I admit I’m at a loss. Normally someone as argumentative as I am thrives on the give-and-take, the ying and yang of reasonable political discourse. Ideas are refined, arguments honed. All good stuff. Add to the mixture participation in a community of generally like-minded thinkers, and you have something a little chicken soupy in many respects, even rejuvenative, in a society in which identity politics regularly displaces both thoughtful debate and individual value. The water cooler aspects of places like Blue Mass Group can and do offer havens of rationality, for the most part, that are hard to find elsewhere.
I am beginning to wonder if something is amiss, however, and I guess it started with Irish Fury’s diary on her experiences in Mississippi. I opened the diary to find something of a departure from our typical vitriol. A young adult describes her experiences giving to society in ways few among us have given or would consider giving. She offered her perspective to a “reality-based” community she had every expectation would appreciate her experience. So when I read through her diary and the half dozen or so comments that were on it, I was struck by the realization that not a single “like-minded” poster had commented. The comments were entirely authored by the right-wing contributors to this site, and not a one of those comments offered this young author a single syllable of encouragement for her work or a constructive thought on her content. In fact, they insulted the poster, denigrating her motives as well as her content.
Perhaps it’s the teacher in me, but that sort of gratuitous and childish meanness bugs me. I posted a comment commending her on her work, as it was clear to me–as I’m sure it was to the other commenters –that the author is young and relatively inexperienced. Well, predictably enough, the 0s and 3s started to fly, and the whole thing devolved into a food fight, replete with obligatory charges of gratuitous race baiting.
(Many will stop reading right now to point out the obvious to me in a comment. Pre-emptively, I will state that pointing out the obvious is noncontributory and irrelevant. In other words, thick skins are not the issue or solution, so spare me lectures on the risks associated with posting on blogs. Dermal depth is not what my diatribe is about.)
Since then, I have been reading, commenting, and occasionally rating with a slightly different perspective. I note that the reality-based Democrats posting on the site appear to be showing incipient signs of what might be crank fatigue, a malaise characterized by an inability to muster much energy in refuting outrageous claims, outright lies, and egregious distortions. Instead, the site is becoming little more than an insult exchange. I find myself thinking why bother? Why expend the energy? The patently false and/or ridiculously inane statement appearing before me has been successfully refuted 27,328 times before, so it warrants only an insult. And so it goes.
I am reminded of the Yeats’s line, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.” So I guess I’m wondering if I’m the only one noticing this? (Entirely possible.) Is anyone else feeling like the site has become over-run by ex-patriot wingnuts? Are they successfully grinding the people who are the heart and soul of this site into weary silence? Can a constructive balance be struck? Actual thoughts welcome. My bullshit filter, btw, is on.
count as comments?
<
p>Thanks, all, who recommended. đŸ˜‰
I have little to add.
<
p>Differently-winged participation has value. It is a spice.
<
p>When the same red pepper occupies over half the total mass of almost every dish, it is time to seek nourishment elsewhere.
I was going to post some encouragement for IrishFury, but I was so disgusted by their comments that I had to engage our RW pals. I know that I should have taken the high road, but I guess I’m cranky. I blame Sarah Palin! đŸ™‚
<
p>I like debate as much as the next person, but it seems that our differently-winged visitors add less and less value to the discussion. Instead of offering a different perspective, I see repetition of talking points, lies, and ad hominem attacks. Very few add anything of value anymore, which is a shame. It seems that some of the reasonable ones have devolved into the jack-booted, smear-parrotting idiots as seen on Free Republic, or don’t post that often anymore.
running away from policy and trying to capitalize on pure identity politics. The best they can do is try to poke small holes in minutia of Democratic proposals and Barack Obama’s statements.
Yes, it has gotten tiresome and, Kathy, you’ve shown admirable patience and persistence.
<
p>Some of what we’re seeing is a kind of intentional obtuseness, i.e., not understanding liberal arguments as a means of not having to deal with them. If you’ve ever had a relationship (romantic, business, or familial) with someone who refuses to understand things s/he disagrees with, you know what an unpleasant power dynamic that can create. In an argument, it renders everything you say ineffective. It’s infuriating and there’s always the tease that you can find the thing to say that the other person will understand. The other person never does.
<
p>Another side of it, I think, is the moral witness approach. Purists, for example, think that Al Gore should stay at home and live a model life of carbon neutrality. He’d be untainted by hypocrisy. His example would shine through. It would convince others. No speeches, no arguments, and no appearances. This is the moral witness approach to political advocacy.
<
p>To the realists among us that seems about as effective as shouting at the television set.
<
p>We have a large number of conservative visitors who act as moral witnesses to the goings on here. They state The Truth. The Truth requires no footnotes, links, analysis, or defense from non-Truth. It is the Truth. It doesn’t even require being nice about it: the sooner you realize The Truth the better — even if you have to get insulted along the way or have to hear it 500 times. Suppressing moral witnesses shows your bias — or worse.
<
p>The fundamental thing about being a moral witness is that one is not attempting to convince by argument. One isn’t participating for the sake of discussion. If witnessing deadens discussion, it doesn’t matter.
<
p>Well said and spot on. Those like you and tblade have tremendous patience when it comes to dealing with this perspective. I don’t. I become frustrated because I know that there is not amount of evidence that I could produce that would get the “moral witness” to argue in good faith. I have seen you attempt to draw one particular “moral witness” out on numerous occasions. I, too, tried early on, but see no point in engaging him further. It is as if they view it as a moral imperative to beat us into submission through humiliation and bullying.
<
p>Aaach. I find it frustrating and demoralizing. Would that we lived in an evidence-based world where rational discussion lead to informed decisions.
Lol. Thanks for saying that.
<
p>What you read as patience is, half the time, my polite way of saying “You’re a &%^#)!@ idiot” and “This is the most ignorant, fatuous, and asinine thing I’ve read this week – and that includes the graffiti in the South Station men’s room. “.
<
p>And KBusch is indeed spot on.
One source of the annoyance is the flood of national issues swamping BMG over the last couple weeks. The mighty right-wing Wurlitzer pumps out ready-to-use talking points on all those national issues. So all the cranks come armed when the focus is national.
<
p>By comparison, the Wurlitzer’s local offerings are meager and so I read BMG with more enjoyment when the focus is on our commonwealth — even if I contribute less.
I’m not as in tune to the local stuff, so I, too, appreciate what all these people “in the know” have to offer here at home. I can’t contribute much to the local discussion, either, unless there’s something going on with Lew Evangelidis, and that’s pretty rare. lol.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not casting aspersions on people who reacted to the sludge posted by the right-wing cranks. After all, there’s only so much one can take, and while I posted the first positive and encouraging comments–which earned me a zero from one of the right-wing cranks–I also hurled an insult or two in response.
<
p>I agree with your last paragraph entirely. You sum up my feelings beautifully.
frustration watching so much of the postive energy being generated by informed debates around here being rapidly transformed into negative energy when we respond to the goading taunts of these folk. It’s like reading middle school toilet jokes and down right unpleasant. Can’t we should stick to constructive discussions and debates that promote progressive issues and candidates. Can’t we just ignore them?
It’s useful for the worst of the cranks – if enough people put them on ignore, they leave. Hidden comments don’t seem to happen all that often on this site – that works better at DailyKos, but the lighter traffic here might make that impossible.
<
p>That said, I enjoy engaging our differently winged posters – ripping their arguments to pieces is both easy and fun, at least for me. And for every person who posts here, there’s probably four or five lurkers – I think it’s important to show the lurkers that the usual right wing arguments are bullshit. If I see ad hominem attacks, I zero them, and I usually tell the idiot who posted it to knock it off and debate the issues.
<
p>My name is John, and I’m a crankaholic…;)
intermittently. I have not read the thread to which you refer. It turned me off to a larger national board I used to post on. More than getting turned off by right-wing cranks, I got fatigued by people who claimed to be lefties but couldnt get past “Impeach Bush” utterances. I suspect they were mostly righties just there to disrupt.
<
p>That obfuscation by “refusing to understand” gimmick is certainly tiresome. I did find that when I reading and posting here more often it was it was easier to tell who’s who and what’s what. We have a couple fairly thoughtful conservatives. I always appreciate Peter Porcupines take on issues — helps sharpen your debate.
like Kos are just too much to manage, and I really don’t like the echo chamber effect of all those people in lockstep. Seems to me that a balance on this things is harder to achieve than one would think.
“is harder to achieve than one would think.”
<
p>I think that is exactly right.
<
p>Remember, also, that the articulate informed refutations so often offered to our right wing friends may not always convince the person to whom it is offered (KB’s point about intentional obtuseness is well made), but they (a) remind progressives of the many good arguments for their side, and (b) do influence the great mass of readers — the vast, vast majority here — who absorb but rarely if ever post.
<
p>So, as Tim Gunn would say, bloggers: make it work!
I don’t remember a post getting this many recommendations.
<
p>IMHO, we have some very thoughtful conservatives here. I think particularly of JoeTS and Gary. Maybe each has gotten unpleasant a few times, but that’s understandable if one is in the minority. They always bring thought, reason, and documentation to the discussion — even if I sometimes think they’re completely wrong. Those are exactly the sorts of conservatives this site can use.
<
p>Can we have more such conservatives, please?
<
p>But now we now have at least one commentator who is easily as prolific as raj. Raj acted as a know-it-all but he knew a lot of stuff (law, physics, Germany). The current, over-prolific contributor is much less well-informed and rarely thoughtful. Every day he lowers the signal to noise ratio.
<
p>Do we want to be filibustered?
Daily Kos for many seems like an example of the kind of site we don’t want, but the major difference between dKos and BMG is size. It’s rare that the comments are interesting because the comments are like A Theme and One Hundred Variations on the Song “I Agree with You”. The interesting comments, the ones that offer a new perspective or new evidence, are difficult to extract from the enormous pile of Me Too. BMG would — will! — have the same problem when its participant pool increases a hundredfold.
<
p>I don’t know what the solution is. Maybe temporarily limiting some accounts to five comments a day would help: it would make the contributor think more and type less.
This would apply to DU also. Lots of echo chamber denizens and chicken littles who proclaim that the sky is falling if there is the slightest blip with the polls.
<
p>The poster that you’re talking about (I think, unless you mean Eabo) proves your point down-thread. He entered this thread and pooped all over it with his typical nasty, mocking tone. Instead of constructive discussion, he hurls ad hominems. It’s really made me wish that BMG had an ignore function.
I mean the one who has filibustered this thread without saying much of anything.
that certain posters push it just to see what they can get away with. “they” comes to mind, as does the gentleman posting in this diary. kind of like kids with breaking house rules. and if they discourage productive posters along the way, it’s all the better for them. and so i think while it is good to have conservative voices here too, it is in bmg’s interest to separate the wheat from the chaff.
but you’re right. Twenty-three recommendations is a rather substantial endorsement. I’m hopeful the landlords can tweak something a bit to make this site actually more rewarding for the “blue folks” who are out there doing the work….
Nothing better than respectful exchange of ideas. I agree most of the “big-time” blogs on both sides are just echo chambers. Sometimes I feel BMG is becoming more that way every day. Check the ratings and who rates whom, and let’s not lose our sense of humor.
Actually I’m a “he” :D. Honest mistake, however, so no big deal.
for your kind words. Believe me, as a first year teacher every bit of encouragement helps.
Thanks for the gender tip. I did have the s/he thing in the post originally, but must have edited it out at some point.
The signal to douchebaggery ratio has been very unfavorable around here lately.
By Veteran’s Day, they’ll be gone.
I’m not the only one feeling it, given the number of people who recommended this thing.
I am so sorry I missed the original post.
<
p>I have spent most of my professional career in urban school districts, and the sight of YES WE CAN on the Back to School t-shirts is one of the most beautiful things I have seen. Okay, I am an Obama supporter anyway, but if Barack Obama can convince our children that:
<
p>• YES I CAN succeed in school.
• YES I CAN go to college.
• YES I CAN come back to my community after college and work to make it a better place.
• YES I CAN succeed if I work hard.
<
p>Just that, alone, would make our country a better place.
<
p>
How cynical and angry do you need to be to trash that message?
When will those bad evil people stop talking to us? Oh wait, I’m one of them.
<
p>The tone of this entire post is nauseating. You exhibit the same things you complain about. Crank fatigue… why not sit and count all the caustic remarks about Sarah Palin since she was named VP candidate? Would acknowledgment of THAT fact tell you anything about the left-leaning bloggers here? I’m sure the remarks would be blamed on us “righties”. Others complained about “talking points” from “differently-winged visitors” but please again acknowledge the “talking points” from your own party that get plastered here every day. Is everyone blind to these observations?
<
p>When I first started posting here I asked the question if I was welcome here… or not. You certainly could manage the site to be a cloistered blogging site for democrats only. You could ignore any Republican or Conservative post and continue your isolated monolithic view of the world… according to your “ilk”. I don’t know why but do it if you dislike the back and forth so much. Bob, shut off all the people like me and you guys can have a love fest.
<
p>Republicans are bad, our views are wrong, we “ignore” all the facts presented here and have nothing to back up the “facts which WE” present.
<
p>What would his holiness Obama say about this post. Would he send word from above to cease discussions with us non-believers? I think he would recommend engaging people of differing opinions and try “diplomacy”. Everyone has to stop reading their own press releases and listen to the other side. That’s why I’m here even if I do disagree with 90% of the audience and their views.
<
p>Is it me or are these really the words of people looking for civil discussions. If these were made in a joking fashion I would enjoy them but these are serious remarks.
<
p>Moral witness
jack-booted, smear-parrotting idiots as seen
usual right wing arguments are bullshit
the idiot who posted
That obfuscation by “refusing to understand” gimmick is certainly tiresome.
The signal to douchebaggery ratio has been very unfavorable around here lately.
Either switch to decaf or take another Quaalude… life is too short for so much anger. I get ticked off too but really…
<
p>And this WON’T end on Election Day. In fact I’m sure it will get worse as you band togetehr to do whatever is possible to make the Presidency o John McCain a disaster. What gets me is people have to wake up and know Washington should not be about political victories, it should be about victories and accomplishments for AMERICANS.
<
p>If I’m wrong and Obama win, I would hope and do whatever I can to encourage the Republican minority in Congress to cooperate and GET SOMETHING DONE (budget, SS, immigration, Healthcare, economy…!!! The POTUS is only 1 man and Congress is the place to make a difference with the countries’ direction.
And this:
<
p>
<
p>is simply jaw-dropping. I should switch to decaf? Take a tranquilizer? Life is too short for so much anger? My god, do you even read what you write? You transmit rage 24/7, JohnD. Truly.
<
p>As for the rest of what you’ve written, I guess it speaks for itself. You demonstrate nicely what kbusch describes below about the Moral Witness personality.
<
p>You decry the treatment Palin has received here in the very same post you mock Obama as “his holiness”? Are you for real?
<
p>And we don’t mind back and forth. We used to have a lot of back of forth that wasn’t characterized by spittle-laden, foaming-at-the-mouth rage. But now we don’t. If it isn’t your brand of rage, it’s another brand of poisonous venom. You radiate hate, but you can’t even see it. The fact that you place your rage-filled post here at BMG demonstrates much of what is described below. Sort of the blogging equivalent of leaving your own house to beat the shit out some stranger simply because you’re so mad. Why is that?
<
p>And as for “engaging” people, you call this engagement? Mocking people is engaging? Insulting people is engaging? You don’t engage, you lob grenades hoping someone will bite. You don’t argue, you “witness” as has been pointed out below. I respond to you now because you added your comment to my diary, but, candidly, what you’ve written here is the same warmed-over toxic stew you regularly offer.
I would add that John’s sig line is almost palpable irony – I’ve never once seen him even attempt to get along with anyone except his right wing brethren. I guess “getting along” in his world means “agree with me or else”…
I’d go search for some examples but you would dismiss them so I won’t bother. Plenty of people don’t agree with me and I respect most of them. The reverse is not true on this site. You are all so blind it’s amazing. And I don’t understand why you give up on things so easily. And do any of you ever laugh or joke other than laughing at Republicans? Really, learn to relax.
<
p>Give me a break. I wish I could say it was pure hyperbole, but I doubt it.
This post must have gotten “Blasted” from all the pure of heart. Certainly KBusch, Mr. Lynne, lightiris, Kathy and others read this post and were aghast at the this blogger being a moral witness. Is it difficult for all of you to look in the mirror when you realize the hypocrisy of your words?
<
p>This also erodes the significance of your criticism of me, thanks!
<
p>Or the Latin translation… hypocrita
And the “ganging up” by your cute little twerpy cherp “ilk” certainly doesn’t make you better people. You’re all sounding like Republicans. Why are you so angry? Is it the recent polls showing McCain winning? Is it about Keith and Chris being “demoted”?
<
p>Sorry, that was my moral witness personality not me. But now I’m back.
<
p>lightiris… I am for real and my vote will cancel yours. So how do we play this Palin vs. Obama thing. Do I stop sarcastically calling Obama the Messiah and you lay off Palin OR do you keeping nailing her with smears and I keep slamming BO?
<
p>You do mind back and forth, you absolutely hate it. And I don’t foam at the mouth, normally. I radiate heat? Do you write fiction? And your analogy of me beating someone up shows you should talk to someone… soon.
<
p>After you take a chill pill why don’t you drink a large glass of objectivity. You slam me with words/phrases like mocking, insulting, lob grenades, anger… Do you want me to take the time to find examples of these things on responses to my posts? How about just posts in general about McCain, Bush and Palin. How about remarks about some of my conservative friends who blog here? Would this be constructive at all of would there be total silence? I’m guessing the latter because very few people on this site want to acknowledge their own venom for Republicans. You guys are angry and blind.
<
p>Your “I’ll see your negro and raise you a vagina” attributed to an unnamed GOP strategist. First a very cowardly thing to do throwing a shot at the GOP with no source and Second, is this an effort to engage the other side? Are you mocking Palin?
This one doesn’t.
<
p>It was fun to make the buzzing fly go away last time…
But have a nice day!
And your relentless personal attack here is a more than a little disconcerting. You need to calm down, buddy. It’s only a blog.
sexist sig line?
Do tell. I’m at a loss. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Go Keith and Chris!!!!!
because it is a perfect example of what lightiris is talking about. also, if it disappears, so will her excellent reply.
An A for a failing paper. Failing an honor student. I have heard of grade inflation, this is the first time I heard of grade inversion. Is this opposite day or something?
Since I agree and also think it’s important to have a record of just why people tune JohnD out.
huh, baby please. Not feeling a lot of love coming from a good hearted Democrat like yourself. Love thy brother, understand others, be tolerant of differing opinions… you are failing me and your credo (unless of course you are one of those mean Democrats).
<
p>Try to tune me out but the truth will come out from others. Just because you don’t like the truth doesn’t make it false.
<
p>Go Keith, go Keith….
Go McCain.
lol!