Us vs. Us

[omega minimo]

Why would we use a popular, fast-paced, active, Democratic web site to reinforce the cliches, stereotypes and misguided assumptions that RipOfflican wank tanks use to diffuse and divert Democratic efforts?

What could we learn from each other, across apparent divides of experience, if we weren't afraid to listen to each other, rather than thrust our ego/issue/insecurity/macho/topdog bullshit on each other as an automatic response?

What other solutions to national/global problems could we discuss if we let go of "balls are the answer"?

Why is it so easy to get Democrats to shift ever Rightward, toward RipOfflican Lite, despite all the documented evidence that the standard Dominance Paradigm is invading, polluting and burglarizing every aspect of your private and political life? And you're afraid of Alternatives?

Easier to diss everything that is Left of Center and consider THAT the enemy, leaning ever toward the Authoritarians if only they would Do What's Right-- instead of turning around on the Authoritarian bastards and saying :wtf:

What is the common ground under the Big Tent? Why do we let ourselves be so consumer-demographic-brainwashed into pre-recorded attitudes that we don't listen to the salt o' the earth, the truck driver, the feminist, the pagan, the SUV parent, the Republican-starting-to-see-the-Light, the (choose your flavor) Faithful, the vegetarian, the wonks, the arrogant-- oh wait, we hear plenty from them :evilgrin: the folks who push our individual and collective envelope, in the spirit of DU "Rules based on Respect" and the common refrain:

ANYBODY BUT BUSHCO.!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. Any Context To The Concept?

"Why would we use a popular, fast-paced, active, Democratic web site to reinforce the cliches, stereotypes and misguided assumptions that RipOfflican wank tanks use to diffuse and divert Democratic efforts?"

You're asking a question with the assumption that your audience will know exactly what your motivation is for asking it or that people will readily agree or understand why you believe that to be such a prevalent problem on DU.

Would it be ok to ask that you provide evidence to your assertion?

[omega minimo]

5. "Context to assumption of motivation of evidence of assertion"?

:spray: :rofl:


What if we don't fall for it, is the question. :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. Wait, So You Refuse To Back Up Your Criticism Of DU In Your OP?

That's truly a shame. If you are going to criticize DU in such ways it would be the responsible thing to do to be able to show due cause for such criticisms.

If you can't back up that assertion and criticism of our community here, than maybe you shouldn't have posted it to begin with. It is a bit disheartening to find a post supposedly referencing togetherness to be opened with such a statement of divisiveness.

[omega minimo]

7. Um.............. what?

See, here is the "mind crime": "post supposedly referencing togetherness to be opened with such a statement of divisiveness." Not what I was referring to, but an example of it............... antagonism that kills discussion.

Don't try to shut this down Mind Crime-- you prove the point.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Pretty Straight Forward Omega. You Start By Attacking DU And Our Community

then have the nerve to go on about togetherness and discussion. Now you are twisting the conversation to deflect upon me that I was being antagonistic and killed discussion. This is an absurd notion, however, since all I did in a well stated and respectful manner was to ask you to provide substance to back up your statement that criticized DU and our community. It is the fair and responsible thing to ask when someone comes forward with a weighty criticism about a wonderful community. So don't cast that distinction upon me, please. It started before my first post, when you opened with defenseless yet blatantly divisive criticism of the DU community with nothing to back it up, while then going on about togetherness. So under your antagonism kills discussion meme, the very antagonism found at the top of your thread is what killed the discussion of it. Especially in the face of the OP's refusal to provide context or substance to back up the criticisms of the DU community.

Now you have choices. You can always continue to engage in the empty vicious personal attacks on me, or you can choose to actually provide some context and substance that lends credence to your criticisms of our community. In reality that's all I'm askin for. I saw an OP vainly revolving around a center point at the top. But that center point at the top was a criticism of our community as a whole. Criticisms like that should not be declared at all unless there are substance and context that can back it up.

Don't get all huffy puffy with me because I'm trying to ensure that when a poster attacks our DU community they better have some substance to back it up with.

Nothing sadder to see then when they don't or can't, however.

[omega minimo]

9. I'm sorry-- I could have put up a "Subtlety Ahead' notice & you could have

gone elsewhere.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Please Note That Next Time You Want Posters To Have An Interest In Your

thread, it is best to either not criticize the entire DU community, or if you choose to do so anyway at least offer substance and context in a civil and open manner in order to back up those criticisms. That way people can engage with you in conversation about the topic rather than ignoring the thread completely with exception of two posters.

That's the only point I'm trying to make. You criticized the DU community and I think you should be able to either back it up or apologize for doing so in error. It is really quite that simple.

Goodnight.

[omega minimo]

11. Sheesh choose b/w Goodfellas threadkiller and schoolmarm prig

:eyes:

[tblue37]

42. And still we have no idea of what

your original post was referring to.

Let me phrase operationmindcrime's difficulty a bit more clearly:

Huh??

(Sorry, operationmindcrime, but you buried your point in too many words.)

[otherlander]

2. I think that many people here are willing to listen

to the people you listed...but of course we're going to criticize those who lean toward Authoritarianism. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you talking about conservatives who think everything left-of-center is authoritarian, or about people who criticize other countries' leftist governments?

[omega minimo]

3. "conservatives who think everything left-of-center is authoritarian"

"Are you talking about conservatives who think everything left-of-center is authoritarian, or about people who criticize other countries' leftist governments?"

:wow:

I'm talking about hackneyed cliched attitudes that people use to avoid anything outside their "comfort zone."

[otherlander]

14. Such as?

I'm still not sure who you're talking about... if you mean people who are classist, there are some of them here and they're pretty annoying. Or do you mean people who are anti-Christian? That also seems ignorant, considering everything that liberal Christians and the Quakers have done. Or are you talking about people who are anti-Communist?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. I Agree, Though I Wasn't Too Clear On What The OP Was Getting At Either.

But I agree with you on your assessment that we would generally be apt to criticize those who lean toward authoritarianism but tolerant of those wanting sincere discussion with an open mind.

I'd still like the OP to provide some context or substance to back up the assertion that such tolerance is not commonplace on DU, however.

[hfojvt]

12. it is easy to shift rightward

because the devil has all the good music. The "right" offers easy answers that involve no sacrifice - at least not for their audience. They offer a war without either tax increases or a draft. They offer a simple solution to a problem that they define simply - we are the good guys and "terrorists" are the bad guys. We bomb the bad guys and it is a problem solved. Their "framing" is based on the pre-suppositions that our society takes for granted. Everybody already knows that balls are the answer, so the question is only who has the bigger sack? And the BFEE with their "shoot first, and then shoot again if people ask questions later" have a definite edge in the sack department just like any other arrogant, thoughtless bully would.

It is like our "war on drugs".
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0822-20.htm
The alternatives mentioned "Waste is too forgiving a word. Folly is more like it, especially when ready alternatives would be more humane, more sensible, less costly and less damaging to health and the environment, if you're an Andean farmer drenched by monsoons of defoliant: Drug legalization (all drugs), control, regulation and taxation of the whole industry, foreign aid to farmers rather than the Colombian military, beds for treatment rather than prisons at home."
Would be political suicide. To suggest legalization of drugs would have the vast majority of Americans asking "are you nuts?"

[omega minimo]

15. Well, we could debate who has "all the good music"

:evilgrin: hfojvt! :spray:

.... and could even bring up the fact that popular culture started circling the drain at the same time that corporate consolidation devoured all media (thank gawd for "alternatives" there, eh? ;) )

Your post reminded me of the crops being developed by megafarmcorps to withstand deadly blasts of pesticides that kill the plant and somehow leave a food product for the market.................

You are right about the allure, but isn't it just the attraction of being told what to do, not having to think? :think:

You point out that they use cartoon cutout cliches to convince and control the public-- only thing is, those cliches have been debunked and discredited for the dangerous ideologies they are, within most of our lifetimes. There's a generation or 2 after Reagan who learn about it as history, but we are repeating the scenes of 20 and 30 years ago-- with the same cast of characters!

So that's where the mindless following-the-bully-leader comes in so handy for them.

And we tend toward too much bully behavior here IMHO.

"Why is it so easy to get Democrats to shift ever Rightward, toward RipOfflican Lite, despite all the documented evidence that the standard Dominance Paradigm is invading, polluting and burglarizing every aspect of your private and political life? And you're afraid of Alternatives? Easier to diss everything that is Left of Center and consider THAT the enemy, leaning ever toward the Authoritarians if only they would Do What's Right-- instead of turning around on the Authoritarian bastards and saying wtf."

Recently it's become obvious that there is a tendency to diss anything that tilts to the left-- and continue to equate the left with "effeminate." To diss anything that tilts to the left in any category, in any discussion, whether it is health or faith or human rights or meat or education or gas guzzlers or strategery or what have you. To shout down anything that resembles some cliche a poster already has judged in their arsenal of defense mechanisms "I Can't Hear You I Can't Hear You I Can't Hear You I Can't Hear You Na Na Na Na I Can't Hear You I Can't Hear You."

Big mistake.

[H2O Man]

13. Nominated.

I remember when I was young, one of my teachers quoting Mark Twain .... I may not have this exact, but I think it will do: "The problem in the world today is not one of ignorance -- rather, it is one of people knowing so darned much that just isn't so." Your post reminded me of that, though perhaps it is largely because quite a few things I've read on DU in the past 90 days have brought Twain's quote to life.

[omega minimo]

16. Twain!!

If we would listen to each other.......... maybe learn sumthin..........................

What a great opportunity to hear from different folks who are here for supposed common cause..............

"The problem in the world today is not one of ignorance -- rather, it is one of people knowing so darned much that just isn't so."


Thank you, H2O Man.

[H2O Man]

22. And thank you.

On page 172 of James Hirsch's "Hurricane: The Miraculous Journey of Rubin Carter," (2000) the author writes about the teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky. They recognized that human culture had a "thin film of false reality," which sounds very similar to Crazy Horse's perception in many ways.

"Theirs was a bleak view of human nature. They believed that people think they are 'awake' as moral beings, but in fact they are 'asleep,' oblivious of their own unconsciousness and unaware of the evil acts they commit. It is useless to blame them for their misdeeds because they are not even aware of what they are doing. The problem is not that the world is evil -- if that were so, what value has life? -- but that people do not realize that they are unconscious and that they are only a shell of what they could be. In The Fourth Way, Ouspensky described a man wjo attaches two horses to an airplane and uses it for a carriage. Then he learns how to use the engine and turns the airplane into a motor car. But the plane never takes flight. 'That is what we are doing with ourselves,' Ouspensky explained. 'We use ourselves as a carriage when we could fly'."

I suspect that the OP is hinting that as a group we remain unaware of that possibility of flight.

[omega minimo]

24. LOL

Quite "dry," Water Man. B-) If we fly out of the trees, perhap we may notice the forest. :evilgrin:



Before it is clearcut :evilfrown:

[hfojvt]

18. that sounds like the Will Rogers line

that Mondale used on Reagan. "The problem is not what he does not know, but that the things he knows for certain - just ain't so."

I suppose I could look it up. Or maybe not. The 2nd link that I clicked on in google slammed me with pop-ups and when I closed them I lost the whole tanjed window. The first one gave me an error message.

[Cerridwen]

17. I'm going to K & R this.

Since I don't have the luxury of elitist privilege to blind me to that which you refer, I understood 'xactly whatcher was sayin'.

But then, I'm a "radical", "militant", "socialist", "feminist", "populist" who thinks people's interests come before the interests of cancerous systems of capitalism, politics and domination; to name but a few.

[omega minimo]

19. So whatcher point, Saradwan?

B-) seems an elitist zeitgeist pops up today...........

I would like to hear even from the "elitists" here who are so busy being superior that they don't actually say anything. With "educated" specialties that prevent them from any broader POV. With the arrogance of "we know what we know and who we are and if you don't, we're not going to tell you........." The hostility makes them seem ignorant.

Just as it does in any of the Balkanized "discussions" we have here. They are mostly to be avoided and finding middle ground is treated with the same belligerent resistance as any "in yer face" reply.

Too bad.

"But then, I'm a "radical", "militant", "socialist", "feminist", "populist" who thinks people's interests come before the interests of cancerous systems of capitalism, politics and domination; to name but a few."

That could be called radical or we could look for common ground and recognize the labels don't matter-- the common issues we face, if we ever faced them, are pretty basic.

:eyes:

Thom Hartmann IMHO has the most approachable approach-- he calls it the "Radical Middle."

:hi: :hug:

[Cerridwen]

20. In short, I agree with your OP.

In, not so short, I'm tired of seeing people deny the hardship of those who are viewed as somehow "inferior" as having brought it on themselves. I've seen more than I expected to of people on this board, in the corporate media, availing themselves of the opportunity to "blame the victim" as it were. I'm tired of seeing ones personal standards used to judge others as somehow not good enough, not strong enough, not tough enough...

I'm surprised that I still have to point out that looking at "who benefits" should be a clue as to who it is who maintains the "status quo" of "us against them" or even, as you noted, "us vs us." The fact that I'm still labeled (as previously listed) shows me, how far back into the past we've gone. The years of attacking "others" and labeling them has been successful at obscuring the fact that we have the same needs and wants. We're being manipulated and pitted against our own best interests and we "buy" it; we continue to validate classification and categorization as truths on which we all agree.

Who benefits? Who benefits from a minimum wage that is not livable? Who benefits when people don't have health coverage? Who benefits when women don't have control over their own bodies? Who benefits from racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.? Who benefits as we fight among ourselves rather than work to fix broken systems?

I'd like to see us spend less time trying to label ourselves and others and come together to identify broken and oppressive systems that benefit an elite few at the expense of "We, the People." I'd like it if we could spend time identifying those areas in which we have agreement. I just don't see it happening any time soon. Too many of us benefit by ignoring how so many (all?) of the systems now in place create and perpetuate division where there should be unity.

Ah well, but that's just me and what I want. I'd say it's just my $0.02 worth, but I'm not sure it's worth that much any more.

[omega minimo]

21. "Follow the Money"

Great post, headed right to the heart of the matter. One reason these ideas don't float much here is they imply -- oh, you know -- responsibility, work, hard stuff............................. :evilgrin: Easier to carp at each other over cliches. Hey! Let's call it "Framing"!! :sarcasm: :rofl:

And when the dots are connected b/w diverse issues and "who benefits" keeps bein the same entities, folks get a bit overwhelmed. Easier to :hide:

"The years of attacking "others" and labeling them has been successful at obscuring the fact that we have the same needs and wants. We're being manipulated and pitted against our own best interests and we "buy" it; we continue to validate classification and categorization as truths on which we all agree."

We "buy" it and we buy the prepackaged attitudes that go with the cliches about "others" -- making our own observations is -- you know -- "HARD WORK" !

:bounce: :bounce:

"Too many of us benefit by ignoring how so many (all?) of the systems now in place create and perpetuate division where there should be unity."

As in "United" States of America? A "united" effort by a "united" Party to save..... everything?

[druidity33]

27. what you said...

and also
y gwir yn erbyn byd - the truth against the world

[Cerridwen]

30. Diolch for the translation and the "tribute" to my Welsh

username. Even without googling I recognized the lack of vowels as being of Welsh origin. :D

*sigh* Though of course, I had to google for the Welsh for "Thank you".

[tblue37]

44. But please--

tell us something specific. Give an example or two to clarify things.

[Greyhound]

23. K & R

:kick:

[autorank]

25. Excellent post.

The limits we place on our selves through comfort are those that keep us from the richest territory. I've been quite taken by and focused on the Mexican democracy movement. A brilliant and courageous movement lead by brilliant people, it is a stunning example of standing up to tyrants. Looking at that and how it is integral to our struggles her has helped me understand a great deal about what can be done and I've tried to share that with others. It's not even close to being in the box, to wit the general lack of support for them by any elements of our political culture. Nevertheless, rich territory. Spanish & English

The divisions are sometimes due to a real conflict in taste, Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate is a perfect example, or substance, Middle East policy. Other times the divisions are purely fabricated. I am NOT referring to anyone on this thread when I say this, but I do notice that when I post something that's particularly strong, folks show up who pick out one detail and repeated litter the thread with subject lines like, "You are a liar" over and over no matter what you do to show them the answer to their question. When you ask for substantive responses, they disappear or fail to respond going back to the littering. The former differences will be there always but can be handled in a civil fashion, those on taste and substance. The latter are just fucking aggravating. Wonder what those folks are up too?

Excellent thought provoking thread.

[Cerridwen]

29. I call those posts

in which someone "joins" the thread to, as you call it, "litter the thread" as "pissing on the thread." They have nothing of substance to add and are just posting to watch themselves post; analogous to a real life situation in which they talk just to hear themselves talk; if in fact they have the huevos to do that in real life at all. It always makes me think of standing around at a party having a discussion and some nimrod shows up, pisses in the middle of the room, then leaves, therefor, "pissing on the thread." Great shock value, little contribution. (yes, it's true, I have a weird imagination) I, too wonder what they're up to, though I'm pretty sure it's much as I said above.

And the real reason for this post, in response to:

The limits we place on our selves through comfort are those that keep us from the richest territory.

May I just say...AMEN! HALLELUJAH! PRAISE THE LORD AND LADY! Or whatever praise trips your trigger.

Well said!



:bounce: :bounce:

[omega minimo]

31. So much potential, so little time

Even if we are on -- not an urgent political matter -- a thread of personal interest, seems a waste to have so much info-free bickering. IMHO I'd rather learn from people I may NOT agree with, than see yet another thread reduced to petty bickering. It's not up to me to tell DU what to be-- yet this pattern repeats over and over in so many different subjects. Both "sides" get pissy and determined that the OTHER is "ignorant."

Another pattern emerging is the tendency to diss anything that is not mainstream or cliche. How far to the right have Democrats or DU really shifted? Even the attempts at at least pinning down the labels and figuring out what "moderate" is (for example) end up pointlessly.

The bottom line here is that it would really help if we would LISTEN to each other. I can't let go the naivete that "DU Rules are based on Respect."

That reminds me, the rightward or Authoritarian tilt IS part of the problem because the macho topdog bs is easier and funner to those without the confidence or intent to be "nurturing."

Also, your points about troublemakers-- if we fostered better communication in general (the old timers are snickering and snarking right about now-- I know, I know) wouldn't the tr**ls get outted more quickly?

Much obliged, autorank :toast: :yourock:

[tavalon]

26. Which website are you referencing?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. Unfortunately This One, But Since She Refused To Back Up The Assertion,

I've chosen to regard the opening line as hogwash. Especially since anyone who spends enough time on DU could easily dispute the notion that DU is overrun with posts that "reinforce the cliches, stereotypes and misguided assumptions that RipOfflican wank tanks use to diffuse and divert Democratic efforts"

Sure we have a lot of bickering and other back and forths going on, but that hardly equates to propagating neocon cliches and stereotypes. My problem with that opening assessment, aside from its needless divisiveness, is that it implies that DU is overrun by such things or that our community here engages in such acts frequently enough to be a mainstream DU concept. But that is an absurd accusation. Though the OP attempts to draw attention to it as if it is some overwhelmingly prevalent attitude here at DU, while providing nothing to back that up, it really is a very minor nuance that can be found infrequently when compared to the amount of threads and posts that don't engage in such things.

In the end, though there were some good points raised in the OP that we all can agree on, I can't help but taking with me an intent on division as opposed to togetherness based on that opening line. I regard it in a similar way to if shrubby said something like "we should end this partisanship that is poisoning our politics. Why do the Democrats have to sympathize with terrorists so much? It would just be better if we came together". He would say he was trying to reach out, but I'd view it in the same way as a hidden attempt at division.

[omega minimo]

34. Oh right-- that's your department

"He would say he was trying to reach out, but I'd view it in the same way as a hidden attempt at division."

[salinen]

28. Christianity is Authoritarian

and so the culture follows. They teach daddyism and sheepism. No reason to grow into an adult when the "father" will take care of everything.

[EFerrari]

33. Messy questions and here we're expecting company.

K&R

[omega minimo]

35. Enjoy your evening and get back to us later

There will be PLENTY of opportunity to try to desnark DU. :rofl:

[EFerrari]

37. Lol! I love messy questions. I live for them, in fact!

:toast:

[NMDemDist2]

36. omega

I see your drift but have seen you in the middle of more than one flamewar around here

Democrats are passionate and usually intelligent which includes having opinions

it's been my experience that a reminder not to be rude and a clear expression of my position will usually allow me to find common ground with most any poster who isn't a troll soon to be wearing a tombstone.

your dialog with OMC is a good example, he asked for context and rather than answer him it got snippy quick :wtf:

as for common ground, I think we have lots of it. clean water, clean air, lack of discrimination and the chance to raise our families in some comfort and safety

what's so tough about that?? :shrug:

[omega minimo]

41. Some subjects are balkanized as much as I/P

with the "two sides" battling with assumptions and aggression................ to the point that frequently not much gets said. :hi:

One of these subjects that interests me but mostly goes nowhere I have stayed out of. Then I got into one thread and when I posted some comments that didn't fit the expectations-- or were pounded with the expectations-- of the "other side," it was quite vicious. If you "see your drift but have seen you in the middle of more than one flamewar around here" you will notice I refuse to be bullied. Which is what happened there-- the attack dogs DEMAND some response that THEY require and it's just :boring: Why can't people LISTEN? READ what's actually being said, not ASSUME and project what they already think?

The point being that there are many interesting people here that are too busy being belligerent to say what they have to say. Some of us want to hear from people we don't necessarily agree with and we DON'T think it takes aggression to be able to do that. Aggression frequently has the opposite effect.

As for "he asked for context and rather than answer him it got snippy quick." He didn't ASK, he demanded with a totally loaded version of reality that I will not respond to:

"You're asking a question with the assumption that your audience will know exactly what your motivation is for asking it or that people will readily agree or understand why you believe that to be such a prevalent problem on DU."

No I wasn't. Why should I answer a false accusation? I was not snippy, I laughed, because of the "cliched thinking and misguided assumptions."

I won't be bullied and I won't be entrapped. I won't have someone aggressively demand how I should respond to them and then attack me if I don't. THAT is what the OP comments on.

[NMDemDist2]

43. thanks for the answer

I have to often remind myself that the written word takes all the nonverbal cues out of the discussion that sometimes it reads rougher than it was meant

that's why I call people on being rude (if I read it that way) and usually I find that is not the spirit in which it was written

I know there are a few "knee jerk" subjects around here but we all should make the effort to keep the discussion rational and polite.

I fear part of the knee jerk is people expecting to be flamed so they just get all bad ass without taking a minute to find out the reality of the person on the other keyboard. so many flame wars could be diverted with a little humor and a polite request for clarity don't ya think?

:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

45. I Know I'm Not The Only One That Will Find That Accusation To Be Farcical.

I'm in awe sometimes of your perception, Omega. Truly in awe sometimes.

You say I bullied you and aggressively demanded an answer. Holy cow, are you for real? You even quoted my entire response, which only serves to prove the absurdity of your claim. I was polite and civil and in fact asked nicely. The fact you consider that to be "bullying" and "aggressively demanding" to me shows how much animosity you have towards those who simply don't automatically agree with your point of view.

I said a civil statement, and then ASKED (lot different than demanded) "would it be ok to ask that you provide evidence to your assertion?".

You quoted it yourself. How can you have the facts right in front of you, within your own post, yet twist them up to such a degree that you claim I was bullying and demanding? Where is the bullying Omega? Where is the aggressive demand Omega? Can you not back up those claims either?

Try not to take such offense when someone disagrees with you or asks for clarity. You claim to appreciate opposite points of view yet constantly attack those and claim they are acting as bullies when they simply do so.



On edit: Holy cow, did I spell farcical farcicle? LOL

[omega minimo]

46. You are confusing, misinterpreting and misrepresenting again

which is why I prefer not to reply to you.

Your initial "question" was just such a misrepresentation that I am not obligated to defend, since it isn't my idea, it's yours.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. Again, You Provide Nothing To Support The Claim. How Omega? How Is That

post "confusing, misinterpreting and misrepresenting"? You can throw these attacks out so easily, but can you defend them when questioned?

I quite plainly and directly answered your previous accusation. I did so by providing direct context and quotes to BACK UP my position. It was clear as day where I was coming from and what I was saying and there was no misrepresentation present whatsoever. I didn't just throw out some unsubstantiated attack while acting like doing so meant I actually was saying something real.

So if you are going to accuse me of misinterpretation and misrepresentation how bout you actually back it up? Can you only throw out the smear without context? Where's the value in doing that Omega?

My reply was quite clear and well stated. I think you'll be damn hard pressed to show where there was any goddamn misinterpretation or misrepresentation found in it.

I'd ask that you do so, since anyone who is so ready to attack somebody should be able to justify their attacks.

[omega minimo]

49. Please read #41 carefully and realize not everything is always about you

You have yourself unecessarily upset.

This is not attacking, this is detaching.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. Not Surprising That You Couldn't Back Up Your Attack. But Beyond That,

now you are being even more confusing.

You say post #41 isn't referencing me, yet you are talking directly about me, in response to a comment about me, while quoting my very words. Therefore, your post above makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and in fact is in complete logical opposition to the truth.

But since you are failing to provide any substance to back up your attacking claims on me, I will leave it at this.

Goodnight now.

[omega minimo]

51. Your continuous bullying & misrepresentations deserve no reply

The part that was about you, was about you. That's it. You have such trouble comprehending my posts. You need a new obsession, OCD.

[NobleCynic]

38. As a contrarian at heart, I hope you take this in good spirit

But I am confused that you would condemn suspicion of anything left of center, and some here are certainly farther left from center then others and proudly so, but then in the next sentence condemn not listening to the salt-of-the-earth and the Republican-starting-to-see the light.

I understand that some of us here are less then completely understanding and respectful at times, myself unfortunately included in all likelihood, but I'm stretching to see what you are expecting. Argument and disussion is the trial by fire by which theories and ideas are tested. Yes, reactionaries don't always contribute anything to the discussion, but at the same time they do serve a purpose. Knowing that some people react in a severe manner to certain lines of thought can be valuable even if what they say has no worth in of itself.

As for myself, I play devil's advocate for positions often I don't believe for the purposes of elaborating arguments and ideas further. While I understand people rarely realize this, even if I sometimes wish they did, I count virulent reactions just as illustrative and educational as a more reasoned and thoughtful response, albiet for different reasons.

[NMDemDist2]

39. Sir, you live up to your screen name

and you coalesced what I was thinking quite succinctly

thank you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. That Was A Great Response. With Your Capable Display Of Reasoning, Why

don't you post more often? We could use more posters like you.

Good job. :thumbsup:

[omega minimo]

48. Listening to various "sides" could lead to some new ideas

Not sure why you are"confused that you would condemn suspicion of anything left of center... but then in the next sentence condemn not listening to the salt-of-the-earth and the Republican-starting-to-see the light."

I'm suggesting better listening in general. I've stated that some of us want to hear from those we may not agree with. Given the political situation, infighting pointlessly is a bloody waste of time.

"As for myself, I play devil's advocate for positions often I don't believe for the purposes of elaborating arguments and ideas further."

:evilfrown:

"While I understand people rarely realize this, even if I sometimes wish they did, I count virulent reactions just as illustrative and educational as a more reasoned and thoughtful response, albiet for different reasons."

How would anyone "realize this" if you present positions that you don't believe as if you do? Devil's Advocates merely toy with people, playing "opposites" to topdog others. That sort of hollow gaming is what IMHO gluts and kills too many discussions here.