NavigationWho's new
|
The latest meme from our librul Brethrenwords by TrueBlueDem posted July 20, 2005 - 12:36pm
"Overturning Roe is somehow a GOOD THING for Democrats..." Perhaps it may be a good thing for some Democrats ie 10% of right wing male Democrats but speaking for myself... it is NOT a good thing. Here is has come up around the blogosphere like mushrooms today... first the acceptance that there is no use in fighting for Roe anymore and that it magically morphs into a "Good thing for Democrats" * Roe Is Gone; Here is What Dems Should Do * Abortion, The Gift to the GOP that Keeps on Givin What do you think is overturning Roe the boon that these men think it will be to the Democratic Party? BREAKING... a new just arrived : Words to "live" by .... from a man who post Tits and Ass pics on the front page of his Blog Pearls of wisdom: I see in Roberts someone who can help Democrats draw clear battle lines for the American public. It'll allow us to define who we are and who they are, and drive home the point that elections do matter, that there really is a difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. This is a huge opportunity, and one I'm confident Democrats in the Senate are taking seriously. oh... that noise you hear are just teenage girls asking their boyfriends to kick them in the stomach so that they can abort... but it is all good in the name of the Democratic Party and more advertising profits. BOY, do I feel Optimistic!!!! BTW: Mr. Life just demoted the Liberal Street Fighter to the common blogroll... perhaps the endorsement of Our Word was too much to handle... some men are just penis-challenged... ( words about: health )
I think it will prove to be very effective (2)
there was a purge... ....so he can utter this garbage and not be confronted on his blog... this is just creepy. Now this is what I call a pussy... (1)
It's a bad habit I'm working on. I'm trying to use Fucktard instead, but its not quite right somehow. We need a new word. Wuss is too close to puss. (1)
 To his credit, he totally backed off as the discussion progressed.
And Scoop is such fucked up software, all the comments are out of order, so it looks like he piped in late, but actually he did not. (1)
that Boo contributed to this. but it is obvious that this was well coordinated... I know we should build a media machine as good or better than the right wing megaphone... but I thought we were to use it against THEM not the women in the party. Just look at Kos's thread and tell me he did not have yes men already lined up to agree with this rubbish... with a few women sprinkled in for good measure. Those who would dare to disagree are not saying anything, since dissent from the Masters Word would be automatic bannishment from the kingdom... Kos is not the Democratis party nor does he speak for the Democratic he is a just private company...that makes money off of the Democratic Party. (1)
 Who said this?? How can this possibly be a Democrat meme? Are the blogger-politicians-in-training going nuts? Do they need to be kicked in the nuts? And what was this "teenage girls asking to be kicked by their boyfriends" business? Am I dumb or do I just not recognize irony? Post a link please, please, TruBlue--I've got to see this for myself. (0)
That inanity came from EdwardsRaysofSunshine. The utter arrogance and cold-blooded attitude of this guy is incredible. To the credit of the community, people disagreeing are getting uprated. But still, what kind of crap is this? (1)
That is their new mantra... Your uterus... or the party We decide because you women are too irrational to make such an important decision... ... fuck that I'll become a Green or a Libertarian... since this is a losing proposition anyway for the Democrats ... might as well go down with dignity...than stupidity. I thought the BIG BATTLE was to be over the SCOTUS nomination... remember all the SYFPH's about Kerry because the only way we could save the SCOTUS was to back a disaster of a candidate... They are getting worse than Rove ...now the goal post has been move to some vague notion that not battling over SCOTUS and giving up Rove is a "WIN"... for some unknown future goal. ... don't think so... (1)
When Winston Smith is tortured by O'Brien in 1984, he is told he must see three fingers raised instead of two in order for the torture to stop. But the logic of the post you refer to is very deja vu. "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." Maxwell Smart said much the same, "we have to torture, kill and lie to preserve our American way of life." At what point is it impossible to tell the pigs apart from the men? "Animal Farm?" (1)
Yeah, I went and checked out the Booman thread and you nailed it so completely--people will die. Period. People will die. More to the point, poor women will die. Poor children will die. My personal meme is that making abortion illegal only makes abortion inaccessible to the poor. The rich and comfortable have always had access to abortion, and that's not going to change. (0)
and so anything we say will fall on deaf ears. (1)
"Words to live by"... no I think he outed himself purposely, now that he has made his coccoon safe from marauding dissenters... (1)
There are some who want to make women's reproductive rights a "far" leftwing-ish issue so I was please to see on the front page of TPM which tends to lean center right an excellent article by Elizabeth Cavendish: Roberts, O'Connor, And Women's Rights http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/20/13140/6867 (1)
in the 70's, seeking to ban federal monies for abortion. Mean old white guy he is too! So, they went after welfare women. An easy get. And it has been on a roll ever since. I just read Guttmacher figures that 1% of abortions are after 24 weeks and 8% are after the first trimestre. In other words, if this were a sane and reasonable nation, it would hardly be an issue. First, the courts will stop overturning the (Republican named) PBA legislation coming out of congress that do not protect the health and/or life of the mother. And then they will go after Roe itself. mY guess 2 - 4 years. One thing that "Centrist" collaborationist Dems do (and they love to do it...) is tell the left we make abortion an issue. WE DON'T, the hard right, christianist/fundie groups do and then the collaborationist Dems co-opt the hard rights's message. Lott is on record saying the Repubs count on the Red State Dems to assist in getting the judges the right wants (Hardball 5/24/05) LOL gotta laugh. Oh btw, I don't watch it closely, but I think LSF was put in "general population" on the Dkos blogroll some days ago, well before the "Salut!" shout out from our pages to yours. ;) No problem... (1)
Oh, Thank You DoP... and Our Word is remarkable, whether just starting the second week or not. ;) (1)
In the original French version of the film Nikita there was a character they called "Le Nettoyeur" - The Cleaner. His job was to come and clean up after a botched missions of the secret agents. Bascially, his job was to clean up the mess they left behind. Like clock work... here comes Le Nettoyeur ....
The mess: (oops...that wasn't suppose to happen)
Smart....? hmmmm....so that is what you call it. (1)
mapping your own anger (or agenda) onto a series of posts that do not necessarily connect, and if read in their entirity, do not convey the messages that you imply are coming from the words of their authors. Kos suggests that we fight Roberts and use that fight to amplify and solidify Democratic positions on abortion, regulation, civil rights, and the role of the judiciary with respect to the interpretation of the constitution. Billmon suggests in the post that you linked that we save our ammunition and perhaps not worry about a political argument about Roberts, but we just smear the hell out of him without getting into a protracted political battle on this particular issue. Smear and run, so to speak. Armando suggests that we fight hard, but rather than fight by direct attacks on Roberts, we fight by attempting to force him out into the open regarding his stances or opinions on specific legal matters, philosophical questions, and questions of law and constitution. Now, whether or not you agree or disagree is not the issue here - I agree with parts and pieces of each of the above, and think that none of them will suffice. But what you are doing is dishonest. (0)
 this attitude, "Overturning Roe is somehow a GOOD THING for Democrats..." is some really cold hearted shit. it's similar in my mind to this reaction to the bombings in London:
women's suffering and death? "Hmmm, time to buy." if any party assumes they can "lock in" my vote this way. they're going to be in for a very rude awakening. (2)
But I find that continued sneering, bashing, and denigrating directed at Kos, at other liberal blogs, and at individuals who post on those blogs to be demeaning, distracting, and divisive. More to the point, I have a hard time believing that you interpreted Marcos' words as the capitulationist rhetoric of a closeted pro-lifer. He is being very clear - Roberts must and should be opposed, and Roberts presents the Democrats with an opportunity to show exactly why and how he should be opposed, and what it is about Democrats that both requires that we oppose Roberts and what it is that separates us from the GOP. Do you have a problem with opposing Roberts? With using Roberts' rhetoric, record, and connections against him? With using those issues as a means of highlighting and amplifying exactly where we stand? Roberts is anti-choice, and we are pro-choice. Roberts is anti-regulation, and we are for strong protective regulation. Roberts is anti-civil rights, and we are pro-civil rights. You may have your problems with Marcos the person, or with Kos, the blog - fine. Stop basing your actions, words, and rhetoric on his work or that blog then. (0)
 reddan, i respect your opinion about kos and recognize your urge to aggressively defend him and his blog at every turn. please note that, imo at least, our word does not exist in relation to kos. this site was not created because of him, nor in spite of him. our word is an entirely new blog created to fill an unfilled need in the blogsphere in general. personally, i'm of the opinion that the less said about kos at this site the better, simply because i don't want this site to degenerate into some kind of kos battleground. that said, many of the women here were treated very badly at kos and at other male dominated blogs. so you will find members here who have formed an opinion of those blogs based on their own personal experiences. and they are as much entitled to their opinions as you are to yours. in making comments like this: More to the point, I have a hard time believing that you interpreted Marcos' words as the capitulationist rhetoric of a closeted pro-lifer. you are doing what exactly what you accuse others of doing: making demeaning, divisive, and distracting remarks. what exactly are you implying with your statement that you have a hard time believing another commenter's opinion? are you implying that the other commenter is lying? saying something she doesn't really believe? everyone here is entitled to their own opinions. if you intend to aggressively counter every criticism of kos at this site, you are free to do so. but please, try to start from a place of assuming that everyone here is speaking their own truth. -a (1)
Let me reword that: I believe that Kos statements are not the words of a closeted pro-lifer. Also, I do not intend to aggressively counter every criticism of kos. I, myself, am often aggressively critical of Kos, of centerist Democrats, and of people who hem and haw about critical, basic issues. I do intend, however, to counter what I see as unfair criticism, and I think that this particular piece is unfair and inaccurate. (0)
thanks for clarifying that statement. i'm not trying to inhibit you from speaking your truth. im just hoping that, when it comes to kos, as in all our discussions here, we can keep the dialog as friendly and respectful of eachother as possible. friendly disagreement is welcome here. we're a new blog and so keeping our friendly tone as we grow is going to be a challenge. i just fear the kinds of kos debates i've seen at other blogs that always seem to wind up like this: kos is this! (1)
I know you are, but what am I!? So there. I fear those kind of Kos debates too. When I first came here, yesterday, I came via MadmanintheMarketplace's recommendation in his diary at Kos. I came expecting to be disappointed, because of the tone of that diary. I was extremely pleased and surprised, to the point that I signed up and started commenting immediately - the site is great, and some of the writing truly excellent. The disagreements with other factions on the liberal/left/progressive/Democratic end of the political spectrum are to be expected, and in my opinion, embraced - we must disagree on things if we are to hash out and understand and move forward toward policy and politics that meet peoples' needs across as broad a swath as possible. The tone, tenor, and style of disagreement that I saw here was, to me, the ideal form. Yes there is some bitterness, and that is understandable...I was angered by the whole pie fiasco myself. I hope that that style continues. (0)
Sorry but... this is not an extension of dKos. If fyou feel it is your mission to stamp out any negative comments about that place ...you have a lifetime's worth of work in front of you. The tone of that place when they disagree with a comment is 100 time worse than anything written here. Not only are they controlling what is being said on that blog but now they are spreading out to other blogs with their billy clubs doing the same... DailyKos is a privately owned company..who happenes to make money off of distributing information about the Democratic Party. He is not a spokeperson for the Democratic party. YEs, he has done some good, but now he is trying to coerce his readers (no longer a community) into a anti-choice DLC bullshit... in order to "win"... I am of the belief that if you fuck over 50% of your base you have already lost... but I am a woman and the "smart" men are making these decisions... People have the right to critize the MSM for it's unfair practices and bias views, so they are not exempt, particulary when they behave like thugs in the blogosphere. So NO I WILL NOT BE MISS NICE GAL... As a Democrat I demand that I have a "say" in my politics and I damn well refuse to be represented by someone who has a picture of a woman in a bikini on their front page next to their commentary that some how oveturning Roe will "help" the Democrats define themselves... utter BULLSHIT. [update] (2)
and I certainly will not stop you from saying it...just as I will not remain silent if I disagree or feel that you are being unfair or illogical. If this site (or your work) is not an extension of dKos...then stop talking about dKos, stop basing your posts on what happens at dKos, stop responding to what dKos has to say. Say what YOU have to say, and don't fall into the reactive trap of basing a large portion of your work on responses to the work of people you apparently distrust and despise. "They" are hardly controlling what is being said on that blog...just give a glance at the diaries and at the comment threads, and you will find a huge variety of people with perspectives all over the map...and not a banning to be seen...unless you are peddling conspiratorial lunacy about pods on planes or Blair/Bush conspiracies to bomb the Tube to bump approval ratings or something. I think your description of dKos is flat wrong. I do not think I am being coerced, nor have I ever. I do not think that DLC propaganda or anti-choice propaganda is at the core of the discussion there, not at all. I have never felt uncomfortable disagreeing with any of the frontpagers or with Kos, nor have I been particularly silent about it when I do. I take exception to your saying that it is no longer a community, and disagree very strongly. That's pretty much all I have to say on the subject. I agree with the core politics you espouse, absolutely agree that Choice is a human right, that the DLC are a bunch of goons, that pissing off 50% or more of the base and being noodle-spined losers is bad for the Democratic Party...but I do not agree with your take on Kos. And I would appreciate it if blanket condemnations and casting of aspersions did not make up a large part of the discussion. (-1)
If this site (or your work) is not an extension of dKos...then stop talking about dKos, stop basing your posts on what happens at dKos, stop responding to what dKos has to say. Say what YOU have to say, and don't fall into the reactive trap of basing a large portion of your work on responses to the work of people you apparently distrust and despise. Frame it as a madwoman gone wild, if it makes you happy... but as long as the MSM see his blog as the pulse of the blogsphere I will make them aware that there are many more points of views out here... he can't purge the entire blogoshere as easily as he purged his blog. (1)
as long as she states her opinion and is willing to back it up with facts she can say anything about Dailykos she pleases, as far as im concerned. and im a policewoman on this beat. (1)
... Trust me, I will never be as disrespecting as those on the blog in question... even their "loyal friends" aren't immune to the smart man's trantrums (1)
Have you been taking Rovian classes... saying the opposite of what is true as a fact. Like when Republicans say the war in Iraq is a "catastrophic success"... (1)
let's go. You want to come off all holier than thou? You want to start accusing people of conspiracies and intimating that a cabal of operatives are coordinating and colluding to silence activists, to control and muzzle partisans, to exclude or expunge inconvenient "radicals"? You call yourself a radical? You think your shit don't stink? You think your way is the only way, to the point where my disagreement with you get's me called "Rovian"? Well bullshit all over that, sister. Let me tell you what I think. I think that immature, selfish, spoiled attitudes, "my way or the highway," or "I know better than you and if you disagree with me you are a tool of the powers that be" or any permutation thereof have been and continue to be the bane of the left. I think you cannot stand disagreement. I think you cannot countenance the fact that others hold different opinions from you, to the point where you call them traitors, lackeys, fools, or tools if we dare argue with you. I look at that thread you pointed out as "evidence" and I see a good post by the author, with a title that has poorly thought out implications. I see Armando losing his temper and being stubborn, as usual, and a lot of people, new and old kossacks, taking him to task for it. I see a lot of people trying to figure out the best way to fight and the best timing and the best strategy. I see a lot of agreement, disagreement, and pain. I see a lot of folks trying to figure out ways to piece the puzzle together, how to link Roberts to Rove to Bush to Iraq to DSM. What I see over there on that thread is a free-for-all, with a bunch of snarky sarcasm and shit-stirring on the part of people who make the same bullshit accusations you make. And you want to call me Rovian? Bullshit. How dare you? (0)
This is too perfect to be true... Your entire comment sums up my feeling about the DailyCog
Thanks could not have said it better myself... and here is the proof (1)
then stephdray would be banned, purged or zeroed out of existence, now wouldn't she? If it were proof, then all who agreed with her or recommended her diary would be purged and/or "brought to heel" by the "rulers," now wouldn't they? If it were proof, then people, seeing that the "amazing Armando" was taking offense at stephdray's post, would immediately fall into line and shout in chorus-like harmony that stephdray was a bad progressive and should be ashamed of herself, now wouldn't they? If it were not proof of what you say, then Armando would not be getting hammered into small pieces by a large group of long-time members, and getting downrated in the process, eh? Seems to me that your "proof" lies more in you reading your anger (which I think is in part justified, by the way) into every piece of writing that comes down the pike from any part of the crowd that you are angry at. Your anger may be in part justified, but just because it is does not justify broad-brush slams, unfair attacks, and wilfull misreading twisted to make a point that it simply does not make. Nor does it justify calling people who disagree with you "Rovian"... (0)
six months ago that blog would have been flaming with contempt for this nominee but subsequent purges have left that place sterile and fearful... if they can treat a longtime loyal diarist like shit, you don't have to imagine what they would do to ordinary folk... you don't have to imagine because they have already done it. Pie fights and purges have left their mark... the rule is to agree with the management or suffer the consequences of being pummelled by the frontpagers... Hey that is cool, this is a private company and he is paying for the servers. But let's not kid ourselves that he is an official of the Democratic party. (1)
The thing that drives me nuts, that makes me blow my cool, is that I agree with the vast majority of the people who post here on the vast majority of the issues. But I do not agree with either the reasoning or the tactics that lead to the bashing of entire communities. And I will not stand by and get called "Rovian" without responding in kind. I will attempt to control my heat in the future. Apologies again. (0)
I've said this before on LSF. I'm sure you would have the good taste not to ask blksista to "find the good" in David Duke. I'm sure you aren't over at kos talking about Our virtues. I'm sure you aren't at kos, pointing out the good of the freepers, so please extend us the same courtesy. Pro-lifers, pleople who want State instituted control of women's bodies are not our friends. (1)
sure you're free. please heed the mission statement. and there is an open season around here on... any topic under the sun!!!! even DailyKos!!!!! :::SHOCK AMAZEMENT! faint and fall over:::: ::cough cough:: (1)
Look around... I find interesting the Maryscott has not written ONE WORD about the SCOTUS nomination... this is the woman who has told the world how she will fight to the death to protect Roe... not one word. swearing and cursing does not make a liberal...action does... There is a blackout going on orchestrated by someone... Armando and Kos are saying that it is SMART not to get riled up over SCOTUS nominee while at the same time Al From of the DLC says: Democrats need to be careful not to focus too much on hounding Mr. Rove at a time when voters know too little about what their own party stands for. If Democrats are "smart", they also will avoid copying Rove's strategy of polarization, using controversial issues to whip up support from a loyal base of voters. All of these "smart" men who keep us losing... Meanwhile back at the ranch Dem Senators surrender filibuster on Roberts and the those same irrelevant DLC Dems who caved in on the filibuster have just publically announced that they will not seek to filibuster Roberts. So that at this point Kos can fuck himself or Armando if that is his preference... he should change the name of his blog to DailyCog as in a cog in the wheel of the DLC/NDN machinery. Now they will spin this, as a win just like Kos spinned the caving in of the filibuster as a win... then by next week he will be begging for money... so Dems can "win"... perhaps he will throw a fundraiser for Casey because it will show the Democrats can be winners... (1)
Nonpartisan promoted by MSO, with the little phrase "Veni, Vidi, Vichy" in the promotion coment. Maybe MSO is a bit busy trying to get her shit together? Maybe she doesn't operate on your schedule? (0)
I just think it is interesting... in fact none of the front page gals have written anything... and the one loyal diarist who did was shot down... (1)
people are taking their time, processing the information, looking into facts, figures, and background, trying to get their ducks in a row, and trying to write the best pieces that they can write? Have you considered that people are maybe trying to spend some time working on this a bit before they step fully into the fray? Have you considered that not everyone is willing or able to write what you want them to write as soon as you want them to? (0)
this site is hardly basing a large portion of its work on reacting to kos or anyone else. neither is trueblue. it is, however, perfectly appropriate now and then for members to take a look at the larger blogosphere and give their impressions. frankly blanket condemnations and casting of aspersions about kos is minimal here. and when it happens we certainly talk about kos in a much nicer tone than those at the kos site talked about many of our members. (1)
Perhaps you see it as you mission to protect Kos's privately-owned company (Redstate.org is a 502) from bad publicity that is your perogative. However, as you see this diary did not start off with that intention. I saw across the blogosphere strange articles and commented on them. Only after did I see Kos's manefesto that this would somehow "help Democrats define themselves"... what ever that means... and I updated at the end. Frankly, I think that this site would becoming too boring if it were just an anti-Kos site. But that being said you are a fool if you think I or others here will not bring him to the carpet if we percieve that what he is spouting will ultimately hurt women. It is my belief that overturning Roe will kill women... so they.. and you... can just have as many temper tantrums as you wish... so be it. Anyway, it seems that Joe "Freddo" Lieberman and the DLC has already made up the decision for the entire Democratic party by annoucing that there will be no filibuster... (1)
to protect kos. I agree that overturning Roe will kill women, and will oppose Roberts to the fullest extent of my limited abilities. I agree that Joe Lieberman, Al From, Peter Beinart, and ... Hillary Clinton throwing Roe and womens' right to choose out the window in favor of trying to continue failed triangulation policies is crazy, immoral, anti-woman, and electoral suicide. I absolutely agree that kos, armando, and anyone else should be brought on the carpet... Where we part ways is here: I do not think your means of doing so is effective, fair, or particularly accurate. That's all. Peace. (0)
If you say your mission is not to protect Kos. But from my own observation of your postings here and elsewhere you certainly DO seem highly invested in trying to control the dialogue about Kos and his site on other websites. You certainly do have the right to state your own optinion here. But unless you've taken over ownership of this site since I was last here, you do NOT have the right to "tell" anyone else here what they should or should not think, feel, interpret or how they express themselves here. This thread holds many examples of you assumning the right to do this. This is an example of the agressive, controlling communication style that usually produces one of two reactions from woman. (and the majhority of the poeple here are women, as you well know. ) a) It can silence many women. This is the knd of authoritarion communication style most of us have lived with for years of being "told" (by men) what we are "allowed" to think, say, feel, and is intimidating to many. Others of us are just so sick of hearing it we just walk away from places where we are still subjected to it. b) It absolutely infuriates women who have plain had a belly full of being talked down to by males who seem to assume they have the right to judge and grant (or not grant) validity, to what we think, feel and say, and to "admonish and correct us," when, in their superior opinion, we go off base in our thinking. Men who choose NOT to believe us when we tell them this is disrespectful and condescending as HELL, beause THEY don't see it as such. So. Yes, you can choose to stay here and continue to evaluate and judge our postings to see if they measure up to YOUR standards for fairness to Kos and co: you can certainly choose to continue to "inform us" when you think we are "wrong" or off base, and you can continue to try to tell us how we should think, act and express outselves. But do so with the clear awareness that all you are likely to accomplish is to a) silence many women who would otherwise be posting here, and/or b) be stirring up a hell of a lot of anger and disruption on a brand new website a lot of us care a whole lot about and have worked hard to establish. In that case, as one of the founding member here, I will be forced to see you as unwilling to abide by the mission statement we have posted. OR. We could use this experience together, to enter into a constructive dialogue about the differences and barriers in communication styles between male and females are the reason we end up like this so often, and see if theres something we could all learn from it, that just might convince us we could someday STOP falling into this same goddamned pothole! I feel another diary coming on. (1)
I really would, and I would love to stop falling into the same pothole, too. I am all ears. Let me be very clear - again - I am not, by any means, trying to say that kos is sacrosanct, that kos is always right, that ANYONE is always right (especially not myself, much as I would wish it were so!), all I am trying to do is to plead with people to separate criticisms of particular people from criticisms of particular stances or statements from criticisms of groups. I have strong criticisms of all the people and groups we are talking about. I just really, really, want to see those criticisms separated out, evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and not lumped into a massive condemnation of huge groups of people, or extended, unfairly in my opinion, to cover all the actions taken or words spoken by one individual. I do realize that cultural, gendered, socialized, regional, ethnic, and religious styles of communication differ. I do realize that I have my own, and that it often clashes with others, and that my hackles are often raised by different communication styles. I am working on it. (0)
how much more clear can that be. What other "progressive" do you see touting the virtues of overturning Roe next to a picture of a woman in a bikini. If I wanted that I'd have my local mechanic speak out on my behalf to save my reproductive rights. If he were a two bit nobody I wouldn't give a damn how many pinups of girls in bikinis he posted on his site, or his ill logical rants on the Democratic party defining itself in the ashes of Roe. But now that he has the ear of several congress people I want it to be clear that his "opinions" are not necessarily the opinions of the grassroots nor the blogosphere. He started off well and I give him Kudos for cheerleading and fundraising... but this latest bullshit has to be checked even more so because he banned anyone who disagreed with his facile notions of Democracy. (2)
Do I think that kos' opinions on a variet of topics, including womens' basic human rights are a bit backwards and poorly thought out? I most certainly do. I disagree with a lot of his takes on abortion, on choice, on fiscal issues, on military issues. However, I do not think he wants to see Roe overturned. I do not think he wants to see the court stacked with conservative idiots. He has never touted the virtues of overturning Roe. He has tried to mesh his personal (and in my opinion poorly thought out and poorly expressed) discomfort with the issue with his poltical outlook regarding freedom, human rights and privacy. I think that your intent to make sure that Kos is not the only voice heard from this side of the blogosphere is absolutely, totally, and without question laudable, and I support that entirely. I, for one, completely agree that there is no single, lone voice that should or can represent the grassroots or the blogosphere, and absolutely want to see more widely diverse and broadly varied voices carried to the ears of the denizens of the halls of power. I am, as I said before, not so sure that the banning you are talking about occurred - I know that there were some seriously crazy people blaming the London Tube bombings on a Blair/Bush/Israeli plot. That stuff was and is nuts, and I do not think there is any problem with banning that...I am not aware of anyone who was banned for other stuff. (-1)
Who congregates thousands of people and then preforms an armpit fart concert. That's how I feel about it now. Its just bizarre. (1)
I only note that odds are there are one or three women here who've been banned from dKos due to the pie fight. I don't know who they are, they expressed it in an email circle which I am not going to go dig up. There were quite a few, and I assume one or more have signed up here. So crowing about the virtues of that site or its leadership is going to fall on some deaf ears. I'm also glad that you're working on your debating style. One of the gendered things I've noticed online is that many men assume the roles both of advocate and judge when it comes to discussing issues, and start passing judgment and correcting others -- especially women, especially when it comes to women's experiences. I would hate for that to happen here. (1)
there were no bannings that came about as a result of the pie fight -- rather that the people who left did so voluntarily and in disgust. Is my impression inaccurate? (-1)
 I realize you're upset and angry but I think your post is unnecessarily insulting. I also was under the impression that no bannings occurred then and would find it most upsetting to know otherwise, although sadly maybe not surprising. You don't need to prove it to me, but I don't think asking the question is deserving of a smackdown. (0)
A site to "help" men. This is a site for women. He is posturing as though we are supposed to "prove" things to master. Pulease. (1)
I understand tempers ran hot. I hate to see that as much as anyone. But to be fair, I already made the statement, to which the response, "Is this really true? I'd like to know," tends to question my veracity or competence, when a simple, "I did not know that. I'd like to hear more about that, if anyone is willing to share," would have sufficed. This isn't to pick on RedDan. A lot of people do it when exchanges become so rapid they're almost like colloquial verbal exchanges. I do it. "So and so did X." "No! Really? I can't believe that!" It works in a casual conversation, but on discussion boards it's easy for words to be taken the wrong way. Anyway, I like to think that nobody is beyond learning. And I'd like to think that we can get past the personal here and move on. Our Word is bigger than all of us, but it's still a babe, and we all set the tone. /schoolmarm speech (1)
If I understand what you're saying, honestly it worries me. I'm often not that careful about what I write. Partly because I tend to write quickly and partly because I don't write well. I don't want to feel that I need to write a page of disclaimers every time I write a question and I'm a little concerned that I might have to in order not to offend others. I like people. I've never met someone who I didn't think had something to teach me. And when I question people it comes from a genuine curiosity. And when I debate/discuss something with someone, it's because I respect that person enough to think that it's worth my time to discuss something with them. Honestly, I'm freaking out a little at the thought that this is a toe the line kind of place. Not that it necessarily is, but there's that little voice inside of my head warning me that it could be. Don't ask, don't question, don't disagree, attack the acceptable targets, don't attack the unacceptable targets. I came in with a lot of preconceived notions and that is totally my fault. Perhaps I just built it all up in my mind to such an extent there was no way the reality could come close. But still I want that ideal. (0)
and I don't think anyone wants people to toe any line in particular. To me, courtesy and respect are all that's asked. Anyone can fly off the handle. But anyone can back off and apologize if she or he was out of line. Things will sort out. We're still sorting out what this place is becoming. All of this is a part of it, including your response here. I for one appreciate it and hope you will continue. (1)
I didn't think you were scolding anyone. In fact, I think your responses have been wonderful.
Part of my concern is that I don't see "Is this really true? I'd like to know" as questing someone's veracity. And
doesn't strike me as demanding proof. Add that to the poll "When will men STFU and listen?" and the diaries and comments which seem so anti-man at times and I become concerned that instead of being a positive force for women that this may be just a safe place to bash men. I don't want that and can't take another site which has that same tone only focused at a slightly different target. I'm sorry for digressing so much in this diary. My apologies for that to TrueBlueDem. Is there another place where this can be discussed? (0)
Put up a diary about your concerns. In the left hand column click "Post Your Words" and then make a selection. (1)
I don't always respond appropriately. I would agree with your interpretation of that one comment out of context, but in the context of an exchange that crossed 2 or 3 threads, I did not take it as such. In fact, I took it as once again what I said was not good enough. At the time, I just left it at that. If others wanted to speak up about it, that was their own decision. I wasn't going to go naming names, and did not see the point of saying, "Yes, it's true" (or a sarcastic, "No, I'm lying." Also, just because I'm helping to facilitate the site's software etc., I don't want anyone to think that means I'm cast in the role of judge or major representative of Our Word. I'm just expressing my own views here, and hope they are taken as that -- just my own views. I share your interest. I want Our Word to be a positive force. And the more we get distracted by negative voices from outside or within, the more we hurt ourselves. We create our own reality here. If we don't like it, it's up to us, all of us, to change it. That's my own view on it. I hope others agree. ...and I hope you will start up a new blog on this question, Liberalpalooza. Your voice has been an important one since the initial gestation of the idea that a site perhaps such as this might exist. I think it would be a great topic, and I hope many here would jump in there. (1)
RedDan I believe you are willing to working on avoiding the pothole. See the dairy that just went up. You write: >>I just really, really, want to see those criticisms separated out, evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and not lumped into a massive condemnation of huge groups of people, or extended, unfairly in my opinion, to cover all the actions taken or words spoken by one individual. (1)
OK..I hear what you would like to see here, in terms of how discussion of Kos and co is conducted. I DO hear you. But the flat out fact is you cannot FORCE this to be how it's done here, or anywhere else. No matter how many different ways you say it, no matter how hard you try, you cannot force your way of doing things on anyone else. This is a very forceful and controlling type of communication style, and is not going to be well recieved by anyone who doesn't intend to allow themselves to BE controlled by you or by anyone else. It also creates so much defensive "static" your genuine message gets drowned out by it. Most women just do not share, embrace OR enjoy the "argue and debate type" adversarial tyope of communication that is so common and comfortable to so many men. In other words, it ain't workin here, pal! ONward! scribe (1)
» "The latest meme from our librul Brethren"
|
Recent comments
1 year 17 weeks ago
1 year 17 weeks ago
1 year 17 weeks ago
1 year 17 weeks ago
1 year 17 weeks ago
1 year 28 weeks ago
1 year 42 weeks ago
1 year 46 weeks ago
2 years 5 weeks ago
2 years 10 weeks ago