General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Well, congratulations, DU... [View all]Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)On the other blog I've posted on for years, this is pretty standard behaviour that appears under any even mildly controversial posting. (Ie, political, religious, etc.) I don't think it's even necessarily 'trollish', behaviour as much as simply human nature.
Just like the namecalling in the comments above between the more left and right wings of the Dems as they fight, calling each other 'naive purists' and 'rw sellouts'. People who think the best path to lasting electoral victory is to elect people who stick closely to the ideals of the party vs people who think the best path to lasting electoral victory is to elect people who are most similar to the current electoral voting patterns.
Personally, I'm on the 'elect better' side, because really, if all you want is 100% Dems, all you have to do is recruit every Republican to run as a Dem. 'Expand the tent', then declare victory. I actually don't care who gets elected - I care what the outcomes are. The farther 'left' the people who run are, the 'better' the likely outcomes. I don't want to simply elect people who have a (D) but don't agree with me on the things I care about. That seems rather pointless.
But to return to your original point, I don't see why you don't simply respond to the people whose comments cleave to what you feel was so interesting or important about your post, and simply ignore those who go off on tangents about which you don't care?
I haven't been here long, but I'm certainly not reading every single comment - as soon as somebody goes off on a tangent that looks uninteresting, I stop reading that subthread.