So, I guess you only want to talk to people who agree with you

[boston bean]

Traditional greeting of people really pissed off you don't agree with them...

I see this ALL OF THE TIME. It gets trotted out the second someone with privilege feels you are not being appropriately deferential to their opinions. It takes remarkably little to spur this accusation because it comes from people who feel remarkably entitled to get their way and see any impediment as an act of oppression and totalitarianism.

What really sucks for them is that sometimes they are right. And so what?

So what if people just want to talk to people who agree with them? So what if people want to talk about their beliefs with those they can gain emotional and intellectual support from? How is that the greatest crime ever visited upon someone? What these people are really saying is “So, I guess you don’t want to put up with my constant derailment, auditing of your beliefs, and demands that you justify your existence!”

No one has any obligation to make social justice easier for you. No one has any obligation to hold your hand. And especially no one has any obligation to suffer constant nitpicking and recriminations from people who love accusing others of acting in bad faith almost as much as they love acting in bad faith themselves.

Read the rest here... good read!

http://red3blog.tumblr.com/post/50525262754/i-see-this-all-of-the-time-it-gets-trotted-out?utm_source=feedly

[tblue]

1. So if I disagree with this op

is that okay?

Not saying I do disagree, but still.

[zerosumgame0005]

35. here on DU

they mostly hide the ones they don't like

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. Seriously?

Seriously?

The only value of an opinion is the degree to which it is defensible. But thanks for posting it here where it can be shot down as self-indulgent tripe.

Pro tip: the opportunity to post your opinions in an ideologically enforced echo chamber while simultaneously congratulating yourself for it... is privilege.

"Intellectual support". That phrase doesn't mean what you think it does.

[BainsBane]

18. Pot-kettle-black

You've got your own group.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. self delete

self delete

[BainsBane]

28. I have nothing to do with blocking people

Nothing.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Apologies

I thought you were BB.

[BainsBane]

31. In fact

I expressed concern over the matter, but I'm not a host and the decisions aren't mine to make.

[BainsBane]

32. apology accepted

thanks.

[Occulus]

43. ^ THIS ^

[graham4anything]

3. on a democratic site,that supports Pres. Obama, I would expect the people to support the president

yet since before inuguaration 2009, whining is common place with JUST this president
and never in the history of the country any other.

but, is this meta?

[magellan]

37. Expectations are nice. As long as you don't expect others to live up to them.

DU came into existence after Bush** was selected. Since it hasn't been around for any Democratic President but Obama, it's a given that any DUer who has a criticism of Obama would be criticizing a Dem President on DU for the first time.

Outside of election time, criticizing the Dem President is okay per DU rules. Whether you and others like it or not.

[hobbit709]

54. a little quote for you

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

[graham4anything]

56. teddy roosevelt was talking about drones when he said"Walk softly & carry a big stick"

and note I am surprised someone would quote a 1% person born in a dynasty family

in your quote please note-

nothing is said about slander and nothing is said about abuse, which is what the vast majority of so-called criticism consists of these days.

this part was said by someone unknown I did not write it.

President Obama has not made one mistake, therefore there is nothing for him to take back
When the media get elected president then they have the right to do something different.
Until then, glad I am on the side of 95% of the democratic party
and am part of the 80 too.

Note in my top 5 presidents of all time, teddy Roosevelt doesn't appear.

1 Lincoln
2 FDR
3 LBJ, though LBJ and FDR are interchangeable
4 Obama
5 Jimmy Carter(because of the 2 1/2 years in American history where people and times were some of the best.

I don't figure Teddy Roosevelt even to make the top 10.
But I do like Woodrow Wilson much better, though I don't have him in the top 5 due to his racism.

but here is a good quote from the legendary super great Woodrow Wilson, which I take to apply to Barack Obama-(but then lots of haters in politics hated Wilson too, the Bush family for one).

You are not here merely to make a living. You are here to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, and with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world. You impoverish yourself if you forget this errand.
Woodrow Wilson

[hobbit709]

57. Once again you change the subject. You're incabable of responding directly to a post.

[MNBrewer]

63. Nobody complained or whined about Clinton on DU when he was president? Oh, right.

Maybe it's that Obama is the ONLY Democratic president to hold office during the time that DU has been operational. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Underground

[AnotherMcIntosh]

76. You've got it wrong. On a Democratic site, you can expect posters to support Democratic principles.

[Major Nikon]

4. If you never hear any dissenting voices, how do you know when you're wrong?

The idea that those who value dissenting opinions are always privileged totalitarian oppressors is ridiculous. Those people hate dissent in all forms and quite commonly seek out echo chambers.

Echo chambers are magnets for egocentrics.

Just sayin'

[boston bean]

6. Shining example. Thank you! nt

[Major Nikon]

8. If you want to pin that on me, you'd best pack a lunch

The only time I ever claim anyone else is wrong is when I can provide absolute proof that they are factually wrong. I'm quite careful about such things. I'm also quite certain that I've been wrong in the past and I will be wrong again in the future and am always mindful of it which is why I value the opinions of those who are capable of civil dissent even if I often disagree with them. So good luck finding examples relevant to me.

Meanwhile one doesn't have to look very hard to find relevant examples to support my assertion. No other group on DU has anywhere close to the number of bans.

Your reply is little more than a repackaged version of the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" line.

Just sayin'

[CokeMachine]

10. There's another group that is getting close and

it's only been around a couple of months.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1262

[Major Nikon]

11. I'm not familiar with the group

But when dissent is crushed, no matter how slight, it kinda makes you go, hmmm....

[Electric Monk]

12. That list should actually be shorter, since some of the Gun Trolls on it have since been banned.

eg
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=281620&sub=trans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=298824&sub=trans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=303452&sub=trans

As to the rest, it's just a matter of when

[Major Nikon]

14. Yes, just a matter of when they carry enough water for the NRA and ALEC

[BainsBane]

33. all completely justified

That group as a very clear SOP. Those banned members were clearly in opposition to the reason for the existence of the group.

[MADem]

51. No comparison--four is not thirty two. nt

[CokeMachine]

73. Huh??

I believe we are taliking about blocked posters not Hosts. Did I miss something

[MADem]

75. Did I miscount from the wrong list? nt

[hack89]

82. They have blocked 25 posters. nt

[MADem]

83. Well, that's way more than four.

The bottom line is, though, that groups can do what they want. They are their own little fiefdoms, and it's either follow their TOS or risk the boom being lowered. They aren't democracies in that regard--they are meeting places for "like minded" people, and anyone who doesn't think like the membership can and often is excluded. That's just how it works. The admins aren't likely to get involved with host overreach, if that is alleged, either, unless the situation gets broad-brushed or dire. These are self-regulating entities. I would suggest that the people who are blocked just trash the group and move along.

[hack89]

86. Groups like that don't bother me - they bore me.

in many cases it simply turns that particular group into a sterile echo-chamber with no real discussion.

[BainsBane]

19. You banned me

So I don't think you're in a position to cast aspersions on others' asparagus.

[Major Nikon]

22. I'm not sure how you get there

Because at the time of your banning you were either in first or second place (I don't remember which), on the top number of hides in 90 days for all of DU. You've also managed to get one of your socks banned. You pulled a flameout and bragged about it immediately afterwards (with surprisingly little sympathy).

I'm not so sure the proof you provided is on solid ground. You're also the only one I ever have banned and likely ever will assuming Iverglas doesn't pull a phoenix trick.

Cheers!

[BainsBane]

29. Oh, so you banned me

because Skinner didn't tombstone me? I recall my crime was proposing a cease fire.

[Major Nikon]

34. I forgot

It's never your fault.

Pardon me.

I love asparagus, btw.

[BainsBane]

36. So you did ban me for that reason or you don't remember?

Why you banned me?

I'll have you know you are in the presence of a DUzy award winner
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022861570
You should be humbled.

Besides, you strike me as more of bitter greens kind of guy.

Though I can't deny I myself love a bit of arugula, preferably without aspersions.

[Major Nikon]

38. Neither

I have a bathroom wallpapered with Duzy's, btw. Series.

I'm also a big fan of greens, but they can't transform my chamber pot into a flask of perfume.

Cheers!

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Yeah, asparagus is funny that way.

No hiding that one.

[BainsBane]

44. eggs are the worst

just saying.

[Major Nikon]

47. Believe it or not my farts smell like potpourri

But I am NOT giving the secret to that one out.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. A one! A two! A one-two-three-four!

[Warren DeMontague]

40. bitter greens do have lots o' vitamins.

And I'm not talking about the people who are still mad that Nader didn't win in 2000.

Sauteed? With a bit of lemon afterwards? Good stuff.

And I'm not talking about the people who are still mad that Nader didn't win in 2000.

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. If you'd like to be unbanned, ask. n/t

[sufrommich]

52. Oh please, there are some DUers who love to

troll HoF, in fact it was quite fashionable when feminist were being attacked in Meta to get banned from HoF and then brag about it in Meta. That banned list includes many DUers who show up in every thread that hints of feminism, now banned "shit stirring trolls" and someone's sock named stepfordwife.com who's only contribution to DU so far is 3 nasty posts in HoF.
"No other group has close to the number of bans", the Obama group has 43 DUers banned,for the same reason HoF does, there are some people who cannot resist the urge to troll.

[Major Nikon]

55. I'm not sure you've paid much attention to what constitutes a banable offense over there

One comment regarding the nature of echo chambers:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=21697

Sarcasm which was identified as sarcasm:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=21921

Daring to argue with a HoF regular (this one is quite popular):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=20108

Making a relevant point:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=19759

These are just the most recent examples. I could go on, but you get the idea.

"shit stirring troll" /= everyone who dares to disagree. There's a considerable difference between banning trolls and creating an echo chamber. Seeing as how one of the hosts is defending the later in this very thread, it seems as if it's the more likely of the two.

Now if they want an echo chamber (and evidently they do), that's fine, but the claim that everyone or even the majority of those who have been banned qualified as troll seems pretty weak. Keep in mind also that it's great sport over there to hurl rocks at others from behind a wall of their protected group from which the target can't cross.

Just sayin'

[hobbit709]

64. Wasn't someone banned from there that had never posted there?

One would think that you would at least be allowed to open mouth and insert foot before being banned.

[Major Nikon]

66. I don't know that to be true

But if it is I wouldn't be all that surprised as it's only a small step from what I know to be true.

[BainsBane]

78. Who?

[BainsBane]

77. Insisting he should be able to call women

"bitches" certainly is a banable offense. In fact some of those people have since been PPr'd from DU entirely. Your ban of me was every bit as trivial. http://www.democraticunderground.com/11147524#post38
So again, pot-kettle-black, asparagus aspersions and all.

[Major Nikon]

79. You really should give it a rest

Your reputation doesn't do much for your argument. You are an abrasive person who never takes responsibility for your own actions. You're excuse for racking up 12-13 hides in a short period of time was that it was the fault of those who alerted on you. You got a sock puppet account banned for circumventing the alert restrictions. You then claimed the account was for reading blocked posts, even though it had 19 posts of it's own and your explanation hardly explained why you were using it to alert.

You purposely flamed out in the men's group by going there and insulting all of its members. Now you want to claim your banning was due to a different post, even though the explanation for your banning was included as a reply to the post which got you banned. Now claiming it was over another post where you imagine yourself as a minister of peace and understanding seems more than just a bit disingenuous.

It's already been explained to you in great detail why you got banned. If you can't figure it out, that's hardly my fault. This will be my last post to you on this matter as you've already been given far more explanation than you ever deserved. If you want to be reinstated in the men's group, apply via DU mail to one of the hosts and you'll almost certainly be reinstated, provided you can agree not to repeat your past behavior. However, your usual routine of claiming everything is never your own fault really just doesn't help much as it's easily debunked. Trying to play out your own personal drama queenery in a public forum doesn't seem to be doing you much good.

Just sayin'

[BainsBane]

80. Let's clarify

Insisting all women are "bitches" is perfectly fine, and to ban someone for that is trivial, whereas suggesting that certain members of a group find something to do with their time other than gossip about other DUers and call other members out in threads in which they are not participating (even though it was a clear violation of rules on DU2) constitutes an attack on the character of those members, unlike your own post above--the only purpose of which is to attack my character and stir up shit. All the while criticizing others for trivial banning. Really? And then there was this gem of yours referring to other members as "batshittery."

You do know the stuff about the sock isn't your concern?. That is the administrators decision to take action on, not yours. Your reference to my transparency page is gratuitous. I did not once have a post hidden in your group. That history bears no relation on your group, other than it was one of its many topics for gossip. Until of course you decided to take a break to ridicule rape victims. I clearly fall short in character for not finding amusement in ridiculing victims of violent crime. I must seek to improve my character until I become so enlightened. For the record, I have not had a post hidden in 50 days and .14% of my posts have been hidden.

I will keep in mind that in the future if I want to behave properly according to your standards I should instead find a sexist insult to put down all men. Unfortunately, no such word exists in the English language. Perhaps you can suggest one? Shall I instead opt for "batshit," as you refer to women on this site? So I am truly sorry that I suggested you abide by the terms your own group agreed to when I should have followed your own example and hurl insults, and ridicule rape victims, since that is what passes as acceptable behavior for you.

Your obvious hatred of me is no way justifies your continual badgering of Boston Bean and other HOF members (though we do share the collective crime of being born with xx chromosomes) for banning members when you do the exact same thing yourself, not just of me but others too and for reasons no more serious. The only reason you haven't banned more is because so few participate there. Your group's participation: 506 (30 days) 8,582 (year) vs. HOFs, 1,561 and 22,377. That may have to do with the fact HOF discusses actual issues.

Given the venom with which you address me, it is clear there would be no point of requesting to be unbanned. But if you think you can use GD to wag your finger at others without being called out when you have done the same, you are mistaken.

I understand you love nothing more than to lecture others. It is unfortunate, however, that you feel absolutely NO responsibility to abide by the terms for which you condemn others.

Just saying.

[snooper2]

85. BainBain!

[sufrommich]

87. .........

Anybody who bothers to compare HoF and the men's group will see that the Men's Group's obsession with HoF rivals the Conservative Cave's obsession with DU, even with the Men's Group usual heavy editing to wash away their too obvious biases.

[redqueen]

91. [phone]

[Major Nikon]

92. Well certainly if it weren't for the men's group nobody would have a beef with HoF

So you make a brilliant point here.

Furthermore the reverse is certainly not true.

[BainsBane]

93. No, but if not for HOF

there would be virtually no threads in the coffee klatch.

[Major Nikon]

94. Sounds a bit like delusions of grandeur

Not everything is about you and your own coffee klatch. I'm sure this seems hard, if not impossible, for you to believe.

[opiate69]

96. Ah, but you see...

the "stuff about the sock" is everybody's concern... it speaks directly to your integrity, and your methods of dealing with things which you find objectionable about DU, and as far as I'm concerned, anybody who has the misfortune to cross swords with you has a right to know exactly what kind of person they're dealing with. And frankly, I find it patently offensive that you keep deliberately conflating attacks on the ridiculous shit a person posts as attacks on "women", or your continued insinuation that being a victim automatically renders a person as completely and wholly above criticism for anything, even if the criticism has nothing what-so-ever to do with said person's victimhood.

[MattBaggins]

16. I've never been wrong.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Aint often right, but

[datasuspect]

58. there's a difference between dissenting voices and outright stupidity

some stupid voices don't warrant a fair hearing. it used to be those forces of stupidity were largely marginalized. now they are given validity and a national platform.

[Major Nikon]

60. Perhaps

But when "intellectual support" includes silencing those who may be right, it's not hard to find the logical failure. The error is further compounded by the assumption that those who are creating the echo chamber occupy the moral high ground and that everyone who dares to disagree is a tool of evil intentions. Sounds quite a bit like fundamentalism which had quite a bit to do with what you describe.

Just sayin'

[datasuspect]

61. that's why i stay out of DUs rancid identity politics ghettoes

i do see your point.

[LuvNewcastle]

5. I see these very words on DU a lot.

It doesn't matter what kind of discussion you're having, certain things are taken for granted, otherwise your discussion will never get off the ground.

The very concept of DU is a good illustration. DU is a place for people to discuss issues from a liberal or leftist perspective. We don't tolerate RWers in discussions on this site. If we didn't filter out RWers, our discussions here would never get anywhere. It is taken for granted on DU that leftist views are generally correct and RW views are wrong. Our arguments are usually about which leftist views are better than the others.

A lot of times I see people say, "let us have our thread," or something to that effect. I might start a thread about bacon and how much I like it. Some people might not like bacon and they'll write a post saying that bacon tastes like shit. Maybe I don't want bacon haters in my thread. Maybe I just want to hear from others about how much they like bacon.

Sometimes it's hard to tell what someone takes for granted when he starts a discussion. Maybe he wants a variety of opinions on a subject; maybe he just wants positive reinforcement for a strongly held belief, or he wants to take the subject to a new plateau. He doesn't want to quibble about things that he already takes for granted.

Sometimes alternative views help a discussion, but other times they ruin it. It's often hard to tell which kind of discussion it is. There's a place for dissent and a place for acceptance.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. It is one thing to create a functional community.

It is another thing entirely for each member of that community to demand an absolute right to have their opinion treated as sacred fact.

[LuvNewcastle]

21. That's true.

I just think that sometimes arguing isn't constructive in a discussion. There's a very fine line there. Some discussions are like road trips where you put away the map, turn off the GPS, and just see where you wind up. It ruins the experience when you have an extra person in the back seat who doesn't see the point and he's giving you directions on where to go. A factually based discussion is another matter entirely.

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. I think argumentation is central to *every* useful discussion.

Everything else is at best pointless rambling or collective self-deception at worst.

[Nye Bevan]

7. I thought this was going to be about the DU Ignore function. (nt)

[Generic Other]

9. If I only did that I'd end up

only talking to myself.

[Major Nikon]

13. It's likely that you are the only person who agrees with you all the time

I'd start to get worried if everyone around me always nodded their head in agreement to everything I say, but that's just me. Some seem to thrive in those environments.

[Generic Other]

17. I clearly do not have that problem these days

Even though I am sure I am always right.

It was easier when we just all hated Bush.

[graham4anything]

49. but, you say "it was easier when we just all hated Bush"...

if that statement was to have a meaning (and the following opinion piece is not to you specific but in general to anyone)

then why would anyone put down a democratic president on a democratic site when the only outcome one will get in change from that would be JEB BUSH???

if one says
everyone hated Bush.

Well, first off, does one mean Bush the person, Bush the father(41), Bush 43, Jeb Bush
or their politics?

And well, "everyone hated Bush".

Well, from outward appearances-let's say it applies to Bush the political Bush
Cheney hated W but does not hate 41 or Jeb
Rand hates W but does not hate 41 or Jeb
Max Baucus does not like W
Elizabeth warren does not like W but she voted for Reagan/Bush earlier in her 80s political life
Barack Obama does not like W
Hillary and Bill does not like W
Mitt Romney does not like W
John McCain does not like W

so it is a statistically NOT viable comment on anything BUT
those people do not like W and 76% of the people do NOT like W

yet, President Obama is supported by 95%plus of the democratic party
and more than 1/2 the country heavily favors him
President45tobe Hillary Clinton is loved by even more than that.

when the exact corrolation of not liking the president and Hillary will directly lead to
President Bush well, if everyone did not like President Bush, why are some directly working against President Obama 24/7/365 from day one or day 100 or the 5th year, to directly bring back President Bush? And ironic enough- the new President Bush is loved by Dick Cheney himself.
So much so, that to spit in people's faces, the Bush's may just make Cheney the SOS or Chief of staff, or, for all we know, Jeb might say hey Dick, wanna be my VP? and nominate him for VP.
In a battle of idealogical titans as it looks to be, what better way to put everything on the table than that?

Election season? Well, Jeb is running
IMHO it is election season right now. (though I ain't whining about it.)

So most did not like W Bush. I did not like even more 41Bush and Jeb Bush.

However, the people who did not like Bush, one knows, a great many of them are indeed
libertarians NOT democratic supporters.
So, just because they did not like Bush, does not mean they liked one thing I like or support

And btw, this site, accordingly at election time-does NOT differentiate a democratic candidate.
It supports ALL democratic candidates because those in the know know the worst democratic candidate is far better than the office holding republican candidate in 2013.

And the furthest left democratic candidates ALWAYS vote 100% with President Obama when their vote is the tie breaker- ala Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich.

For all those lovers of Dennis Kucinich, we treasure that his vote was the deciding vote on Health Care, and that Bernie Sanders was there as a 60th every single time it was needed.

While in office, Dennis was NOT a stab in the back. Dennis had the back.
(Now that he is a profit seeking out of office, he is doing what every other person in the media and altmedia does, and that is make $$$ off his whines and it is it seems quite profitable in the 100% of the media alt/regular way of making $$$ and bringing the bacon to their plate.
Kudos to Dennis for being a player in that system. It is his American right.
How do you think Ralph Nader spent his whole life doing absolutely not one day of work
and yet has assets of the 1%?
Whine vineyards all seem to be profitable.

Al Gore once said (and I myself cannot believe the level of hate for Al Gore on both of the two sides(there are only 2 sides) of the street (where some go round and run smack dab into each other(the 20% as I call them) that some arguments have NO second side to them.

As I am going to see the second Star Trek reboot today, it reminds me that it makes
ZERO Spock logic sense to Hate Bush and then tear down Obama/Clinton to bring back Bush.
It is just not logical.

logic dictates 80-20.
People say it can't happen.
The committe that brings candidates for judgeships to the whole floor
for a vote just voted 18 to 0. Don't say 80-20 is not possible.

as Ted Kennedy said "The Dream lives On". (though I have been floored that some also hated Ted Kennedy and John Lennon, go figure that one.)I know the Bush family did.
Never thought anyone else did.

[Generic Other]

62. I never expected to be lectured with a full on rant for disliking Bush

and insinuating everyone at DU hated him. And his damn dog. And his family too. That this once united us. I don't give two shits for how any GOP assholes felt about him. Cheney didn't like Bush? Who the fuck cares? Not me.

So what does anything else you said have to do with me?

Oh, I get it. Don't criticize Obama or Hillary. They are the crowned heads of the third way Democratic party. And we all need to just fall in line. 95% of Democrats want to kick my ass if I say different. Even if I didn't mention them at all.

If I dare say I think both these individuals are GOP enablers making it more likely Jeb will win 2016, I will be gagged for saying so.

I don't think Hillary Clinton is a viable candidate at all. She doesn't even want the job, so why people keep insisting on throwing her hat in the ring for her in some desperate act of wishful thinking is beyond me.

I won't ever vote for an ex-president's relatives. No matter who they are. This isn't an inherited position. So if you want to run Clinton and they want to run Bush, I won't vote for either. We need fresh blood.

You have three years to come up with a viable candidate. Harping on lame ducks and former first ladies who don't want the job isn't getting us anywhere closer to that goal.

[graham4anything]

72. you lost me at your name calling of President Obama.

nothing else matters the second after that happens.
Because I tune all the rest after that name calling out

I am not part of your US. So please do not indicate so.

I am part of the mainstream the 20% so detest.

As Spock said, Live long and prosper.
As the quote says in the brand new Star Trek just came back from "...(not going to say it as it would reveal a spoiler).
But it is 100 true.

[Rex]

20. You host a forum with 32 blocked DU members.

Just kinda ironic.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. She didn't intend it as irony but as moral justification. n/t

[NuttyFluffers]

23. not all opinions are equal. criminally insane and criminally malignant are not fruitful opinions.

therefore they have no bearing on real social justice policy discussion.

to do otherwise is to waste time and open the Overton Window to allow destruction in.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. The problem is, not everyone who thinks they're lecturing from a position of "moral authority", IS.

Do you get pissed off when anti-choicers or door-to-door jesus proselytizers harangue you? I do.

Thing is, though, those people are resolutely convinced they are acting from a place of "social justice", too.

[Major Nikon]

45. This guy might be

[Warren DeMontague]

46. Indeed.

[YeahSureRight]

50. and this is a BAD thing?

I don’t see the problem. I know I do not associate with people who do not share my values. I would never live in a regressive place for any reason at all nor would I spend my money in a business that does not share my values. No one is required to like or even associate with everyone in your town, city, county, state, nation or continent.

For example I know I share nothing, absolutely nothing with the people of South Carolina, they do not share my values, is a regressive place and the place and people add absolutely nothing to my life. I will not visit SC. I do not care what happens to in SC. I am sure people in SC will not come to nor associate with my state either and I really don't give a crap, it is their right.

DU is a great example of what I am talking about too; people who do not agree with the owners and juries of DU are removed just for expressing an opinion in effect creating a place where only people you agree with are allowed to speak.

[zerosumgame0005]

65. well, as to SC

does that mean you would also never associate with Steven Colbert?

[Major Nikon]

67. Welcome to DU

The poster of the OP is not talking about DU in general.

Those who qualify to associate within DU cover a pretty wide ideological tent. The group the OP is really referring doesn't even represent an entire class within DU, much less those who are ideologically progressive. In other words, a very small tent. As far as if this is a bad thing or not, I suppose that is a question for those who frequent echo chambers and those who suffer the effects when the septic tank backs up.

Just sayin'

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. I think that people only talking to people who agree with them is incredibly harmful.

For two reasons:

1)If you don't talk to people who disagree with you about an issue, you almost certainly have no understanding of it.
2)If you don't talk to people who disagree with you about an issue, neither do they.


If you don't aspire to have any understanding of an issue, or to influence others on it, it's fine to only talk to people who agree with you.

But if you have any desire to actually grasp any thorny political issue, you can *only* do so by not merely talking to people who disagree with you, but by *trying to convince them that you're right and they're wrong, and paying attention to why they disagree*.

Also, it's simple mathematics that if people who hold position A aren't talking to people who hold position B then people who hold position B must not be talking to people who hold position A, and so there's no chance to change anyone's mind.

We hear a lot about how great the internet has been for politics, and how it makes it easier to be informed and to organise. There's an element of truth to that, but the flip side is that it's meant that people spend far less time talking to people who disagree with them. I suspect it's a significant contributing factor to the polarisation of American politics.


I go to the opposite extreme - I pretty much only ever both posting in response to something I disagree with. Thus at least some of my prejudices are regularly challenged, my wits are kept sharp, and there's a (slim) chance that someone might learn something.

[Shankapotomus]

59. Sometimes you just don't want

to fight over an issue anymore. You just want to enjoy life. Nothing wrong with people who disagree going their separate ways and not bothering each other with their differing views and behaviors anymore. I don't believe people and groups should have to live with each other. That's how domestic violence and wars happen, people who can't stand each other locked in a relationship one or both don't want. You see it all the time.

[Major Nikon]

68. I'm not sure the opposite extreme is all that much better

Those who only associate with those who always nod their heads in agreement include the worst segments of society.

[Shankapotomus]

69. That is not my point

Maybe groups that offensive to one society need to not be "included" as a segment of that society. Let them go have their own society and see how they fair by themselves with their hate filled ways. This pattern of trying to convince idiots to think in ways they don't want to think probably creates most of the hate anyway and I think is a waste of energy.

[alarimer]

70. It depends. Are they amenable to persuasion? If not, it's a waste of time.

I don't like to converse with conservatives because 1) they are ignorant and unwilling to do anything about it; 2) they only spout talking points and don't think for themselves; 3) They are hateful and mean, when it comes right down to it.

I disagree with a lot of other liberals from time to time but none of those things I listed above usually apply to them.

[bike man]

71. Not limited to talk. There are people who cannot abide a different opinion on internet

forums.

[Zoeisright]

74. There's disagreement, and then there are lies.

What I object to is brain dead repukes repeating lies ad nauseum. If they could actually come up with credible, coherent sentences and ideas that is one thing. But it's impossible to talk to them because all they do is lie and blow chunks of right wing talking points.

[LWolf]

81. I see it all the time on DU. nt

[ScreamingMeemie]

84. ...and sometimes... not even then. The cases of misreading posts are increasing

exponentially lately. It's like we're all just hopping around-- looking for someone to be pissed at, even though we probably agree with them.

[cbdo2007]

88. I hate talking to people who agree with me....

I already have a viewpoint so someone agreeing with my viewpoint brings nothing to the conversation.

[loli phabay]

95. best post yet, i am friends with all sorts. the stuff we do together transcends my views

Plus there is not a human being on the planet you cant learn from.

[morningfog]

89. On some issues, yes. I will not entertain willful ignorance or hate.

Those taking such positions are not worth my time.

[rrneck]

90. It's no big deal I guess.

Requiring people to agree with you is a different story. So if you want to surround yourself with like minded syncophants, that's your business. Kinda boring, but whatever. Just don't plan to go to a public place and demand the commons conform some sort of a priori emotional standard. That's just shitty behavior.