rrneck
rrneck's JournalI don't trash any of 'em.
And I just eliminated my one ignore.
People talk about stuff. I don't mind knowing they are talking about stuff here. If I want to read it, I do. If I don't want to read it, I don't. There has actually only been one person I thought really needed to be banned (aside from the obvious rightie troll), and she's gone. I think I can see where the vast majority of people are coming from whether I agree with them or not.
Somehow I don't like the idea of imagining people don't exist.
There is a poll in the gun group right now
that overwhelmingly favors the inclusion of the discussion of shooting sports with firearms policy. Proposing a new group that only allows discussion of firearms policy is not only a fairly transparent attempt to circumvent that vote, but affords an opportunity for certain members to establish their star status.
I am amazed at how easily people are manipulated into forming a circular firing squad at the behest of a few narcissistic authoritarians whose only objective is hearing people agree with them on an internet message board.
Any firearm can be used for self defense to one degree or another. Shooting sports relate to self defenst to one degree or another. Thus, any firearm can be discussed in the context of firearms policy.
These ersatz group proposals are divisive and counter productive. They are the result of a few members who have nothing better to do than feed off the partisan fears of others for their own amusement.
The "gunnies" don't appear to need or desire
a protected group. If you feel as if you need a protected redoubt all you have to do is get ten members to sign on.
It would be a fine opportunity for someone to show leadership and surround themselves with like minded members. I'm sure those who require that kind of emotional support will have no problem selecting from the marketplace of emotion providers a suitable figurehead. Or two. Or three.
And of course in the event of a clash in the respective cults of personalty, more protected groups can always be established.
Please form a single line for each group and no jostling now, we need the installation of our nose rings to be a smooth and orderly process.
You have a point.
Democraticunderground is, after all, a privately owned profit making LLC. I suppose it doesn't hurt to have a place where some of us don't have to worry about anyone disagreeing with them if that's what they want from the website.
Of course, MIRT or the admins can ban anyone they please in any forum or group they please, so if the odd troll or freeper or whatever wandered in there, they wouldn't last any longer than anywhere else. So it seems that the protected areas are designed to be effective against fellow progressives and their existence is not to protect their inhabitants from our political enemies, but from other Democrats.
Picture it: the "common areas" of Democraticunderground, GD, Politics 2012, Meta, and all the rest surrounded by the various redoubts inhabited by those who simply cannot stand to have their ideas challenged or their sensibilities buffeted, eying each other nervously over the "yard". That's not a website, it's a circular firing squad.
Here's a metric to consider. We are all consumers here. We are expected to pay for the use of this site in one way or another. What are those who most jealously guard their "turf" trying to get for their money?
You can't use female specific derogatory terminology
against anyone for any reason at all. The use of the term impacts the way women are perceived and opresses them in a culture dominated by a patriarchal power structure.
The elimination of various terms in various contexts will help recast how women are perceived in our culture. While proper perception management is crucial for the defeat of patriarchal attitudes, it is also crucial for the empowerment of women who otherwise would be oppressed by the general use of such unfortunate language.
The use of any female specific derogatory term at all, anywhere, for any reason, hurts all women therefore such use must be stricken from the lexicon. Our objective is to redefine peoples perceptions of each other by controlling what they say. Anybody that knows anything about public relations, political spin, or Orwellian doublespeak knows that if you can just make people use the right words you can change the world.
I'm sure he wouldn't last long.
And stumping for Republicans is as about an obvious a TOS violation as can be imagined, although she didn't seek a sixth term and is no longer an elected official. But y'know, I had to look up Susanna Hupp to find out she was once an elected official. I knew she was a big deal in that Lubys shooting years ago, but I was unaware she was had parleyed her notoriety into a political office. My profile says my favorite group is RKBA. I've read at least 90% of the posts in it in the last four years and I had no idea. It's possible, albeit not likely, that he didn't know either. He could have been a liberal christian gun owner that didn't know a lot about the guns issue.
I don't think I've seen anybody in the lounge bemoaning the rapid banning of a troll before we got a chance to "play with him" or asking if we could "keep him". I used to see that from time to time, but no more. Why? I'd bet anything whoever alerted on him looked up Susanna Hupp and discovered who she was. The time spent doing that could just have easily been spent typing, "Are you aware that Susanna Hupp is a Republican and supports conservative political issues? If so, do you support her political objectives?" Just a question or two would force the suspected troll to double down and get busted. But instead, they hit the alert link and kicked it upstairs for somebody else to deal with him.
That, I think, is what the OP is about. It's not about defending guns, it's about the impulse to evaluate others against our own personal political litmus test without even attempting to understand the person making the statement. At its base it's a question of whether we're defending our understanding of liberal ideology or winning elections. We will never, ever, win an election if we expect people to vote for each and every single issue important to liberals. There will have to be compromise. If I thought we could get single payer healthcare, economic justice, and minority equality for Americans in exchange for the guns issue, I'd do it in a minute. Hell, if I thought that's all it would take, I'd give everybody in the country an AR-15. What's more, if I thought a complete gun ban would get it done, I'd support that too.
It seems to me that the only real solution to our problems is people talking to people and figuring out the best way to proceed. Reflexively defending ideological turf without at least attempting to listen to what people are trying to say makes ideology more important than people. If our first impulse is to defend an ideology that may have even pulled off the shelf or handed to us at birth we are behaving more like ideological consumers than citizens, and when we do that the 1% that ginned up the ideology will win every time.
It makes me fucking sick.
Every time I turn around there seems to be a fire breathing liberal that would rather have "management" deal with a problem than even metaphorically get their own hands dirty.
You can't hire out political victory and this isn't a fucking restaurant where you can just send a contrary opinion back to the kitchen like an under cooked steak. DU3 is more transparent than DU2. Anybody can wander in from anywhere.
Finding common ground among others who may not agree on every issue are how political coalitions are built. It sure as hell isn't done with consumer oriented political ideology.
People who commit suicide don't want to die.
They just can't live.
The OP is insulting to those who have to struggle against the disadvantages of rural life only to have some academic offer up a "tailpipe solution" because it's easier to demonize an inanimate object that to treat people like human beings.
Why do you think they call it dope...?
Addictive drugs trigger the release of the original addictive drug - dopamine.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine
It feels good to care, to help others, to be a member of a group that cares about you. Dopamine is an evolutionary reward for cooperation. And it works. Cooperation through empathy has been the key to our survival.
Through the miracle of modern chemistry, we can reward ourselves without any actual risk or effort. We have drugs that trigger dopamine release. But that modern convenience isn't confined to chemistry.
We can care, and subcontract the actual work and risk involved in acting on our concerns, without having to actually put any skin in the game. The down side is that since we aren't actually paying to help people but rather for the dopamine release derived from caring, the organizations that deliver it are incentivized to please us and not actually help others. And that is where you will find the ideology industry, including religion.
It seems to me that
if you hurt someone, they will hate what you do. If you keep hurting them, they will hate you for what you do. Persist in hurting them, they will hate you for who you are. Do it enough and they will hate you and everyone like you.
I think we should only hate what people do, not who they are. But sometimes that's a pretty tall order if you've spent most of your life being kicked around for who you are. I try to give people room because everyone has a story. I don't think I demand respect. I'd rather earn it. Of course I also think I can usually give back better than I get.
Membership in an oppressed minority doesn't confer any right to retribution or exoneration from the requirements of civility. But strength enables generosity, and generosity is fundamental to civilized behaivor. It seems to me that the strong have a responsibility to initiate civility, but they don't have to persist if their generosity isn't returned.
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Nov 29, 2008, 02:55 PMNumber of posts: 17,671
