The Dreaded Site Meta #4
This is yet another in a continuing series of Meta Posts aimed at fostering a happy, healthy community here at c99.
If you're new to the site, please see the previous episodes to help orient yourself to our community:
There are a couple of things that have come up lately that we'd like to focus on in this essay.
First to get ourselves into the correct framework, here's a concept we'd like folks to keep in mind from Dreaded Site Meta #2:
This site is a non-partisan site. It does not endorse any candidate. This site is issues-oriented and is about the interests of the 99%.
There are people here who support a number of different candidates and there are even some who think that participation in the elections is a total waste of time and effort. Those views are all welcome here.
We have a diversity of opinion and we like it that way. What we are working toward is agreement and action on the 99%'s agenda - not which candidate wins the swimsuit competition. ...
Meanwhile, informed, polite discussion of candidates and issues is welcome here.
Advocacy for candidates is fine, too, with a caveat.
The caveat is that advocacy of candidates cannot be couched so as to state or even appear that it is the site's policy or purpose.
Despite the fact that many people here are focused on the Great Electoral Spectacle of the 1%, this site is not (as some other sites familiar to many here are) primarily a site about elections, promoting the fortunes of the corporate parties of the 1% or their candidates.
The community that initially formed around this site (which, in its current incarnation was breathed into existence by the copious technical skills of JtC /hat tip) has been around for quite a while. Many of the original community were involved with Occupy Wall Street, the anti-war movement and a variety of left causes. Most of us identify with our left/liberal/progressive ideas much more than any party affiliation.
We are reviewing this information because lately we've seen people (both on this site and elsewhere) go to some effort to identify the site inappropriately as a "Bernie site," or an "anti-Hillary" site.
So let us put it in large, friendly letters for people both on and off this site to see and appreciate:
This is a site for the 99%.
We are for the 99%, not any candidate or party.
Because of our orientation, as a practical matter, discussions here will tend to stray far out of the bounds of the rules imposed on partisan blogs. Many people here reject corporate-dominated, corrupt party structures and candidates as an impediment to the interests of the 99%. Partisans may feel uncomfortable with that, but they are welcome here nonetheless provided that they, like everyone else here maintains a civil and polite respect when engaging others on this site.
Now that we've got that out of the way, on to blog wars...
We understand that a lot of people have made their way here from another site and many of those folks feel attachments to that place (whether positive or negative) and seem to want to talk about it and the site's owner.
We'd really like it if folks would please come to a bit of perspective on that site and its owner.
While that site's propaganda naturally tends to toot its own horn about its importance in the political universe as does its owner, in real life, its impact on the public mind is vanishingly small. Large numbers of average Americans and people who pay attention to American politics outside of the US do not, in fact, hang on every word of the site's owner, nor of those who post there.
When was the last time you walked into your local grocery store and found people avidly discussing the content of commentary posted either by that site's owner or by anyone else on that site in the checkout line?
Breathlessly posting about what is going on there assigns significance to the material there that it does not deserve. Furthermore, it tends to signal to people from outside of the community that your focus is on something other than issues:
There really are more important things going on in the world worth paying attention to.
Comments
Do you know what it takes to form a new party?
That's what gets me. Easy to say on a blog. Hard to do in reality.
I only know the basics of creating a party - but a question...
I heard on NPR (yeah, I know - another thing I should quit, but so far there are no independent news alternatives on the radio) - anyway, I heard on NPR that the Libertarian party is on the ballot in every state.
How did they do that? Why haven't the Greens been able to do that?
That is my ONLY concern about the Greens, I feel like they should be further along than they are, and I'm not sure why they are unable to do what the Libertarian Party has done.
I'd be okay with Greens being a viable third party, but I do think people see them as too narrowly focused, whether or not its actually true.
If the Libertarians can do it, and they aren't know for team activities, why can't we?
Selling. It took fantastic amounts of work &
person hours to get Peace & Freedom on the CA ballot, way back machine again, but we did it. Tons of people circulating tons of petitions and then voting.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
I have never heard anyone here say that party-building would be
easy.
Several have spoken of building a coalition with the Greens. And that wouldn't be easy either.
That it won't be easy should not end nor dismiss the conversation about party-building.
Every political party ever built started somewhere at sometime. Many people here at c99 have expressed the opinion that that time has come. And not one member of c99 has voiced the opinion that it will be easy.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
Sorry for your surprise that politcal discussion takes place on
a political blog.
Talk of building a third party is just as valid here at c99 as discussing any other political ideas. I've heard many here voice dissatisfaction with various aspects of the Green Party, and I, for one, want to hear what they have to say. Some have even said that they will not support the Greens if Bernie does not get the nom, they prefer to write in Bernie, vote Peace and Freedom Party, vote Libertarian, or even vote for Trump.
I want to hear their reasons in an environment that encourages discussion and does not limit that discussion. Even where I strongly disagree with their choice.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
Wait, What?
Who exactly do you mean by "folks here who...are not promoting Greens," what does that even mean? Because there are many here who do support the Greens.
So do you mean that everyone here who can't support the Dems should be supporting the Greens. Because if that's what you think, then c99 will probably not be a good fit for you. The Greens are one alternative to the Dems, the one I am choosing for now, but they certainly aren't the only alternative to the Dems.
Discussing all of our alternatives to promote the welfare of the 99% is what c99 is all about. C99 is not about limiting that discussion to only one alternative.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
Well said, JayRae. I'd like to help ensure that in any 3rd party
discussions, we keep uppermost in mind the principles of democratic socialism. (That's why I write about it and cooperatives; so that we could inform ourselves of the solid better alternative to capitalism and neoliberalism.) You do that in the HR. Through the HR we learn what our spiritual ancestors, such as the socialists, suffered in establishing livable lives for workers in North America.
My mission is to ensure that the first phrase that enter folks' minds after "3rd party" is "democratic socialism."
I'm an Ontario Green Party member and I bash that same drum there. The Canadian Greens did fall under the neoliberal spell in the 2000s. We're gonna cure them of that delusion :=)
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
thx Garrit, and the first part of that discussion should be
us listening to our fellow members of the 99% who may be straying far from the democratic socialist path. If there are some right-wing parties or groups that are capturing their support, or part of their support, we should find out why, and not assume that we know why.
I see too many on the left who go straight to bashing those with whom they disagree or who are making political choices that are "illogical."
As illogical as those choices may be there may be an actual valid reason behind it that can be explored. Common ground can be found, and once common ground is established, people are more ready to return the courtesy of listening.
It doesn't always work out, but sometimes it does.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
True dat, JayRae. And it's happening everywhere in NA and Europe
The centre really cannot hold anymore. Everywhere, the old mainstream parties are collapsing. Europe has led the way, the U.S. is going through it right now and Canada and Mexico will soon follow. People are leaving the old centrist (lib to neo-lib) parties for the harder left and the harder right. It's happening across parties, communities, families, everywhere. And you're right: numbers of lefties are considering Drumpf in case of Clinton and numbers of Drumpfians give Bernie a hard look too.
This phenomenon of the centre failing and folks moving left and right will continue. I predict the hard right to become very, very strong in Europe. And the U.S. and Mexico. Canada is more like the Swiss - instinctively neutral. But even here, it would not surprise.
C99 mods should think hard about this social phenomenon and keep a watchful eye here on it.
Your guidance is really sage (word of the day, eh!): we have to listen to folks and listen well.
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
listening, hard listening is part of resilence
I do wish I had more time to take part in the resilience group.
Hellraisers keeps me busy to the point where I barely have any other life anymore. In fact, it's the beginning of a new month, and that's what I should be doing right now, getting ready for June HJ.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
We can't do everything, eh :=) The HR is very valuable and
never mind resilience! Visit and say hello, we appreciate the time and research you do for the HJ. Every edition is packed with research and links. I dunno how you do it; it would well take up all the time available.
I know you've said before that you have no time for putting the HJ to book form. It would make for excellent history well worth preserving and reading. I mean, it reference material for future scholars, is what it is.
I wonder though, whether you would be interested in working with someone who could work alongside you and collate your earlier material into book forms. It would in fact make up a series of books. It's worth pondering. I know nutting about book publishing, but surely we could rustle up someone, he?
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
I would be totally interested in that, Gerrit. nt
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
All right then. Now we gotta brainstorm over someone who:
1. you like and/or trust
2. is highly competent and reliable
3. has a heart for it
Have you talked with good people before about the possibility? Do you have anyone already in mind? Perhaps, a post on the objective and the search? IOW, where are we at? Home plate, first base?
Notice how good I am at making work for other people? That's 20 years in the army for you :=)
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
LOL, "good at making work for others"
Let me think about this for awhile. I do have some thots and I will write an essay on it soon. Something has to be done. I want those HJ and WNF diaries off from DK and there are more than 1000. I was thinking of my own web site more than an e-book and cross-post here of course.
I need to chew on this for awhile. But thanks for the kick in the pants, Gerrit. I needed it.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
I would buy that book!
and place it next to the SEVERAL copies we have of Howard Zinn.
IMEANITDAMNIT!
"Love One Another" ~ George Harrison
Thanks for telling me what I might mean.
No, I don't "mean" that. Strawman argument by you.
These comments are what I would expect on Daily Kos. No different except in content. Same kind of bullshit.
Yes, I don't think I will bother to write posts here.
Then why don't you enlighten us and tell us WTF this DOES
mean?
Why do you not understand why some here support neither the Dems nor the Greens? Please enlightened us.
And if what I said is bullshit, then please explain why what I said is bullshit but what you said above is not bullshit.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
Right on, JayRae. I couldn't figure out if he was mad at you or
me :=) Apparently, it's you! Well responded.
Upon reaching shore after the shipwreck, it's probably not wise to jump on to the first passing ship going by. Best to figure out WTF happened and where the fuck to go next, eh. Before rushing off going the wrong direction on the wrong ship again.
And I'm a (noisy) Green Party member :=)
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
Just to be clear, I will be supporting the Greens if Bernie
does not get the nom. But I see no reason to get frustrated or to be confounded because others support neither the dems nor the greens.
If I wanted to know why they choose neither, I would ask them. In fact that would be an excellent conversation to have. Some have expressed that they don't like the Greens. I am very curious as to why that is, esp coming from people I respect.
For this year, I'll vote Green if Bernie doesn't get the nom.
I think the Greens are too narrow a party, and I would like to see a party-building movement with the Greens as a part of a broader party-building movement.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
JayRaye...
civility please. I for one, did not read Tom's comment egregious enough to start an e-argument about.
JtC, please explain what I said that was not civil.
Is asking for clarification now considered uncivil?
I think the inference that supporting neither the dems nor the greens is something that cannot be understood is a bit uncivil. Sounds to me like a veiled insult toward those who support neither party.
Isn't c99 supposed to be a place where folks can support or not support any party they so please, or do we now have to justify ourselves to TomP in order to win his understanding?
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
Sure...
We are not about telling anyone that c99p may not be a good fit for them, unless, of course they violate our DBAA rule. That statement led to Tom biting back at you, and so on.
Yes, the first part is true, c99 is supposed to be a place where folks can support or not support any party they so please, without being told that they may not fit in here.
thx for the direct response and clarification, JtC
point taken.
But I'm still pissed about the inference that supporting neither the dems nor the greens is somehow something that simply can not be understood. To me, that does sound like an insult of the beliefs of others, it sounds dismissive, and I see no willingness in that statement to even TRY to understand why some here might choose to not support either party.
And furthermore, I see that comment and comments like it as an attempt to limit the conversation here at c99.
But you're right folks here who simply can't understand how others could have a different view of which parties to support or not support should not be told that they aren't a good fit here. They are, of course, welcome to be here along with their frustration and inability or unwillingness to understand why others might disagree with their views on which party to support or not support.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
I'm walking a tightrope here...
JayRaye, I want to be fair to everyone. I guess I just don't see Tom's statement as being uncivil, but that's me. Maybe I'm missing it, if I am please point out the uncivil part.
As an example of how I see it: If you were in discussion on another board, just out of speculation let's say it was DailyKos, and the person you are in discussion with told you that you didn't fit in there because your opinion was different from theirs, how would that make you feel? Would you push back?
OK first off I didn't say he wouldn't fit in here because his
opinion was different than mine but because he was showing intolerance to the opinions of others. What I meant was that if folks having opinions that differ from the standard dem/green dichotomy distresses him then he will likely find himself very frustrated here at c99 where folks are very free to choose neither party, or even no party, or even Trump (a choice I strongly disagree with).
But you are right, we shouldn't be telling folks that they might not fit in here. So point taken. I also believe that we should not be trying to tell people that they can only choose between the dems and the greens or else their choice can simply not be understood.
Perhaps if those so-choosing were questioned about their choice instead of dismissing it as not understandable, then the choice could be understood, not necessarily agreed with, but understood.
Anyway JtC, I have a huge HJ project going on and need to get busy. I'm not upset. And I think you handled things just fine, as you usually do.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
Thanks JayRaye...
It would definitely have made matters better, from my viewpoint especially, if Tom would explain exactly what he meant, to me his comment was ambiguous.
Give the boys an ear scritchin' for me.
To me,
the comment about Dems not supporting Greens sounded like someone who had not been around here much to see how many people here do support greens. An uninformed comment. That's how I took it. Not saying that is what was meant, just how I took it on reading. And, yes, it could be interpreted that everyone not wanting to vote Dem should be supporting Greens.
And, as far as this:
Kind of the ultimate insult, hmm? To be equated with DK, and bullshit.
Yeah...
that's how I read it too:
A comment that reflects not being around this site for the last year and a half and missing all of the discussion of the Greens. My guess is that a majority of folks here will vote green as an alternative. But if Tom comes back here and says that that's not what he meant, then I'm willing to eat crow.
But if someone here told me I didn't fit in, I'd probably come back with something like this too:
I see my job here as defusing situations before they blow up, and that's what I aim to do. That's a fucked up job but someone has to do it.
He did not say that it "simply can not be understood".
All he said was, "I don't understand."
I don't understand how to implement violin plots in R. I would hope that anyone who does understand how to implement violin plots in R would not respond to that statement by telling me that maybe I shouldn't be trying to implement violin plots, or maybe R is not the right fit for me.
The hair-triggers with which people have outfitted their grievance cannons befuddles me. I'm reminded of Jon Lovitz as the exasperated Satan on the People's Court, counter-accused by the defendant's mother of harassing them by spreading garbage all over their lawn. "Garbage on your lawn? Lady, I'm the Prince of Darkness, when I start harassing you you'll know it."
Along which lines, if I should ever post a bemused comment and someone responds the way you responded to TomP, well, it seems some folks would, as evidenced by the teapotted tempest that is this thread, be pretty dumbstruck to see what happens when somebody with a well-sharpened tempered-steel talent for criticism and a permanent rage-on decides to give the beast its head; so rather than shock anyone's sensibilities, I suppose I'd just shake my head and move to the next topic of conversation.
Which policy recommends itself in the current circumstance as well. How about folks put the shivs away and get back to the business at hand, which, unless I've misunderstood, is not the sniffing out of petty disrespects.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
You're too polite, JayRaye. Let me unpack Tom's comment for us.
The headline showed what was coming. Then,
Line one of Tom's comment:
Just how is this unclear to anyone? It's fucking rude. Tom, you say shit like this over at top all day long. And have forever. You embody top values in fact, in word, and likely in deed. Try say that to me once, will you?
Line two of Tom's comment:
This is even clearer in it's blatant, uncalled-for rudeness and outright hostility.
Tom, you say that to me in my presence and I deck you. Them's fighting words, son, anywhere among real folks.
You are a pretentious and contentious person.
We simply do not converse with such rudeness here. Not in my house, not in my work, not anywhere. You say that, I deck you. Then when I pick you up from the ground by the scruff of your neck, I explain civility to you. Then you have a choice. You learn manners right smartly and you exhibit them manners in conversation. Or you live with me me being me. In. Your. Face.
Line three of Tom's comment:
Tom, that's the first lick of sense you've shown since you arrived here. I counsel the same.
Tom, you obviously think extremely highly of yourself. I say you are a pretentious and contentious person. Should I be wrong, show me why I should change my opinion. Good day.
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
Alright, enough...
I don't know that I even want to list this Meta 4 with the other 3 given what this will look like when new members come here and read this comment thread. What a mess, sorry Joe.
Maybe dreaded site meta - without the comments
and then link to the sections with comments allowed explaining the presentation of information vs. the discussion of said info
whoa! Really no comments? hummmm...
not good not democratic and not at all what I thought this site was about. If TomP gets to hurl his crap all over the place with no push back and when people lose patience with him and are 'uncivil' why should that be buried because it might put off future c99% comers . Perhaps this site is more interested in growth for growth's sake then in providing a voice much needed that says Enough is Enough! Civility at what cost? What is civility in the real sense and not the hypocritical PC definition where nobody utters the word liar or dares to say your this is not anything I want to deal with. Leave dkos behind fine but why come here and start a new one. I like wide open spaces and resent anyone who comes here with the same old minus kos. Like I said what is civility? Nothing civil about acquiescing to uncivil points of view.
Civil the word
Simple Definition of civil
: of or relating to the people who live in a country
: of or relating to the regular business of the people in a city, town, state, etc. : not connected to the military or to a religion
: polite but not friendly : only as polite as a person needs to be in order to not be rude.
Full Definition of civil
1 a : of or relating to citizens b : of or relating to the state or its citizenry
b : of or relating to the state or its citizenry
2 a : civilized
b : adequate in courtesy and politeness : mannerly
c : relating to private rights and to remedies sought by action or suit distinct from criminal proceedings
3 a : of, relating to, or based on civil law b : relating to private rights and to remedies sought by action or suit
distinct from criminal proceedings c : established by law
b : relating to private rights and to remedies sought by action or suit distinct from criminal proceedings
c : established by law
So all and all civility does not mean to me to pander to the likes of TomP or any disgruntled dkoser for the sake of not putting off future c99%er's who might be put off by people here telling TomP or any other internet gadfly preaching their version of compliance and weird royalty/loyalty to shove it. Is it worth it just to draw more hits or whatever?
You apparently read far more into what I suggested...
..and thanks but no thanks for your lesson on civility.
If TomP can handle all the crap at DK but can't come here and wade through one or two dissenting opinions or an opinion which he takes offense from - whatever. Maybe DK ate up all his patience so he now feels entitled to act out anywhere else.
If you can't manage to bear seeing one comment discussing maybe having no comments on the site rules, and then a section where they are openly discussed. - whatever.
Not my circus. Not my monkeys.
I wish there wasn't so much parsing of people's comments
On that other site, people's comments are parsed to death. We're not a dysfunctional family sitting around the Thanksgiving dinner table. We're trying to do something really important here despite nobody really knowing each other outside of these combinations of 26 letters on a computer screen. We have to make allowances for that and use our disagreements constructively to come to new knowledge.
Beware the bullshit factories.
No Timmethy, I will parse comments to highlight rude, offensive
language and nastiness when it appears. Look well to the purpose of the parsing. It is to make clear what was being missed: the intentionally contentious rudeness by Tom.
If we let folks be rude and mean, we lose c99 just as you folks lost DK by allowing members to speak rudely to you and your friends. Manners do indeed maketh the person. If we do not insist promptly and directly on good manners and polite disagreement, we lose the present culture of kind and friendly discussion and disagreement.
It is that way in any home and office and it is that way online. And online rudeness is so much easier to slip into because we do not have direct personal physical contact. Online rudeness must be confronted with even more rigour and promptness than at home. I hope I explain myself clearly. Best wishes and enjoy your evening,
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
I feel very sorry for you Timmethy2.0.
MY keyboard has 10 numerals and miscellaneous punctuation, in addition to the 26 letters. It sounds like you got ripped off. Is it too late to take yours back to best buy?
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
JtC, just cut out my parts :=) I thought you were wrong
in judging JayRaye's reply and it seemed unlike you. I commented to you and asked that you review Tom's comments and see them clearly. It seemed obvious to me that you hadn't seen him for what he is in this thread and I wanted you to check and see it clearly. You probably didn't have the time. I know how things get lost from day today. So I corrected the record specifically so that it would not get lost. I am glad you saw the other side, however inartful a messenger.
I know that I can be a royal pain in the arse. Now you know it too :=) Enjoy your evening, mate,
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
I hate to mention TOP, but this strikes me as TOP PTSD
Hopefully all will recover soon.
I did not take Tom's initial statement nor the reactions as badly as the commenters took them. Both overreacted to their perceptions of the words rather than the words themselves, I think.
Remember the good ole days when we used to give each other the benefit of the doubt regarding our writings, because without tone of voice sometimes the meaning of writings is not clear?
Well, the blog wars have pretty well destroyed our willingness to give other commenters the benefit of the doubt. But I think we will reach that point eventually. We need to get over ourselves. It's not easy, it's going to take a little time.
Come on boys, I look forward to reading diaries from all of you.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
no need to apologize...
much of what is covered in this meta is ephemeral. we will, in all likelihood see this stuff end after the election. there is no need to include it in the meta series listing.
Why not put it in the meta seies
cause people pushed back at TomP? He irritated the crap out of me. I got nothing against him but man he's doing his dkos act here. I spent years listening to this kind of dissemination. TomP either takes us as we are or not. If he's going to do his song and dance about being a partisan follower and a follower of personna and party that's fine but to start get all weird and snippy on a dreaded meta blog about direction and leaving dkos behind it seems crazy to me to even pay him head let alone admonish the c99er's that rightly took offense.
I like no self or outside imposed censorship and civility is needed but come on... ephemeral it's not. It's a long hard slog and people who stand in the way and say follow leaders and get yourselves a leader pol or a party to follow at this point in time are negative to me. It's argy bargy that argues we cannot have or strive for any other reality other then what the establishment offers. It's their world.
Jaye Ray or Gerrit are not out of hand , they inspire rather then caution or squelch the spirit. TomP is welcome here but man don't give people who push back trouble. He may not be overtly rude but he sure knows how sow the seeds.
Further more, I'm still waiting for a response from Tom on
why he can call my request for a clarification bullshit but his strange statement that supporting neither party can simply not be understood is not bullshit.
If he wants to understand how some here can come to the conclusion that they support neither party, perhaps he should ask them in a civil manner.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
JtC, you might have missed a few things along the thread. Sure
enough, you gotta do your thing. When you have a moment, perhaps a reread of Tom's comments all long the thread might be in order. You might see his comment in a different light. Or not; we're all different.
I wasn't sure if Tom's comment was directed at JayRaye or me. Let me assure you, had it been directed at me - given Tom's performance all thread long - I would have replied in such a forthright manner, you would have used stronger language in your response. Enjoy your evening, mate,
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
I think JtC is asking you to be more understanding
and concerned about civility than being right or wrong. If you can't do it for Tom, do it for JtC. He is trying to be fair and calm the waters.
Tom has a rough road to go here. Although we've known him forever, he is a newbie here. Yes, he makes some wrong assumptions about us, many of the newbies do; but he is also
one of the few if not the only Hillary supporter here. (please see correction below) So when he says blue, he's got a chorus of people responding to him "screw blue". He is also sensitive because he is leaving dk pretty beat up. He ducks because he is use to being hit.As I said, more civility for the sake of civility and less concern for being dead right. If nothing else, we can make Johnny's job a little easier by putting a priority on getting along. We don't have to like or agree with every word that is said.
It was pointed out to me that I misspoke, and I absolutely did. What I should have said is that Tom is one of the few if not the only person here who will support Hillary if she is the nominee. I wanted to correct my mistake here in this comment in case someone doesn't finish reading this thread and misses my corrected comment below.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I agree with your post, but I have one correction.
TomP is NOT a Hillary supporter--not even close. That is one of the reasons he is looking for a new home. After reading over this thread, it seems to be quite the tempest in a teapot. I guess every site needs its drama.
You are right. Let me clarify....
He will support Hillary if she is the nominee right after he jumps off a cliff. Thank you for catching that.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
No, dkmich. I will not. I will call rudeness and lack of manners
whether is from Tom, you, Johnny, or the next person who is rude in my vicinity. Reread Tom's comments and see the rude spite for what it is. If you don't check a rude person, they continue doing it.
If you want to smooth the way for Tom to write here, go ahead. I say you make a bad mistake smoothing the waters for a person who demonstrates both pretentiousness and contentiousness. You literally approved the the rude, vile comments Tom made to your best writer, JayRaye. I don't care if he writes like Dickens. If he's rude, he should be called for that.
I will call out rudeness as I have done all my life wherever I have been and whatever the consequence. If you do not want me to call him on his rudeness, kick me out. Now. Your choice. If I can't logon tomorrow, I 'll know your choice. But if I can log in and see Tom being rude, I will call him on it.
Decide, dkmich. And you, Johnny. What kind of site do you want? A place where you'll poo-poo a potential writer's rudeness? Or a place where civility is enforced no matter the member's importance to you?
Good night and good luck.
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
Gerrit...
take a week off, if you want to come back after that that's up to you. Your threats of violence and YOUR rudeness in this thread is way over the fucking top. Take a week off.
Nobody is approving rude comments
to or about JayRaye. I think comments were misinterpreted and tempers flared. No one gave anyone the benefit of a doubt. And even if someone was rude, no one chose to rise above it. I think we all failed in someway in this thread tonight.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Bye. Don't want to play.
You all will do just fine. Good luck.
Just not a good fit. I really appreciate your comment because it helped me see this is not a good fit.
The anger, derision, just like Daily Kos with a different ideology.
Not what I want in my life.
Perhaps the blog will get as big as Daily Kos. Wish you well.
Like JtC, but this convinced me that it is not where I want to be. I'm sure many others will fit right in.
I am sorry to hear this Tom P
We all cannot agree all the time and sometimes we need to just step back a minute before cutting ties.
Peace.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Tom
Please don't be offended. We all have adjustments to make as this site grows. You are a minority here because you are willing to back Hillary if she is the nominee and a minority at top because you support Bernie. Add in that you are new and highly read, and you have a rough road to go.
I've been yelled at a few times here and even called a Republican because of some of my comments. We can't control others or let others control us. I understand how you feel. I hope you'll give the site a chance to learn how to work together with you. The difference between us and top is that we want us to learn to work together.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
No, Tom. You're sulking because you were rude and mean and
I called you on it. You can BS yourself as much as you wish and dress up your pettiness in fine, feathery, laceyness and highfaluting "principles." If you want folks to stroke your ego all day long, you may just have come to the right suckers. But not me, son. I see you for the mean, spiteful person you are. And I'll call you on it whenever you're mean to anyone here long as I'm here. Good day.
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
Damn
Don't walk, Tom.
We all get sideways to each other from time to time, and as for hurt feelings and anger coming out of online interactions, wish I had count of the number of times I've had to take a several-days stroll around the block.
I value your contributions here and elsewhere. Came to this exchange so late I can't even follow what happened here, but we're ultimately all on the same side; don't let's allow our passion and some raised voices to split us.
I'd say the same to the other(s). And someday, someone may need to read the same lecture to me.
Euterpe2
Is being as 'big as' your criteria your only concern?
Ask me you need to start thinking about not what's the biggest but what will facilitate something other then the binary duopoly. Go get your 1000 rec or eyeballs but who gives a rats ass if c99% gets as BIG as dkos, You ought to go back and read your namesake he wasn't into the biggest ever, but worked for the common good.
Tom I think people are
ready to learn more about the Greens or any alternative to the R and D duopoly. My granddaughter voted for Jill Stein in the primary instead of Bernie. She is an indie because when she became eligible to vote it was obvious to her that the system including Obama and the Dems who she enthusiastically supported in 2008 was rigged.
If you base your opinion of what people think or are ready for on the people who are at dkos it gives you a skewed perspective. It is not representative of even the majority of Democratic voters let along the the 'progressive' liberal democratic wing of the party. I would love to read more about the Greens. At this point in time I think many people are interested in figuring another way to get some democratic representation.
I have a neighbor who is a environmental biologist he is a moderate FDR type Democrat. He is not happy with the duopoly either. He says I'm a Democrat in theory. So lots people are ready for new ideas outside and inside of the political establishment. I'm saying the dkos mentality taints your perception as it is conservative. It's whole purpose is to catapult the propaganda and fear so that you believe nothing can be done and your only options are binary.
If you write here about what can be done inside the Democratic party I think that is great. I don't think anyone here is telling you what to write about. If it's important to you to get 1000 eyeballs to fight the authoritarian's at dkos then it is most likely a better place to do that. I guess it depends on where your interest's lie. I think JtC and Joe are saying basically that we do not want to be a blog that is nothing but a anti-dkos or Democratic partisan orientated site. That is not imo limiting at all I find it liberating.
I think you and Phoebe have good points. I think if TOP
continues to support party over principle, it will die. I think this site's mission of exploring principles and issues will make it more interesting. Fealty to party is BORING. IMHO.
OTOH, I don't see any need to burn bridges elsewhere. For those times I want to try to influence that crowd or reach that audience, I'll post there. For those times this audience seems better, I'll post here. Probably I'll do a lot of cross posting until things shake out more.
I can see, though, for example, that your Jill Stein writings might be great and well received content here, but not there. I think there's a lot of interest in Greens here. I saw some concern raised somewhere - it might have been on my Facebook feed or here, I don't remember now - that the Greens are too limited politically, but if they join with progressives for a well-rounded party platform, we might all benefit.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
At best that was just a marketing slogan
as they had the chance to support one of those "better" Democrats but got hung up on labels ("not a real Democrat" and all that).
I'm putting together...
an essay on site statistics as I write this. I'll get it up this afternoon, and even I was surprised by the increase in unique visits for the month of May. Folks are tuning into c99p.
And I think that is very good.
This place has great potential.
Meanwhile...
I got another begging email from TOP, something about can I send them $5. Deleted from spam. I'd remove my email from my UID page there (joined 2004), but I'd have to acknowledge I insulted a newbie by calling him a hill troll for writing a bernie conversion dairy after having joined TOP one week prior. I will not do that.
I think I'm kicking the habit of visiting there, but I do like looking at BNR. When I look at the hillbot comments, which are uniformly vicious, I can't shake the thought that many of these folks are paid operatives, or their UIDs are fake, or that I'm reading propaganda from an eastern soviet satellite.
Anyways, it's a breath of fresh air to visit here, or to stop by the Bernie subreddit, or to visit kossacks for Bernie.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye." de Saint-Exupery
Cool, JtC. nt
That is excellent news! I thought our membership was up
quite a bit; there seems to be more interaction than even a few weeks ago.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Good morning Joe...
thanks for Dreaded Site meta v.4.0.
I have to wonder what our members here that were never affiliated with [cough-cough] that other site, and there are many, think about the constant carrying on here about said other site. It's got to be a turn off for many of them.
morning jtc...
exactly.
i want people to heal, but sometimes i think that the frequent discussions just keep the wounds open. i am hoping to gently nudge people to consider if that is the case.
as my mom used to say, "stop picking at that thing or it will never heal."
I saw a funny cartoon once
It was a tombstone in a graveyard with the epithet "Wouldn't Stop Picking."
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
It can be a turn-off even if you were affiliated to that other
site. May be a comment I made here can somewhat show it. You could have been affiliated with TOP and be turned off by a lot of things for years over there. I was. Realizing that you come here and are "turned off" again by being reminded of what you were "turned off' over there ... heh, I don't want to be called a masochist ... or having Stockholm Syndrome to TOP ... I am not into that.
Ok, I have to stop thinking about it. At least the discussion over the last few days about it helps a lot to get over all the "turn-offs" there are.
We need to turn on to something else.
https://www.euronews.com/live
What's all the hullabaloo?
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. - Friedrich Nietzsche -
I have to do a bit of defending the commentary about TOP
For some it's about working towards "letting go" of 10 years of in segment in what has become a toxic relationship and accepting that no matter what you do "he" is just not into you.... And for SOME (like me) it's about having a window into the whole MEDIA/blog/DNC mindset about having not only a challenger to the rightful "presumptive" standard barer of the establishment but a god damned credible and viable challenger...
Yes there are very worthy ISSUES to discuss but right now none are as important as the issue of top down. VS bottom UP power politics and there IS a coordinated media attack being rolled out against Bernie and US... And it's easy to discuss it in the context of what latests anti Bernie screeds are launched by the grand pooba of the Great Progressive (insert trademark here) website aka GOS.
But it's not just Kos... It gets rolled out In A coordinated daily launch on EVERY democratic blog and it comes out of the mouth of almost every BIG d democratic pundit and politician and this desire to control the message and use media platforms to attack progressives IS worthy of discussion and ridicule and pushback because if we fail to get continue to control our own message we have have to face yet another 4 years of endless talk about all the other important issues and I, for one, am tired of talking. I am ready for action on these issues. I am READY FOR REVOLUTION.
(smile)
Orwell was an optimist
morning knotlookin...
we are not saying that the topic of top is verboten. that's not our style.
we are saying, consider if in attempting to heal, your efforts are causing the wound to remain open. sometimes you have to leave a wound alone for a while and give it time to heal over.
if you are ready to organize for a revolution, then spending a lot of time focusing on some website that most americans have never paid a moment's attention to is counterproductive. just sayin'...
yes, we do need to take on the media - they are a 1% institution that needs a major challenge and the public at large does attend to them (and if the polls are correct, they are largely dissatisfied with the performance of the media). focusing on that would be a worthy endeavor.
Tell me if I understand
cuz I think I get what you're trying to say here, in a way: it's not verboten to talk about it, but reporting every freaking breathless utterance from there is a bit much. Maybe we should think of a possible TOP post as "how important is it, really?" before you post it?
That's another way of saying this, I think:
but I wasn't sure, so I thought I'd chime in (let me know if that helps or if it confuses further). I mean, we know they're not Sanders fans, and we know they're going to excuse Her, no matter how horrible she is. So maybe no, don't be making whole posts about that. If there's an obvious Talking Point of the Day and every blog on the Left jumps on it--and it's utter bullshit--then yes, I'd be the first one to say "Um, NO.... and here's why...."and let's pick it apart and demonstrate why. But this garden-variety focus on this or that person over there seems really a bit much (even if they do deserve it), we're better than that.
I was also kicking it around with someone last week about having a little "corner" here (maybe just a tag is all we need?) to have our grief sessions, so if other people want to avoid it, they can. I know it does bother some--some days it bothers me. Other days, not at all, it's truly a grieving process in some ways. For me, some days are worse than others.
(my two cents, carry on
)
afternoon lunachickie...
you are absolutely barking up the right tree. i want to persuade people to change their focus, i'm not into telling people what to do or how to heal, but i'm not above making pointed observations from time to time.
The idea of a TOP ptsd corner, sounds like a good compromise.
Gives folks who want or need it a place to recover or perseverate, and any of us can go there. Recovery group.
I learned in a high tech company, that forming the anti-company (or anything like it) actually leads to being just like it. So a fair warning here.
Blogs like this one are rare, in that organic development is not only ok but encouraged. We are like old rivers with side channels, short cut streams, sloughs, lakes, and marshes. We just don't have a specific way or necessarily a particular end game.
99%: of, by and for...so far.
Keep the thread, comments and all. We are thrashing but it will settle. Thanks for the place to wind about.
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.
Heh
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. - Friedrich Nietzsche -
I would be interested in this because I have been wondering
lately: Why does every media outlet say the exact same thing about the same stories? I realize they all get an AP feed or what have you, but when everyone at the same time comments, for example, "How terrible, they threw chairs!" when no such thing even happened, it seems there's coordination going on. In that context, then, saying that such commentary occurred at TOP, The Hill, the Daily Beast, etc., or wherever else, might be quite enlightening.
Someone also mentioned that there are sites that appear to have been bought by the Hill group and who are kicking non-Dems off much like TOP did. This is not only interesting, maybe we should go to those sites and offer invitations for the Berners to join us like we have been doing OT!
So mentioning TOP in conjunction with other sites who behave similarly, I think, puts a different dimension on things. As well as keeping TOP in its one-of-many place.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
cost-cutting, laying off reporters & editors, everybody
just printing straight off the wire.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
In celebration of the month ...
... here is a mayapple blossom at the edge of the woods:
This morning woke to the rasping buzz announcing the emergence of the 17-year cicadas in our part of Ohio. There are none by the house as yet, but 17 years ago they were indeed everywhere.
Also heard a turkey gobbling through the open bedroom window. Maybe he was also announcing the arrival of the cicadas.
I feel the need to plant sage.
[Oops ... meant to post this in Hecate's Open Thread ... ah well ... guess it's ok to leave it here. It is kind of meta after all.]
morning pdh...
thank you for that nature moment. it's actually a fitting reminder of things that are important.
99% and candidates?
While I agree it's important to focus on issues that will help the 99%, isn't that going to be difficult without supporting if not endorsing candidates who can help make that possible, at least through November? Isn't the most effective way to change the system is to elect those who are in the game to change the rules? For example, if we want to change the head of the DNC, and I presume most of us here are here for that reason among others as well, and we believe the opponent is one who supports the same ideals we have, why can't we support that candidate and make the case that Caucus99Percent should rally behind him or her? I think it's a legit point to make without this site turing into the authoritarian place that TOP turned into.
morning jumpin j...
despite the best efforts of many people (lots of them on this site) supporting and endorsing candidates for public office has not been an effective strategy for making change in the interests of the 99%.
there has to be something more than that.
that "more than that" is what we need to focus on.
Then what is?
"More than that"? Where and when's the revolution we're waiting for? If we can't put people in power to make the changes that we need, we might as well do a lot of pounding sand. Yes, I understand that maybe there's something cathartic about blogging about the wrongs in the world, and maybe that's what this site is for, but what's the point if we can't support people who want to run for public office and make those changes? I'm not getting it. I'm not being snarky. I honestly don't understand the point.
there are many ways to make change...
not all of which involve election strategies.
the key is to look at a variety of strategies, decide what your strengths and weaknesses are and choose among them.
for instance, most successful revolutions have certain elements - a united class of people, the ability to mobilize large numbers of people in concerted fashion to strategically undermine the power structure (boycotts, strikes, barricades, traffic stoppages, etc.) and in the end, it is usually when the military refuses to do the will of the powers that be that it all ends and power transitions.
short of an actual revolution, there are other ways to exert pressure on a system. culture jamming, media campaigns, pressure groups pestering the hell out of institutions and individual powerful people (politicians, ceo's, etc.) with phone banking/writing/faxing/email campaigns, civil disobedience, protests in the street, and so on.
so, there's some ideas of what "more than that" might entail.
Great stuff this, joe. You're familiar with Adbusters, whose
idea was Occupy Wall Street: http://www.adbusters.org/
Like so very many fine, fine things in life, they're Canadian. They say the Canadian motto, "Excuse me," with much more attitude than folks expect of Canuckistanis :=) Their ideas are highly relevant to these concepts of yours.
You are absolutely right on the issues (heh, heh :=) Above the mug's game of politicking with the elites on their turf - neoliberally transmogrified "democracy" - there are the two issues (just love saying that, I do :=) you identify: a colour revolution, as in the late 80s; and the mass consciousness-raising of your culture jam/NVR stream of actions.
I propose then, that c99 discuss more intentionally the issues of a colour revolution (oh fine, a color one if you wish :=) and of mass consciousness-raising of NVR/culture jamming.
How? Dedicate an OT, perhaps? Do you know who has the heart to write for us on these issues? Did you c99 antiques (um, elders) discuss those issues before the refugee arrivals? Where we at with them?
I could write stuff on nonviolent resistance to domination. It's near to my heart. Except, I'm busier than a one-armed coat hanger at the opera over in resilience. Maybe when we get more resilience writers, I could write a few posts on NVR. How'z that for making work for myself? Let's see.
So, where we at, joe? :=)
Resilience: practical action to improve things we can control.
3D+: developing language for postmodern spirituality.
I appreciate the reply
I guess what I'm saying that along with those tools available for change, all notable and noble, you also mention pressuring politicians. I guess what I'm saying is part of applying that pressure is by having the backs of those who run for our positions and having someone run against them who don't. Until there's a substantial change in the way we run our elections, money talks. A concentrated effort from PACs seem to have some sway. I've been giving money to progressive PACs and have had very informative meetings with politicians. That's when I think they're listening most. It seems to not support candidates here is cutting off your nose to spite your face. There's a lot of people who ran away from TOP because we're looking for an alternative not just for views but people to support.
"The End of the Internet Dream"
was Jennifer Granick's keynote speech at the 2015 Blackhat/DefCon last August. I suggest everyone who once believed in that dream check it out, if you haven't already:
https://backchannel.com/the-end-of-the-internet-dream-ba060b17da61
Only connect. - E.M. Forster
morning dr...
looks interesting, thanks!
In response to just one point from "The End of the Internet"
The Internet will become a lot more like TV and a lot less like the global conversation we envisioned 20 years ago.
Strange. Now, I do not watch television, perhaps in the last two decades some scores of hours. Perhaps the medium has changed, but I do not seem to recall anonymous persons insulting, bullying, and libelling other persons in the television programming which I watched, even on public access cable. I do not recall persons on broadcast television who, visibly under the influence of alcohol, contributed to a "global conversation," or to a coherent conversation of any kind.
I think the Internet is an accurate reflection of humans and their strange behavior, just as the world we live in seems to be, despite the best efforts of many of us.
It seems to me, that any medium where a person can speak his or her mind openly and anonymously represents a step in the right direction. That first step is to expose, once and for all, what and how we think. No masks, except the ones that let us be ourselves.
It could all have been expected, but it is still ugly to see it there, in word and video.
So after two World Wars, genocide, Vietnam, Reagan, and 80s pop bands, we are confronted once again with our own image, and we must come to terms with what we are as a species: greedy, angry, distressed, hateful, fearful, generally messed up, ignorant, and tasteless. Sometimes the positive gets through.
So that is where we are. This revelation which the Internet has wrought may have shocked the person who gave this speech.
The Internet is more a petabyte syllabus for a psych course, the recollection of every horrific memory anyone has ever had, twisted into the expression of the basest instincts of human terpitude.
Again, the age old problem is what we carry around in our heads. We can be different, but if the rest of the world is like me, the half-life of personal transformation is a quantity greater than the natural lifespan.
Peace and love be with you, reader.
yep
Dreamers indeed, those who believed that something created in large part by literally insane people, striving to permit serial killers to communicate with one another after they had cindered the planet, would not become an authoritarian tool, a citadel of onanism, a sewer of hate and disinformation.
she is speaking of structural and where we are going
She comments on content, and we all know, as soon as anybody says anything the first comments are: Wrong, wrong, wrong ...
her points, again, are about the structure (Think: "my store, my rules" becomes "my site, my rules!")
Of course I'm thinking, "Doing the same thing and expecting different results = insanity."
(Corporations made buggys, then corporations built cars, completely different things ... really?
Corporations owned TV stations and corporations own websites, completely different things ... really?
Owners set the rules, control the discussion ... on TV's or websites)
Her point about privacy is relevant. At home, if somebody yelled at a TV program they disagreed with, nothing much happened.
When somebody yells at an article it is forever preserved, and catalogued, etc. etc, and may put that somebody on a no fly list ... So it seems we already have less freedom and privacy than when just watching TV ... even though she just spoke of possibilities, it could seem like things are going backwards. We're doing the same things [embracing private ownership] but getting even worse results [surveillance] so maybe we aren't insane [we're suicidal].
Thanks that was a great read.
Very pertinent to this meta that is not dreaded but welcome. I bookmarked it and will read it when I've got more time.
Pages