Now that right-wing DU'ers can "unrecommend" threads off the greatest page

[Ken Burch]

Will we have any discussions that still matter anymore?

What posts will even survive?

Will DU be worth having if views the conservative wing of DU'ers(and it simply isn't possible that progressives could support this)are going to be blocked from the Greatest Page?

And why do those people so fear free speech?

[FLAprogressive]

1. oh no....it's all about preventing holocaust denial and MJ threads from reaching the greatest

:sarcasm:

[Ken Burch]

11. And especially those "Michael Jackson was a Holocaust Denier" threads

:sarcasm:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. We still had discussions...

back when RWers were recommending anti-Obama bullshit onto the greatest page.

So I think we, and the first amendment, will somehow survive.

[FLAprogressive]

3. people like you consider ANYTHING critical of Obama to be "bullshit"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. False.

[FLAprogressive]

6. What is acceptable/unacceptable to you?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Comparing him to Bush, as you're prone to do...

is a clear example of buffoonery.

[FLAprogressive]

17. What is acceptable to you?

[Ken Burch]

19. And why isn't it enough for you to go to a thread like that and say

"You're a buffoon for saying that, you buffoon!"

Do you really think it's impossible for you to win an argument like that on the merits of your case?

[FLAprogressive]

20. instead of providing a good counter argument the bots just want to bury the thread

[Hutzpa]

40. Funny that

calling someone who has been here longer than you a bot, you just exposed yourself
chump....:rofl:

[FLAprogressive]

41. what does a join date have to do with being a cheerleader bot or not?

[Hutzpa]

46. Simple,

gives you an idea when to use certain terms.

[fascisthunter]

150. more like simple-minded

your post that is

[fascisthunter]

149. another one to ignore

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. It's impossible to argue with people who compare Bush with Obama.

It's like arguing with a Birther, a 9-11 twoofer, or Holocaust denier. You've already won the argument, arguing further is just kicking a dead horse.

Hence, it's much better to just unrecommend.

[redqueen]

35. I agree.

And not all of those kinds of threads are shut down.

[Hutzpa]

39. +2

[Beetwasher]

129. +1,000

Indeed.

[girl gone mad]

18. I think that fairly summed up your DU persona. n/t

[Odin2005]

126. That is a lie and you know it.

[leftstreet]

4. I think anything with PORN in the title will still make it

I don't really understand this whole thing, I'm just popping off.

:hi:

Oh, and I'm gonna K&R this and see if my pc blows up.

[Ken Burch]

103. And especially anything with "Michael Jackson Holocaust Porn" in the title.

n/t.

[anigbrowl]

7. Apparently not

Instead we can just have multiple discussions about how awful DU is becoming, like this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6024532&mesg_id=6024532

Has anyone ever told you you have a persecution complex? Maybe if you didn't start so many threads about threads you would get a better hearing. I have not bothered to unrecommend your OP by the way, so don't blame me if it goes into negative territory.

[Ken Burch]

9. None of my threads has ever been about how I was treated

It's insulting to imply that those threads were selfish. They were started because of what happened to other people, not me.
You're not entitled to condescend to me.

[redqueen]

15. !!!!

Oh man... this is so fucking good.

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

44. Use all the punctuation marks you want, Your Scarlet Highness

It's never been about my ego. It's just about the issues.

[LanternWaste]

147. Self-delete

Self-delete

[anigbrowl]

33. Rubbish. When you start a thread and it doesn't go the way you expected...

you often start another thread along the lines of 'I can't believe it has come to this'. You're perfectly at liberty to do so. I'm just telling you that much of the time this comes across as hand-wringing histrionics...as I am perfectly at liberty to do.

[Ken Burch]

43. If I say something like 'I can't believe it has come to this"

That's a reflection that I can't believe that a far-right opinion(like support of the fascist coup in Honduras, which is what prompted that particular comment)has been heard on DU. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my feelings or my self-esteem, neither of which are bound up in this thread at all.

It's not personal with me, it never has been, it's never been about anything but the issues under discussion, and your condescending habit of falsely implying that my posts are in some way "histrionic" is tiresome. You have no particular claim to calmness or serenity in your posting style, as far as that goes.

[anigbrowl]

52. This thread itself is an example of what I'm talking about

You started one half an hour ago demanding to know why anyone would want an unrecommend feature. Lots of people argued with you so now you started this one, implying that right-wingers are going to monopolize DU discussions, anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't a progressive, and such people must fear free speech.

No, of course it's not personal with you.

[paulsby]

65. and to go even further

it's a false argument that the OP even brought up: "free speech"

DU is not about FREE SPEECH. DU has rules about what speech is and isn't acceptable. and DU is well within its rights to do so.

and those rules are vastly more restrictive than the guidelines of our first amendment. because DU (or any other political website) doesn't threaten "free speech" by limiting discussion as it sees fit. people are free to seek other forums or to speak out IN PUBLIC.

if the govt. says "you can't criticize Obama", THAT is a violation of free speech.

if DU admins made that rule (not that they would, but you get my point), it would NOT be a free speech issue, since DU admittedly is not a Free Speech forum

[Ken Burch]

68. Why is it so important for you to pretend this is about my feelings?

Also, just as many people agreed with me in that thread as disagreed, so I had no hurt feelings.

You might as well give it a rest-it's not about me.

[anigbrowl]

82. why do you keep starting new threads on the same subject?

You do it a lot, and somehow it always seems to involve you saying that everyone who disagrees with you is un-progressive. What other interpretation do you expect people to put on it when you state things in such absolutist terms?

[Ken Burch]

84. I sometimes start related threads because different ideas emerge that justify their own threads

And my expressions in those threads are about the ideas, not me. Why do you persist in this bizarre insistence of trying to pass this off as my egotism or my emotions? It's neither. It's the ideas and the ideas alone. It serves no purpose for you to insist on trying to personalize it.

[anigbrowl]

104. Such as suggesting that everyone with a certain view must be a right winger?

This is basically an attack thread, in which you suggest that anyone who supports the un-recommend feature is a right-winger, a conservative, and is afraid of free speech. You assert these opinions as if they were fact, and then express your concern about the future doom of DU.

I'm not really seeing the big thought-provoking idea here, just a bunch of name-calling.

[Ken Burch]

106. It's a thread attacking censorship, not people as individuals. There's a huge difference

And you've insisted, pointlessly, on portraying my defense of the concept of open discussion and free speech as childish petulance when it's nothing of the sort. It's about the idea of preserving dissent and keeping DU meaingful(which it won't be if every thread on the "Greatest" page has to get the approval of a self-designated "majority".)

A non-confrontational, non-controversial "Greatest Page" would, by definition, be a place where nothing of any value was said. It's only through confrontation and controversy that any worthwhile idea advances.

[anigbrowl]

110. Yeah sure. Yet the attacks are all that differentiate from your other thread.

...the one in which you asked to know why anyone would ever want such a feature. And it was you who wrote the characterizations of anyone who does agree with this feature as right wingers, conservatives, and fearing of free speech (even though criticism and negativity is as much a form of expression as support and positivity).

So don't go telling me it was all about principles when you devoted most of the post to tarring your opponents and the rest of it with predicting the ruin of DU.

[Ken Burch]

111. Why is it an illegitimate tactic to worry about what this will do to DU?

After all, the pro-"unrec" argument is based on the idea that DU will be ruined without it.

[anigbrowl]

113. Hmm....so it's not about the ideas, it's actually a debating tactic?

Well well, looks like we agree about something after all.

Appealing to fear is an old tactic, one much used in advertising and propaganda, and one I don't have much respect for. I see no basis for your assertion that the 'the pro-"unrec" argument is based on the idea that DU will be ruined without it'. That's certainly not my view, and doesn't seem to be very widespread.

My pro-unrec argument is that I'd like to be able to express a negative opinion with the same ease and convenience I would express a positive one by recommending it, particularly when I have nothing substantial to add to a thread that hasn't already been said.

[Ken Burch]

114. Referring to something as a tactic doesn't mean it isn't also about an idea

Even without the "unrec" feature, you already HAD the ability to express a negative opinion on a particular thread-by debating the thread's premise. That was enough. Being able to move a thread off the Greatest Page isn't the expression of an opinion, it's simply the stifling of the opinions of those you disagree with.

Expressing your opinion requires SAYING something-not making it harder to hear what others say or invoking the notion of "the majority" to control what topics make it to the Greatest Page. If "Greatest Page" threads have to be acceptable to "the majority" won't that by definition make those threads bland and pointless? What good is a non-controversial thread?

While I will strongly respond to views I disagree with, I don't try to restrict where those views can appear on DU.

[anigbrowl]

115. Well, you seem to be repeating yourself now

It's obvious you think this is all about people's ability to keep threads off the greatest page, despite repeated explanations that many people have no interest in and don't bother to read the greatest page. Personally, I don't think non-controversial threads are necessarily bland or that controversial or confrontational threads are necessarily good.

Good threads can be controversial, but they are also articulate and well-argued. I don't think the un-recommend feature will kill such threads.

[Odin2005]

130. Your knee-jerk calling everything you disagree with "right-wing" is the problem.

That betrays an authoritarian attitude that is not conducive to reasonable discussion.

[Odin2005]

128. It's insulting to call your fellow liberals "conservative DLC whores" and other such BS.

What's good for the goose...

[POAS]

8. Proud to rec.......I think!

[redqueen]

10. Oh My GOD!

How many threads are you going to start about this?

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

16. A lot of people are starting threads about it.

There's no way a progressive can support anything like "unrecommend". And there's never been a reason for DU to suppress discussion and debate.

[redqueen]

21. Unrecing threads doesn't supress debate.

I think the unrec feature is democratic, so... yeah, I think there's a way for progressives to support it.

[Ken Burch]

27. How can reducing the number of people who sees the thread be democratic or progressive?

And if forcing a thread off the Greatest page isn't about reducing the number of people who see and participate in it, that what other possible point could there be to doing this?

"unrecommend" causes trouble and hard feelings to no good end.

[northzax]

30. how can increasing the number of people involved in the decision

to publicize something possibly be unprogressive or democratic?

[Ken Burch]

34. Why isn't it enough to go to the threads you dislike and express your opposition?

What's wrong with good ol' fashioned debate?

Is there any thread we've ever had here that could ACTUALLY justify this kind of heavy-handedness?

campaigning to HIDE a discussion can never be progressive or democratic. both progressivism and democracy presupposed unrestrained debate.

[northzax]

51. again, why can't you go and express your opinion?

why do you get an extra vote, I don't get it. many people will only ever see the front page of this site. why shouldn't those threads be representative of the larger community, not just the 50 people who voted to +1? maybe 99,000 people don't like it, but if 50 say 'yes' it's the top of the page, for all visitors to see, and there is very little the other 99,000 could do about it, save a concerted campaign.

and I will note that discussions aren't 'hidden' they simply aren't the ones we, as a community, choose to highlight. there are what, ten thousand threads on this board at any given week? (just guessing) and the twenty that get fifty votes are the ones we highlight? now they have to get more positive votes than negative ones to be the ones that are actually the "greatest" as advertised. what's wrong with that? they don't drop off the fora, they don't get hidden, they simply aren't the ones the community at large chooses to highlight, when given the option.

[Ken Burch]

59. If threads can be blocked from the Greatest Page because some just don't like their ideas

We can assume that no discussion on that page will ever be of any real value again. Threads that only reflect "majority" opinion(and it's a teensy, weensy bit arrogant to assume that the people who want to "unrec" are somehow the oppressed "Silent Majority" of DU)
are not going to be discussions. They will be, by definition, bland and meaningless, thus pointless.

Every idea that ever mattered in human history, including every GOOD idea, was considered offensive by someone. And some of those "someones" did everything they could to keep that "offensive" idea from wider circulation. If DU becomes a "majority makes right" place, it will cease to be a place where anything is said that could actually matter.

We don't need to become Sycophancy Underground.

[northzax]

64. no, it just means that the greatest page

is more representative of what it already was, which was fairly useless.

[Ken Burch]

69. Is it actually possible for something to be "more representative of what it already was"?

:wtf:

[redqueen]

32. As has been said repeatedly, it makes threads on the GP more representative

of the entire community.

[noamnety]

42. I disagree.

If 60% of active members here support centrists, and 40% are further left, a representative greatest page would have 60% threads supporting centrists, and 40% threads supporting stuff that's more progressive.

This system allows the 60% to ensure that 100% of what's on the greatest page supports centrists.

That's not more representative of the community at large.

[anigbrowl]

54. That doesn't make sense

because there's nothing to stop people posting and recommending multiple threads espousing their point of view, regardless of which size group they fall into. In general (on any board) 20% of the posters produce 80% of the postings.

[noamnety]

62. Both groups have had equal opportunities in the past

to post threads, and if at least 5 people share their view and care to recommend it, it goes on GD. You are right about one aspect, which is that there was no guarantee that the threads that appeared on GD showed up in percentages that reflected the overall membership here.

But now, the majority - even if it's only a very slim majority - has the power to completely eliminate ALL threads they object to from the greatest page.

That's a far cry from being more representative of the views here.

[anigbrowl]

72. Well, this assumes a monolithic majority that thinks the same way about multiple different topics

I really don't think it's going to have anything like the effect you are predicting, not least for mathematical reasons (but I don't want to bore you with a bunch of statistical/game theory explanation, or indeed write a long essay on it).

I could be wrong, of course, but I think you'll be able to look at the greatest page in a month's time and still see plenty of left-wing, progressive, minority view point threads. What you'll see less off, I think, are the 'rec my thread' posts, content-free rants, mistake posts (eg posting a headline from today's date but last year) and incoherent posts.

[Ken Burch]

63. So what? Why does that even matter?

Why are you so concerned about the ones who DON'T post? And why assume that those who don't post reflect a different opinion from those who do?

It could just as easily be that they don't post because they feel their view is already getting a fair hearing, and that, unlike you, they don't have this paranoid Nixonian vision of themselves as the "Silent Majority".

[anigbrowl]

73. It's just a mathematical observation. As for paranoia...

...you're the one saying the right wing will use the unrecommend button to eliminate discussion on DU.

[Ken Burch]

83. Why else would you want it?

You assume that you represent more DU'ers than those who oppose "unrec".

You assume that, despite this strength of numbers you supposedly have, you are at some sort of unfair disadvantage.

And you appear to want to be able to control which threads make it onto the Greatest page, which you are determined to have despite the fact that you also claim(contradictorally)that being able to force threads OFF the Greatest Page doesn't put those who start those threads at an unfair disadvantage.

This feature is never going to be used against threads with conservative ideas(or "moderate" ideas, which of course are the same ideas as conservative ideas, as the Nineties proved). We both know that.

[anigbrowl]

108. I have already tried explaining this to you

First, it seems I do in fact represent more DUers than those who dislike 'un-rec', at least if DU polls are reflective of anything: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6023451&mesg_id=6023451

Second, I said nothing about an unfair advantage. It just seems logical to have buttons for both approval and disapproval. disapproval of something may not be ideological at all, but because it is factually incorrect, or incoherent or a variety of other reasons.

As I have pointed out to you before, I never look at the greatest page. I have zero interest in controlling it. I recommend something if it strikes me as particularly interesting or well-written, and I will unrecommend things if and when they strike me as particularly lacking in quality. Which is opinionated of me, to be sure, but that's the nature of any discussion forum. When I find a poster particularly objectionable I generally put them on ignore rather than get irritated by reading umpteen threads I know with 95% certainty I'm going to hate. I don't consult with some ideological affiliate group to find out what we're all supposed to be recommending or un-recommending today.

Actually, no I don't know that this feature is never going to be used against threads with conservative ideas. In fact, such threads seem highly likely to get un-recommended to me. Nor do I think moderate = conservative, or for that matter think that everything can be reduced to binary choices.

[Ken Burch]

109. That means ceasing to have discussions.

And it means, taken to its logical extremes, any real politics on DU.

The only ideas, throughout history, that ever mattered were ideas that, at some point, were minority ideas. If "the majority" had always had the ability to say "we won't talk about this because if isn't 'representative'", there would never have been progressive change anywhere.

We gain nothing by limiting what ideas are considered acceptable here.

[northzax]

29. this suppressed discussion and debate?

how's that, exactly? does it take the thread off the front page of the topic forum? does it lock the thread? do you somehow need the affirmation of a thread on the front page?

the old system was a friend-ocracy. if you had a small clique, you could get anything to the front page (you only needed 50 or so votes most of the time) now it is potentially much more representative of the community at large. I'm a member here, too, you know? if I think a thread on the front page is not representative of my views, why shouldn't my voice be heard as loudly as yours? what are you afraid of?

[Ken Burch]

31. If it doesn't represent your views, why isn't it enough for you to go to the thread and EXPRESS

those views?

And is an "enemy-ocracy"(which is all that "unrecommend" can create) any better than a "friend-ocracy? Why should the idea be "all power to the grumps"?

[northzax]

47. good point

why isn't it enough, if you like the views, to go to the thread and express them there as well? why do the pro-thread people get two bites at the apple (greatest page and top of the forum) and the antis get only one (a post that, ironically, bumps the thread)? this is my community, too, right? the Greatest page represents me, too, right? why don't I have the same ability to reduce the presence of an idea as I do to promote the presence of it?

having only +1 option leads to the ability of a small group of people to continually promote ideas that are not representative of the community as a whole (kind of like how cable news promotes view that aren't representative of the country as a whole, if 100,000 people watch, and 300,000,000 don't, then they still get promoted, right? a lot more people don't watch Glenn Beck than watch him, right? and yet, he still has airtime to spew his vitriol. same thing happens on the Greatest Page, except there it represents the views of all of us. it's easier to get something up there than to get it off (before now, at least) there are what, 100,000 members of this board, give or take? if 100 people like something, they have the defacto ability, before -1, to overrule the other 99,900, who would have to have a concerted effort to +1 fifty other threads to get the idea that don't like off the table. how is that 'democratic or progressive' again?

[Ken Burch]

53. Define, if you will "ideas that are not representative of the community as the whole"?

If we only promote ideas that represent "the community as the whole", wouldn't that end up meaning we'd no longer be having discussions? Would there be any point to having ANY threads if they only represented ideas that were supported by a majority of this mythic "community"?

Why should there be that much more power to impose conformity? Especially since conformity of the sort you appear to want would mean this site would have no intellectual life?

Again, what ideas, if I may ask, would you say we should NOT be discussing on the Greatest Page? And what threads have reached the Greatest Page actually had, in your view, no right to be there?

[noamnety]

99. Do you think the purpose of the greatest page is to represent you?

I thought its value was primarily in giving visibility to topics that are thought-provoking or shed new light on an issue, or uncover corruption.

I never thought its main value was to preach to the majority choir about things they already knew and agreed with.

[northzax]

121. no, it's to represent the 'greatest' threads on DU

why should a small minority get to decide what are the 'greatest' threads on DU? 50 out of 100,000? that's going to find something interesting? sure, maybe to those fifty people.

[noamnety]

85. It's not about "affirmation" or ego

It's about visibility and exposure of a topic.

One of the best functions of DU during the Bush years was shedding light on corruption in government when the corporate media was frantically ignoring such stories. The blog buzz (including DU threads) was sometimes the catalyst to get things into the media.

There was some talk (even by Obama, IIRC), about needing to now hold democrats accountable, holding their feet to the fire.

There seems to be one faction on DU that believes this is an important role for progressives to play. There is another faction that refers to this as "whining" and would like to suppress these discussions. Obviously they aren't able to shut down threads or prevent people from posting, and nobody has made that claim to my knowledge, though I see a lot of people misrepresenting that as the complaint so they can argue that strawman.

The issue is that a slim majority now has the ability to suppress all of those threads from appearing on the greatest page, knowing that those are the threads that are seen by the most people.

If a thread on the greatest page doesn't represent your views, it makes more sense to me that you'd post your opposing view in that thread - so more people can see your view as well. The desire to hide opposing views from more eyes strikes me as more worthy of the question "what are you afraid of?"

[SidneyCarton]

142. "There's no way a progressive can support anything like "unrecommend."

I'm sorry Ken, I missed the memo where you became sole arbiter of what was and was not "progressive" could you send me the link?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

12. Oh no! You used the word "progressive"! You must be a Kucinich kook

and no one agrees with you! The nation is centrist right and you are screwing things up!

[LaurenG]

13. Just give it time, it's really new at this point.

I've been playing with the rec or un-rec just to see what it does.
If a discussion is interesting to you it doesn't matter if it's on the greatest page or not does it? Plus there are threads that never get to the greatest page that are totally enamoring.

[sufrommich]

23. "right wing DUers" are called trolls and tombstoned

when alerted on.

[Quantess]

86. There are many FReepers who also have DU accounts.

Many of them never post, or only post rarely, thus flying below radar.
Are you unaware of this?

[grantcart]

24. Only if you accept the premise that DU has a large percentage of right wingers here

It will however stop highly polarizing threads that have a core number of supporters but are anathema to the majority from continuing to dominate the headlines because of a relatively small number of recommends.

[Ken Burch]

38. that phrase "anathema to the majority" is a right-wing meme.

If we ONLY discuss things the majority agrees with, we'll never have any real discussions at all. You certainly don't tolerate much disagreement, and you're basic tone in the threads here is "you kids should just shut-up and let us grown-ups decide".

[grantcart]

67. you are free to discuss everything you want

just don't cry when a substantial number find it wanting.

You may want to consider forming a special group that would give you protected space to promote the particular ideological faction you cherish.

You could call it:


The Real Progressive Forum
The Democrats who haven't sold out
This Administration Sucks Group



You are still free to post the same material you always have here but the small number of rabid Obama haters will not be able to automatically promote every negative thread automatically without suffering the scruitiny of more judicious eyes.


You are free to post your opinions, you are free to defend your opinions. We are now free to click on your threads give them a negative vote and let you know our opinion of your posts without kicking it and thereby giving it unwanted attention.

Before this in order to express our negative opinion of a thread we would also be kicking that thread, a real quandry if you prefered not to assist promoting that thread, even if it is with a negative comment.

[Ken Burch]

70. I'm not a rabid Obama hater. I'm a free speech supporter.

There's a difference. Deal with it.

President Obama is NOT persecuted on DU.

[grantcart]

75. Your a free speech whiner.

Nothing in the change of the 'recommend or unrecommend' buttons has anything to do with "Free Speech".


You will be free to continue as always. We will now be able to express ourselves freely without 'kicking' your threads.


Deal with that.

[Ken Burch]

80. It's arrogant of you to assume that you speak for "the majority"

Or that this "we" you speak in behalf of has been at an unfair disadvantage simply because you haven't been able to kill threads you didn't like.

[grantcart]

81. No the majority will speak for the majority

Only people who are afraid of the majority are expressing opposition to the 'unrecommend' button.



I love it and you hate it. Its pretty clear why.

[Ken Burch]

88. I hate it because I hate suppression. You love it because you love suppression

What's not to understand about that?

You fear free speech.

And it's not "only people who are afraid of the majority".

Your fetish with "the majority" is awfully Republican-sounding, btw.

[Ken Burch]

91. define this "majority"

What views do they hold that are, as you see them, the only legitimate views?

And you do realize that every important idea in history started as a "minority" viewpoint, don't you?

Your version of DU would be a DU without ideas or life.

[SidneyCarton]

143. Of course you are...

So long as the speech is yours. As soon as someone else chimes in with an opposing viewpoint you seem to get a little authoritarian.

[Ken Burch]

94. You're not entitled to take that kind of "I'm DU and you're not" tone

Most DUers are to your left.

[Spazito]

25. The "right-wing DUers" could recommend threads that were trash...

now you can unrecommend them. How is that unfair? Seeing as the majority of DUers lean left to some degree or another, one would think the "left-wing DUers" could out-vote the "right-wing Duers" unless you are calling the majority of DUers "right-wingers"?

[Telly Savalas]

78. That's a logical way of thinking about it

but it's not very conducive to whining and feelings of victimization.

[Spazito]

96. LOL and too true!

:rofl:

[Laelth]

26. Nope. The Greatest Page will be fluff.

Just stuff about which we all agree. It'll be boring.

:dem:

-Laelth

[leftstreet]

28. Watching the re/unrec counts change is kinda like watching the markets

:o

[anigbrowl]

37. Hey, let's count rec totals per member, then we can trade options on each other...

We'll all get rich - no way this could fail!

[leftstreet]

45. I feel a bailout coming on n/t

[cali]

36. oh c'mon. clearly the problem isn't

"right wing" or "left wing". The problem is infantile people who will unrec posts by people they don't like.

[EFerrari]

50. I think you're largely right, cali, but also note the wave of new posters

we get here at interesting times that all seem to support the right wing view of X issue. It does happen -- witness all the new posters we got from HONDURAS two weekends ago who all defended the coup. That was interesting. lol

[cali]

56. yes, that was pretty bizarre. I was surprised to see

anyone supporting the coup in Honduras. Personally, I have no intention of using my unrecs for anything but trolls and really, really over the top crap.

[EFerrari]

60. Sure. I'm curious to see what happens when DU calms down a bit. n/t

[cali]

61. we'll see. I predict the unrec function won't last long

too many people simply aren't mature enough to use it judiciously.

[omega minimo]

119. This is right up Cali's alley

:thumbsdown:

[Laelth]

79. I think the problem is that controversial threads will get squelched.

No way any of my threads would have ever made it to the Greatest Page under this system. They were too controversial.

Remember these?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/28

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/22

You see my point, I hope. Those threads (which spawned excellent discussions) would probably have been ignored. Too controversial. Too unpopular. Thus, silenced.

Is that what we want?

:dem:

-Laelth

[Ken Burch]

90. And, if controversial threads are squelched

all MEANINGFUL threads would vanish. There's no point in talking about anything that isn't "controversial". Nothing that matters can be said in a non-controversial discussion.

[Laelth]

93. Agreed.

When was the last time you debated whether or not two plus two equals four?

That upon which we agree isn't worth discussing. The freedom to speak intelligently about the things about which we disagree is what makes this site so valuable (to me, at least).

:dem:

-Laelth

[EFerrari]

48. I think it will work out. We'll just have to pay a little closer attention.

And maybe that's not such a bad thing, jmo.

[Paladin]

49. Oh, Yeah: Looks Like This New Feature Is Gonna Work Really Well.

Big-assed sarcasm alert for those in need of it.....

[salguine]

55. And you know what else? left-wing DUers can "unrecommend"

endless Tiger Beat photo threads of Obama performing miracles like talking on the phone or walking along the sidewalk. It works both ways.

[Ken Burch]

71. left-wing DUers don't want to do anything like that, though.

n/t.

[cali]

74. baloney, Ken. This is all about personalities and petty dislikes

and I reject your dichotomy of "left wing" Duers, "right wing Duers. It's stupid and divisive. And frankly, I have no intention of using the unrec except for troll and seriously inappropriate over the top crap.

[Ken Burch]

77. Suppression of discussion is historically a right-wing tactic, an Establishment tactic

It was the tactic the hawks used in Chicago in '68, when they beat peace demonstrators in the street and allowed a grand total of ONE HOUR to debate the Vietnam plank(the only plank that actually mattered that year), while forbidding Humphrey delegates to vote their conscience on the issue.

And one of the early fights of the American labor movement and the American left was the "free speech fights" over the municipal bans on people speaking on street corners.

There's no reason for any non-right wing person to ever want to use "unrec".

And the types of people you'd use it against can already be stopped through the "alert" feature.

[cali]

89. there is no suppression of discussion.

none. and your touching belief that so-called left wing people are above using the unrec function for petty little reasons is beyond naive.

Look, I don't win any popularity contests on DU- from any supposed faction, particularly those who consider themselves the "real left". I just posted a list of who's testifying on Monday at the Sotomayor confirmation hearing, and guess what? It's been unrecced. That's right, a list with no commentary. And if anyone thinks I'll be cowed by this nonsense, boy oh boy do they have another thing coming. Nevertheless, I have zero intention of using the unrec for petty retalitory reasons. I fucking well don't need to hide behind an anonymous unrec.

[SpartanDem]

98. So giving everyone vote as to what the greatest isn't free speech

I think only allowing people who agree with you to vote on the merits of your thread truly suppresses free speech

[Ken Burch]

101. Giving people the power to force a thread off the Greatest Page is NEVER

an example of "free speech". Nobody here needs to block anyone else's thread from easy access just to protect THEIR OWN rights.

[grantcart]

76. now that's an example of sanctimonious self endulgence that I cannot wait to 'unreccomend'.

[Ken Burch]

100. You spelled "indulgence" wrong.

n/t.

[noamnety]

92. Eh, admittedly, I would.

If the feature is there, sure, I'm going to use it to unrecommend fluff posts with no substance.

But as I stated elsewhere, it's not a trade-off I want to make. It's worth putting up with some fluff in order to keep valid criticisms of politicians or policies in the public eye.

[Ken Burch]

102. In your case, I stand corrected.

And I respect you for saying it's a trade-off you wouldn't WANT to make.

[anigbrowl]

112. I want some of what you're smoking

[Odin2005]

131. Wow, you actually beleive that? Holy delusion batman.

Your black and white thinking is disturbing. In your distorted reality apparently you and everyone who agrees with you is good and perfect and can do no wrong while all of us that disagree with you are evil fascists. That is the mindset of a totalitarian, not a liberal. You are what you claim to hate. You are exactly the type of rabid ideologue Obama criticized back in 2004.

[WilliamPitt]

146. You speak for all of them?

:eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

144. the numbers ratio says they can, but those threads will still make the front page.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

57. Kicked and Unrecced

This is going to be fun. To answer your question, the greatest page should represent the views of the majority of DU members, not some gamed up BS as it often was. Critical threads are going to have to succeed on the merits of the argument and the tone of the OP and those who respond.

[Ken Burch]

66. That would mean that no discussion that mattered would ever occur on the Greatest Page

Also, you can't assume those who support the "unrec" feature are the majority and those who get their threads on the Greatest Page are some unfairly overrepresented minority. Has it not occurred to you that those threads make the page because they could actually have merit?

There's simply no reason for anyone to have the power to restrict what goes on the Greatest page. It SHOULD be a page of passionate, contentious debate. It should be a place where oxes are gored, where truths are told, and where prisoners are not taken(to use several cliches in the same sentence, and if you don't like it, here's the quarter not given-call somebody who cares.)

[Odin2005]

132. Except the so-called "progressives" scream bloody murder when their cows are gored.

Don't be a hypocrite, If you call your fellow liberals "rightists" because they disagree with you don't be surprised when you are called an asshole.

[Luminous Animal]

58. Any RW group can register and keep threads off the greatest.

And any LW group can do that, as well.

[Renew Deal]

87. I don't have a problem with a "conservative" Democrat unrecommending something.

They are still a Democrat. The problem is the same that it's always been. An "unrecommend" feature can be abused.

[nomaco-10]

95. What a bullshit argument....

for those of us that want a quiet, non confrontational alternative to the piling on of bullshit posts that go on in here daily.

IT'S DEMOCRATIC TO HAVE TWO OPTIONS AT ANY GIVEN TIME TO VOTE ON. PERIOD!!!

I don't get the Poutrage, I really don't.

[Ken Burch]

105. A "quiet, non-confrontational alternative" would be a politics-free zone

Why would you want to talk about anything that's NON-confrontational, or non-controversial? Would that leave anything WORTH talking about?

[scheming daemons]

134. So you want a system where ONLY a "yes" vote is permitted.....

Nice.

[Ken Burch]

138. Because a "yes" vote is never a vote that suppresses anyone's voice or harms anything

There's no positive good to having an "unrecommend" vote. It's like the townsfolk in Ibsen's AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE who show up at the meeting that the dissident scientist has called to make his cause about the threat to the town's water system, take over HIS meeting, and forbid him to speak. It's an ugly device. Recommend, on the other harm, doesn't impose on anyone. In the end, more openness and more discussion is always better than less.

There's no such thing as the right to silence others.

[Buns_of_Fire]

97. It's only a couple of hours old. I'm willing to let it shake out.

On a daily basis, I recommend only a handful of threads, if that. I can't see myself using the UNrecommend option any more often. And if something REALLY twists my knickers, I've no problem alerting on it -- and I don't think I've even done THAT more than a handful of times in the whole time I've been here.

I think we should just let the dust settle before coming to our conclusions. If it tends to skew things, it'll become evident soon enough. JMO/YMMV/LSMFT

[WI_DEM]

107. Why do you fear free speech? Nobody is stopping you. Sounds like you

are only concerned about "The Greatest Page". And do you honestly think that there is a large pool of "right wing" Duers? Come on, get real. 90% of DU are of the left, except that some are farther left than others and some of those on the farthest left think that they are the only pure and true liberals and the rest of us are a bunch of DLCers.

[JNelson6563]

116. Ok, here's the deal.

Of course we will have "discussions that matter". Now, maybe some of those that do not will not dominate the greatest page. I strongly believe that the bickering some of the threads I refer to entail will keep those worthless threads to the top of the forum page for a long time.

"What posts will survive?" The ones that get kicked the most, of course.

"Conservative wing of DU'ers" can keep threads as well as anyone else.

"Fear free speech"?? Coming on the heels of your previous question it seems to translate into: Conservative views are the truth, why does DU fear having the truth posted?

Frankly I see plenty of crap posts I'd be happy to unrecommend that don't contain a hint of conservative viewpoint.

Julie

[LynneSin]

117. So if I disagree with you or someone else then I'm right-wing

Thought we weren't suppose to make those kinds of assumptions about other DUers. Perhaps I've read something and just thought the article was crap and not worthy of the home page.

[omega minimo]

118. "Not worthy" -- Are there that many small minded people here, judging each other, jealously counting

and looking for ways to knock others? This seems to cater to that mentality. It's not a positive reflection.

[LynneSin]

120. stalking me now?

You don't like the feature we get it. Notice that all the threads complaining about it have 0 recs and those supporting are well received. Instead of complaining and following me to every thread why don't you give the feature a chance. I mean it's only 6 hours old and all of us are still playing with it like it's some bright shiny toy.

You want freedom of speech then that is giving everyone the right to have a voice in what is considered a thread worthy of the greatest page. And as for this right-wing bullshit - that theory is blown with +70 recs about the DLC bashing Kucinich. If these so-called right-wing DUers and DLCers were out to suppress left-wing thought then why is this post getting recommend?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6022082&mesg_id=6022082

This complaints are just about as bad as the Republicans are with the stimulus package. Calling it a failure before we even let the thing work. Take a deep breath and give the system a chance before you judge (and no I know you aren't a republican but the reaction to both this rec system and the stimulus package is almost identical - 'It won't work')

[omega minimo]

122. What a stupid thing to say. It is a negative reflection. No real reasons presented. Good luck

[LynneSin]

123. well I try mirror the attitude I get

and since you would rather just be negative about this new system instead of giving it a chance then why should I treat you any different. :shrug:

[omega minimo]

124. Well see what happens. I was curious about the reasons. Few offered. People need the button.

Good luck. As I've said before. :toast:

[LynneSin]

127. Take a look at the great page why don't you

If trolls were repressing threads and especially those by the left then why is there a pro-kucinich/anti-DLC thread, a thread defending Cynthica McKinney and a Michael Moore thread all on the DU home page.

It'll work, but we have to let the hoopla die down. It's still a 'bright shiny new toy' with this new system.

:hug:

[Odin2005]

125. Your persecution complex is astounding.

I, and I'm sure a lot more good Liberal posters, am sick and tired of being called fascist conservative DLC-lovers because we are in touch with reality.

[omega minimo]

135. Be honest Odin. You know how some of the factions here are. This has highlighted it. Will it help?

:shrug:

[Ken Burch]

139. Look, Odin, I enjoy discussing things with you, but what does this mean:

"we are in touch with reality"?

Whether you realize it or not, there's something paternalist and arrogant in the phrase(and those traits aren't part of you as a person).

There's an assumption in it that some people's opinions should automatically get a greater circulation on this board, and that some people should be treated here as if only they are "the grown-ups" while everyone who disagrees with them should be made to "remember their place".

If this board is truly to be "DEMOCRATIC Underground", it needs to be egalitarian. No one should be considered more serious or more entitled to have a wider hearing than anyone else.

And, just out of curiousity, are there any threads you would like to have used this feature on in the past? A few titles would be helpful.

[scheming daemons]

133. A look at today's "Greatest Page" proves your paranoid delusions are unfounded

At least 7 anti-Obama threads.

2 pro-Kucinich threads.

Several anti-torture and anti-war threads too.

[uppityperson]

136. No, we won't. We will only talk about Michael Jackson until the next things comes along.

[Redneck Socialist]

137. Are you serious?

You can't be serious.

:eyes:

Your are serious. Jeebus. :eyes: :eyes:

[SidneyCarton]

140. Why is the greatest page so important Ken?

Many don't even look at it.

[Ken Burch]

148. The fact that some here are fixated with restricting what goes on it GIVES it the importance

It's a contradiction to say "The Greatest Page doesn't matter that much" and then say "We have to be able to keep stuff off the Greatest Page if 'the majority of DU' doesn't want it there". You can't have it both ways.

[SidneyCarton]

152. I have never made the latter argument.

I don't care what's on the greatest page, I want to retain the right to unrec.

[Ken Burch]

153. I'm glad that you don't care, and I accept that your're a person of good will

But I can't help but wonder: if you DON'T care what's on the page, why would you WANT to retain the right to "unrec"?

[SidneyCarton]

155. because its a way to disagree without entering into a flamewar.

[Ken Burch]

158. Thank you for what was probably the most civil "pro-unrec" post of the day

I appreciate your respectful tone.

[inna]

141. this new feature is a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE idea.

i just hope that Skinner will reconsider, very soon.

:(

[WilliamPitt]

145. Right-wing DUers have the right to free speech, too.

Maybe we should hang bells around their necks so we can hear them coming.

Your post is so wildly contradictory that it bends the definition of "absurd" into a bold new shape.

[Ken Burch]

151. They have the right to free speech. But forcing a thread into obscurity isn't an expression of that

It's not "free speech" to say "We won't let you have that conversation here".

It was enough to have the "Alert" feature and to be able to debate the OP.

There's no such right as a right to restrict.

And there haven't been any "Greatest Page" threads that were all that terrible.

[Ken Burch]

154. Check your pm's.

n/t.

[LeftishBrit]

156. Why do you assume that it will only be used by right-wingers?

Left-wingers can use it too!

And even if something doesn't go on the Greatest Page, people can still read it.

Personally, I think that the time limits on being able to recommend a thread are a lot more important in preventing some threads from going on the Greatest Page than this particular feature. I don't expect to be making much use of the feature myself; but I don't think it will mean the sort of suppression that you expect.

[Ken Burch]

157. I'd be more confident of that if it weren't for the number of posters

taking this "it's payback time" tone about the whole thing. I'd be glad to be proven wrong about this feature, though.