caucus99percent free-range politics, organic community

I usually feel it’s an obligation to try to engage and respond to people who comment to me. But on the other hand, you’ve mischaracterized and/or completely misunderstood my point entirely, and it would be argumentative of me to reply to set you straight. So I’m going to leave it alone.

Submitted by Ellen North on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 12:23am

Sorry about the misunderstanding!

Also fail to understand why an explanation would be argumentative... I probably need some sleep.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by CS in AZ on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 12:37am

Maybe so, Ellen

It’s late. I do not want to be argumentative. But I never said the problem was that not everyone agrees on everything or that people have different approaches. I would direct you to where I said this.

I was worried for the loss of so many writers I used to see here, I didn’t want more of them pressured out by peer pressure from the majority.

My point is I miss so many of the people who wrote here when I arrived two years ago. Hecate. Shaz and Shar. Jay Ray. Oh man, I can’t think of everyone right now - but no one can replace them. I certainly can’t! Nor would I ever try. I’m sad I came here too late. Did I always agree with them? Hell no. But it was interesting and different from the daily kos discussion of politics, democrats, etc. So refreshing! OMG, Shangi La! That’s what I miss. I can’t fix that.

But, you know this is all really personal and I doubt anyone wants to hear it. I wanted to say I’m sorry to JtC and try to let him know where I’m coming from. That’s it. So good night.

Submitted by dkmich on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 7:01am

Loss of so many writers?

You make claims about a majority, lost writers, and people leaving out of pique that are not in evidence to me. The only people who have left in pique are folks with opinions that were “attacked” or those that attacked them and got called out.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 7:53am

@dkmich There's

@dkmich There's certainly a number of strong voices who don't post anymore. But I think that has to do with how depressing politics has become, not because of a peer-pressuring majority on the site.

I never felt anything even approaching peer pressure until yesterday, which is why it was such a jolt. It seemed to come out of nowhere. That said, I tend to assume good faith on the part of C99ers, and I think most people had no intention of making me feel that way. I certainly know there's no top-down conspiracy on the part of admins and mods to protect and encourage roving gangs of bullies, which there was on the Great Orange Satan.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Steven D on Thu, 06/07/2018 - 4:57pm

That would be me

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal Politics is too damn depressing. I flirt with twitter now and then. And toil away on my novel about - well I can;t reveal all my secrets.

—

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 7:46am

@CS in AZ Actually, CS, I

@CS in AZ Actually, CS, I have assumed that all those people--as well as DallasDoc and PhoebeLoosinhouse and lunachickie and HenryAWallace--stopped writing for the same reason you backed off: this is some seriously depressing stuff we're dealing with here. It's not surprising if people back off for a while or even stop talking altogether. I have been encouraged because many people that I thought were gone turn up again (like you) in time, indicating that a lot of people lurk.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Lily O Lady on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 8:18am

la feminista hasn’t returned since Macron won in

France. She seemed to think that he wouldn’t be so bad, but strikes and protests against his austerity policies seem to say otherwise. That is depressing, but I think it also shows what th US would be like had Clinton won.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

Submitted by CS in AZ on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 3:30pm

Ok, to clarify again...

My tired late night response to Ellen was poorly worded. I was trying to avoid being too specific, but for the sake of clarity: I didn’t mean, at all, to suggest that everyone who doesn’t post anymore left because of peer pressure. Of course I’ve no idea why most of them aren’t around much or at all anymore. Most leave quietly without saying why, and I make no assumptions about that for anyone I don’t know personally and learned their reasons directly.

I do suspect however that many who have moved on since “the great migration” did so in part because of the overall change in topics and the focus of the discussions lost its appeal to them. Some did say as much. It’s a change in the overall focus that was so unique and interesting when I first got here. Which I miss.

My reference to not wanting to lose any more voices, due to peer pressure from the majority, was about only the one person who I came out of lurk mode to defend from such, Big Al. It was sort of a last straw, I guess. I thought, “oh no, not him too. Pretty soon there will be nothing but daily kos style politics here.”

It has nada to do with whether I agree with him or not. I do on some things, others not, or I remain undecided. But I like his challenges and his different point of view. I was adamantly opposed to the ganging up on him that was making him feel so isolated and unsupported that he would leave too. I didn’t want that to happen. Unfortunately, I failed at that too, it seems.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 9:53pm

I think you're right about why some people have left the site

My good friend moneysmith stopped commenting almost everywhere after Bernie got screwed over and then Trump won the election because she got burned out. She still reads this blog when she has time though. I spoke with Dallas Doc about 6 months ago and asked why he hadn't been around and he said the same thing. Plus he's busy with his practice and a few other reasons.

I look in at ToP daily and I only see the old time members post something when the issues are more dire and not about Trump, Russia Gate or any of the other tabloid gossip diaries there. I've invited a few of them here, but haven't heard from them or seen them commenting.

Submitted by Ellen North on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 12:52pm

Thanks for the reply & agree on losses leaving gaps!

With the caveat that I don't know what I may have missed happening here, (as it seems evident that I did miss something,) due to computer issues which also eventually took me off-line for some time a while back:

...I was worried for the loss of so many writers I used to see here, I didn’t want more of them pressured out by peer pressure from the majority. ...

But I have to admit that from my perspective, this type of approach would still have been more productive than simply leaving:

If anyone has a point of view they feel is being neglected, why not do an essay on it, make a case, initiate a discussion, bring it forward?

This isn't a 'win or lose', 'victor gains the field' situation, but a varied group of people all struggling to find the best way forward, toward achieving the sort of sane, sustainable policy and world that supports humanity (in both senses), democracy and life, for the sake of everyone.

Isn't this type of fragmentation exactly what's been crippling the American (real) Left?

We can't afford to lose allies we agree with in any/many/most areas over differences in approaches in one or perhaps several area(s) - too many resources and individuals have already been subverted or lost for other reasons.

Even if we each feel that the other may be misguided in the approach taken in one area, it should be possible to work separately on our favored methods on such aims on the same discussion site, and collaboration in others should still also be possible.

We are not each other's enemy; the fascists in stolen power are, of all we value that makes life worthwhile and even possible. And we individually have to take the approach that we believe that is most likely to advance us, as a whole, toward a universally better life.

Personally, I don't think we have much time left even for the ability to speak freely - or that anyone here wants to silence or drive out anyone else aiming at the same general goals.

But everyone must have free expression, within the bounds of civility and the overall aims of the site.

We are all stressed and desperate; in my view, better that we perhaps grab at straws than at each others voices and efforts.

......

The more people trying any non-violent approach toward this, the better; any chance is better than none, even if some may appear to work against others.

In the case of the vote/no-vote, it's going to be scattered and, as is usual, a lot of American voters are not going to vote anyway and a low turn-out of 'opposition voters' is typically aimed at, in any event, by both sides of the corporate Party leadership.

If people choose not to vote, that's entirely different from their being discouraged/prevented from voting in their own best interests, or what they believe them to be

Of the people who do vote, it's likely that an unfortunate number will stay within the CorpoDem/Republicorp range.

Whatever is attempted by any grassroots may not matter, where votes are not counted;

if they do landslide Prog in whatever party/Parties, this may be over the plausibility level which TPTB feel they can bypass, increasing the numbers and ability of elected Progs to affect legislation

or the increase in cheating may put TPTB, et al, over the line to where the American public will simply refuse to accept it and finally force a free and fair election, with international support also now more likely.

Perhaps nothing any of us can do will affect anything, but the least we can do is to stick together as humans with shared overall goals and go down in good company, knowing that we did at least what we thought potentially gave us a shot.

Just my perspective, of course, but I believe mine to be the best route just as you believe yours to be, and I also believe that we all have the right of choice regarding our votes and how we use them, and the right to speak out in support of our separate preferred strategies regarding these.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by CS in AZ on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 3:06pm

I know.

You might have missed my very next sentence after the part you’re quoting:

So yeah, whatever, it’s pretty clear I was way off in thinking that it was a good idea or to think that was going to help. I get it now, what you want. I think. I hope!

You don’t need to keep hammering on how wrong I was. I get it.

#14.1.1.1

With the caveat that I don't know what I may have missed happening here, (as it seems evident that I did miss something,) due to computer issues which also eventually took me off-line for some time a while back:

...I was worried for the loss of so many writers I used to see here, I didn’t want more of them pressured out by peer pressure from the majority. ...

But I have to admit that from my perspective, this type of approach would still have been more productive than simply leaving:

If anyone has a point of view they feel is being neglected, why not do an essay on it, make a case, initiate a discussion, bring it forward?

This isn't a 'win or lose', 'victor gains the field' situation, but a varied group of people all struggling to find the best way forward, toward achieving the sort of sane, sustainable policy and world that supports humanity (in both senses), democracy and life, for the sake of everyone.

Isn't this type of fragmentation exactly what's been crippling the American (real) Left?

We can't afford to lose allies we agree with in any/many/most areas over differences in approaches in one or perhaps several area(s) - too many resources and individuals have already been subverted or lost for other reasons.

Even if we each feel that the other may be misguided in the approach taken in one area, it should be possible to work separately on our favored methods on such aims on the same discussion site, and collaboration in others should still also be possible.

We are not each other's enemy; the fascists in stolen power are, of all we value that makes life worthwhile and even possible. And we individually have to take the approach that we believe that is most likely to advance us, as a whole, toward a universally better life.

Personally, I don't think we have much time left even for the ability to speak freely - or that anyone here wants to silence or drive out anyone else aiming at the same general goals.

But everyone must have free expression, within the bounds of civility and the overall aims of the site.

We are all stressed and desperate; in my view, better that we perhaps grab at straws than at each others voices and efforts.

......

The more people trying any non-violent approach toward this, the better; any chance is better than none, even if some may appear to work against others.

In the case of the vote/no-vote, it's going to be scattered and, as is usual, a lot of American voters are not going to vote anyway and a low turn-out of 'opposition voters' is typically aimed at, in any event, by both sides of the corporate Party leadership.

If people choose not to vote, that's entirely different from their being discouraged/prevented from voting in their own best interests, or what they believe them to be

Of the people who do vote, it's likely that an unfortunate number will stay within the CorpoDem/Republicorp range.

Whatever is attempted by any grassroots may not matter, where votes are not counted;

if they do landslide Prog in whatever party/Parties, this may be over the plausibility level which TPTB feel they can bypass, increasing the numbers and ability of elected Progs to affect legislation

or the increase in cheating may put TPTB, et al, over the line to where the American public will simply refuse to accept it and finally force a free and fair election, with international support also now more likely.

Perhaps nothing any of us can do will affect anything, but the least we can do is to stick together as humans with shared overall goals and go down in good company, knowing that we did at least what we thought potentially gave us a shot.

Just my perspective, of course, but I believe mine to be the best route just as you believe yours to be, and I also believe that we all have the right of choice regarding our votes and how we use them, and the right to speak out in support of our separate preferred strategies regarding these.

Submitted by Ellen North on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 3:11pm

Sorry, just trying to make my position clear...

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by JtC on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 12:24am

Hi CS...

Calling out perceived idiocy is a relative reflection, as you call out to it stares back at you. The person you call out as idiotic is most assuredly thinking the same of you, so who is correct? My honest opinion, Mckenna wreaks of intellectual intolerance, but who am I to judge? I am tolerant of his opinion as he may not be tolerant of mine. I agree with him that political correctness is out of hand and I'm not a big fan of it myself, but in my mind tolerance is the key to a better society. I also think his idea of goring the idiocy is just maybe the wrong tactic on a board like this, we've all seen what that leads to. Occasionally real idiocy does rear it's head here and folks do a pretty good job of goring it, but goring for the sake of goring just leads to acrimony, especially with folks that agree with each other on 99% of the issues, it can cause walls to be built unnecessarily. But that's just my humble opinion.

What do I want c99p to be? I pretty much leave that up to the membership but ideally I see it as a nonpartisan venue of tolerant individuals who aren't close minded to alternative political concepts. A free flow of ideas and discussion, of the 99, by the 99, for the 99. Respect.

What I don't want c99p to be: Intolerant. Partisan. An echo chamber. Members uncivil to other members.

What I wont allow it to be: Controlled by any political faction of any flavor to the point where no other discussion is allowed.

Bottom line: I've said it many times in the comments here that the struggle is not horizontal, it is vertical and until we 99%ers across the political spectrum can work things out with each other, there will be no change in said struggle, IMHO.

Thank you for this heartfelt and thought provoking comment. This is exactly what c99p is supposed to be about.

Submitted by CS in AZ on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 1:14am

Wow, thank you so much JtC

@JtC

That is a totally awesome response and I can’t thank you enough. Debating ideas and criticism of them is exactly what I believe in, and you take on Terence McKenna quite well. He was of course speaking relative to his time, and “goring” certain new age ideas was sorely needed at that time. The thing that resonates with me is the part about seeking truth and clarity, even at the cost of peace in the valley at all times.

But yes, we are in agreement that this approach is wrong for this place. That’s exactly what I was saying, and thank you so much for listening and responding.

Honestly JtC I wish you would speak more often. You have such great insight. I understand why you don’t, you’re so careful and conscious about your position of authority to influence the conversation. But it’s so great to hear your real voice out here. Thanks again.

Submitted by janis b on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 3:06am

This type of thought and commentary,

yours and JtC’s exchange, is a reflection of what animates the discourse for me here. Somehow it has to do with generosity of the spirit (the opposite of intolerance), which in my mind has little to do with purely intellectual concepts. We are all, above anything else, sentient beings who flourish in the understanding and acceptance of others, regardless of our differences. Generally, I believe that as long as our objective is sincere and we remain open to the perspective of others we have a greater chance of overcoming these differences. We are so much more than our individual thoughts at some explicit point in time, as we are continually evolving. It’s hard for me to imagine a world of peace without leaving ample room for differences of all varieties.

Submitted by janis b on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 3:32am

I also miss those voices,

@janis b

especially hecate's. To participate though, we all need to leave room for contradiction.

Submitted by WaterLily on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 9:33am

Hear, hear.

@janis b Hecate always brightened my day and challenged my mind's boundaries. A writing style like no other. I hope all of these voices return, and soon.

Submitted by janis b on Thu, 06/07/2018 - 12:43am

hecate's originality is a big loss.

@WaterLily

Hecate always brightened my day and challenged my mind's boundaries. A writing style like no other.

That's exactly how I feel.

Submitted by irishking on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 9:05am

generosity of spirit

@janis b

necessary for the "free flow of ideas".

got to, got to have it.

Submitted by janis b on Thu, 06/07/2018 - 12:50am

got to, got to have it … music too

@irishking

I always enjoy the music you highlight your comments with. The tenderly evocative portraits in this video that accompanied a great song, was especially enjoyed.

I love the variety and diversity of thought that is freely expressed here. It contributes to my understanding of politics, expanded communication, self-reflection, source of good music, etc. I can’t imagine the same enjoyment in an echo chamber.

I think the more individual experiences and visions we come with, the better - unlike my general feeling, that ‘less is more’.

[video:https://youtu.be/TJ6Mzvh3XCc]

Submitted by dkmich on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 7:17am

Oath of Silence

If gjohnsit in particular and anyone in general gets driven out of comments, I am not going to be happy. If we all just shut up and quit participating, JtC might as well shut it down now. We won’t be an echo chamber, we’ll be an intolerant cult under a voluntary oath of silence. The reason JtC doesn’t speak is because some people got angry and made an issue out of what he said and him as blog owner saying it. So he decided it would be best that he not comment. Been that way ever since despite our best efforts to make it not so.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 8:05am

@dkmich It seems to me that

@dkmich @dkmich It seems to me that gjohnsit has received massive support over the past two days. He told me himself that majority opinion on the site has gone his way. The idea that he is being driven and harried into silence doesn't add up.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by dkmich on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 9:12am

Massive support and him listening to it are two different thing

https://www.euronews.com/live

When JtC ran into a few problems with his comments, he decided to quit commenting. We all told him no and supported his continued participation. None the less, JtC made the decision to stop commenting and stuck to it. I know this decision was complicated by also being the blog owner, but nonetheless, gone JtC basically is.

Blogs are not what they used to be. Social media is changing the landscape in many ways. I see and am friends with many of the people now missing from blogs on Facebook and Twitter. Some still float through here on occasion. Even the many exiles that went to Reddit have left its two sister sites. I think your original observation about so many being fed up with politics and people, in general, is most accurate. I don't believe the overall tone at c99 is intolerant or responsible for "driving people away". Maybe their departure is because of their own intolerance for the position of others.

What I have a problem with is both the intolerance and holding a grudge. I can have a heartfelt disagreement with someone without disowning them. The actions of those who can't and leave to never come back, I see as akin to taking their toys and going home for a good pout.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 10:57am

@dkmich Only some

@dkmich Only some arguments, or fights, cross so many lines that they end up with me disowning somebody. Mostly we stay connected (unless the other person doesn't wanna).

There are several people I was arguing with yesterday that I'd be incredibly sad to lose.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by irishking on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 9:21am

gjihnsit is doing fine

@dkmich

in the attaboy department. That much is "claro como el agua".

Just look upstream on this very thread.

Submitted by mimi on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 11:45am

I didn't know that and have missed it - when was that?

@dkmich

The reason JtC doesn’t speak is because some people got angry and made an issue out of what he said and him as blog owner saying it

What I really regret is that those I respect most, don't talk much. (JtC and Joe among them) And I don't like to talk in the private message system of this site. To me it's like cheating. If you have to say something it should be in the public in a form that is acceptable to most of the audience.

I have a lot of difficulties to understand when someone feels uncomfortable or even pushed out and attacked by another member's comment. May be because I am not American raised.
Does that mean I have a sick skin? Or am insensitive? Or don't have enough of the 'cultural background and understanding of the US'? So what, online is world-wide, not limited to one country. I can't stand dickheads hard-nosed arrogant 'know everything better than the rest of you' kind of types no matter where they are coming from. They are plentiful everywhere. Europe and US and elsewhere in the world.

So, down with those hard-nosed arrogants world-wide deplorables.

Jeez. That thread is getting at me.

I am clueless. I missed some people here, I sometimes get a little pissed (mostly silently) when some repeat their view points over and over again. Certain subjects are just overfeed like an overbearing mother can't stop feeding their babies enough chocolate pudding. Baby gets sick of it and cries, mommy gets sick of it, because baby cries.

So, just stop overfeeding whomever with whatever. Basically don't feed and don't eat too much.

I just don't understand a lot of folks. Sigh. Sorry. Make Peace, will you?

—

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 7:58am

@JtC What do I want c99p to

@JtC What do I want c99p to be? I pretty much leave that up to the membership but ideally I see it as a nonpartisan venue of tolerant individuals who aren't close minded to alternative political concepts. A free flow of ideas and discussion, of the 99, by the 99, for the 99. Respect.

That's basically what I wanted it to be, when I and some others first conceived of it. An arena for civil discourse, based on rational principles. Dedicated to seeking and speaking the truth.

The fact that we have succeeded in attaining that goal even in part, for a period of years, is pretty astounding given the state of American culture (I think most people here are American) and also given the tendency of the Internet to devolve conversations and destroy communities.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by CS in AZ on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 10:35am

This gets to where I went wrong

An arena for civil discourse, based on rational principles. Dedicated to seeking and speaking the truth.

Discourse based on rational principles, dedeicated to seeking and speaking the truth, is only “civil” in the sense that it is focused on ideas, and arguments for and against those ideas, which are employed to determine what is most likely to be the truth.

Participation in such discourse means, by definition, making a case for whatever it is you want to say, and then having that argument subjected to review, critique, and potentially deconstruction if it’s wrong. An argument in this context is not a fight. It is how science and logic tests ideas for validity. It’s not personal. But if someone makes spurious arguments or employs logical fallacies or is using false premises or assumptions, you call them on it. And people don’t get to demand that any form of faith-based beliefs be “respected” as in, off limits to criticism. You don’t get to be exempt from making sound arguments, or at least attempting to engage on a subject with an effort.

In rational discourse, such back and forth is considered civil. Entirely so. The retort “that is not even wrong” is a way of saying your arguments are not worth responding to. Which is the height of insult.

When you (me) bring that way of thinking here, though... oops, no. That is all wrong. ALL wrong. Being civil here means not engaging in that type of discussion. Making a case, or asking/expecting someone else to make a case for their assertions, and engage in rational arguments, is viewed and rude, uncivil, and troublesome.

Here, civil means tolerance. That sometimes will require simply keeping one’s trap shut. It means not caring if someone else is making a poor argument, or has no basis for their position. They don’t need one. They can just say “my statements should not be challenged” and be correct about that.

I made an error in judgment thinking this was a forum was as what you described here CStMS, which is why I was so dense. I’ve been thinking, I am being civil. I’m talking ideas, and premises and argument in the logical sense. My basis is: feel free to prove me wrong. But don’t be dismissive.

I’ve been feeling that it is uncivil in the extreme to say to anyone that your ideas and points don’t even deserve a reply. And yes, for the record, I was told that. On more than one occasion.

This was all my misunderstanding of civility, and what it means to JtC. He asks what’s so hard about that? Ha ha, good question. I’m often a slow learner. But I keep trying. Ever onward, as McKenna says at the end of the clip. He does laugh at himself too.

So understanding what’s been going on, and what JtC wants, is ALL that matters to me now, at this point. I’ve learned. Which is often painful, but you can’t learn without some growing pains. I hope I always continue to learn new things. Thank you for your writing here, also. It’s one of the highlights of this site for me.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 10:46am

I agree with this absolutely:

Participation in such discourse means, by definition, making a case for whatever it is you want to say, and then having that argument subjected to review, critique, and potentially deconstruction if it’s wrong. An argument in this context is not a fight. It is how science and logic tests ideas for validity. It’s not personal. But if someone makes spurious arguments or employs logical fallacies or is using false premises or assumptions, you call them on it. And people don’t get to demand that any form of faith-based beliefs be “respected” as in, off limits to criticism. You don’t get to be exempt from making sound arguments, or at least attempting to engage on a subject with an effort.

I rarely say I believe anything absolutely, but you've hit close to the bedrock of my beliefs.

#15.2

An arena for civil discourse, based on rational principles. Dedicated to seeking and speaking the truth.

Discourse based on rational principles, dedeicated to seeking and speaking the truth, is only “civil” in the sense that it is focused on ideas, and arguments for and against those ideas, which are employed to determine what is most likely to be the truth.

Participation in such discourse means, by definition, making a case for whatever it is you want to say, and then having that argument subjected to review, critique, and potentially deconstruction if it’s wrong. An argument in this context is not a fight. It is how science and logic tests ideas for validity. It’s not personal. But if someone makes spurious arguments or employs logical fallacies or is using false premises or assumptions, you call them on it. And people don’t get to demand that any form of faith-based beliefs be “respected” as in, off limits to criticism. You don’t get to be exempt from making sound arguments, or at least attempting to engage on a subject with an effort.

In rational discourse, such back and forth is considered civil. Entirely so. The retort “that is not even wrong” is a way of saying your arguments are not worth responding to. Which is the height of insult.

When you (me) bring that way of thinking here, though... oops, no. That is all wrong. ALL wrong. Being civil here means not engaging in that type of discussion. Making a case, or asking/expecting someone else to make a case for their assertions, and engage in rational arguments, is viewed and rude, uncivil, and troublesome.

Here, civil means tolerance. That sometimes will require simply keeping one’s trap shut. It means not caring if someone else is making a poor argument, or has no basis for their position. They don’t need one. They can just say “my statements should not be challenged” and be correct about that.

I made an error in judgment thinking this was a forum was as what you described here CStMS, which is why I was so dense. I’ve been thinking, I am being civil. I’m talking ideas, and premises and argument in the logical sense. My basis is: feel free to prove me wrong. But don’t be dismissive.

I’ve been feeling that it is uncivil in the extreme to say to anyone that your ideas and points don’t even deserve a reply. And yes, for the record, I was told that. On more than one occasion.

This was all my misunderstanding of civility, and what it means to JtC. He asks what’s so hard about that? Ha ha, good question. I’m often a slow learner. But I keep trying. Ever onward, as McKenna says at the end of the clip. He does laugh at himself too.

So understanding what’s been going on, and what JtC wants, is ALL that matters to me now, at this point. I’ve learned. Which is often painful, but you can’t learn without some growing pains. I hope I always continue to learn new things. Thank you for your writing here, also. It’s one of the highlights of this site for me.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 10:48am

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal Though I do

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal Though I do believe that a person can request that such criticism be made in certain times and places, as long as said request is being made in good faith (I recall when I was protesting against nukes in the 80s, we were required once to protest in a field with some cows outside of town.) I'm excluding obvious lameness here, like "the free speech zone is ten miles away."

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by irishking on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 11:03am

you can ask, but not require it here.

or I have "the free flow of ideas" part wrong.

I don't believe you should even ask anyone to "put a lid on it" in any way here, as long as Rule #1 is observed.

civility- politeness, courtesy

Submitted by irishking on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 10:53am

not to me.

fwiw.

Here, civil means tolerance. That sometimes will require simply keeping one’s trap shut. It means not caring if someone else is making a poor argument, or has no basis for their position. They don’t need one. They can just say “my statements should not be challenged” and be correct about that.

#15.2

An arena for civil discourse, based on rational principles. Dedicated to seeking and speaking the truth.

Discourse based on rational principles, dedeicated to seeking and speaking the truth, is only “civil” in the sense that it is focused on ideas, and arguments for and against those ideas, which are employed to determine what is most likely to be the truth.

Participation in such discourse means, by definition, making a case for whatever it is you want to say, and then having that argument subjected to review, critique, and potentially deconstruction if it’s wrong. An argument in this context is not a fight. It is how science and logic tests ideas for validity. It’s not personal. But if someone makes spurious arguments or employs logical fallacies or is using false premises or assumptions, you call them on it. And people don’t get to demand that any form of faith-based beliefs be “respected” as in, off limits to criticism. You don’t get to be exempt from making sound arguments, or at least attempting to engage on a subject with an effort.

In rational discourse, such back and forth is considered civil. Entirely so. The retort “that is not even wrong” is a way of saying your arguments are not worth responding to. Which is the height of insult.

When you (me) bring that way of thinking here, though... oops, no. That is all wrong. ALL wrong. Being civil here means not engaging in that type of discussion. Making a case, or asking/expecting someone else to make a case for their assertions, and engage in rational arguments, is viewed and rude, uncivil, and troublesome.

Here, civil means tolerance. That sometimes will require simply keeping one’s trap shut. It means not caring if someone else is making a poor argument, or has no basis for their position. They don’t need one. They can just say “my statements should not be challenged” and be correct about that.

I made an error in judgment thinking this was a forum was as what you described here CStMS, which is why I was so dense. I’ve been thinking, I am being civil. I’m talking ideas, and premises and argument in the logical sense. My basis is: feel free to prove me wrong. But don’t be dismissive.

I’ve been feeling that it is uncivil in the extreme to say to anyone that your ideas and points don’t even deserve a reply. And yes, for the record, I was told that. On more than one occasion.

This was all my misunderstanding of civility, and what it means to JtC. He asks what’s so hard about that? Ha ha, good question. I’m often a slow learner. But I keep trying. Ever onward, as McKenna says at the end of the clip. He does laugh at himself too.

So understanding what’s been going on, and what JtC wants, is ALL that matters to me now, at this point. I’ve learned. Which is often painful, but you can’t learn without some growing pains. I hope I always continue to learn new things. Thank you for your writing here, also. It’s one of the highlights of this site for me.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 7:39pm

Me neither.

@irishking

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 10:53am

@CS in AZ I made an error in

@CS in AZ I made an error in judgment thinking this was a forum was as what you described here CStMS, which is why I was so dense. I’ve been thinking, I am being civil. I’m talking ideas, and premises and argument in the logical sense. My basis is: feel free to prove me wrong. But don’t be dismissive.

I think what we're doing, as a site, is trying to decide whether or not it is such a forum, and where the boundaries are.

Let's be honest: it's damned hard to preserve a space that operates on those principles. It's amazing that I can remember a time when the mainstream was at least nominally and to some extent truly conducted according to those principles. Before the dark times. Before the Empire.

#15.2

An arena for civil discourse, based on rational principles. Dedicated to seeking and speaking the truth.

Discourse based on rational principles, dedeicated to seeking and speaking the truth, is only “civil” in the sense that it is focused on ideas, and arguments for and against those ideas, which are employed to determine what is most likely to be the truth.

Participation in such discourse means, by definition, making a case for whatever it is you want to say, and then having that argument subjected to review, critique, and potentially deconstruction if it’s wrong. An argument in this context is not a fight. It is how science and logic tests ideas for validity. It’s not personal. But if someone makes spurious arguments or employs logical fallacies or is using false premises or assumptions, you call them on it. And people don’t get to demand that any form of faith-based beliefs be “respected” as in, off limits to criticism. You don’t get to be exempt from making sound arguments, or at least attempting to engage on a subject with an effort.

In rational discourse, such back and forth is considered civil. Entirely so. The retort “that is not even wrong” is a way of saying your arguments are not worth responding to. Which is the height of insult.

When you (me) bring that way of thinking here, though... oops, no. That is all wrong. ALL wrong. Being civil here means not engaging in that type of discussion. Making a case, or asking/expecting someone else to make a case for their assertions, and engage in rational arguments, is viewed and rude, uncivil, and troublesome.

Here, civil means tolerance. That sometimes will require simply keeping one’s trap shut. It means not caring if someone else is making a poor argument, or has no basis for their position. They don’t need one. They can just say “my statements should not be challenged” and be correct about that.

I made an error in judgment thinking this was a forum was as what you described here CStMS, which is why I was so dense. I’ve been thinking, I am being civil. I’m talking ideas, and premises and argument in the logical sense. My basis is: feel free to prove me wrong. But don’t be dismissive.

I’ve been feeling that it is uncivil in the extreme to say to anyone that your ideas and points don’t even deserve a reply. And yes, for the record, I was told that. On more than one occasion.

This was all my misunderstanding of civility, and what it means to JtC. He asks what’s so hard about that? Ha ha, good question. I’m often a slow learner. But I keep trying. Ever onward, as McKenna says at the end of the clip. He does laugh at himself too.

So understanding what’s been going on, and what JtC wants, is ALL that matters to me now, at this point. I’ve learned. Which is often painful, but you can’t learn without some growing pains. I hope I always continue to learn new things. Thank you for your writing here, also. It’s one of the highlights of this site for me.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by earthling1 on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 12:12pm

You are , of course

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
speaking of the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcast media of yore.
I've always seen/felt the recreation/re-emergence of that policy here at C99% and in a respectful way.
It was that policy then (1960s) that sparked my interest in politics and world affairs at a young age. The ability to hear two different points of view, and to determine for myself which had merit, or which needed more clarification, was the beginning of my questioning of presented authority.
Very, very sorely needed by our young people today.
Thoroughly understood why the ruling regime will fight tooth and nail to prevent its restoration.
Thanks to JtC and everyone here some of it survives. Thanks for bringing that up.
My two cents.

—

Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 3:14pm

@earthling1 Yes, that is the

@earthling1 @earthling1 Yes, that is the sort of ethos I mean. However, the openness to differing points of view was, as I recall, generally complimented by the assumption that one can have one's own opinion, but not one's own facts (h/t Senator Moynihan). That's what I'd call rational discourse, and it's one of the foundation stones of any republican or democratic society, or, really any form of anti-totalitarianism. That's probably why it's been under assault since Reagan. By now, a lot of people are barely able to recognize it. Some don't even know it's a thing. I've heard educators talking about this. Horribly, the powerful have mobilized bastardized versions of the old social justice movements I loved to tear down rational discourse, by turning them into vehicles for shutting down dissent.

Sort of like this:

Hope I didn't trigger anybody by that last sentence /s

Oh, and by the way: I really hate how the word "trigger" in the post-traumatic sense has been broadened and watered down to mean "something made me sad or uncomfortable and it's your fault." Most people who use the word "triggered" online have got no damned clue what a person actually triggered and reexperiencing trauma is like. They sure as hell ain't having piefights on the internet, I can tell you that.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 8:13pm

The Fairness Doctrine was revoked in 1987.

@earthling1

And even though I was a kid, I knew it was a fatal blow to the US. I continue to regard it as the day the US died.

After that, discourse became explosively furious because ordinary citizens could never again directly and publicly challenge the subversive "reality" touted by the plutocrat-owned media. The for-profit news media now controlled and invented historical fact. The population became dumb and misinformed, and a frustrated fury festered inside them. They could not think.

The problems at c99 are a direct result of the mental damage caused by that evil suppression.

Submitted by irishking on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 8:51am

A free flow of ideas and discussion

@JtC

that's it.

Submitted by LeChienHarry on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 4:32am

This is really simplistic: Political Correctness

PC has gotten so complicated since it was first branded. But it does seem to me that choosing a position then labeling another wrong or "idiotic" is our own brand of PC.

There are many subjects I want to write about but life has been in the way and maybe for awhile yet.

However, if I ever have the time to write cogently, some opinions will not be mainstream: on medicine and medical care; education; our form of citizen participation. I'm sure that doesn't cover it all.

We have escaped to Europe, and by doing so have exposed ourselves to other points of view including what people from other countries think is going on in the US.

It's difficult to listen to others explain or turn purple about what Trump is doing and why, when in our view they have a very narrow slice of and a stereotypical view of what is going on.

We try to slowly add bits to the conversation, but some of the views are culturally embedded.

On this blog, graciously provided by JtC and supported by the writing of others, I am hoping that there will always be room for writing by people with different points of view, with respect.

I too miss Hecate and the list is longer than the names we have seen in this thread. Would that we could send out the olive branches.

And be civil and civilized with each other.

Thank you.

—

You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again you did not know. ~ William Wiberforce

If you can donate, please! POP Money is available for bank-to-bank transfers. Email JtC to make a monthly donation.

Submitted by Granma on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 11:05am

My 2 cents

@LeChienHarry Some of the missing specifically said they were taking a break to focus on " real life" for a while. They may be lurking part of the time. I think their absence is more of a comment on state of the USA than on this site.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 3:15pm

@Granma I agree.

@Granma I agree.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 9:08am

Oh boy how refreshing it is to read this comment thread!

This is so opposite of what was going on at DKos, it's hard to put into words. And I must say that CS in AZ came to my defense over at the other site more times than I could count, even if she didn't totally agree with me. It was the openness of expression in a civilized way without censorship that we both kept battling and I consider her one of the most valuable connections I made during the years on DKos. This is now my morning go to site and I feel better about that decision every day.

Thumbs up to all of you.

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 10:54am

@Fishtroller 02 In my opinion, C99 is

@Fishtroller 02 In my opinion, C99 is about the practice of civilization.

That may seem too grandiose to some.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Ellen North on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 1:15pm

No, not grandiose at all.

There's a bit of now-scattered civilization huddled here, preserved against the encroaching dark side.

Civilization (like other concepts such as true democracy and justice,) is an ideal as well as an essential stemming from basic human survival characteristics and now key to the global survival of life. It must not be quenched and fragmented anywhere it survives.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 8:31pm

There's nothing grandiose about it.

It's the obligation of those who can think the big picture.

In my opinion, C99 is about the practice of civilization.

It's about the development of a shared vision, too. Who else is going to build the utopia humanity deserves?

Submitted by CS in AZ on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 2:41pm

Thank you FT

@Fishtroller 02

Your comment brought tears to my eyes. And damn it, I’m at work now! Hehe. But seriously, thank you.

I’ve beeen thinking just these past couple of days about that long battle that you and I waged over there, pretty much alone, against that small but pernicious gang who made it their mission in life to hound you relentlessly and try to silence you because you expressed an unpopular view they didn’t want to answer or ever see talked about. That is something I feel strongly about. It gets me into trouble sometimes.

Of course in such a large ocean of chatter as daily kos, hardly anyone even noticed. But it was worth it to me, and I’m very glad I got to know you, listened to your views, and I’m glad you are here.

Submitted by WaterLily on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 6:31pm

I'm glad, too.

@CS in AZ I remember, on sporadic occasions, being at odds with FT back at the GOS, on matters relating to "Papa Francesco" ... before my mind had been expanded. And I owe some of that expansion to FT, and many others.

This is why we need a place like this, where we can recognize and learn from differences of opinion, and build respect for the ones who teach us new things.

Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Thu, 06/07/2018 - 8:46am

I don't know who you were at GOS

@WaterLily

but I sure appreciate your comment! One of the things I did after I was put on the year time out (ends in Oct) was to try to find Betty Clermont and put her together with this site. She had been banned for her excellent columns on the corruptions of the Roman Catholic Church and the false images that we were being fed by media about the true nature of "Papa Francesco". I'm so glad I was able to do this as I saw her last column being lauded here instead of her being roasted for telling the truth. Having once been a Christian and having moved my mind to atheism, I know full well how good solid truth telling and argument making can change minds.

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Thu, 06/07/2018 - 8:40am

Can't add anything more to this.

Except to say I'm glad you are here too... and hey.... I love your wolf icon!

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by Anja Geitz on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 10:59am

Social media and politics

Can be a challenging combination for anyone who has walked the long road of realization. The political landscape for many can be a very depressing place to spend considerable time in, while social can be a place rife with either malicious intent or gobsmacking ignorance.

That this community, and the owners of this blog, strive to include all viewpoints and is host to a variety of remarkably intelligent voices, many of whom I enjoying hearing from with affection and interest, is what keeps me coming back to this place.

Thank you JtC for reiterating for everyone here what the parameters for political discourse intend to be.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by Ellen North on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 1:17pm

You nailed it there - thanks!

@Anja Geitz

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Anja Geitz on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 5:19pm

I only wish it wasn't so one sided here

In terms of content. For those of us who do not believe in electoral reform, there are few essays reflecting that. There could be a few reasons for that, many of them lack of time, which is the main reason I am unable to write here more. And it's a shame because I feel we need to at least counterbalance the prolific essays written here on the subject of reforming the Democrats, often by the same person, which contributes to the impression that that is the main message here.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by CS in AZ on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 5:52pm

Agreed, it’s not so easy for everyone to write their own essays

@Anja Geitz

On the few occasions I have posted essays, I’ve usually put at least two or three days into research and writing, because I feel it’s necessary to do my best to get things right and present well-researched, accurate information, with some actual point to it beyond just expressing my opinion on something. A couple of times I did quick posts about some news article or whatever, but I don’t generally think that kind of thing is worthwhile to make an essay out of either.

And then there’s the obligation — to me — of responding with thought and consideration to any comments. So, posting an essay means devoting at least a day or two or three to tending it after posting, along with development time. I would never feel comfortable just blowing off commenters or ignoring it if someone says they think I got something wrong. I’d have to address that, by looking into it and then responding with a real answer to them, one way or another. So it’s a big commitment of time and energy to post even one good essay, and I do have a full time day job, a house and family and pets, etc.

I get annoyed frankly at how often I hear, well then go write your own essay, or twenty, every week. Jeeze, why can’t we just have a discussion in the comments? I often spend an hour just writing a reply to someone. Lots of people post excellent, detailed comments here, sometimes better than many of the original posts. Good discussions in the comments makes it interesting! Everyone going off to write their own “here’s my opinion” posts instead... and no challenges or debate in the comments, that actually sounds dreadful to me.

Submitted by Anja Geitz on Wed, 06/06/2018 - 6:04pm

I think if everyone took that kind of care