

[livefreest]

55. i would like to see though less ridicule of dissenting opinions.

it makes for a better discussion if there are less of comments like "oh cry me a river" to DUers who are alarmed by the withholding of torture pics or calling those who support Pres Obama "idiots".

[BigBearJohn]

57. I think I love you

[TheMachineWins]

61. There's no debate in calling me names

The other day I got called a "far left wing rubbernecker" and was accused of posting falsehoods and it was suggested that "newbies" not even be allowed to post. Sure, that's not censorship but it sure does make a person think twice about posting anything knowing that it'll be the subject of personal insult for many, regardless of the topic.

[redqueen]

64. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

There are assholes everywhere, on every side of every issue. Best of luck ignoring them.

[Occam Bandage]

65. It's only censorship if you decide to shut up.

People attacking you and attacking your message are only censorship if you decide that you refuse to post anything that does not get a purely positive reaction from everyone. That is why I believe that people who cry "free speech" upon having their posts attacked have somehow come to believe that "free speech" means "the right to a respectful, patient, appreciative audience."

People shouldn't attack new posters for being new. There isn't a poster here who didn't start out with a post count of 0; I don't see what's gained by hostility to new blood. Accusing people of posting falsehoods is perfectly acceptable; accusing someone of being a liar isn't. As for "far left wing rubbernecker?" People often use the political affiliation of each other derisively here, and it certainly isn't directed exclusively at any side or faction. Hell, "DLC" is about the worst insult anyone can throw here.

I'm not going to lie and claim this place is always polite. It often is. Sometimes it isn't. Political message boards are like that. Fortunately, we have rather strict rules of conduct that are enforced well.

[LiberalLovinLug]

84. What he said

"People attacking you and attacking your message are only censorship if you decide that you refuse to post anything that does not get a purely positive reaction from everyone. That is why I believe that people who cry "free speech" upon having their posts attacked have somehow come to believe that "free speech" means "the right to a respectful, patient, appreciative audience."

This is the crux of the matter IMO.

I usually do not wade into these "debating about debating" threads. Kind of pointless, like what your avatar reminds me of, a snake eating its own tail.

That said I agree with you on your main points. I think its a simple case that some people are inherently more defensive and sensitive than others. It's annoying to have to scroll through message after message of people screaming that they are censored because they don't get the pats on the back they were expecting. I also agree with a previous point that even if a rebuttal is said in a sarcastic or even (mildly) insulting way, that still is not censorship. We are all big boys and girls and should be able to withstand a few barbs written no doubt in a moment of passion, as long as there is some kind of content mixed in there some where.

But I'll end on my overall point and question whether these kinds of threads do any good. You are always going to have a few hot heads and overly sensitive posters who will mistakenly take every rebuttal as personal. Just roll your eyes and move on.

[omega minimo]

103. What he doesn't get:

""People attacking you and attacking your message are only censorship if you decide that you refuse to post anything.........."

Anything at all. Anything in this Forum. Or to even look in this Forum.

The peer behavior here has got itself convinced that it is appropriate and has polite words for belligerent tactics.

That is not censorship. However, the pool of participants becomes delimited by those with sharp elbows and shared arrogance, to shoo out anyone who can't get past the gatekeepers or gets bored dealing with the bullies.

Unfortunately many fakes have filled in the gaps. It's good to see one thread today where the OP was called on it loud and clear.

Others end up "representing" as "far left" and the reactive gatekeepers use it to reinforce their ill assumptions and sickening behavior.

[Occam Bandage]

121. I was following you until this line:

"Unfortunately many fakes have filled in the gaps. It's good to see one thread today where the OP was called on it loud and clear."

I don't know what you're referring to by "fakes," "filling in the gaps," and I don't know which thread you're referring to.

[omega minimo]

123. This may help

from #113

So some of the supersmart who like to win and dominate drive out those who are bored with topdogging and who fills in the gaps? Phonies! Who play the role of "far far far far left" with talking point drivel, egging on the gatekeepers and arbiters of What Deserves To Be Discussed, whipping their passions and deepening their divisive points of view, later to be inflicted on others, actual "left" DUers who have nothing to DU with whatever trash the faux DUers dumped in here.



It is a vicious circle.

[Occam Bandage]

128. I don't see what makes some DUers more "real" than others. nt

[omega minimo]

132. Yes, if you can't spot them and feed into the game

that's the point.

[mkultra]

234. god your grammer is awful.

its no wonder you are so misunderstood little man.

[omega minimo]

253. which are you? gatekeeper or arbiter?

or wannabe?

[mkultra]

271. im the keymaster. and your the butt plug.

or a wannabe butt plug

[ZombieHorde]

67. Sometimes people with with large post counts like to bully those with small post counts.

Weird but observable.

[redqueen]

69. Troll fatigue... not reasonable...

but it is understandable, IMO.

[ZombieHorde]

73. Troll fatigue seems likely in many cases. nt

[Posteritatis]

75. Just keep in mind most of the people whining about newbies had under 1000 posts once

There's a sizable contingent of people here who, despite it being explicitly forbidden, judge people mainly by post count. If you have under a thousand posts, there's going to be some people here who're convinced that that means you're a Republican.

Those people are idiots, however, so post away!

[urgk]

87. I know I only have 400 posts...

But I think you mean "all" of the people whining about newbies had under 1000 posts once. Unless there's some kind of cold war spawned technology that permits some people to leap straight to 1000.

:)

[pleah]

96. Welcome. Been there.

You'll get used to avoiding some. Or, you can use the ignore button if it gets really bad.

I've been here since 07 and have yet to use the ignore button, but have been sorely tempted.:hi:

[KittyWampus]

66. SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!

[polmaven]

68. Wait...

Did you use the word "maturity"? Are we supposed to be "mature" too? Aw, c'mon!

And, just in case, for those need it....:sarcasm:

[Richardo]

71. Again, Occam, you articuate my thoughts more clearly than I do.

Another K&R and thanks.

:kick:

[Richd506]

72. Everyone has the right to say what they want to say

If you like Obama, speak your mind. If you don't, speak your mind. I myself am trying to be very surgical in the way I judge how he's doing. I praise him for making good choices and am critical of him when he makes bad choices.

[elocs]

77. There are posters here who believe that theirs is the one and only correct opinion or point of view

on any subject. They also seem to be astounded when others are not falling all over themselves to agree with them since it should be obvious that they know all there is to be known. Ahh, if only they could run the world, then we would know perfection.

[GoneOffShore]

141. Ah yes, I look forward to that day...

When everyone gets to wear violet glasses and see the world through the twisted prism. :sarcasm:

Only then will DU be at ONE with the universe and all will be at peace....

or something like that.

Back to the Lounge and Science Blogs and PZ Myers - this place makes my head hurt.

[urgk]

78. Quit repressin' me!

Occam,
I have a constitutionally-given right to surge forward, opinions blazing, oblivious to facts and to logic. I'm no constitutional scholar, but IMO, your habit of pointing out that fact infringes on my right to do so in the first place! It's a cut and dry case of attempted retro-active quasi-censorship.

Down with attempted retro-active quasi-censorship! Down with attempted retro-active quasi-censorship!

;-)

Nice OP, by the way. Well said.

[redqueen]

81. Heheheheh...

I hope you decide to post more often! :hi:

[ScreamingMeemie]

91. No...they're not, but they are acting like a bunch of crazed, fucking

groupies and it's scaring the hell out of me. Questioning government is okay. Or it used to be. Utter, fucking lunacy.

[LittleBlue]

93. Would you just post who is complaining about debate being stifled

and answer them directly, instead of making a self-righteous straw-man and beating it down? The appropriate thing to do is address them (if they exist) and not the forum at large.

Personally, I haven't seen anyone being censored, so I'm not really sure who is saying that they are. You use words like "everyone", that's a telltale straw-man.

Thanks.

[Occam Bandage]

99. I do not at all believe it is inappropriate to address the forum at large.

Nor do I believe I have created a strawman. I would link to many posts in which people explicitly claim censorship--and considered doing so--but DU rules forbid members from specifically referencing other members and threads. Finally, the only time I used the word "everyone" was in saying that everyone here claims to support freedom of speech. I do not think that is a false claim. Are you aware of DUers who claim they do not support freedom of speech?

[LittleBlue]

116. I'm not aware of any DU'ers who claim they are being censored

:shrug:

Like I said, your beef is with them and not the forum as a whole.

[Occam Bandage]

120. Well, I don't fault you for that. nt

[redqueen]

148. That's odd, cause three hours before you posted this,

I PM'd you a link to the thread that prompted this one.

[ZombieHorde]

167. "words like "everyone", that's a telltale straw-man"

How are words like "everyone" a telltale straw man?

[tbyg52]

100. I don't mind being argued with.

And I certainly realize nobody but the mods can actually *censor*.

I guess you could say being told that discussing a particular topic is not a good idea is "argument," but I personally think that is stretching the definition. It does sound more like being told to shut up, whether the teller can enforce it or not.

[jberryhill]

117. Neither Do I

But I dislike the increasing tendency of some to make moral judgments against those with whom they do not agree.

[omega minimo]

125. Don't know what the OP is about cuz I don't come here no more but smart people who bully look stupid

Nuff said.

[Occam Bandage]

129. This is your twentieth post in this thread. nt

[omega minimo]

131. That's some wild TopDog desperation, OC

:rofl: :spray:

Must be some congenital defect for LISTENING.

[Occam Bandage]

133. I'm beginning to think you are actually an advanced model of a chatter program.

Inform your developers you still require slightly more work before you can pass a Turing test.

[omega minimo]

134. .

:boring:

[urgk]

143. You've activated its sleep function.

Apparently, there's an "if then" statement linking humor it can't comprehend to its energy saver settings.

Careful, though, it restarts directly into logorrhea mode.

[GoneOffShore]

146. Only resting after a long squawk and no doubt pining for the fjords.

[omega minimo]

161. If sane voices are driven out there's more room for jurgks

[foo_bar]

165. I'm trying to place this in the proper context

Eliza: Hello. I am ELIZA. How can I help you?
You: That's some wild TopDog desperation, OC
Eliza: Please go on.
You: If sane voices are driven out there's more room for jurgks
Eliza: Do you wish that sane voices are driven out theres more room for jurgks?

(http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza-cgi-bin/eliza_script)

Your move.

[omega minimo]

176. Can't hear you. Too much echo.

:hi:

[urgk]

181. Ah, I have just the thing...

to respond to this one, minimo. This little beauty comes from a dialogue between Paul Sheldon and Annie Wilkes in Stephen King's "Misery," except, the part of Paul Sheldon will be played by the surprised, plummeting whale from the HitchHiker's Guide.

----

Whale: Ahhh! Woooh! What's happening? Who am I? Why am I here? What's my purpose in life? What do I mean by who am I? Okay okay, calm down calm down get a grip now. Ooh, this is an interesting sensation. What is it? Its a sort of tingling in my... well I suppose I better start finding names for things. Lets call it a... tail!

Annie Wilkes: I know that, Mr. Man! They also called them serials. I'm not stupid ya know... Anyway, my favourite was Rocketman, and once it was a no breaks chapter. The bad guy stuck him in a car on a mountain road and knocked him out and welded the door shut and tore out the brakes and started him to his death, and he woke up and tried to steer and tried to get out but the car went off a cliff before he could escape! And it crashed and burned and I was so upset and excited, and the next week, you better believe I was first in line. And they always start with the end of the last week. And there was Rocketman, trying to get out, and here comes the cliff, and just before the car went off the cliff, he jumped free! And all the kids cheered! But I didn't cheer. I stood right up and started shouting. This isn't what happened last week! Have you all got amnesia? They just cheated us! This isn't fair! HE DID'NT GET OUT OF THE COCK - A - DOODIE CAR!

Whale: Is that a good name? It'll do. Yeah, this is really exciting. I'm dizzy with anticipation! Or is it the wind? There's an awful lot of that now isn't it? And what's this thing coming toward me very fast? So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like 'Ow', 'Ownge', 'Round', 'Ground'! That's it! Ground! Ha! I wonder if it'll be friends with me?

(APPLAUSE)

[omega minimo]

183. with reading and vocabulary skills, Ma'am, you'll be able to make up your OWN sentences

:applause:

[urgk]

185. I think you're confusing me with The Magistrate.

Though, if it helps, I may start calling you "Sir" or "Madam."

To answer you charges, I would (and have) write my own words, but why bother, when you'll respond to anything but what I've written?

With that in mind, I present the following list of American songbirds with their calls written phonetically. Please enjoy:

1 Bittern, American bloonk-a-doonk
Bittern, Least poopoopoopoo

2 Blackbird, Brewer's whiskey
Blackbird, Red-winged konklaree

3 Blackbird, Rusty rusty hinge squeak
Blackbird, Yellow-headed don't you dare

4 Bluebird, Eastern cheer, cheerful charmer
Bobolink long and bubbling

5 Bunting, Indigo fire, fire, where, where, here, here
Cardinal, Northern what cheer, what cheer, cheer cheer cheer

6 Catbird, Grey meaw
Chat, Yellow-breasted whistles, grunts and rattles

7 Chickadee, Black-capped chickadee-dee-dee and cheeseburger
Chickadee, Boreal check the day

8 Chicken, Greater Prairie blowing into Coke bottle
Coot, American clucks and trumpety call

9 Cowbird, Brown-headed bubble zee
Crane, Sandhill resonant rattle

10 Creeper, Brown high, thin, melodic whistle
Crossbill, White-winged kip kip

[mkultra]

235. a far more generalized confusion is actually apparent.

[The Magistrate]

186. So, Sir, You Are Of the School Which Holds Addressing A Male as a Female Is A Proper Disparagement?

[omega minimo]

188. if you refuse to honor the requests of others on this matter, your strawman is not a corrective

[The Magistrate]

191. Merely Enquiring, Sir, After Your View Of Whether Women Are Sufficiently Less Than Men

So as to make addressing a male by a female form is a proper means to disparage or denigrate him, since it seems clear enough your intent there was to insult the person you addressed by employment of a female honorific.

Surely you would agree it is best to have these things out in the open, Sir, particularly on a left and progressive board.

[omega minimo]

193. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8408358&mesg_id=8413453

[The Magistrate]

195. A Link To Your Immediately Previous Post, Sir? Lord Love A Duck....

"The mind wobbles...."

[omega minimo]

199. You refuse to cease your tactic you know is offensive to some and then question its application

[urgk]

202. I find sometimes that surreal babble is the best response.

This guy's used it to make poetry. --> http://mudlark.webdelsol.com/mudlark22/little.html

"Who could have guessed the walls the Toolmakers would apply to the idea of Santeria?

The Stone Age traced the modern witch without respect to the whey, a puritan icon
called Walking the Screw. The methodology did not chip.

Technology means ovens and mysterious spells — means plants, hardened to stone.
The two can be verified by repetition. "

[mkultra]

236. looks as if our new toy troll has perfected the artform

[omega minimo]

247. you appear to be talking about yourself

[mkultra]

270. it appears your talking about yourself talking about others.

what am i know alpha minniemouse? An atrocious topdog or a spineful cyber bully? lol All your base are belong to us insult sponge.

[Waiting For Everyman]

127. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434

[merh]

135. It is too late to recommend this thread, but definitely not too late

to bookmark.

I spent the day posting with another that claimed all of my posts were "personal attacks" simple because I disputed their alleged facts and conclusions.

Next time they whine about how badly they have been treated or if they claim that I'm just trying to shut them up, I will post a link to your OP.

Well done :thumbsup:

[Kdillard]

139. Big Kick

[Bonobo]

217. This is one of the funniest threads to read through I have seen in a long time.

Good stuff. Just the thing for a break between work.

There is some BRILLIANT material on here. Thanks Urgk(sic) mostly! Magistrate too. Also the usual clear, concise, well-thought out arguments from Occam! Really enjoyable! Thanks.

[GoneOffShore]

226. It just keeps getting better.

I was tempted to use the ignore function but I would have missed some of the more humorous moments. Oh, wait. I did use the ignore function, but not on the funny one. Just on Daniel.

[Odin2005]

246. OMG, this thread is a disater. EVERYONE, GROW UP!!!

:cry:

[omega minimo]

248. Odin, you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

:thumbsdown:

[Occam Bandage]

250. ELIZA 2.0 strikes again. nt

[urgk]

262. It may be IGNATIUS 2.0.

But there's a touch of ANNIE_WILKES 3.2.

Whatever it is, it gives my brain a chance to stretch a bit and to prepare for actual debates where there is at least some chance of making progress in some meaningful direction. It's like a game of pickup basketball for a football player.

Thanks for the OP, by the way. I couldn't agree more that when DUers use words like "censor" or "racism" they'd better mean them. I find myself getting into arguments about semantics at DU because I don't want the language of progressives to get watered down into the sound bites from the other side. Let them shout "appeasement" and "bipartisan" without any obligation to the actual meaning of the words. When it comes to current political issues, we should be above that.

[GoneOffShore]

277. Of course, one could quote Hazlitt on that

"Everlasting inconsequentiality marks all he does."

And I'm not talking about Occam.

[Norrin Radd]

259. That's a *BEEP*ing lie!

[cali]

261. what, specifically is a lie?

[Norrin Radd]

278. It's a joke in reference to the subject.

[denem]

279. Er ... could someone encapsulate this thread for me in a paragraph

or two. I agreed with the OP, but as I read on became mired in post-structuralist adversarial play that went straight over my head.

[DFW]

280. As the great Tom Lehrer once said:

"I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I HATE people like that."

[HopeOverFear]

281. kick because people need to see this