Ah, DU, my DU. Will cooler heads prevail?

[stubtoe]

We're getting into primary season now and I'm having a hard time finding constructive discussions about the relative merits of the candidates we have to choose from, here on our message board.

I'm seeing way too many potentially interesting threads go something like this:

1. OP starts a discussion.
2. Joe Poster posits an apparently honestly held political opinion and proceeds to get his head bitten off.
3. Someone replies "You're wrong, you (insert insult here)!" **CHOMP**
4. Joe takes the bait and the thread turns ugly.

I skip over the fight looking for replies to the OP. Unfortunately, by now, almost everyone with anything constructive to add to the original discussion is scared off. Game over.

I've been a member now for over 2 years, and lurked for a couple of years before that. I've loved DU for the information, the discussion, and the community (even if not everyone agrees with me *wink*). I hope the current nasty vibe is just a phase. I really do because I think we have some terrific members here with a lot to offer. And we have candidates to consider.

Thanks,
-s

[xultar]

1. BRAVO!!! K&R

[MADem]

2. I agree with you. And it really is screwing the undecided voters over, of which I am one.

I either feel compelled to defend a candidate I might not end up supporting when the shit gets ugly, or I just back away and say to hell with it. At the end of the day, I learn very little about the candidates, but a lot about some of the baiting, badgering assholes hereabouts--way more than I expected to ever see in a progressive forum.

So much for the big tent, where all ideas are heard, I guess...

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. I have no time for primary battles.

So I stay away from them.They get to the point of those conversations, by early church clerics as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and whether saints defecate.

Such things make my brain hurt.

[BOSSHOG]

6. Saints don't defecate? Are you shitting me?

I know they bowl. My grandma told me that was where thunder came from, the Saints Bowling.

[here_is_to_hope]

14. (wiping chili and frito's off screen) Damn you! lol n/t

[BOSSHOG]

18. Sorry about that my friend

I get so confused when it comes to "beliefs." I tend to lean towards knowledge, I'm wacky that way.

[Rick Myers]

4. Don't worry, it will calm down again

The 2004 primary season was just as crazy!

[myrna minx]

5. Great post stubtoe.

:hi: Since you've lurked/posted here for a long time, you'll remember that the 2004 primary was like friggin' Thunderdome. It was a bloodbath. Thanks for trying to bring us some sense of civility. (But I can't help but think when I return to your thread there will be several 'deleted sub threads'):rofl:

[tandot]

7. Thanks, Stubtoe. K & R

[welshTerrier2]

8. the simple answer is: no

try to post something that outlines a path to unity and it puts DU to sleep ...

intra-party peace is possible but it won't happen by posting simple pep talks ... if we don't all sit down at the big table, we're going nowhere ...

you want a path to unity, here you go: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3467626&mesg_id=3467626

btw, back in finger pointing land, isn't it interesting in the party's great left vs. right battles that it's almost always the left that is accused on being righteously inflexible and uncompromising? the truth is, I think it's the center and right that refuse to be flexible. the left demanded a "No" vote on the IWR. then we asked for benchmarks. then we asked for a timetable. where's the compromise from the party's hawks? five years of war and occupation and they're still sending bush every single penny he wants with no conditions at all.

the center and right of the party have no need to compromise because they can just add their votes to the republican votes and get their way. there's been plenty of flexibility from the left; there's been none from the center and right.

as a party, we seem totally unable to find a way to make the "Big Tent" inclusive; we'll pay for that ...

[brg5001]

9. I'm as guilty as anyone

There have been times when I've let my emotions get the best of me. I'm pretty much over that, now, but after posting in a variety of forums around the 'net I've come to the conclusion that discussions are best moderated. I don't want discussions to be censored in the sense that contrary or differing opinions are eliminated, just moderated to weed out ad hominem, irrelevant, or otherwise destructive commentary. I've come to the point where I'd rather have a thoughtful, intelligent conversation about music or plants or the interest rate trend or whatever rather than a catfight on DU. In the end, I believe that fewer forums with fewer topics, that are more strictly moderated, will be required to keep the conversation civil and focused.

[Mythsaje]

10. That's okay...

Haven't scared ME off yet.

[zabet]

11. I have read a lot but posted nothing..

in my efforts to stay out of the flame wars.
I am an undecided voter and it seems some people cannot
promote the candidate they support without slandering
another Dem candidate.
Save the hate for the repukes please.

[BuyingThyme]

12. Here's how it's really going:

1. The first person posts what Hillary says.
2. The second person insists that Hillary didn't mean what she said.
3. The third person asks the second person what the hell Hillary did mean.
4. The second person calls the third person names before running away and hiding.

[CreekDog]

21. Actually, no about that

1. first person broadsides against Hillary
2. second person defends Hillary, uses actual quotes and positions she took
3. third person jumps in and calls second person a name for supporting Hillary when the first guy was right anyway
4. fourth person jumps in and says criticizing Hillary without actual facts is unfair
5. first and second persons run away fed up with the whole thing and that their opinions whose rightness is so obvious to them are not shared by everyone else and all those other people not in agreement are getting suckered
6. the sixth throug the twentieth people arrive some hours later pointing out how the criticisms lodged are not based in fact, how the record and the quotes are different and that Hillary is criticized unfairly, but by then the instigators are long gone trashing her in some other thread.

The only consistent thing I can see here is that this is exactly what happened to Edwards a few months back and now following almost the same pattern, it's happening to Hillary.

What's up with that? Some of the same people involved too.

[BuyingThyme]

28. Show me one instance where a Hillary supporter was honest about what she said

in regards to the years-coming "tactics" in Iraq.

[CreekDog]

33. That's not the point of my post

[BuyingThyme]

35. Looks applicable to point #2.

[deacon]

27. It's #4 thats the problem. We need to take a DU oath not to "Hannity" each other.

And shun right wing rovian-like attacks on each other.

[Warpy]

13. Oh, please, we're DEMOCRATS!

That means we'll be contentious until the day of the election, when we all shrug and sigh and vote for the candidate we really didn't particularly want but were handed by the party.

Trashing candidates and points of view is perfectly acceptable. Trashing people for any of it is not.

"Alert" is going to be very important starting about now.

[BlooInBloo]

15. Ah - you're obviously not familiar with Atrios' rules of primary season....

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_17_atrios_archive.html#116645724148144035

Some Notes on Primary Season

1) Your favorite candidate is the only one who can win.

2) Your favorite candidate is the only one who will truly get behind a progressive agenda.

3) Other candidates are part of some nefarious conspiracy to destroy your candidate.

4) Supporters of other candidates are motivated by groupthink.

5) Supporters of other candidates are operating in bad faith and arguing dishonestly.

6) "Powerful" bloggers shouldn't be "biased."

7) Primary season is the silliest season of all.

[blondeatlast]

16. Bravo (a?)! The DU undecided are many and the cult wars aren't helping--in fact, I'd say they are

hurting--the candidates.

I survived 2004 and I'll survive this--but I refuse to allow the shallow, nasty arguments in DU to influence my decision.

[CreekDog]

22. Any DU criticism against a candidate that is unfair and without basis

Automatically puts the candidate in a better light for me.

So you folks that hate Edwards and/or Hillary and prefer Kucinich, keep that in mind if you actually want DK to win the primary.

When the best you can muster are terms like "sheeple" and warmonger, I'm thinking you don't have anything better to back your position and it's hurting your guy.

[blondeatlast]

25. Pardon the assumption, but I sincerely hope that you are not lumping me

in with ANY candidate follower.

It's posts like these that make me yearn for my English teaching days when I made a big deal about the value of the third person.

Please find me any instance where I have either endorsed or not endorsed any candidate...

[CreekDog]

29. No, it was a comment that your post prompted

My original post was written to focus the criticism on two kinds of behaviors that I think are the problem:

-criticizing candidates unfairly and without basis
-criticizing others for not agreeing with those that stated the unfair/unsubstantiated criticism without making a substantive case for agreement

Notice that I don't have a problem with "criticizing candidates" per se. But there must be a basis for that, they should be responsible criticisms (not about looks or name calling).

So, I offer the following example of the type of exchange that I see on DU:
Poster 1: I'm supporting candidate A, why won't you be a real Democrat and support Candidate A

Poster 2: Well, I prefer candidate B's position on X and I think candidate A is a cookoo bananas because of that space leglislation he was involved in.

Poster 3: Candidate B is a warmongering who**.

Poster 2: no she isn't give me an example please.

Poster 1: well what has she ever done anyway?

Poster 2: She did A, B, C, D, E, F and she said X this morning.

<crickets>

Now, I have the problem with all but poster #2 because that's the only poster that actually talked about a candidate's positions and used facts to back them up. The other posters were using peer pressure, attacks and never actually engaged in substantive debate about their candidate. This happens all the time here and I'll bet if Kucinich was here he would tell his supporters to "knock it off", because calling Hillary's supporters names doesn't help him get any more votes in the primaries, okay?

Oops, I meant this to be a hypothetical example. Oh well, I guess it wasn't.

[stubtoe]

31. Yes - substantiative debate is what I am hungry for.

It usually lasts for about 1 post, per your example :)

[TreasonousBastard]

17. They haven't in the past, when...

more cool heads seemed to be around, so why should they prevail now?

The nonsense will continue, but the point is to remember that DU is NOT the Democratic Party, nor does it represent any particular constituency that your representatives might recognize.

It may not seem easy at first, but it is not terribly difficult to avoid the most blatantly stupid threads. Many people around here do it all the time.

[Bake]

19. When I see a poster with a sig line or avatar supporting a particular candidate

And then I see that poster act like a complete FOOL - name-calling, holier than thou, etc., frankly it just turns me off to their candidate. That's one reason I'm not overly fond of ... aaaaah, you thought I was going to name a candidate, didn't you!

If the foo shits, wear it.

Bake

[The Straight Story]

20. Support Dennis or you're really voting for a republican in dem clothing!

:rofl:

[CreekDog]

23. Where have I heard that before...

DU!

...NOT HELPING!

[CatWoman]

24. "You're wrong, you fucking jerk!"

**CHOMP**

:rofl:

[H2O Man]

32. Are you

talking to me? I don't see anyone else here. I think you're talking to me.

[bridgit]

26. short answer: no, long answer: hell no...

:rant:

[havocmom]

30. Look at it in a positive light: Probably good for the economy

to have lots of paid posters all over the internet ;)

[mmonk]

34. Just another primary season.

Been here before.