Daily Kosplay (or Conversational Parameters)
On March 15th, Daily Kos’s shock troops will be storming in, taking down your Bernie Sanders signs, and ripping them up into little bitty shreds!
- Constructive criticism from the Left is allowed. There’s a difference between constructive and destructive criticism. Do I need to spell it out? It’s the difference between “We need to put pressure on her to do the right thing on TPP” versus “she’s a sell-out corporatist whore oligarch.” In general, if you’re resorting to cheap sloganeering like “oligarch” or “warmonger” or “neocon”, you might want to reframe your argument in a more substantive, issue-focused and constructive matter. Again, I’m not interested in furthering the Right’s hate-fueled media machine. If that’s what you want, might I suggest Free Republic?
- Saying you won’t vote, or will vote for Trump, or will vote for Jill Stein (or another Third Party) is not allowed. If that’s how you feel, but have other places in which you can be constructive on the site, then keep your presidential feelings to yourself. Those of us who care about our country and it’s future are focused on victory. If you aren’t, then it’s a big internet, I suggest you find more hospitable grounds for your huffing, puffing, and stomping of feet.
- If you are going to be pessimistic, you better support it. There’s a difference between “Clinton can’t beat Trump” and “Clinton can’t beat Trump in Alabama”. There is also a difference between the blanket “Clinton can’t beat Trump” and “Looking at the polling, I’m worried that Clinton is falling behind Trump because X, Y, and Z”. Obviously, that also applies to races and issues down the ballot, not just the presidential. If you are going to be a Debbie-Downer, you better have a damn good reason to justify your pessimism. Rank, unsupported pessimism is anathema to our data-driven, reality based culture.
In our recent threads about Twitter, we often discussed general views on the balance between inclusion of viewpoints and inclusion of people. It’s a tension that we have struggled with here at Ordinary Times in the past, and one I see in a lot of places and a lot of contexts.
Among the conclusions I drew a long time ago is that it’s a hard issue to discuss in the abstract because so much depends on the context of the site and the site’s mission. If the mission is to provide for discussion, then obviously you want and need people to be able to speak their minds. However, a fruitful discussion forum will almost always involve parameters. Here at Ordinary Times, we specifically want to be able to take pride in welcoming a lot of diverse viewpoints. We may not succeed at this, but that’s at least the goal. However, we also want to provide a comfortable environment for all kinds of people. This leads to a very natural tension because one person’s viewpoint is another person’s reason not to show up.
That framing makes the second person sound closed-minded, or cowardly, but there is no real reason for that to be the case. We all have a rather limited amount of time and who wants to spend it voluntarily in an unpleasant environment? You can take this too far and demand a virtual echo chamber, but the alternative is going to be unpalatable to anyone who is neither a troll nor a masochist. The operators and the community may be perfectly fine with this, or they may wonder how they can go about keeping this from happening. Or, what often seems to be the case, they can be not fine with this and have no clue how to go about preventing it.
A site like Daily Kos, though, is pretty much laying down the law of the parameters of their discussion. Which is not only their right as a private enterprise, but also an extremely defensible position. They define their goal as trying to elect a Democratic majority and to set the sails of the country to the left. They further define the former goal as the means by which they hope to achieve the latter. That may be tactically right, or tactically wrong, but they are in a better position to make that decision than anyone.
Virtually any worthwhile conversation is bound to require a degree of consensus. To talk about how to achieve a goal, we must agree on a goal. Otherwise, you’re discussing competing goals rather than how to achieve them. The latter conversation cannot exist without either formal or informal conversational parameters. Otherwise, the person who disagrees the most and the loudest can derail just about any conversation.
Imagine a group of people who want to discuss some aspect of the Bible. If they both accept the Bible as the Word of God, then there is quite a bit to talk about! However, if one of the participants wants to say “But there is no God!” then that conversation simply cannot occur unless the participant holds his or her tongue. There is nothing wrong with the guy who wants to argue that God doesn’t exist. He’s just sitting at the wrong table. And if he won’t leave, a rule will have to be established or the person will have to be informally chased off with antagonism.
And, of course, antagonism itself must be contained. Because if antagonism defines the parameters of the discussion, that’s worse than management doing so; at least management is setting the course deliberately. That’s where Twitter’s actions can be (though not necessarily are) justified. If the nature of the discussion is being skewed through coordinated or uncoordinated harassment, that’s no less a change of the conversational parameters than official Twitter policy. There is some mistrust of whether Twitter enforcement is occurring evenly or as yet another way of enforcing conversational parameters, but there are parameters any which way.
Places like Daily Kos or Redstate have it a bit easy because there is no pretense of aspiring to a free exchange of ideas. Which is perfectly fair and reasonable. And, in a way, a bit depressing.
DailyKos has republicans that post there. Yes, the site is explicitly designed to elect Democrats, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have crack citizen reporting some of the time.
DailyKos always does a bit of a “falling apart” when Presidential Time comes ’round. People get way, way more heated about it than about anything else… So a repetition of the rules is getting thrown out there… Again.Report
They’re actually pretty light with the ban-hammers, at least historically. The two biggest waves I recall were 9/11 Truthers and “Kerry Won Ohio” folks — they banned anyone posting the first, and started banning the second a week or three after the election.
They don’t like crazy people, on their side or not.
And they’ve always been, as noted, pretty firm on “Once there’s a nominee, we tighten up. Don’t come spewing right-wing BS in here, and don’t play the “I won’t vote” card, we don’t care and we don’t want it”.
I peruse the site every few weeks to take a pulse on things, and I have to say it’s just not worth it to wade into half the election diaries, and doubly so for the comments. People get so thin skinned during primaries. And then they get over it.Report
“Places like Daily Kos or Redstate have it a bit easy because there is no pretense of aspiring to a free exchange of ideas. ”
Of course not. People don’t generally go there to “discuss”. They go there to have their opinions validated and vent against the other side. Kos is just ensuring that his site aligns with “the program”.Report
They do discuss, though. They just discuss within more specific parameters. (Strategy rather than goal.)Report
I’d compare it to Shakesville, where there is discusison, but the stated and unstated parameters of the discussion are extremely limiting. Even though at Shakesville the initial reason for limiting the discussion is to make sure people who’ve historically been too intimidated to speak feel comfortable doing so, while the explicit reasons for limiting the discussion at Kos involve promoting a candidate/party, the results are going to be pretty similar: an echo chamber with an extremely narrow range of views.Report
Um, Okay. So when DailyKos is posting legit engineering articles about the potential for our world ending (10% chance, granted)… this is what part of this “limited discussion”?
There are explicitly banned things on DailyKos, as they’re seen as corrosive to the general debate/discussion and tenor of the site.
That doesn’t mean that the exact opposite is all that they do.
(or that they get all the investigative reporting right…)Report
And how is this any different from /b/? Granted, they’re generally anti-pedophile and anti-FBI…
The people who don’t go online to have their opinions validated are generally trolls.Report
Most people might, but quite a lot do not. I certainly don’t visit this site to have my opinions validated.Report
I’m smiling sweetly over here, and thinking on how I had you down as part of the trolling contingent.Report
I do not intentionally troll. I gave that up when the Anarchy Online forums got aggressively moderated. And my trolling skills always were only fair. Perhaps you confuse me stating my opinions as trolling? Note that if I play devil’s advocate I’m not trolling. And I do like playing that advocate.Report
Damon is quite clearly not a troll. He’s got a particular worldview (don’t we all?!) and a terse, sometimes provocative way of offering it and a constructive willingness to poke and prod.
I don’t always agree with you, @damon , and sometimes find myself frustrated by you… but that is a good thing.Report
Trolling is also a provocative way to poke and prod at people.
If and when my latest two reviews (one as yet unwritten) get published, I may take a stab at explaining a bit more about this. School Days makes a great story to review, anyhow, and it’s a seriously fine game.Report
Thanks Kaz.
My terse-ness is a product of my occupation. I’m not a write by trade. I deal in numbers.Report
I do intentionally troll, when I can. I find it’s a good intellectual exercise.
I was not behind the neopets debacle, I swear (though I do know the guy who was…).
I was more speaking to your tendency to munch popcorn rather than getting overly involved in things.
(of course, my friend the troll creates situations to munch popcorn over. See Jeb Bush’s Campaign)Report
Kim,
I understand that my POV is a minority. People make a lot of assumption; I like to remind them that they are just that. Yes, trolling can be fun, but it does get old fast, and I no longer have hours to be engaged in on line commentary, so often I enjoy just watching.Report
It rather helps when you get paid to troll people.
(I’ll remind you that my friend the troll has a longstanding contract with Spirit Airlines…)Report
Sadly, my trolling skills are much weaker than my google-fu. But hey, for 250K a year I’ll give it a try!Report
Who was it who had the famous quote about how the problem with always playing devil’s advocate is that in the end, you’re still advocating for the devil?Report
At least wrt things I write, Damon asks questions or makes statements that are quite reasonable given that he starts from a very different set of priorities than I do. That’s cool — it’s always good for me to be reminded that priorities shape a lot of the answers in any systems analysis problem.Report
Much like Restate, I would have to ask why anyone would want to read Daily Kos if it is basically just op-eds in favor of a specific party? I have followed some individuals in the past who wrote columns there, but if they have basically said they will only tolerate those who support a party of ideas/principles, then why bother?Report
1) Human interest. Where else do you read about the guys who sit at the dump all day, chatting and grabbing stuff nobody wants?
It is a simply great place to learn about the trivial things that you’re never going to find in a city.
2) Writing Talent: you have people who actually care about things like the nitty gritty of Obamacare, and are willing to explain it in a personable way. (Sunday Kos tends to be good, lengthy articles. If this is your beat, stay off the weekday kos)
3) Taking the Pulse of Liberals: it’s a grand way to get a birds eye view of people around the country, quickly and efficiently.
4) They let republicans post there. You can sit around and post unconventional ideas the whole damn day long, really, it’s fine. You just can’t post that you want the Republican to win. (except you can, actually. I’ve done so. It’s probably a bad idea to openly advocate for voting for the Republican, but when he is honestly the better choice, you get a few nice Dems saying “I voted! … for the Republican, believe it or not”)Report
@kim I have not spent anytime at Kos in the last few years, but I will check out some of the columns you mentioned. I honestly have no interest in reading the nitty gritty of Obamacare, but I wouldn’t mind reading about the work local Democratic activists are doing on a micro level (especially if they are working in the larger Bay Area).Report
5) Maps. When Kos makes graphics, they get down to the nitty gritty of districts, and give you good stats on each.
6) Learn about genuine activism, near you or away from you.
Before I got on dailykos, I didn’t know that white guys were using indian reservations as their own private rape preserves, completely without consequence. And then when someone had the gall to build a women’s shelter, the bastards burned the place down.
7) Bias, yes, but also links and facts. If there’s one thing I like about kos, they do source their data.Report
@roland-dodds — But that is not what they said. In fact, they include this:
In other words, there is plenty to talk about among Democrats, liberals, and those further left from us, without needing the input from the troglodyte set. The heat between the “progressive left” (broadly defined) and the moderate/centrist Democrats can get really ugly, at least as ugly as between the rightist and us. The central point of the article, that “it’s the courts dummy,” is true, obvious, and worth setting as a baseline. As @will-truman said in the main article, you don’t invite the outspoken atheist to your bible study. There are other places to engage with him. (Likewise we don’t invite the fulminating bigot to our fun queer dance party. What on earth will he contribute but aggravation?)
Anyway, I can see a forum saying, “As a baseline, we insist that 1) the right is morally bankrupt and in fact dangerous (obviously true), and 2) that the real tensions among those on the left are important, but not more important than point #1.” That seems quite sensible.
Whether you want to participate there is a separate topic.Report
Whether or not you want to participate there, it’s still useful as a barometer.Report
Obviously Kos can do what they want but I do wonder if people/publications with that attitude ever stop to ponder their own roles in the rightward drift of the parameters of what is considered legitimate debate over the last 30-40 years. Yes there are some important exceptions like rights for homosexuals but you never see the Republicans bent on knee capping their right flanks the same way centrist Democrats seem to be towards the left.
The extremes define the center and I think a big part of the reason there is minimal difference between the parties on such a broad range of issues is because centrist Democrats are willing to keep chasing a middle ground defined by conservatives. The only real brake on it is when elements of the right flirt with ideas that became offensive to most people’s sensibilities after the 60’s (like overt expressions of racism).Report
Ah, good to see the Democrat version of the 11th commandment is alive and well…
Echo chambers are fun for about 2 minutes- you get your hate on, feel pumped up, etc. But after 2 minutes you can see they are just swirling masses of derp*. And when you spend time there without tempering it with other opinions, you fall into the derp land, not seeing that there are multiple ways of looking at issues, that something might not truely be an issue, or that you are goring someone elses ox, an ox they love much more than the issue you are trying to fix.
*Derp is unthinking partisanship. There are many places to find it on the web, for all parties. Reason, TPM, Redstate, Kos, Breitbart, etc. All become completely usless as sources of information to anyone outside your derp, and using them to change others opinion only makes you look like an cultist.Report
NeverMIND the diaries about talking with republicans, about convincing republicans, about going to a tea party rally for research…
And NeverMIND the diaries about “a gas well just blew up. I got pictures!” Anywhere else, you’d just label that citizen journalism — because it’s really not part of an echo chamber, at all.Report
Here’s the thing, though. The goal of DailyKos from Day One has always been to elect more Democrat’s, not have a free wheeling conversation. Hell, I remember the first time in ’04 when the conservative blogs tried to take shots at Kos for limiting the conversation once Kerry was the nominee and some Dean fans were butthurt.
I mean, it’s fine to want DailyKos to be different, but it’s like wanting a chicken to fly like an eagle – it’s not built for that.Report
Weird how that point went neglected in the post.Report
Today is international You Don’t Have to Read It to Respond to It Day.Report
AKA Thursday.Report
Don’t Read the Posts!Report
“I’m not interested in furthering the Right’s hate-fueled media machine. If that’s what you want, might I suggest Free Republic?”
See, I don’t read that sentence and think “this is a rational and reasonable person who wants to enforce some basic standards of conversation in order to promote productive, worthwhile discussion”. I think “this is a person who very clearly has a picture of how the world ought to be and I’m pretty sure that I am not part of that picture”.Report
I could say some colorful things here involving hypocrisy.
Nothing’s ever stopped Dailykos from quoting FreeRepublic, you realize? Sometimes with glee (lookithowstupidtheyare), sometimes because “there’s an expert there!”.
You’d probably be as welcome as the next cynic, cause I’m pretty sure you voted Obama over Romney.
What kos is not interested in is letting people use his website as a place to start a schism in the Democratic Netroots. For all the shit you love to stir (pot, kettle, black), you haven’t poked that beesnest.Report
“We need to put pressure on her to do the right thing on TPP” versus “she’s a sell-out corporatist whore oligarch.” In general, if you’re resorting to cheap sloganeering like “oligarch” or “warmonger” or “neocon”, you might want to reframe your argument in a more substantive, issue-focused and constructive matter.”
But ‘whore’ is okay…?Report
I was going to try to construct the kind of ridiculous justification someone who believed it was OK might do – but kept running into Poe’s law every which way I phrased it.Report
I won’t object if you call Sarah Palin the whore of babble-on.Report
In general, if you’re resorting to cheap sloganeering like “oligarch” or “warmonger” or “neocon”, you might want to reframe your argument in a more substantive, issue-focused and constructive matter.
This sounds like good advice to me: it invites people who disagree with you to respond in kind, which might lead to a conversation rather than escalating name-calling.Report
Yeah, any comment that ends with an implied “MIKE DROP” suggests that the intent was to win on points rather than to engage.
Not that there isn’t a time and place for that, but it’s negatively correlated to the substantiveness of the discussion.Report
I see what you did there.Report
I think it is on our new list @kazzy along with Suck a Cynic.Report
I know that, technically, it should be spelled “MIC”, but I was afraid that if someone dropped him at his age, he’d break his hip and couldn’t prance around on stage anymore.Report
The internet might allow for The Big Sort to re-distribute itself, maybe?
If I can go to a place at the end of the day where I can talk to my Berniebros about how I just can’t even BELIEVE that I had to talk to someone who supported HITLERY today even though it is 2016!, it might make it a little bit easier to live in a oligarchical warmongering neocon part of the country and make it less important for me to have to move to the coast to be among my peers.Report
Goodness I hope not… we’ve just about got all of you settled in all the bits that will fall into the ocean soon.Report
TRIP model of conflict:
Topic / Content
Relationships
Identity / Autonomy
Process
Almost entirely defining relationships by the process involved.
Re-think.Report
This highlights the difference between an site with a specific ideology, and a partisan site. Daily Kos is stating that it is a partisan site with the objective of backing the Democratic Party, not a liberal/leftist site primarily interested in fostering discussion of policy.Report
Truth. Not that kos won’t discuss policy in spades (mostly when not primary season, natch).Report