In what ways has DU changed over the years?

[kentuck]

I can recall when DU was the 10% that disagreed with Democratic and Republican Parties on the war in Iraq and the majority support for President George W Bush. That was an eternity ago.

Over the years, it seems to me that DU has become more partisan and less ideological. A few issues have become untouchable over the years, as DU has evolved into its present state. The Party is much more important now than in the early years and less open to criticism, in my opinion.

What changes have you noticed?

[geek tragedy]

1. Foreign nationalists are here.

Israeli, Palestinian, Russian, Indian etc. not sure what brings them here, since this is a US site that largely disdains nationalism.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. I don't agree that DU disdains nationalism

Try suggesting that it's not immoral for companies to employ people in countries other than America to supply services to Americans, and see what the response is.

[Armstead]

85. It's immoral for companies to exploit workers in other countries and....

to abandon the economy and people of the nation that originally supported their growth, in order to save a few bucks.

If a company has multinational ambitions they should employ workers to make their products and provide their services to consumers in those countries (or regions) with decent living wages and working conditions to support the healthy growth of those nation's economies, instead of abusing them to create Neo-Colonial Corporate Empires and a race to the bottom..

[whathehell]

154. How often does Europe employ people in non-Euro countries.

especially Americans, to do the same?

Answer: A lot less....Most EU countries have laws that forbid it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

161. That forbid what, exactly?

Certainly no European country has a blanket ban on foreigners supplying services. So I'm not entirely sure which laws in which countries you are referring to.

[whathehell]

178. Americans teaching ESL in Western Europe, for one thing..

It's not impossible, but you need "special permission",

as their ads will state specifically that the teacher much come from the EU.

[sabrina 1]

57. So what? Liberal sites always had a wide variety of people from all over the world. I moderated one

of the biggest Liberal sites in the early 2000a and there were people from all over the world there, Africa, the ME, even Iraq during the war, Europe, Australia, Asia. It was great to speak to people from all over the world.

Are you saying that having people from other countries has changed DU? I wish there were more.

Imo, DU has become very insular which is why people are going elsewhere to discuss important issues that affect not only us, but the rest of the world. It's becoming like a little corner of the internet where people are so protective of their 'space' they lash out at anyone who doesn't see the world the way they do. That kind of insular mindset is becoming obsolete in a Global world.

[ancianita]

106. Sorry, I just don't understand why they get to be in a party's "underground" forum, though.

I tend to think that our politics are for us to sort out here -- using ideas from elsewhere in the world, certainly, because I'm not a nationalist about many things -- but since our politics are national (maybe I'm wrong), I don't understand how this is even an American party site if there's so much global input.

I'm the last to want us to be insular. And I don't dislike anyone here who's not American. And I'm too new to even know if people from other countries have changed this site's dynamic and content.

But this is supposed to promote Americans' discussions, isn't it? I'm just asking because I just became aware of non-Americans here last week.

[sabrina 1]

139. Our policies now affect the whole world. In fact many people from around the world

feel they should have a say in any policies anywhere, that directly affect their countries and people.

Eg, we are spying on the whole world. We are waging wars all over the planet.

We have military bases in every corner of the world.

Our economic policies if you can call them that, crashed the economies of the world.


I doubt anyone would care what we were doing if they were not feeling the results of our policies.

If we decide to stop being an Empire and go back to minding our own business, maybe then we can tell people from other places to mind THEIR own business, but so long as were are all over the globe, in most cases adversely affecting other sovereign nations, they DO have a right to have their say.

[ancianita]

140. Cool. Thanks. Much appreciated.

[Spider Jerusalem]

141. More than six million US citizens live outside the United States.

Some not insignificant percentage of the people posting here from other countries are in fact Americans.

[ancianita]

142. Understood.

[Scootaloo]

165. Foreign nationals are adifferent thing from "foreign nationalism"

One's a question of citizenship or habitation, the other's a philosophy. And generally a strong rightward philosophy - you don't find a lot of left-wing nationalism, since nationalism revolves around superiority, exceptionalism, and dominance, and it's hard to mesh with liberalism or leftism.

Which, far as i can tell, reflects the biggest change in DU - a steady rightward creeping. Now we have people openly positing that women are genetically drawn to abusers, that Arabs need violence to "keep them in line," long-suffering complaints from White Victim Culture advocates whenever race is brought up, pretty much everything you would expect of a right-wing site.

[McCamy Taylor]

65. They were always here.

[LeftishBrit]

70. There were non-Americans on DU from the beginning

As regards foreign nationalists: I think there are a number of American (and other) posters who support various sorts of foreign nationalism, but very few people actually from the countries in question. I have posted on the I/P forum on and off for quite a few years, and have noticed remarkably few actual Israeli or Palestinian posters: most are American or sometimes British or Australian posters who are interested in the Middle East conflict, and often support one or other side. (I wish the forum included MORE actual Israeli and Palestinian posters!) Russian or Indian nationalists? Very few, I'd say. There are some people who seem to be somewhat uncritical of Russian media, and at least one supporter of Modi's election; but I don't think that they are respectively Russian or Indian.

[polly7]

86. Foreign nationalist ........ that sounds so much more ominous than

'posters from other countries'. If you have such a huge problem with us here, (personally, I try to only post on international issues, apart from the general news story) why not bring it up to the owners?

Some of us are confused as to whether we should be posting or not .... you could help provide us with a definitive answer. I believe I have every right to post on international issues such as waging war on other nations, replacing democratically elected gov'ts, harming citizens of 'foreign nations in any way (which includes Canada's aggression also, as a member of NATO) ..... but please do what you can to get this question on we foreign nationalists contributing resolved ... it would be appreciated.

[Texas Elvis]

105. Well said.

Your espousing what used to be a true "American" value. The people posting against foreigners posting on an internet website must miss the irony of their 'pro-American stance. They are actually wanting to censor others and curtail freedom of speech. Maybe I came to the wrong site. I'm hardcore lefty in the Alan Grayson/Paul Wellstone vein. I'll be psuhing for Bernie Sanders for president.

[ancianita]

108. Welcome to DU. You're in a LOT of good company, then.

[whathehell]

160. I actually think the poster meant "foreign nationals" which has an entirely

different meaning, not "ominous" at all.

[polly7]

164. No, it was pretty obvious what he/she meant.

People from other countries have no business talking about anything here .... or even being here. I've been looking in ATA for a question regarding it ....... and us. So far, nothing.

[Spider Jerusalem]

113. I see more pro-US nationalism here than anything, really

especially rah-rah flag-wavey "support our troops" and "dem furriners tuk ar jerbs". It's "patriotism" when Americans do it, "nationalism" when other people do it, apparently.

[YoungDemCA]

114. +1

Nailed it.

[geek tragedy]

136. I see some of the anti-immigrant stuff but that is

the downside to white populist politics-gotta assign the blame to someone.

[whathehell]

158. Perhaps you are "seeing things" through the lens of your own bias..

For some perspective, I suggest you try another American political site called

Free Republic....Really...Go ahead...They're always interested in the International

view.

[Spider Jerusalem]

159. FYI, I'm a US citizen and I've voted Democratic since I could vote.

(And I've been a member of this forum about five years longer than you have.)

[whathehell]

180. No doubt you expected wild surprise on my part..

Sorry to disappoint, but there's no scarcity of American self-haters

on this board, though I must admit that, before you, I'd not seen one

go so far as to characterize Americans expecting first dibs on

American jobs as "nationalists".

By the way, the next time you see a DUer referring to non-Americans

as "feriners", do be in touch since the truth is, one rarely sees DUers

use that word at all, let alone a pathetic caricature of it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

181. Sure, I'm characterising it as "nationalist".

Because, apparently unlike you, I actually know what that word means.

[whathehell]

184. Good thinking!..Drag out the "dictionary definition".

It might help you back off the sneering, negative spin you put on it originally.

Ever feel 'gotched'?

[whathehell]

153. Thank you, but be prepared to be flamed for the mere observation. n/t

[whathehell]

156. I think you mean "foreign nationals" as opposed to foreign nationalists,

don't you?...They have different meanings.

[geek tragedy]

168. No, I'm talking about people

who are outspoken advocates of places like Israel and Russia, accuse critics of those governments of supporting terrorism etc.

[whathehell]

198. Okay, I understand. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. The site is far more Libertarian ...

the anti-republican site that I originally joined.

[gollygee]

3. I agree with that

I don't recall many (if any) libertarians when I first joined. Maybe I just didn't notice them? I don't know but there is a different feel due to libertarianism.

[CTyankee]

4. I don't either, but I really felt like people here just wanted to get rid of Bush...

[gollygee]

5. Yeah it was so anti-Bush

that it's possible there wasn't a lot of room for libertarian talk.

[bigtree]

8. except for the Green Party stuff

. . . wasn't that Libertarian?

Lot's of noise back then from folks supporting third party candidates; not so much right now.

[Shandris]

21. I was going to say, there was a lot of support for Dennis Kucinich back when...

...I joined, and he's about as far from the non-libertarian pro-authoritarian mindset as you can get among politicians.

The biggest change I've noticed over the years is the -incredible- amount of authoritarian support now (and the personality traits that tend to go along with authoritarians).

[Maedhros]

118. Yep. In contrast to the Bush years, there is a definite strain of implicit trust in the Dear Leader

that is downright off-putting.

[Mojorabbit]

152. I agree

but it is only a small group. They are loud and disruptive though and prevent a lot of good discussions that get started from coming to fruition.

[Maedhros]

117. Green Party politics is very different from Libertarianism.

Very, very different.

[geek tragedy]

9. Either that or the libertarians stuck to issues

where they disliked what Bush was doing.

[greatauntoftriplets]

7. That's very true.

[Number23]

31. TELL IT.

[KoKo]

32. You joined DU in July, 2011...unless you were here under another name?

So what would you know of the history unless you'd been here before?

From your profile:

Member since: Tue Jul 5, 2011, 10:42 PM

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. Actually I was here shortly after you ..

Though under another name. I made a mistake of arguing something that I won't even touch on again.

[U4ikLefty]

49. prove it

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. how?

[jberryhill]

63. How?

By identifying whatever is was that got you banned, so that it can be dredged up and thrown at you every time someone doesn't like what you have to say.

That's how.

[Bobbie Jo]

67. Exactly

Let the games begin.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

191. You don't get to tell anyone what to do or demand anything of ANYONE!

[jberryhill]

195. I have no idea what inspired that

I assume you must have replied in the wrong place

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

196. Your words...

"By identifying whatever is was that got you banned, so that it can be dredged up and thrown at you every time someone doesn't like what you have to say."

That's what inspired that.

[jberryhill]

197. I believe you need to read for tone

I was stating in a roundabout way that the only reason why someone would want to know someone's alleged former user name would be to simply hound them about something they had done in the past.

In other words, I was suggesting it is a foolish question which does not deserve an answer.

Where your fusillade of hostility comes from out of that, I am left clueless.

[msanthrope]

79. Don't take the bait. nt

[U4ikLefty]

99. Bait?

paranoid much?

[Maedhros]

120. Who the f*ck are you to make such demands? [n/t]

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

190. Prove what? To you? You don't get to demand anything of anyone unless you're a moderator!

For your information, it is not uncommon for people to lurk for awhile--in fact for months, even years--before joining a website. I lurked for several years before finally joining.

Keep your demands to yourself.

1StrongBlackMan has every right to be here and/or lurk if he wants to.

[PassingFair]

131. Cornflaked chicken. nt

[Ms. Toad]

122. Please. The site is open for anyone to read.

One does not have to be a member here in order to know what is going on on the site. My membership date is 2004 - but I lurked for at least 2 years before that, and could have told you the personalities, cliques, and rivalries on the first day I was here.

This suspicion based on people knowing stuff that happened before their membership date is nonsense - it would only be a valid assumption on a closed site. This one isn't.

[Capt. Obvious]

185. Have you ever posted this to Sid?

He makes his bones comparing join dates.

[Ms. Toad]

187. I post it when I run across someone spouting suspicion

about who knows what based on the date they joined the site. I don't search posts like that out, or pay any attention to who I'm responding to.

[Bobbie Jo]

66. +1

You can say that again.

[War Horse]

109. I think you've nailed it

The anarchist contingent has increased over the years, but this Libertarian thing is *relatively* new.

[1StrongBlackMan]

116. I suspect that ...

Now that the libertarians have captured the gop, they are branching out to the Democratic party.

[SidDithers]

126. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

151. Can you give examples of Libertarian issues that are popular here?

Thanks.

[1StrongBlackMan]

172. I would point to ...

the general elevation of "individual liberties", as issues of paramount concern over any/everything else ... gun control opposition and snowden/greenwald support versus combatting racist/sexist inequities comes immediately to mind.

[Maeve]

10. A higher percentage of male posters

In the early days, many women came here to post because we could do so without getting jumped on or patronized...I swear, back in the DU1 days it seemed like 60%+ female. That was what made me comfortable posting here.

And since it was smaller, it felt more like family. We could celebrate milestone posts and greet every new member. We weren't as splintered into groups, true...we didn't have enough people dedicated to single issues to split into the topics we have now. Then came the I/P forum and the Gungeon, and all the individual forums (fora ? Nah, stick with the English plural!) And with more people, more groups, more partisan bickering (although that has grown in the society as a whole these past years, too)

[knitter4democracy]

173. True. It was definitely safer.

It was less okay to attack women then.

[YvonneCa]

11. DUers used to cite sources...

...more often during issue/policy discussions. A few still do, but not as often.

[1StrongBlackMan]

22. I can think of one Poster ...

that consistently posts links to her discussions ... and get castigated for it!

[Electric Monk]

33. She posts links to her links to her links to other discussions that may or may not be related.

That's what she "gets castigated" for, counting on people to accept what she said at face value, because she posted "a link", and not take the time to dig all the way in to see if her interpretation has any basis in reality.

[Whisp]

55. Not true. Thanks for being a prime example of how DU has changed.

and not for the better.

Used to be links supporting an argument wasn't spat upon like it is now. Used to be that a Democrat supporting democrats wasn't looked on suspiciously or accused of being on a payroll.

The links were blue back in the day too.

thick assed bullshit.

[Bobbie Jo]

68. They know.

[reddread]

189. very true

if you havent observed that behavior, you havent looked.
Used to be people didnt accept Bush atrocities as party platform.
would that were still the case.
inflation has really flattened out that dime.

[Katashi_itto]

60. +1000

[Maedhros]

121. Yes - that isn't linking to sources, it's just linking. [n/t]

[KoKo]

41. You mean there are more "Drive By" comments now?

Because if we post an article on DU about an issue that we want to "Discuss"... we still have to post the source/link to the article unless you are talking about personal post about some issue that one want to post that doesn't require a link.

But, if you mean there are fewer replies that continue a conversation in a meaningful way by making comments that don't seem to have back up with link to further the conversation/discussion but are just snarky or whatever polarizing reply one comes up with...then yes...there's a bit more of that for sure.

[YvonneCa]

54. Your second...

...option is what I was getting at.

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. Hell ...

Back in the day ... if you challenged a sourced opinion without a link of your own ... to a equally competent source document, DUers looked sideways at you ... and to answer a source opinion with an un-sourced "well ... that's your opinion ... we'll have to agree to disagree" response, would have gotten you laughed at!

And to continue arguing a point that you attribute to "the experts", after being challenged to produce a link to said "experts", and not producing a link ... well, you could look forward to a new "birthday."

[YvonneCa]

81. That is true! n/t

[salin]

144. and engage in collaborative research

on issues, sharing information, offering different takes/analyses.

[YvonneCa]

169. Yes. And, as a result, many of us

learned a lot from each other.

[Le Taz Hot]

12. Less REALLY GOOD, professional posters.

There used to be posters on DU that could easily have been journalists (perhaps some were) and/or professional writers.

There were many more intellectual debates as opposed to Democrats Good. Everything Else Bad. <grunt>

There were FAR fewer blind partisans (which explains more intellectual debate).

I think The Lounge has actually changed for the better. The Lounge used to be one big clique and, for that reason, I didn't go there for probably 10 years. Used to be if you weren't one of The Lounge Lizards, you posted a thread and it would just sink. Literally, people wouldn't respond to a thread or even a post. They'd obsess with GD and look down their nose at anyone who wasn't a Lounge Lizard. I've actually been posting in the Lounge lately which I haven't done in a LONG time.

Just a few of my observations.

[etherealtruth]

29. You are right... we have lost posters that were incredible writers

We still have a few, but in the "old days" there were too many excellent writers to list

[RiffRandell]

44. Yet if someone brought up the word "clique" in the lounge

they were mocked endlessly by the clique.

I don't post there much, but I agree it's a much better forum.

[RainDog]

53. Yes. The lounge became toxic for a while

don't know about now. I rarely go there.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. Latent racism in Liberal America has come to the surface and slapped many

of us squarely in the face!

People used to be far more nuanced and intelligent in their arguments. Now it's straw men, circular reasoning, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks.

Finally, I am baffled by how many simply do not know how our political system or government works. I'm frankly shocked by this. And it's getting worse, not better.

[kentuck]

14. Very true.

A black President has awakened the latent racism.

[etherealtruth]

17. Sadly, true

Not denying that veiled racists posts made their way to the board .. they did ... but, they were quickly confronted or deleted by moderators ... they were not met by a chorus of support.

I do not believe the majority of DUers are racists .... but, I do believe there is a contingent of very vocal folk with racist "tendencies" . The fact they exist (post) does not disturb me nearly as much as the support they receive (either actual support) through posts or support through the jury system.

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. Not racist ...

just racistish!

[etherealtruth]

26. As you are aware

It is a far greater sin to call someone a racist than to actually say (or do) something racist ... I could post an overtly racist OP and get 20 recs ... but let me call someone a racist ... you know the drill

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. Yep! I've been drilled by it.

In fact ... I started a thread by that exact title; only to be castigated for being "divisive."

[Number23]

35. Reading this thread, it appears that a few people have noticed how many poc and women have been

run off. How the discourse has dropped considerably. How male, older and white DU has become and thus how much less relevant to the Democratic party. And as one person said, racist posts used to be deleted by mods. Now they are now cheered by a clueless group of sycophants who also take great pleasure in shitting on everything this administration does.

Geee. Wonder if anything could be done about any of this?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

45. The mods do not seem to care at all that women, poc have left DU.

They don't seem to care at all.

[Number23]

64. There are no mods. That's the problem

And the admin and a loud group are pleased as punch about that.

From what I've been told, you can see the most egregious offenders over at Discussionist showing their asses and displaying quite openly why so many women/poc and other minorities want nothing to do with them.

[Eleanors38]

88. I came up with LESWORMS. For liberal, straight, white, older, racist males.

It's been updated since the 70s to reflect the aging process. Sans the "O", I was called "liberal, straight, white, racist male" with impunity in political gatherings on a number of occasions back in the 70s & 80s. I wasn't the only one.

It had its intended effect: Splitting Austin's progressive movement into small associations of activists, yelling at the business-controlled government for crumbs, a little grant $, some portfolio. But some kind of moral satisfaction was gained, I guess. And a great revolution was won, somewhere.

[Number23]

135. Ah yes, the old "discussing issues important to black folks divides us" argument

You should share this with someone else. I'm not the slightest bit interested.

And I know alot of liberals who have never been called racist so if you've been called that consistently, then well, I don't know what to tell you.

[Eleanors38]

138. Strange, how you characterize this as an "argument"

when I merely related my experiences. BTW, those folks who used the LESW(O)RMS description were mainly other whites. (Once, a Mexican American dude used the label on a group of us, which included an Asian lady and another Latino, but close enough for government work.)

Maybe what should be taken away from this exchange is how this kind of "argument" has been going on for decades now, roughly in the same manner, using roughly the same terms, and little seems to have changed (am I correct in this?). In any case, what do you suggest the rest of us do? What is the next step beyond a discussion of race, or does it end there?

If you are still reading, let's assume I am in fact a LESWORM (I don't think I am a particularly rotten one, but for grins): What next? How do we work together, or is that impossible, or verbotten? Is it possible my failings can be tolerated (I'm 66 & on SS, for goodness sake) while something constructive is accomplished? These are important programmatic, activist questions, with all respect.

[Hekate]

15. What changes have I seen? Amnesia about the long-term impact of the Bush/Cheney years.

Willingness to throw good members of the Administration under the bus as soon as they are targeted by the Congressional GOP or FOX. Amnesia regarding the established history of those two entities.

To point any of this out here as either a defense or mitigating factor in Obama's record is to be derided as an authority-worshipping, cult-of-personality, BOGger.

Anything else you'd like to ask?

[YvonneCa]

56. I agree about the growing amnesia...

...at DU. It is present in other places, too.

[2banon]

16. It's not the site, but the evolution of conscientiousness or a growing awareness....

of vital issues concerning all manner of humanity along with a keener awareness of Class oppression vis a vis the Korporate State controlling, or controlled by both parties (a very mixed bag of evil putrid dog shite of the 1%), enforced by a Police State Security apparatus resembling the Stasi regime in significant ways. During dumbya's regime, the rank and file activists had their hair on fire about our civil liberties among all of the issues we're still very concerned about. Everyone was a "libertarian" then.

To a person the Patriot Act was EVIL: and must be stopped.

Many of us had already self identified as Socialist Libertarians, we hoped that with a new Constitutional Lawyer as President, most if not all of these draconian policies imposed by the Bush administration would be repealed but we quickly learned most of these wouldn't even be addressed.

For some here, it seems that if the one in office has a D beside their name, whatever policy that was fucked up during Bush's regime, is okay now. And anyone that has a problem with that, must be an evil "libertarian".

The kind of dishonesty is really perplexing to say the least.

[Cooley Hurd]

18. The biggest change is the present lack of a common enemy

Back in the day (especially early 2003, before the start of the Iraq War), the issues were very clearly defined because the GOP had ripped us off by the theft of 2000, and then the bizarre win by the GOP in the 2002 midterms (one that crushed me because of the loss of Senator Wellstone). After that, we had a very clearly defined enemy.

Now, we're in power (at least the executive branch) and that power has utterly failed in changing the trajectory that was set in place in 1981 (Big Dog added to that with his ill-conceived support for corporatocratic principles in the 90's).

We prayed for better back in 2002-2003. However, we've been crushed by the reality that NOTHING has changed. Yes, President Obama has done some GREAT things, but the trajectory is still headed on the same path as 1981.

alg0912, on DU1 back in 2002, had hope. Cooley Hurd (alg0912's new DU name after the amnesty of late 2004), in 2014, feels like hope is a farce...

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. +1 ...

though I disagree that the trajectory hasn't changed ... it's just that it hasn't been reversed.

[McCamy Taylor]

72. Hope is ok, but hard work gets results. You think we got an 8 hour work day or a minimum wage

with hope? If 2014 feels hard, go back in time to Chicago, 1886, Haymarket. How would you like to be one of the union organizers railroaded and executed for the crime of being a union organizer at a time when the sweat shop owners liked their cheap, child labor? And yet, they were right when they said "Our silence will speak louder than the voices you strangle." Think about John Brown. He gave up his life, because he knew that slavery was on ongoing act of violence against human beings--a war that was already being fought, though some did not seem to realize it, because the only casualties up until then were the slaves.

Lots of people around the world are working very hard to improve the lives of those around them. Sometimes the change seems to happen so slowly that it is easy to get frustrated. But over time, it adds up.

[Armstead]

91. I wish that were true -- Bit I've seen things backslide and get worse

During my lifetime (62 years) I've seen things get better -- but now they're going backward.

Corporate Power has morphed into a monsterous force that will crush everyone not inside of its inner circle.

IN terms of Civil Rights, we've revered backwards to the point where we've returned to fighting efforts to essentially strip away the voting rights of minorities and the poor.

Slow progress is one thing. But seeing it revert back to the worst of the old days-- and seeing the nation willingly restoring an Economic Monarchy of a New Gilded Age -- is frustrating.

[Eleanors38]

19. DU has indeed become less ideological, which inevitably leads to...

the rise of internal partisanship, esp. over issues which serve as a means to "morally" attack other DU members. This is esp. true concerning the Second Amendment, Feminism, "White Privilege," and race in general. Some rather insistent fights over who controls the moral turnstile and outlook of GD in particular has led to dug-in rage attacks I haven't seen since the activist days of the 60s & 70s; a whole lot of old deja vu territory covered again.

I don't know about the libertarianism stuff. I've seen some folks here who back single-payer, labor law reform, increased public works projects, etc. get slapped with the charge of "libertarianism" because they support a robust 2A, drug legalization, and free speech to include "porno." They are hardly libertarian, just liberal.

I do think there is a strong contingent of 3rd Way or DNC folks here, because this group within the Party does NOT want to see a resurgent liberal-left movement, and DU has heretofore been seen as a remnant of the older, more lefty orientation of the Democratic Party. Thus, DU is to be neutralized by the Party establishment.

We ARE in a corporate state, and the Democratic Party must not be seen as a counterveiling force to corporate power. DU is merely reflecting the larger reality of progressive politics more and more, leaving the shrill intramural attacks over political purity to others, who could be viewed as unwitting allies in the continued rightward drift of
the Party.

Not a very happy place, DU.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. Well ...

I don't know about the libertarianism stuff. I've seen some folks here who back single-payer, labor law reform, increased public works projects, etc. get slapped with the charge of "libertarianism" because they support a robust 2A, drug legalization, and free speech to include "porno." They are hardly libertarian, just liberal.

For me, it's the robust 2nd Amendment piece along with the complete ignoring of racism and sexism (e.g., free speech to include "porno&quot , other then mouthing the words, "racism/sexism bad (though I can't seem to really find it)", takes it out of the "liberal" sphere and places it in the libertarian orbit.

But I suppose, that the "internal partisanship" of which you speak.

[KoKo]

38. You are a Newbie though. Joined July 5, 2011....so you don't know the older history..

From Your Profile:

Member since: Tue Jul 5, 2011, 10:42 PM

You are too new to have been able to do the DU Name Change Amnesty of 2004.

Some of us have been here since way before that and I think that's the group OP "Kentuck" is addressing in his post.

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. No ...

I'm not a newbie.

[Eleanors38]

59. I was unaware libertarianism countenanced or ignored racism...

Just my observation, not being a libertarian myself, esp. regarding the government's powers to promote the general welfare. But I do confess to vigorously supporting the Bill of Rights.

Porno can be sexist, and degrading, and still be protected speech. Tolerance ain't supposed to be essy.

IMO, "libertarianism" with all its theoretical and practical flaws, has an additional burden of being a tag one pins onto another, in more polite society.

[KoKo]

36. You make many points that are interesting..

and in many ways I see the same as what you've described.

[Eleanors38]

61. I think a reason for much of the infighting is a general frustration

among DU members upon realizing that a once- vigorous progressive movement has receded over the last 40 years to the point where the relevancy of the "Left" is in serious question. It has no real political home. President Obama can't relate to it, the Party is hostile to it, and MSM has created a self-serving fiction of it.

It's as if the political clock had been turned back 100+ years, and many on DU are looking for those responsible. Yeah, well, we all are. But this 66 yr. old fart on SS can only contribute a little $, and do some volunteer work. I'm not a very worthy punching bag, and an even worse leader.

[Texas Elvis]

107. Very true.

The country is in dire need of a new progressive party. The Democratic Party isn't it. That should be obvious by now. They have become the mainstream and are too connected to all the corporate problems that ail the country. We need real progressivism and DU does too. The site is far too centrist and I've watched good posters run off for not towing the line others would like them to.

[McCamy Taylor]

73. So, you think we need more old style hippies like me spouting Marxist dogma to scare the DNC?

[Eleanors38]

84. Nope. I'll settle for FDR & HHH. LBJ would make 'em piss their pants, now.

[whathehell]

157. Bingo!

We have a winner!

[Eleanors38]

166. Jesus, you don't need the Shining Path.

[whathehell]

177. No, indeed.

Unfortunately, I think lots of DUers were actually too young to remember

when Democrats defended the New Deal and the "American Dream" was a reality.

[Jefferson23]

20. I've only been here since early 2008, so I don't have that long a perspective on what

you're asking.

What I have observed is that although posters become irate with each other, it
seems more about casting blame that upsets people but I rarely see strong defense of
questionable polices. For the most part, DU members want a progressive government.
That is the consensus politically, I think and why DU is a worthwhile enterprise for me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Brand loyalty is used as an argument in disputes over prinicples and policies.

i.e. Government spying under Bush BAD. Under Obama, NECESSARY. Killing civilians under Bush BAD. Under Obama, NECESSARY. Corporatism under Bush, BAD. Under Obama, NECESSARY.

There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. Lord Acton

[QC]

27. DU is far more about personalities than issues now.

That is a major change. Because of that, the level of discourse is much lower than it used to be--discussions have less to do with policy and principles and events and more to do with who is dreamy and who is a poopiehead.

Then there is the impact of the jury system on civility here--where do you even start with that one?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

37. Yes the juries are often subjective

I've seen some posts get okayed by juries that never would have been allowed by the old moderators.

[kentuck]

39. Could it be?

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

[QC]

46. That's exactly it. n/t

[Puglover]

77. The jury system

is spectacularly arbitrary. And I think many folks simply don't want to use it. For me at least it feels creepy and whiney to hit the alert tab and I don't do it. I also believe the jury system fosters a vague resentment towards other DUers in general. When we had mods the members could be mad at them or admin.

Yeah, we had some infighting within the Moderator forum but hell, take a look at the hosts forum now. It is far worse then the mod forum ever was.

I have always said, (I know who cares right?) bring back the mods. And 86 deleting posts. Hide them. That way admin and the moderators cannot be accused of censoring stuff.

I will never buy the concept of a jury system on a discussion board. Too many Shark and Jet factions and frankly I don't believe a lot of posters are jurors in good faith.

[Gormy Cuss]

83. The complaints around the old mod system were based on the lack of transparency.

There are squabbles among the hosts but at least it's there for a wider audience (namely, anyone who hosts any forum or group, which is probably a couple of hundred DUers. )

GD hosts have the most disagreement, usually on the topic of what is within the very narrow scope of hosting.

I agree that the jury system is arbitrary, but that's by design. When the only rule is to use your best judgment, how could it be anything else? In the good judgment of four DUers, posting in Japanese was an offense worthy of a hide.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=800606

Meanwhile, offensive posts on all sorts of issues are allowed to stand as a mere difference of opinion.

[Puglover]

87. Heh. Thanks for that.

That idiotic alert and hide pretty much proves my point.

[Ms. Toad]

127. Google translate thinks it is Swahili.

But only one word recognizable.

I'd have asked what it meant - presuming it is vile is rude.

[Gormy Cuss]

132. Hah! Google translate fail.

I would have asked for a translation too and maybe suggested that it was a good practice to translate, but it the alert button? Never.

[Capt. Obvious]

186. Do you think the alerter outed themselves in that subthread?

[Eleanors38]

90. Good observations. I lean toward dispensing with the jury system

in favor of something like the old Moderator system. But maybe the Mod system was junked because it was labor-intensive? I don't know. It seems things are on a kind of AutoPilot, now. Maybe a sale of DU is in the offing: Complete package! Runs by itself!

[enigmatic]

82. Yes

This place used to be about activism, now it's about partisan politics. It used to be about achieving change, now it's about pointing fingers.

It's become like a giant ring where different groups do battle w/ one another in GD regularly in pointless screaming matches, trying to get each other banned, until they come back again under another name and start all over again. Over and over and over.

This really isn't a discussion board anymore, it's more like a Political RPG like WoW where people put on masks and do battle w/ their perceived "enemies".

There are still those from the beginning that have tried in vain to discuss ideas and work for change in the political landscape, but there are very few of them here now. The rest have either left years ago when it became apparent that this was happening, or like myself, pretty much left, w/ short bouts of lurking.

When I first joined I used to love coming here because of the exchange of ideas and intelligence of the posters, even when I disagreed w/ them. By the time I left for (mostly) good, I felt like I needed a bath to wash off the toxic sludge that was splattered on me from the poo-flinging.

This isn't so unusual; a number of boards (political and non-political) have gone this was once Trolls and disrupters have gotten their claws into it, but it's sad nonetheless.

The funny thing thing for me is that when I joined a decade ago, I was a confirmed political junkie; after all this, I really don't give a damn about National politics anymore, just mostly at the local level.

[geomon666]

176. +1

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

34. Pretty much the same

I suspect many are sock puppets but there's a certain strain of Obama Derangement Syndrome among some posters.

[RainDog]

40. I wasn't attacked by other people here

In the earlier years of DU.

Well, that's not entirely true, but those who did so are among those who still do so to others. Back then, however, it was about something else.

Feminism, for instance, includes support for 1st amendment protections for expressions that GBLT people want to make, includes the history of Riot Grrrls and their take on free expression, and the recent history of feminism includes liberal, New York Jewish women (among others) who were vital in the movement supporting freedom of expression rather than the MacKinnon/Dworkin attempt to censor. Ellen Willis, for instance. Susan Gubar. Beyond that, Judith Butler. etc.

That others here think this is a libertarian pov just demonstrates how little they know about the history of American feminism, imo, but ultimately - who cares. I just don't post about feminist issues here and those who do who think porn is about nothing but the male pov seem to me to be so shortsighted they don't have anything to say to me, generally, about anything.

But this place is extremely mainstream and conforming. That's what I see as the real source of much of that pov.

I can't imagine that some of the race bait that's posted here would've been left to stand in the past, either.

I let people stay in my house, early on. I would never do anything like that now. I no longer trust people here to be nice, or to even be who they say they are.

So, I just go my own way and if anyone else finds agreement with things I say, great. If not, whatever. But back then, no one would've ever accused me of things I've been accused of here in the recent past. This reality makes me less inclined to care about the site, though I do still care and benefit from DU and the news that is brought here.

I could do without the cliques, however. Too much like high school.

[Eleanors38]

92. So noted. nt

[enigmatic]

93. Great post

Ellen Willis is an absolutely brilliant mind and writer, btw.

[salin]

145. Yep.

Great points made.

Good to see you!

salin

[RainDog]

203. nice to see you, too

I'll be in your burg off and on in the new future. Maybe a coffee or beer is in the future...

[salin]

205. would love that

coffee or beer - and some visiting!

[slipslidingaway]

42. More conservative, less open minded and slanted more towards the Party line ...

frankly it is kind of sad.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

43. Time was this site was run from a log cabin that Skinner and EarlG built with their own two hands

Elad programmed all of the original code by the light of a kerosene lantern.

Back in those early days, discussions about how Ralph Nader impacted Al Gore's Presidential bid were occasionally colored by remembrances of those who lived in the heady days when Robert Lafollette ran as a Progressive, and de-railed the Democratic candidacy of John W. Davis in the re-election of Calvin Coolidge.

[U4ikLefty]

47. I joined in March of 2003, after the pre-invasion protests for the Iraq War.

I felt this place was a safe-haven for one of the 10% (remember those times?).

How this place has changed...and NOT for the better.

[neverforget]

51. Civility is certainly lacking. There is a lot of condescension, mocking and outright arrogance

and smugness in the righteousness of ones position.

[okaawhatever]

58. +100 nt

[laundry_queen]

74. Agreed

also, I find a lot of the attacking is done by groups of posters. Back in the day you might have one poster being uncivil (OMC anyone?) but now it seems there must be a slurry of PMs behind the scene and the whole lot of them come out to gang up. Similar dynamic in some threads where 'one of the group' posts something and there are instantly 20 posts agreeing and high fiving. The whole 'groupie' thing annoys me. I agree with some people some of the time. I don't think there is anyone here I agree with 100% all of the time. I think that's unhealthy. I don't remember any concerted group efforts when I first lurked and then when I joined.

Oh, another thing...it used to be that speculation was allowed. We had whole threads where posters essentially practiced "thinking out loud" and it was fun! Now it's forbidden, you get attacked for not having 'reputable links' or for speculating or you get thrown into the 'whacko CTer' category. I miss those long 'what if' and 'I wonder what' threads. I didn't and I still don't give a shit what 'others' think of us.

[U4ikLefty]

98. Sigh, I kinda miss messing with OMC & his "bull in a China Shop" methods.

It was amazing how he got so much cred here on DU at the time while being an obvious troll.

[Armstead]

94. That's always been the case

But in the past it was balanced by more camaraderie and civility, even among those who disagreed wit each other.

[neverforget]

111. in the old days, it was directed more at Republicans. Now

it's directed at their fellow DUer/Democrat/Liberal/Progressive. It's especially bad with ones that don't engage in debate but merely call you names in a roundabout way this side of the TOS.

But back then, we all had a common purpose: Bush. Now, not so much.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

129. This ^ ^ ^

I joined during the build up to the Iraq invasion. One could say we had a common enemy then but I have to ask rhetorically.

Why isn't the tea party, Citizens United and the Koch bros a common enough threat to unite posters on DU?

[AngryOldDem]

188. +10,000

That has to be the biggest change I've noted, and why I don't post here as much as I used to compared to years past. And as others have noted from time to time, I often self-censor because I just don't want to take other people's shit. It's okay to disagree, to discuss, to engage in civil argument, but like every other Internet board, civility doesn't apply here -- keyboard commandos, faceless people, anonymity behind the keyboard and all that.

Cliques and those posters who seem to be part of the "anointed" are problems as well.

Will still come here to browse and occasionally post, but DU sure isn't what it used to be.

[hrmjustin]

62. Everything changes. The look of the site and when it began everyone hsd a common enemy.

I did not always keep up with this site but I remember the 2008 primaries were rough.

I think in 2001 the place had a mom and pop feel to it.

[Cali_Democrat]

69. "The Party is much more important now than in the early years and less open to criticism"

So fucking true, kentuck.

Barack Obama and other leaders of the Democratic Party like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi rarely get criticized here.

It's nearly impossible to criticize people like Hillary. She gets a virtual pass here while people like Sanders and Warren are attacked relentlessly.

It's a damn shame.

[johnlucas]

71. I have only been here since 2008. I discovered this place web searching Obama's campaign

I don't remember the Bush years of the site since I found this site during the 2008 campaign of Obama.
Obama is what led me to this place & since I like forums I stuck around.
It had so much information & opinions inside that to me it was like a treasure trove.

But even with my more recent arrival here, in my opinion I say this site focuses much more on the DEMOCRATIC than the UNDERGROUND than it used to.
The DEMOCRATIC are the party rah-rah team players.
The UNDERGROUND are the contrary lone wolf idealists.

The UNDERGROUND focuses on the issues & ideals even in opposition to the Party.
The DEMOCRATIC focuses on building an unstoppable political machine no matter the cost.

With Obama in office the emphasis has slid to making the Democratic Party stronger without so much regard for the actual causes to fight for.
Even when the Emperor has no clothes, calling that out loud gets you chastised.

When I first joined both DEMOCRATIC and UNDERGROUND were pretty well balanced more or less.
Now it's DEMOCRATIC and UNDERGROUND or even DEMOCRATIC and underground.
That's my view of the situation.
John Lucas

[kentuck]

78. Good post.

I think you are probably correct.

[Corruption Inc]

75. There's a massive amount of republicans posting now, against free speech, against criticism

of the government of any kind. The place has become a haven for them, all posing as Obama supporters and kitty cat lovers.

Sad but true.

[Doctor_J]

76. The site has moved to the right along with the president

As you say more partisan and less ideological.

[Armstead]

89. I don't know if it's Du that has changed or that I've changed -- I've gotten crankier

I don't know if DU has changed or not. Similar dynamics have always been at work here. It seems more polarized, now. And instead of civil debates over actua substance, it's now more just personalized Snit Fests.

But that may be my own filter. MY basic positions and beliefs haven't changed, but I've gotten grouchier and angrier. I used to be more reasonable and optimistic about the prospects for change under the present system.

Maybe its that when Boosh and the GOP ere in charge the outrages were more identifiable, and there s always the hope that Democratic replacement would at least move us in a better direction.

Alas no. We're just repeating the mistakes of the past, and haven't moved a dime beyond the DLC Corporate Centrism of the 90's which set the stage for all the shit tat Bush was able to complete.

It;s just partisan games. The GOP gets worse and worse -- but the WH and too many Democrats in Congress stay stuck in the DLC Clintonian 90's. They don't fight back or pose an effective alternative..Instead they just either put up token resistance, mouth empty platitudes, or actively aid and abet the GOP/Corporate Axis.

So I get grouchy and cynical about it. And I have less tolerance for the DLC (or troll) types on DU who toss insults to stifle rel discussion or dissent from the status quo.

(I should add that I m not talking about all Democrats in Congress. There are some great ones who still give me hope, And I'm not dismissing everything Obama has done positively. But on balance he has proven to be a DLC Corporatist, which is highly disappointing.)

[Eleanors38]

95. Your 5th paragraph ^^^.

[lovuian]

96. A decrease of good info

There is still wonderful information here but it reflects the news media
of America

talking points

and since NSA revelations...

[H2O Man]

97. Good OP. Recommended.

A number of the responses to the OP list many of the changes that have taken place on DU over the years that I've been here.

I joined in 2003, with a specific goal of discussing the Plame scandal. I still think of the "Plame threads" as DU's peak.

At the time, a number of journalists -- particularly from MSNBC -- read DU. Obviously, this involved the staff writers for various programs. Also, a few print journalists and their staff, too.

This led to the staffs of politicians reading DU. And that led to the attempts at "perception management." Thus, we have had more campaign staff posting as if they are simply grass roots folks, and trying to promote the more moderate-to-conservative democratic agenda that was once foreign to the discussions here.

Also, there is a higher percentage of people here for entertainment -- they enjoy arguing -- rather than the more thoughtful attempts at meaningful discussion that many of us enjoyed.

[Texas Elvis]

110. Good points.

Your posts are one of the reason I've lurked here for so long. You and a few others caught my attention so I always look in from time to time. The poster Time for Change also comes to mind. A very eloquent writer. DU needs more like that. They are quality.

[KoKo]

155. Interesting Observations.....and,

We became "..a thorn in the side" is how I could see this played out.

[H2O Man]

163. One thing that I

found interesting was the number of right-wing and republican sites that monitored DU's Plame threads. And I don't mean the jackasses who wanted to who sought to discredit and/or disrupt DU. A number of the more serious ones were listening closely. And that included some who found us to be "thorns in their sides."

[KoKo]

167. If you can understand what I'm saying......

We were ...Equal Opportunity "Thorns in Sides" for both sides on many issues at that time...

and, imho, was why the push back occurred. Equal Advantage Opportunity for trashing... with nothing to lose, either way.

[tenderfoot]

100. What has changed is that there are now oddles of wingnuts and libertarian douchebags

and nothing is done about it which resulted in good DUers leaving the site in droves.

[JoeyT]

101. Once upon a time, a right winger that joined for

the express purpose of talking about how awful liberals are would've been shown the door pretty quickly. Now as long as they couch their talk of how terrible the "extreme left" is as somehow defending Obama, they're fine.

We also used to not have a bunch of people that defended libertarian economic policy while accusing civil libertarians of being "libertarian".

[Texasgal]

102. I've found people to be angrier

than when I first signed up. Maybe we are all getting older? I've been here since 2004 but lurked many years before registering.

It's hard to post anything here anymore without being labeled, thread stalked or flamed. It's really kind of sad. I hope that it can change into a better more inviting forum like it used to be.

[bluestateguy]

103. Medicare Part D (the Bush prescription drug bill)

People here fiercely opposed it back in 2003 when it was enacted because it was a big giveaway to the drug companies.

Now that it is the law of the land, people here support the law's continued existence, while still wanting some changes made.

[Texas Elvis]

104. First time poster, long time reader of the site.

I noticed that it's changed a lot. It's more mainstream and less accepting of differing views. It's more like a club for watered down opinions and less of a left leaning site. The true left would definitely be against what the US is involved in in Ukraine. That says a lot about what it has become. I also noticed some people want to ban news outlets from other countries but are quite happy with the terrible corporate media here in the US. Is it possible the one that is lying and obscuring the truth is actually pedominantly our own media? I saw those pictures of the dead people in Odessa and they don't match what CNN, MSNBC and Fox told us. A woman was raped, another was pregnant and strangled. That stands out to me as we are being lied to. They seem to be trying to hide the fact that nazi's are rampant in Ukraines new government.

[Blue_Adept]

112. Social changes

Though I don't re-register after the original DU upgraded, I've been here since Skinner and the others were using the original version of DC Scripts for the forum software. I remember posting with them in the support sites forums as I was using the same software at the time. But I only finally re-registered last year after reading/lurking for so long since I had spent time elsewhere.

The membership has certainly changed and so much of what's written above is true from other long time and more recent posters. But in the time since DU started, how we all interact on the Internet has changed a lot to - particularly since back in 2000, we had a very limited set of people that were actively online. it was a group that was more interested in interacting in a way, less spoilers in the mix. Now that ~everyone~ is online, you get all kinds. And the way discourse has evolved via Facebook, Tweeting and other short forms, writing out anything of length in a forum feels arcane. Hence the greater snark.

[MisterP]

115. some GOOD changes: there's still crap, but it gets smacked down faster by DU's "superstars"

claims on the level that Muslims are the barbarian enemy of all good Westerners, that Nader caused all the wars since '02, that Obama is Wall Street's biggest enemy, that it's up to us to give Obama the Progressive Congress he needs, that we absolutely HAVE to rescue the poor people of Libya or Syria NOW NOW NOW DON'T THINK JUST PANIC AND PULL THE LEVER LIKE WE ASK YOU TO, that Obama would be ever so lefty if Congress weren't tying his hands, that the Cold War was a Good Fight--heck, even the claim that Columbus had to fight to prove the Earth was round all get zorched and roundly mocked by a well-read SWAT team of posters within a few hours

given enough time something false to begin with is recognized as discredited, actually making DUers greet other low-grade claims with heavy doses of doubt: crap that would've flown 2001-5 gets hive-swarmed with actual facts pronto in 2014

[Maedhros]

123. Unfortunately, actual facts are routinely ignored in favor of ad hominem attacks.

That seems to be the biggest change.

[MisterP]

125. oh, absolutely: 2002-6 it was a welter of "voting third party will destroy the Dems, let the GOP

win, and put us all in camps," 2006-8 it was "primaries, lefty purges, and saying McKinney didn't push that cop will destroy the party, let the GOP win, and put us all in camps," since '09 it's "policy criticism will destroy the party, let the GOP win, and put us all in camps"; note what changes and what doesn't

but despite the vast sea of infighting there's still some vessels afloat, trying to explain that Ben is Glory

[Skittles]

119. mostly the Tiger Beat crowd

but they have an expiration date

[Whisp]

175. There is a new issue of Tiger Beat out:

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Cha]

182. Let's hope to crap they have an expiration date.

Well done, Whisp.

[SidDithers]

124. It used to be a site that thought electing more Democrats was a good thing...nt

Sid

[cleveramerican]

128. I used to think minds could be changed here

Now I think most arrive with their opinions fully formed and seeking validation.
Its also possible that I have chnged and DU was always thus.

Have you EVER truly been convinced to change you view on any issue as a result of a DU discussion?
Not in long time for me

[NanceGreggs]

133. There is no longer any 'discussion' ...

... about anything.

Nowadays, it's read an OP, take a side, then argue with those on the other side. Make the same points over and over and over. Don't discuss an issue - just post your usual talking points, while those in the other camp post theirs.

The days of true interaction are long gone - unless you consider 'interaction' to be calling those on the opposite side of an issue "authoritarians, Third Wayers, Libertarians, Obama-haters, Obamabots, mindless cheerleaders, the Tiger Beat crowd, BOGgers, paid RW trolls," etc.

Shades of grey are also long gone, and one is deemed to be at one extreme or the other on every issue. Don't trust Snowden? You're an NSA hawk who embraces the idea of domestic spying. Don't agree with the use of drones? You're a tree-huggin' idiot who believes the entire military should be dismantled. Enjoy Woody Allen movies? You're a pedophile-enabler. Refer to Greenwald by his initials? You're a homophobe. It's beyond silly.

IMHO, it all went wrong when Skinner changed the rules from "constructive criticism" of Dems being permitted to "any criticism" being permitted. Debates that started with "I disagree strenuously with Obama's policy on ____," invited discussion about a particular policy. It quickly devolved into "Obama is a piece-of-shit used car salesman", which invites neither debate nor discussion, but merely serves as yet another thread in which to call each other "Obamabots" or "ODS sufferers" - depending on which 'side' you're on.

Obama supporters dare not voice criticism of any of his individual actions or policies, because they will immediately be deemed as having "switched sides". Obama naysayers dare not praise any of his individual actions or policies, lest they be deemed as having "switched sides".

DU has become Website Story. Every Jet is anxious to pounce on a fellow Jet who thinks the Sharks have a point - every Shark is anxious to pounce on a fellow Shark who thinks the Jets have a valid argument. Everyone is more concerned with "sticking with their own kind" than they are in assessing the merits of one side of an issue or another.

DU used to be about discussion, not aligning one's self with one's usual "side" in every argument. It used to be about the myriad shades of grey that exist between black-and-white positions. Facts were determined based on provable information, not on how many recs an OP consisting of faulty information achieved - ergo accepting the faulty information as "fact" because a certain number of posters agreed with it.

And then we have the "thought police", who deign to determine what constitutes misogyny, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc., with little or no basis in fact, nor even the application of common sense; e.g. referring to JFK, MLK, BHO, or FDR is permissable, referring to GG is a homophobic slur. Seriously, you can't make this shit up - it's there for all to see, and it is this ridiculous BS that has turned what was once a sanctuary for open discussion into a minefield of eggshells one dare not tread upon.

I remember banter back and forth with fellow DUers using words and terms that would be alerted on and hidden now - not because they were offensive, but because someone somewhere has now determined they could be construed as offensive to someone somewhere in the universe, regardless of context or intent.

It is somewhat humourous to read posts about freedom of speech on a website that disallows the freedom to speak up on any issue without being designated as a Shark or a Jet, without being free to use certain words or phrases that "might" offend, without being free to stray from the accepted talking points of which "side" one has been determined to be part of.

It is sad to see a website that was once a sanctuary from faux political correctness become that which it once abhorred. It is sad to see a website that once embraced Democratic activism devolve into "both parties are the same" rhetoric. It is sad to see a website that once encouraged honest debate on issues devolve into a "take a side and stick to it" mentality.

I miss DU as it once was - what is has become would be laughable, if it wasn't so damned sad.

[The Straight Story]

143. Amen to that. (nt)

[Bobbie Jo]

174. Perfect summation.

I miss the DU I found in '06. This version has become so antagonistic, I rarely spend more than 10 minutes at a time here anymore.

You make a good point about "constructive" criticism, and how the loss of that standard has contributed to quality of new posters who seem to be attracted to the freedom to shit stir at will.

As always, good to see you, Nance.

[Cleita]

179. That's because the word police trolls have taken over and have

abused the alert system by censoring all words they have a forbidden list for regardless of the content. Any debate that they disagree with will be alerted, hidden and often the poster, some very many long term DUers, PPRd. Others have been stalked into not making other than bumper sticker commentary. So that's why there is no real debate and discussion anymore. Now I've said too much already.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

192. AMEN!! I miss you so much!!

[Gidney N Cloyd]

200. Bravo. Perfectly, eloquently stated.

[WillyT]

134. Not As Funny As It Once Was...

Although the DUzy's help a lot.

Better when we were opposing W, than fighting over Obama.

Used to have meet-ups, where we would actually meet each other in person.

Even protest the Iraq War together.

But it's still the best news clearing-house on the web!

We have eyes EVERYWHERE.

[maced666]

137. Whatever changes to have happened, sure is a steaming progressive engine today.

Works like a well oiled sports car stunning at high speeds.
Whoever designed the growth and future of the site sure knew what the hell they were doing.

[1000words]

146. A while ago, by the way:

[davsand]

147. Kentuck, you've been here a very long time. You've BTDT and got the t-shirts to prove it!

Seems like the long time folks are decreasing all the time, and every time I see one of these threads I see fewer replies from the ones that were here at the beginning.

Some have simply passed. We, as a community, can and do mourn and we try to keep the memories alive of what they did and said.

Some have departed in spectacular flame outs and some in fits of pique, and they get mentioned less often but still remembered on occasion.

Many have just drifted off. One day you look around and realize you've not seen anything from so-and-so for a long time and you wonder if they are ok or maybe ask if anyone knows what's going on. I think this last group is what troubles me most, and I'm finding myself in that category more and more.

Something shifted here about the time Obama was elected. Maybe it was the changes in the website administration like the others have suggested, maybe it was the loss of a common enemy in the form of the Bush/Cheney administration. I can't honestly say for sure. Maybe it was just that people got hooked on stuff like Twitter and Facebook and got distracted because there wasn't an atrocity every week anymore. Terror Alert Level Plaid was no more, and our entire nation lost focus on politics in the midst of a Congress that couldn't manage to blow their collective nose or vote to wipe their ass after they took a crap on the people that elected them.

I am glad as hell Obama is in office--the GOP alternatives were too dreadful to contemplate in any way. I wanted single payer, and we didn't get it done yet--but--we DID manage to improve many people's lives with Obama in office, and I am grateful for that. I'll take half a loaf as long as I can continue working to get the rest of it. (Too many years spent organizing, I guess, to give up on a fight with only a partial win.) Feels to me, like a lot of people here gave up and are either spending time wanting to crucify Obama for not getting enough, or for any of the other things that he's not been perfect on. I can't stomach that any more than I can deal with sitting down with the job half done. Feels like different sides of the same thing, if you want the truth.

I also know on a personal level that I hit max point on my local political scene. I'm still a Progressive, and I still am fighting the fights, but I had to step out of my local Dem party because I was spending more time fighting to be ALLOWED to do something than I was spending in action. I finally got to a point that I ran for office as an Indy candidate because my local Dem party has become such a stumbling clusterfuck. I am a part of PDA, and I work with Labor, Jobs With Justice, and Equality Illinois, but I simply can't self ID as a member of the local Dem party any more. Suddenly, DEMOCRATIC Underground became less applicable to me. It has never been as much about a party label as much as it was about organizing and getting the tools to make a difference. I thought I could do more inside an established party, and for a time, I could.

I'm here less and less. I've found that coming here for long periods of time really doesn't uplift me like it used to, except for seeing long time friends and fellow warriors like you. Take care, Kentuck, and all my other DU friends! I'm around, but not like I used to be.


Laura

[KoKo]

149. Long time...no see... Thanks for stopping by.

I can understand your experience. This isn't an activist oriented site any longer. And finding those who one can connect and share thoughts with of a "like mind" has been increasingly difficult as time passes and for the reasons you state about people passing on moving on.

There's a lot more media these days than we had back then. There weren't even "Blogs" when we were first here. Remember "Media Whores Online" and "Buzzflash" were our hot sources.

I think Facebook/Twitter and that in a positive sense we have more access to Democratic Websites and information has made DU less useful as a "Meeting Ground" and "Force for Democratic Values and Ideals." Those early days we could make a difference. These days not so much. And, some of our Left Outlets have their own agenda...which is supporting the Democratic Party which has been taken over by Neo-Libs and if you aren't one...you are pretty much not considered part of the party. As Rahm Emmanuel cautioned right after the '08 Election and Jane Hamsher warned about the Left Bloggers being put in the "Veal Pen" after the '08 Election.

I still blabber here on DU but I work with other groups like "Common Cause" & "Food and Water Watch" because of my experience with my local Dem Party when we angry Dems worked so hard to reorganize (after the devastation of Supremes selecting Bush II) to get paper trail/verified voting plus to fight back against Bush/Cheney and Iraq Invasion...and all the rest which has transpired since.

Good to see you....wish you well.

regards

[kentuck]

170. Laura and KoKo...

Perhaps there simply comes a time to pass the torch?

It is good to see both of you still here. You have fought the long battle.

I don't post as much as I used to but sometimes there are thoughts in my head and I don't see them anywhere else and DU, thankfully, has been receptive to my rants and raves. I hope I have been able to contribute over the years. I hope these new soldiers will carry on with the same dreams and efforts as you two.

There are so many great souls and humanitarians that have passed our way over the years. There is no way we can remember them all. It's an easy place to disappear.

I have truly enjoyed talking and communicating with everyone. I think we made a difference.

[KoKo]

183. I know...but...."Do Not Go Gently into That Good Night"

I've always believed in the "Wisdom of the Elders" passing on what they knew and their perspective.

It's up to those who follow to weed out the wisdom from the chaff....but, that a Purpose in Life is to Still Stand Up for What You Believe and not to "Pass that Torch" without still having a say in who it's passed to and what their values are.

Otherwise...we would only have CNN/FAUX News to look forward to blasted to us in the Nursing Homes and the Assisted Livings.

I think many of us would not tolerate that (not all, but, many of us) including YOU if you look into yourself and the time you've spent here contributing.

"Do Not Go Gently Into That Good Night"

.....Damned if I will....and suspect you might still have that point of view...as long as we take breaks when the "madness" breaks out.

's and

[davsand]

199. I've never had enough sense to just "sid-down and shud-dup." Just isn't something I do.

I have always worked specific issues. Like you, Koko, I have kept on with those issues, and probably will for as long as I am able. (BTW, I am *FAR* from being too old for anything and I figure I've got a good number of picket lines, marches, and door to door work days ahead of me yet!)

Passing the torch really is about seeing a new generation of activists and hearing a whole new choir out there singing their truth. I'm seeing kids that came to stuff 20 years ago as teens that are now organizing and running for office. I love seeing those guys pick it up! If I'm being totally honest, for me, anyway, the biggest high has been watching my daughter and her friends as they have come into their own. I will never forget coaching my kid's softball team when they were maybe 6 or 7 years old. I looked down the bench at all those girls and I thought of what kind of world they were coming into, and it kept me going--kept me fighting. A decade later, I'm now seeing places where I'm standing there WITH those same kids, and you have to know I am loving every minute of it. Shoot, just last night I was sitting here with my daughter and a few of her pals talking about organizing a flash mob to perform in support during the local Pride festivities. (I've transitioned into the Crone role, and I am loving it!)

Love and Care to you all!


Laura

[TheKentuckian]

148. When I came here, I was almost too conservative to fit in. Now I am pushing the fringe on the left

My only change in positions is that I no longer am on the silly "civil unions are good enough" crowd due to some good arguments from fellow members on both factual and emotional grounds.

There is also a seemingly greater focus on being mainstream, that being Underground is for kooks and that Democratic simply means a letter next to the name.

There is also an open disdain for civil liberties in some quarters that I would think would be as out of place somewhere even broadly in favor of western civilization, much less resembling liberal as opposition to civil rights. Support of the Bill of Rights deemed Libertarian according to some rather vocal posters and strangely the correlation seems rather high that the same folks seem the most comfortable with Libertarian economics, the basis of their ideology. The most tolerant of deregulation and plundering the commons. The first to get on the bandwagon to advance their long game on education.
It seems the part of "Libertarian" that sticks in their craw is civil liberties, aversion to imperial warmongering, and folks making their own choices about their bodies. The meat of what they rail against goes down like it has spoon full of sugar to help it down, at least and often seems like the preferred main course.

Then there is a huge decrease in give a damn about much of anything to do with the plight of working people, the poor, and the homeless accompanied with a slight increase in rhetoric for protections for the poorest among pushing wicked schemes to plunder everyone else for the benefit of the insulating the wealthiest and maintaining the status quo. They call it shared sacrifice.

There is a seemingly significant drop in any thought of accountability for the rich and powerful or anyone in government with at least an equal increase in bloodlust toward anyone outside such caste.

[KoKo]

150. They call it shared sacrifice.

Well said...and that this seems to be shared by so many (not all, but many) in the Democratic Party and here, also, is disturbing and particularly to those of us, like me, who remember JFK, MLK and the LBJ era but the tragedy of Vietnam and the hope we would never get involved with that kind of "action" again...then the Nixon Lies and Impeachment and the reforms after. Much is gone of those times. This is the Neo-Lib Dem Era (pro war/interventions, for Wall Street Independence, Anti-Regulation, etc.. It's hard to understand how such a change could have taken place in really such a short time in our memories...but, for many of our young it's their ONLY experience.

And, if you see it and you came here as a "Conservative Dem".....you can imagine how distressing it is to us who were always more to the Left of the Dem Party.

As you say:

There is a seemingly significant drop in any thought of accountability for the rich and powerful or anyone in government with at least an equal increase in bloodlust toward anyone outside such caste.

Thanks for posting this...!

[TheKentuckian]

171. Now, I wouldn't say I was a conservative Democrat but more DU was significantly left of the party

Enough to make a definitively left of center Democrat comparatively conservative seeming but yes the Overton Window has jumped to the right in a big way with "center" of our party in the process of figuring out how far to the right they can go and it seems the only limit is how far one can imagine the TeaPubliKlans can, which is a bar lowered to about the center of the Earth, if one had a little black hole in there to stow said bar in as well.

Now I believe a significant group on DU (in more ways than numbers) is actually to the right and on some issues far to the right not only of the party but the general public (even if less "eat shit and die" than the average shriveled ass soul TeaPubliKlan) or at least is tolerant of such enough to encourage it for whatever rationale, if it is not what they prefer in their heart of hearts..

It is kind of amazing really that a shift that dramatic could happen in such a short period of time, I still think of myself as "new".

[snot]

162. I find the characterization in your OP confusing, but . . .

I find more snark and vitriol here than in the old days, and less in the way of thoughtfully-considered analysis or essays. I also miss the really jumping Greatest page -- there were a lot more threads, and a lot more news; so much action that I couldn't keep up. Now, it seems I quickly exhaust the items of interest appearing on Greatest and Latest. I'm guessing this is due to the Balkanization of DU into Topics and Groups – fewer people see as many items, so fewer posts collect enough recs to make it onto Greatest? The Topics and Groups structure made some sense, but, I think, went too far. I like being presented with news on subjects that I didn't know I might be interested in or need to know.

[Puzzledtraveller]

193. DU is activism now?

Albeit from a basement.

[AverageJoe90]

194. I've noticed the opposite, actually, at least in terms of ideology(and not always in a good way!).

It's actually become more ideological; look at all the "white privilege" threads we've had to put up with lately, for one. When I was first on here, there was nary a peep, at least not on GD, anyway.

[PowerToThePeople]

201. Glad this got kicked

I had it bookmarked while I was on DU vacation for 60 days.

Imo, It has been infiltrated by Corporatists. There appears to be a VERY small sect of pro security state, pro oligarch, anti-progressive posters that manage to hold huge amounts of message board space. Just a couple days ago, I put 5 of the most right wing (imo) on ignore. The board looks nothing like what it used to. I honestly do not see much to take issue with. I see very little anger or negativity towards progressive ideas. Amazing that such a small group of people can change the feel of this place so much.

[Hippo_Tron]

202. Maybe I'm not paying attention, but I joined in 2003 and think it's basically the same place

There was never ideological consensus on DU.

[Maedhros]

204. Here's one way it's changed:

Before: <content>

Now: