Should there be a "posting exam" here at DU?

[IrateCitizen]

By this, I mean should the moderators all come up with some kind of examination to be administered to all posters, to quiz their positions on electoral issues, to ensure that they meet the high ideals required to become a DU poster?

Perhaps by this means, we can weed out all of those with "unacceptable" views like, say, failing to have venom drip from your mouth and begin convulsing at the mere mention of the name "Ralph Nader"?

I am posting this as a response to all of those calling for the grand purge to eliminate POV's from DU that do not conform to their narrow ideological boxes. Personally, I do not fear POV's that do not conform to my own, because they inevitably only do two things:
1. Force me to reconsider my own POV by considering the other person's POV.
2. Force me to more convincingly defend my own POV from those I completely disagree with.

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. Yes, it would help to root out suspected leftists and status-quo opponents

so that they could be smoked out of their holes and turned over to the authorities for appropriate disposal according to the Patriot Act.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Obviously I disagree with the posting exam

But do fundamentally agree with the rest of your post with one exception.

During the recall here in California, there was deliberate disinformation being posted. According to Elad, DU gets 120,000 unique hits a day. Since the highest number of contribution to DU came from California during the last fund drive, it is reasonable to conclude that PROBABLY the highest number of unique hits to DU a day are coming from California. Those numbers then translate into countless opinions and conversations amongst countless people in terms of information or disinformation being spread.

Therefore, when DU'ers start posting DELIBERATE disinformation and RIGHT WING HIT pieces such as a certain poster the other night that posted a MASTER KERRY ad, or the persons that were CLAIMING Kerry told Hoffa he would drill in ANWR, there IS a negative effect to be had.

So in summary, NO there SHOULD NOT be a posting exam, but some actions are clearly TANTAMOUNT to deliberate intentional mutiny, and that DOES fit the DU definition of disruption. If over time, a poster can be repeatedly counted on to post false, misleading and deliberate lies, they should get their ass banned simply for the reason that they have PROVEN they are here to disrupt rather than contribute to the ultimate goal. 86'ing Bush.

If we don't live up to that intention, why be here?

Free speech is a right. Accuracy in media (and YES we ARE media) is a responsibility

[ShimokitaJer]

5. And for those who don't share your goals?

Yes, certainly getting rid of Bush is the immediate goal, but some of us believe that we can do more than that. For us, insuring that the Democratic party returns to the ideals that it claims to represent is equally important.

Now, if you believe that it is impossible to achieve both goals and that working toward the second means sacrificing the first, then by all means tell us that. But don't call us traitors and call for us to be banned, because we too believe we are working in the best interests of both the party and of the country.

In other words, don't assume that those who disagree with you are stupid, treasonous, or disruptors. Ban people for actual disruption rather than merely actions which you consider "tantamount" to mutiny.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. I didn't say anything about those whose policy views differ from mine

Debate is the hallmark of sound policy.

I have called no one anything and have made clear the specific actions I consider to cross the line from meaningful participation to deliberate disruption.

I assume nothing.

IF you want to debate the meaning of disruption, I am happy to do so.

I never said "agree with me or get banned."

[ShimokitaJer]

10. The problem is in the word "deliberate"

I stated my only two goals in the previous post. However, my way of achieving those goals does not involve condemning Nader, promising to vote ABB, or blindly trusting Kerry.

Given our previous exchanges, however, I don't think that it would be out of line to suggest that you consider defending Nader, refusing to vote ABB, and revealing why I distrust Kerry to be antagonistic to your goals, and perhaps even traitorous to the party. Indeed, I have been accused of everything from campaigning for Bush, to attempting to destroy the Democratic Party, to being Ralph Nader's love slave. But I IN NO WAY have ever attempted to deliberately disrupt.

Perhaps you care enough about the need for dissenting opinion to attempt to understand my motivation in order to engage me in debate, but I think it's quite clear that there are those on DU who make no such attempt and who wish to stifle any opinion that is not in accord with their own. We can not rely on all DUers showing the same respect for reasoned debate that you say you believe in. And thus we can not accept any policy that attempts to stifle certain viewpoints.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. I am suggesting behavior not debate is the issue

I am not opposed to debate and for the most part return to any debate I participate in.

If your views on Kerry are factually based rather than based on ad hominem attacks and the litany of conspiracy theories that are lobbed regularly, or anecdotal votes that don't underscore the actual history of the debate then I have no problem. I have posted positively and negatively about ALL candidates ..the archives are there for easy referencing.

I might add on a personal note, I've always found your postitions well reasoned even when we disagree.

[ShimokitaJer]

3. And here I thought suppression of dissent wasn't exactly "democratic"

I share your disgust with the calls for "purges" of views that differ from the supposed norm. It is one of the most repulsive qualities that it seems some on the left have adopted from the GOP: the perception of winner take all, with dissenting opinion suppressed.

We used to claim the Democratic Party was a big tent, but I have never seen so many supposed Democrats willing to sacrifice small-D democracy for big-D politics.

[bowens43]

4. Absolutely.

We need to purge not only DU, but our party, the media and our political system of anything and everything that could be construed , by either major party , to be dissent.



(ok, that was sarcasm)

[PVnRT]

6. Absolutley!

We should purge ALL who are not 100% zealous about Kerry, since, if you're not, it's obvious that you're really a Bush supporter. This will make it easier for those left, as they will feel no pressure at all to try to convince people to vote for him, instead of just berating them with ANYONE BUT BUSH 24/7.

[buddhamama]

8. i'd fail the posting exam

and proudly do so too.

while i understand and support Admin's decision to not allow campaigning for Nader to occur on DU, i do not and will not,
accept the premise by some that, if you don't condemn them all to hell you're a traitor.

i'd be hypocrite if i were to do such a thing.
i avoid hypocrisy at all costs.

This is a Democracy. agree or not, every citizen has the right, and duty imo, to participate. If that means Nader/greens running for office so be it.

[lovedems]

9. Correct me if I am wrong (somebody, anybody)

But, once we have our candidate, negative threads about the candidate and negative threads about the democrats will no longer be tolerated. I have been watching all of this vile rhetoric against several candidates just waiting for the primaries to end in the hopes that it will stop. Those who want to unite behind the dem will be welcome posters but those who want to constantly ridicule the party or the nominee I suspect will not be allowed. It does state that this board is for democrats.

Am I right or wrong?

[buddhamama]

11. "It does state that this board is for democrats."

yes the site is for Democrats AND other progressives.

after the nominee has been chosen the rules will change.

you're wrong to think that, say should Kerry should get the nomination we are not allwed to 'question' him. DUers will not be able to openly support someone else for the presidency but we can 'question' the candidate on policy and issue. It is essential for Democracy to do so, and the Admin understands this.

[lovedems]

12. Questioning him and the open animosity against him are two different

things.

Some of the threads I have seen about him and some of the posts go beyond questioning. There are some that are frankly quite embarrassing.

Edit: This is democratic underground, not green underground. I don't think campaigning for Nader should be allowed on this board. He IS NOT a friend to the democratic party.

[LandOLincoln]

15. He's not a friend to the Greens, either. They wouldn't

touch him this time around.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. For the record, I am in complete agreement with you on this point

[Old and In the Way]

16. Of course, by your rationale,

we could have this board overrun by "loyal" Democrats who just need to "question" our nominee on policy and issue. That means the floodgates are open to more divisive threads that do nothing but take our focus off beating Bush.

The time to question is now, during primary season. After that, "questioning" our candidate, his policy, and issues is something that would be happily supported over at FreeRepublic. But we really don't need to do that here.

[buddhamama]

20. hmmm,

well, it's not my message board or yours so i guess we'll both just have to follow the rules.

Kerry has not exactly changed his position on the issues, but his language on the issues has changed during the course of his run.
If something like this were to happen after the nominee is chosen, then i don't feel it is a problem to question.

BTW, i'm not a DUer who goes from thread to thread questioning any of the candidates. i choose to research them,read for myself and come to my own conclusions. i especially do not need someone interpreting for me what a candidate meant when he said this or did that,etc.,etc.

as of now i am supporting DK. His threads are the only 'candidate' threads that i participate on.

[Ksec]

17. Thats a rather elitist position

I think its a crazy idea . Its a free country. Ban em when they show themselves.

[mmonk]

18. my venom runneth over

but all Naderites are free to post and give their reasons why Nader running this year is good. It will fall on its face without tests or purges.

[DancingBear]

19. Yes - and here is the Math problem that shall be used

Two trains carrying opposing political candidate supporters leave Chicago at 10:30. One veers right, and while attempting to return to center hits the other train, which had veered left. An eyewitness said the two trains were travelling at a rate to be unsafe at any speed, and blamed the conductors. The survivors blamed each other.

At what time was a joke made about this wreck, and which train is responsible?

(please use the margins for scratch paper - you have eight months to complete this problem)

:)