We eat our own.

[darkstar3]

Disclaimer: I do not want this thread to devolve into a discussion about DUers. I want to specifically talk about an issue that I think we've all seen.

A long time ago, in what was actually a surprisingly intelligent discussion, a hardcore conservative co-worker of mine said something that simply flabbergasted me.

"There is no hate like liberal hate."

After I picked my jaw up off the floor, took a deep breath, and reminded myself that this was an exchange of opposing viewpoints and not a mudslinging contest, I told him that he couldn't be more wrong. I told him that it was impossible to hate anyone as a liberal. I told him that in order to even be a liberal, a person who works hard for equality and shared prosperity, that you simply have to care about other people.

I was more naive, then. I didn't realize how easy it was for us to eat our own.

The left wing of this country really is the only group that gives a damn about equality. We are the ones fighting for gender equality, racial equality, religious equality, LGBT rights, and so much more. We are the ones who stand against laws that oppress women and homosexuals. We are the ones fighting for not just equal treatment under the law, but also equal treatment under the knife.

And yet, not just here on DU, we are the ones who have major fights over words like "bitch". We are the ones who constantly tell minority members "I see your point, but I wish you'd be nicer about it." We are the ones who are so determined to be inclusive and idealistic that we destroy conversations with semantics, like we're sitting in an amphitheater in a Monty Python sketch.

We eat our own.

People, even here on DU, have been asking lately why we seem to have only one party in the US. People have been asking why we, as a political party and also as a group in general, can't play politics as well as the right. Well here it is: In the face of a smorgasbord given to us again, and again, and again by the right...

We eat our own.

The real question is, why?

[provis99]

1. alerted. n\t

[AlabamaLibrul]

16. Cool story bro

[RandomThoughts]

2. I don't 'eat my own'

Specifically becuase I don't own anyone, and second becuase nobody is on my side.

Because I am due beer and travel money and that has not been sent.



However if there were people on my side, or not on my side, I would not 'eat our own'


However that comes from the old Daniel interpretation of the never satisfied cow eating the other cow, and never being full.

And the matrix, they liquify the dead and feed it to the young, also a view I do not believe. Although it is a fascinating doctrine about life and death.



I am however due beer and travel money, and that needs to be sent.

[Hannah Bell]

3. because, for all the pretense, they are off-limits. the ruling class rules, and

the reasons it rules can't be mentioned, and the party leadership (both sides) doesn't want to mention those things anyway, because they're a part of the same class.

the only ground left to argue about, to distinguish the parties, is the petty shit. "he called me a slut!"

[darkstar3]

5. 1. I don't agree with your premise.

2. Even if what you say were true, does money now dictate what we talk about?

[Hannah Bell]

9. what *we* talk about? yes, to a large extent it does.

1) money determines what's in the media. the media is where most people get most of their information. the media determines a) the issues of the day b) the parameters of the debate c) what's not mentioned -- i.e. the way issues are framed.

2) money determines *who's* in the media -- who gets quoted, consulted, and taken seriously.

3) if things get out of hand, money determines a) the legislation that gets passed, b) what gets funded -- and that affects media/information transmission/judicial etc.

4) these things are with us nearly from birth. they affect what our parents desire for us, what they think about how to raise us, how they believe we should behave, etc. i.e. these things affect the construction of our very *selves*.

5) if people try to reject this box, the most usual way is a reaction -- do the opposite. which is also a kind of control.

6) thinking "for oneself" is difficult, perhaps impossible. power (which in our case is related to money) shapes culture, & culture = "what we think" as well as "who we think we are that is thinking"

[OrwellwasRight]

12. Yup yup yup! nt.

[darkstar3]

13. Media and cultural oddities, then.

I don't agree. We buck cultural trends, that's just what progressives do. As for the media, I don't believe we can blame them for what we talk about.

After all, you and I are not talking about the latest reality show or pop tv episode.

[Hannah Bell]

17. liberals don't buck cultural trends *at all*. they only think they do, that's what's so

hysterically funny.

they imagine they're great rebels when for the most part they're bigger conformists than just about any other group.

sorry, my opinion.

[darkstar3]

20. "They"? So you don't believe yourself to be liberal?

Who helped abolish slavery? Progressives.

Who helped establish Roe v. Wade as the law of the land? Progressives.

Who fights constantly against laws banning gay marriage? Progressives.

You may call us liberals, or lefties, but that's just a smattering of the trends we've bucked.

[LooseWilly]

25. Reality tv and pop tv (whatever the hell that is exactly) isn't all there is to the media.

And, "we eat our own" is, itself, a cultural artifact straight out of the mouth of pundits and media-ites.

"Democrats Eat Their Own Pelosi" http://takeastandagainstliberals.blogspot.com/2010/11/democrats-eat-their-own-pelosi.html

"Democrats Eat Their Own Message, Own Young" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/democrats-eat-their-own-m_b_130215.html

"Democrats Eat Their Own" http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/democrats_eat_their_own/

"Memo to Hillary: Democrats Eat Their Own Too" http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2006/08/04/memo-to-hillary-democrats-eat-their-own-too/

"While GOP Just Watches, Democrats Eat Their Own" http://articles.latimes.com/1993-02-07/opinion/op-1495_1_democratic-party

... and that's just a sampling from a first page googling.

You are talking about something that has been discussed ad nauseum by the media. It's something so oft spoken about I think it qualifies as a trope. Talking about Jersey Shore would actually be more novel than talking about "we" eating our own.

Let's face it... "eating our own" is a talking point asserted by those who are trying to con portions of "we" into falling into line with the "party line"... and since it is generally the "moderate" types of the DNC accusing the left, whom they would try to manipulate like the Republicans manipulate the Evangelical-Jeebus-Freaks, of eating "their" (moderate) own... this is a trope that serves to prevent any pulling of the Democratic party leftward. (Which probably does wonders when it comes to fund raising.)

If you want to be thought of as a cultural oddity, may I suggest you clamor for a temporary 2 year plan to tax those earning more than $500K being taxed at an 80% rate... temporarily... in order to fund college scholarships for all children of families who have had their homes foreclosed upon between 2008 and 2012? ... and funding for schools nationwide to ensure that there would be facilities/faculty available to serve all those students.

Now that would be an odd thing for "us" to make noise for, wouldn't it?

[darkstar3]

27. It's funny how you decry my point while making it.

Let's talk about taxes. Let's talk about cutting military spending and bringing our troops home. Let's talk about healthcare.

Let's talk about anything that's actually important to our cause, instead of whether liberal X is a splitter.

[Poll_Blind]

19. Hunh. +1 You're probably right.

PB

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. capitalist country bro'

:evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[darkstar3]

6. ?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. Democrats have to fight harder against the capitalist system

[darkstar3]

10. That's a thought,

but I'm not sure why our need to fight harder against the system explains why we eat our own...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

14. it's a response of desperation

[OhioBlue]

7. I think I kind of get what you're saying....

i think maybe we hold ourselves to higher standards.... it is easy to write off rightwingers as having ulterior motives, beholden to big money, and sometimes just not quite smart... but we expect better of ourselves and people that think or seem to think like us. maybe we get more frustrated or let down when one of our own disappoints us but we kind of expect it from the right.. I don't really know for sure...

But, I do remember reading and contemplating the statement that we dislike things in others that we dislike most in ourselves... So if people that are of opposite ideology do things, we can get mad, argue, dismiss, write off, and even make fun of the things that frustrate us.... but... if someone that we identify with does things that frustrate or anger us.. the emotional reaction is multiplied b/c we seem them more as we see ourselves? hopefully that makes sense.

And... I think the reason the right wing doesn't do it as much is b/c by their nature they are more militaristic, paternal, disciplined and hardened. they just aren't as emotional, thinking and introspective as the left wing is by nature. just my thoughts...

[darkstar3]

15. Your first two paragraphs may have a point.

I disagree, however, with the idea that the right wing is less emotional, or that they are more disciplined.

[LadyHawkAZ]

11. Semantics can matter

Ask a black who's been called the N-word by a white or a homosexual fag by a straight, or a woman cunt by a man, or.... It matters, because it's a glimpse into the mindset of the speaker. Even among progressives there are some behaviors and mindsets that are hard to leave behind or that some don't even realize are hurtful. I've done it myself, although I try very hard not to. People will defend those behaviors when they think they are harmless. That's when you get fights.

Schultz's suspension was uncalled for, but if you notice, there are supporters posting who think he did nothing wrong- not just that he shouldn't apologize, but that he actually did nothing to apologize for. Even Ed realized his mistake. It matters, because education and information is how humans progress, and we educate each other as well as "the other guys" when we need to. It's not necessarily "eating our own", but we would do well to learn to stop fighting each other to the point that we forget who the real bad guys are.

[darkstar3]

18. This thread isn't even remotely about Schultz.

I've avoided that whole shitstorm like a plague, and I have no intention to step into it now.

Having said that, I will say that I think it's possible to call out uncalled for insults without letting the conversation get sidetracked into an inane discussion on whether "any_slur" is appropriate.

[LadyHawkAZ]

21. I was using Schultz as an example

since it's the most current one, and it's a good one. There's a big, big difference between saying the punishment was too harsh, and saying he did nothing wrong. Which was my point: there are people even among progressives who genuinely do not understand that a particular behavior or mindset is a harmful one, to individuals or to causes in general, and who else but other progressives are going to explain it to them?

[darkstar3]

23. The conversation doesn't have to become about the word.

Schultz said something that was out of line. Everybody does it. Just the other day at a place I shouldn't have I uttered the phrase "lying son of a bitch". It was out of line. I think it's not only possible for us to recognize that and move on, but I think it's also possible for Schultz to easily make good with a non-apology apology.

"Ms. Ingraham, I should apologize for taking the rhetorically easy way out and attacking your sex by using the word "slut". It was clearly a poor choice of words, not just because it was misogynistic, but also because it was inadequate. What I should have said was something more along the lines of 'ignorant, hateful, morally bankrupt talking head with delusions of relevancy.'"

But my vision of Schultz's apology couldn't be further from the point. If the rest of us want to make any progress, we need to stop shouting "SPLITTER!" at everyone we have a minor disagreement with.

[LadyHawkAZ]

24. r'Amen

and I like your apology.

[pa28]

22. "There is no hate like liberal hate." Never heard the term before but it got my interest.

It does exist and I really discovered it right here. I've seen quite a few examples.

>People who got stranded on a mountain while climbing needed to fend for themselves because the public should not be forced to subsidize their high risk activities. I've seen that argument.

>People who build houses outside of town in California should be left to the fires and heaped with piles of well deserved scorn because they did not choose to live in a safe, urban, fire protected, high density neighborhood. That argument too.

>People who suffer health problems due to their weight even if no correlation is evident. Something about weight seems to strike a nerve.

>Smokers.

>People who drive SUV's. If a meteor fell on them they would deserve it . . . somehow.

>People who have children. That's bad enough in the eyes of certain liberals but don't bring them on an airplane whatever you do.

"Liberal hate" exists but fortunately just on the fringe. Unfortunately, the other side is very good at leveraging that fringe against our own interests. Tolerance has no boundaries so it might be best if we kept that one rule in mind.

[wickerwoman]

26. If you think it's acceptable to use racist or sexist slurs to denigrate people you disgree with

you are not "my own".