Responding To Daily Kos
A few days ago I posted about my experiences on various web blogs and used two of them (Red State and Daily Kos) as examples of the good and the bad on the net. In my post I complimented both sites on being very informative during the campaign but also took them to task for being a tad intolerant of opposing views.
To make it clear I obviously did not expect such sites to promote the opposition or to have their views changed by my own feeble postings, but I was upset at the lack of basic respect and tolerance of debate. I had no issue with a firm and vigorous debate but did have issues with open faced personal attacks and being banned from commenting for expressing opposing views.
To their credit, Kos took me up on the comments and someone there started a thread to discuss the issue. While some of the comments were the same boring personal type attacks, most were a respectful and well intentioned debate of the subject and I give them real praise for doing that.
I’d also like to respond to a couple things that were said. First off it seems that I misunderstood how posters are banned from the site and I would like to apologize for that. None of us are perfect and I made an error there and freely admit it.
As to the types of comments that got me tossed (I’m not sure what the proper term to use would be since it seems I’m not entirely clear on the system for banning/tossing/etc) they largely occurred during the Convention period and involved either my saying I thought McCain or Palin did an OK job with their speeches or that Clinton/Biden/Obama did not do as well as some others thought.
I also ran into problems when I expressed views similar to those of these last 2 threads where I said that I didn’t think talk of crushing/destroying/etc the enemy (i.e., Republicans) was a good idea. Again coming to the idea that while obviously you want your side to succeed, you should respect the right of the other guy to have his views.
As to what my personal views are, I suppose the best way to find out would be to read TMV and look at my posts. In this last campaign I was sharply-critical of the GOP and did not support Senator McCain but at the same time expressed concern about the Democrats having unbridled power (i.e., cloture proof majority in Senate/etc versus reasonable majority to govern).
In any event I compliment Kos on giving my views a look. I haven’t heard from the man himself but expect I’m a bit too far down his radar to get one.
8 Responses to “Responding To Daily Kos”
Fantastic post, Patrick!
I had missed the first appearance of your post, so thanks for posting this with links to the previous post and to DKos.
(BTW: My thanks to RememberNovember in the previous post for clearing up the puzzle of the origins of Redstate/Bluestate that I have been wondering about lately (as it inverts the international political associations of those colors).
In general, I agree with your conclusions.
One of the first comments on the KOS thread was – as a later comment in the thread noted – a perfect illustration of your point regarding lack of tolerance and respect:
“This idiot does not even understand that if he was banned, it was by users here. Furthermore, he must have said a lot more than express a “moderate” position to get banned. Screw him.”
A fascinating social experiment. Its implications are sad . . . but fascinating nonetheless.
I wonder if user's average ages has anything to do with differing degrees of intolerance between KOS and RedState?
In a couple of comments, they demonstrate precisely why user-based moderation is nice on paper but in practice can become abusive, particularly on a site like Kos.
Because of their general political demographics, a comment the majority simply doesn't agree with is more likely to be voted as a troll-like comment. Then, when you get a certain number of these, their system kicks in and bans you.
That thread of comments reminds me why I absolutely will not read comments on that site now. Of course, most people who comment are part of an online community that feel strongly about their community identity. So naturally they are defensive of perceived attacks on their site.
One thing that clearly jumped out to me was the use of quotation marks around the term moderate. As if it is a fictitious invention by secret conservatives. Its the same tone that conservative radio hosts use for the term moderate. Interesting stuff.
Ultimately I think this thread reinforces the original point of the original column. The community at Kos does not pretend to be non-partisan or open, and they are clearly not open to criticism or real debate. Instead they wish to live in an echo chamber, reinforcing their own opinions. **(Not that people who consider themselves moderate and read moderate blogs are free from the criticism that they are living in an echo chamber)**
Regarding RS, take a look at this post from 2006, one that I cross-posted to RS after having posted around 75 diary entries (not just comments) there over for almost two years. See anything wrong with it?
Well, that's why I was (supposedly) kicked off there. See this and this. Note that they still kept my content despite me being unable to find any legal reason why they had a right to it over my objections. Note also that the temporal ambiguity – in a quote from someone else even – is the only explanation they were able to come up with. Note also that a DK user named Adam Bonin who was at RS as an open and welcomed liberal was kicked off after he said things they didn't like.
Regarding DK, see this. I was kicked off his site in 2003, way back when it was just him.
And, for examples of DK not exactly being “liberal” in another way, see the threads listed here.
Over the past 8 years we have seen the result of uncritically supporting your “side” while trying to blame anything and everything on your opponent. It weakens your party from the inside as you gradually lose credibility. That is what happened to the GOP during the Bush years. After years of rubber stamping policy Congress performed no oversight. In return, Bush signed big spending bills and did not veto anything until the Democrats regained power. The GOP is now licking their wounds, and trying once again to regroup.
I don't go to Kos even though I'm a liberal, because shutting out all opposing ideas is never healthy. Only through vigorous debate with those who disagree with you can you test your beliefs. Knowledge should never be a static thing– but it is on uberpartisan websites.
Patrick,
Do you have links to the posts that got you banned?
Not a big dailykos fan here, but I think having the substance to tie into for this discussion would be more meaningful, sorry if I missed a previous link to the same.
Over the last two and a half years that I have been blogging, I also cross-posted at Red State and Kos. My blog perspective over that time is as a consistent advocate for divided government (which means in 2006 I supported a straight Dem ticket and in 2008 I supported McCain). In 2006 I had a post deleted and was subsequently banned at RedState. In 2008 I was more circumspect about what I posted at Kos, but stopped posting while we were still in the Dem Primary fight (and I was picking sides between Dems). Still, the angry mobs were gathering at the gate and the troll ratings mounting. So while I was not thrown out, I could see it coming and pulled back. I never x-posted any explicit calls to vote for McCain and divided government. I'm pretty sure that would have done it. Now that Obama is elected, I may try another x-post and test the tolerance for an alternative view.
I am surprised that Patrick lasted at RedState without getting banned, perhaps the moderation mellowed in the last year as their visibility dropped.
The two sites have different mechanisms to remove dissenting views, but ultimately they achieve the identical result – an echo chamber.
Gichin, I'm afraid I don't have the links but pretty much they followed what I discussed in the thread.