PhD Thesis on DU and Free Republic

[RainDog]

80. There is more than one side here

There are plenty of people here who are more liberal than the range of options available at the ballot box. They present their sides of arguments. There are plenty of people here who are in line with current available options as the better option. They present their sides of an argument.

That goes on all the time here.

You rarely, if ever, hear those more liberal arguments made among main stream media outlets, however. The variety of povs on DU stems from seeking sources outside the mainstream of allowed political discourse in the U.S., and from forum-user generated posts. But those more liberal arguments are the mainstream in other western democracies.

In order to debate certain issues, you have to have a basic common agreement about reality. This is where the lack of debate comes from - DU and FR do not have the same frames of reality - tho people here and there often employ the same memes and rhetorical strategies to discount the pov of the other group.

If someone were truly hoping to present a rhetorical argument, that would include acknowledging other positions - but the reason for this is to indicate the better position the speaker/writer holds. That's basic in formal rhetoric. But this is informal, citizen-generated and conversational, for the most part.

A range of political positions exists here - but those that range further to the conservative/authoritarian are not overly represented, as they are in media, for the most part (tho there are many authoritarian povs that are permitted here.)

What's lacking, in terms of sources, is any of the major media outlets offering the critique from the left that is standard for other democracies. Or when it appears, there are attempts to shout this down.

If people from DU and FR want to discuss issues, surely someone could create an opportunity for that elsewhere. The rules of FR and the rules of DU put the range of opinion within certain parameters. I don't understand why people pay much attention to right-wing arguments. For me, after years of looking at this stuff - it comes down to that Colbert remark about reality having a liberal bias.

But, even in saying that, I recognize there is a bias that also includes who or what are considered reputable sources, and we're all more inclined to believe something depending on the source, rather than the subject, and more inclined to reject something, even if two parties say the very same thing, if it's said by the party considered the opposition.