Clannishness at DU? Does it exist? Is it a good thing? Is diversity best?

[Buzz Clik]

An interesting observation about human behavior, particularly Liberal human behavior:

I suppose I'm not the only person who notices that the most involved, the most interesting, the most compelling, discussions are those in which the participants are the most diverse; all sorts, from the highest social echelon all the way through down to the bottom; diversity is the key.

The inevitable conclusion of Democrat and liberal theology is, of course, Maoism, where everybody is equal, no one stands out, and no one picks any "favorites" with whom to hang. Having a "best friend," or even a "close friend," is antithetical to Maoism, where all are equal, absolutely and undeniably equal, and to have "favorite" pals or friends or chums is a crime against the state, a crime against humanity, a crime against the masses.

-- FS, Sandhills

The author brings up an interesting conundrum -- we embrace diversity but we also strive that everyone be treated the same and that we be blind to our differences.

Any comments or other observations?

[Turbineguy]

1. I don't think you need to be blind

anyway, if we were truly blind to differences, there would be no diversity by definition.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Exactly.

Personally, I enjoy the differences. All of them.

[yardwork]

2. Who is FS in the Sandhills and why is he being held up as some kind of authority on Maoism?

I strongly disagree that "The inevitable conclusion of Democrat (sic) and liberal theology is, of course, Maoism."

Where'd you get that quote - Freeps R Us?

[Buzz Clik]

4. LOL!

I hold up the quote only for discussion.

Personally, I think the "Maoism" thing is over the top. But, if we get past that, does any of it make sense to you?

[robinlynne]

9. Rewrite it in your own words and it will be discussable. The author is full of shit.

[truedelphi]

3. The inevitable conclusion of Democrat and liberal theology is, of course, Maoism, where everybody is

That's what it says in the OP.

Words like those always reminds me of "The Lath Of Heaven" a sci fi work by LeGuin.

At one point in the story, the hero wishes that everyone be equal. And the next day after he dreams that, everyone has grey colored skin. His close girlfriend, who was previously African American, now has the same dingy skin color that everyone else does, and he immediately wishes he hadn't make that wish.

[Buzz Clik]

10. Yes, indeed. DU -- or any place -- would be far less interesting if we were all the same.

Should DU extend its tent to include rightwing ideologies?

[jody]

22. "rightwing ideologies" is itself controversial, e.g. the right to keep and bear arms for

self-defense is a civil right and the Democratic Party supports it.

On the other hand, a number of DUers support laws that prevent law-abiding citizens from owning handguns or all guns so is not their position a right-wing ideology?

The left-wing ideology group within the Democratic Party supports all enumerated and unenumerated rights covered in the BOR and that includes the right of lawing abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

[Buzz Clik]

27. So, basically, you're saying that there is no difference between left and right?

[jody]

36. IMO, the Dem and Repug parties differ on a handful of divisive issues that polarize voters. A few

Dem and Repug senators and congresspersons pass with bipartisan support, bills that advance the profits and power of the 1% of our population who own about 50% of our financial wealth and control every major multinational corporation in the U.S.

IMO the corporate party, in name if not in organization, finances candidates from the two major political parties and let voters fight over divisive issues that polarize Dems and Repug candidates.

IMO its the corporate party versus We the People and the people are impotent because they fight over issues that IMO are not top priority,

[Buzz Clik]

41. Hm. I guess that limits pretty severely the number of acceptable candidates for you.

[jody]

46. Not at all. I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat but I'll continue to oppose bills that give more profits and

power to corporatists while ignoring We the People.

It really is class warfare and We the People have been losing to the corporatists since Reagan took office including Clinton's eight years.

[truedelphi]

53. Agree with you, Jody

On a local level, the party designation may well prove to be meaningful.

But the way I see politics is this (nationally)

There is a huge circus tent out in a field.

The swarms of middle income and low income people are being welcomed into the tent on two sides.

One side is labelled Democratic, and the banners say things like 'Affirmative Action. Health Care for All. End the War. Etc." and that is the Democratic side.

On the other side you have the Republicans and their banners read: "Limit illegal immigration. Less Government. Less taxes and more take home pay."

But when you get into the tent, all the action is controlled backstage, or in this case, by a group of people out of sight under a trap door. And what they are doing, regardless of their label, is corporate globalizing America.

Unleashing GMO's. Allowing protective agencies like the EPA, FDA and CDC to be influenced by lobbyists.

Preparing for endless war and endless surveillance.

Continuing in the worship of the Federal Reserve. Printing up a money supply to protect the bankers and undermine the value of the money held by those who labor for a living.

Building up a prison system with the labor pool there sold off to private concerns, and allowing that labor pool to consist of people whose big crime is being ill and using Medical marijuana.

Protecting Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance and of course the Big Banks.

Doesn't matter if you are George or Hillary. Ahnold or Lieberman.

It is the same policy when you lift the trap door and see the machinations revealed.

[uppityperson]

40. No. DU is an artificial place, with rules by its owners.

There are lots of places where all sorts can converse, am sure you can find some if you look. I like having a place where I don't have to wade through more crap than I already do here. If you want a place to be open to all, go to one of those. Yes, DU is limited but this has its uses also. If this is the only place someone has contact with the world, or they think this is all there is, this I would look askance at. But I like having a place to discuss things with others of not totally like minds but not totally different and out to just argue.

Besides, it's best to contact admin for questions like "Should DU extend its tent to include rightwing ideologies?" (said somewhat tongue in cheek)

Oh yes, and for those monitoring this topic, yes. I said DU is artificial, and yes, this is fine with me. Lots of other places to do other things.

[walldude]

6. Maoism seems to go against human nature.. after all,

you can't really expect me to like all you fucks... :P :evilgrin:

[Buzz Clik]

26. I'm liking you better already....

[alcibiades_mystery]

52. Don't assume that the OP contains an accurate depiction of Maoism

I'm no Maoist, but that description is laughable.

[Lilith Velkor]

7. See You in the crackhouse

:wank: :eyes:

[Buzz Clik]

28. Well, not likely. But I think I get your drift...

[Mythsaje]

8. I generally choose friendships based upon common interests.

I make few other judgments in this department.

[Buzz Clik]

29. As it should be...

I'll get back to you on this...

[CT_Progressive]

11. Well, I know at least one clan - the "We're a bunch of conspiracy tards" clan.

[rAVES]

54. also not forgetting the "we think we know everything" clan too.. Heres your Card.

[Solon]

12. That excerpt makes absolutely no sense to me at all...

The guy seems like a nutcase. This guy confuses political equality with personal preferences, which are, of course, completely different from each other. If this guy can't distinguish between the two, he's an idiot. Not to mention the smear against Democrats and Liberals by saying it leads to "Maoism", like I said, an idiot.

[Buzz Clik]

31. I'll explain in more detail at the bottom of this thread, but he's not an idiot.

I tend to agree that it is a mistake to try to connect political leanings and personal preferences, though some general trends exist.

[Lint Head]

13. I think diversity is fan-damn-tastic.

Life is too short to be stuck in your own little box. I have found out over the years that because of the way I believe I do not consider ethnicity when having usual conversations and interactions with other people. It's like being blind to differences but still recognizing and respecting the differences. It's somewhat paradoxical. :dem:

[Buzz Clik]

32. I couldn't agree more.

[PVnRT]

14. That passage is asinine

Liberal theology? That's a branch of liberalism, yes, but what does it have to do with anything else? I won't even mention that theology and "Maoism" don't even mix. FS in Sandhills is a jackass.

[Spike89]

15. Social tendency that's a double-edged sword

Numerous studies show a very strong social force in homogenizing and radicalizing viewpoints when likeminded people interact--for instance, here at DU. Although a lot of people (myself included) tend to immediately assume this is an obviously bad thing, it can easily be couched as a beneficial thing too. Part of the reason for the homogenizing effect is that consensus can be reached, and of course, strong arguments should overcome weak or poorly thought out arguments. The radicalization is a bit trickier, but the positive is that people can become empowered to actually pursue and act on a viewpoint that they hadn't fully embraced until the reinforcement of the group dynamic.

Needless to say, this human property also is a force that has as much, if not more, power to do harm. My feeling is that jerks become more jerklike in the presence of jerks almost always. Decent/nice people usually become nicer and more decent when surrounded by the same, but it isn't as powerful an effect. Thus, Freepers are way bigger jerks than they'd probably be off their jerk board, yet I think DUers aren't much nicer online then they'd be "out of the group".

[Buzz Clik]

33. Interesting.

yet I think DUers aren't much nicer online then they'd be "out of the group".

Are you saying that DUers tend to be nicer to each other online than Freepers are to each other?

If so, I disagree. Freepers say horrible things about us, but they tend to be nice to each other. I have found that DUers readily take off the gloves here when they are animated about something.

[RainDog]

16. The quote doesn't have anything to do with the reality I know

The "maoist" label is frankly a bit hysterical, like this old man I ran into at work that said, Argh, Canada. A bunch of socialists up there and "socialist" was more like a hssss against the evil eye. Especially that last paragraph. Sounds like it was inspired by John Birch. who in the hell thinks 1. that democrat (hmm, where's the tic?... is that a marker of a newt-node?) 2. that best friend is anti-thetical to democratic views of the world, and how in the fuck can this idiot think that democrats would consider personal friendship a crime against humanity?

come to think of it -- what in the fuck? this sounds like propaganda.

the issue is not that every one is equal... what a ridiculous notion... govt doesn't/shouldn't strive for this. Equality of opportunity is what develops democracies because that works to create a strong middle class. Affirmative action is merely a program to give a leg up to people who weren't born into a situation that gave them the same opportunities. That is not a leveling of humans. Social security, or universal health care are not about "no one stands out," etc. it's, again, about going forward on the issue of human rights. in wealthy industrial/post industrial societies, is it a sign of a healthy society for some to lack the security of health care? If someone wants to seek treatment in other ways, no one stops that.

Tolerance for differences is not the same as being blind to them. embracing diversity is just that.

If anyone actually thinks this FS has insight into politics... well, like I said, reminds me of John Birchers.

[Buzz Clik]

34. Outstanding reply -- particularly the third paragraph.

"Tolerance for differences is not the same as being blind to them. embracing diversity is just that."

:thumbsup:

[Crunchy Frog]

17. Huh?

:freak:

[rucky]

18. Treated with the same level of respect, despite differences. n/t

[tom_paine]

19. You picked a ridiculous nutjob to try and make your point, whatever it is.

:wtf: is this? And I must ask you, BuzzClik, considering you posted this, can you possibly agree with the things you said in your post and if so, why aren't you at FR where lunacy like this would likely produce and orgy of congratulatory self-agreement?

Things like these gems:

An interesting observation about human behavior, particularly Liberal human behavior:

The inevitable conclusion of Democrat and liberal theology is, of course, Maoism, where everybody is equal, no one stands out, and no one picks any "favorites"

That is absolute lunacy from two and probably more directions:

1) The idea that the inevitable outcome of liberal ideology is Communism is straight out of Mein Kampf. If this was true, one would expect that liberals would have been embraced in the Old Soviet Union, and yet they were as persecuted there as they were in Nazi Germany on the Right.

In fact, quite ironically, the same liberals who are loathed in this country as Extreme Lefties are loathed (even still) in the Old Soviet Russia and modern BushPutinist Russia as Extreme Righties. If you don't believe me, please Google the "Union of Right Forces", which is one of the liberals partoes who oppose Communism and BushPutinism.

Seems to me that Liberals are equally loathed by both Left and Right Authoritarian Extremes, which leads me to

2) The idea that psychological constants apply to one side of the political spectrum or another is hubris at best, ridiculous at worst. If indeed FS has touched on a psychological constant, it applies to all human beings, not one political ideology or another.

I would like to go further and explain how this is so, but both your and FS' comments are so scattershot and confused, it is difficult to fully dissect the "point" made as to point out how it exists in all peoples.

But I will try to address what I think you are trying to say:

Aside from the fact that FS' comments are the darkest kind of nonsense, I do see that you are making a point, though I believe your point is also based on things which are simply incorrect assumptions.

Like this gem:

we embrace diversity but we also strive that everyone be treated the same and that we be blind to our differences.

I must confess, Buzz Click, this makes me wonder about you. It is almost as if you are trying to explain something you utterly disagree with. I happen to disagree with Liberals on more than a few different things, though the current State of Emergency of our democracy makes me put those aside for now, but I cannot fathom anyone who undersatands the least thing about Liberals or Liberalism (as seperate from the more extreme leftists who can be found at DU) could say something like that.

Librealism, as I understand it and have viewed it here at DU all these years now, doesn't seek to submerge differences in Commie Greyness, but to integrate them and form something stronger and more vital than a homogeneously-opinionated group. Treating people fairly has nothing to do with eradicating differences, and I say again that I see that most of Liberalism (there are always exceptions to every rule) is about embracing and integrating differences, not smashing them flat into a uniform paste.

That would be Leftist Authoritarianism, which loathes Liberalism as much as Rightist Authoritarianism does, as I showed above.

Anyway, you entire post, as founded on the same kind of wildly incorrect assumptions that Hannity and Glenn Beck put forth daily, makes me wonder if you are in the right place or are "just visiting".

I apologize, but that is my conunudrum cause by this wacky post. Your post reads like something I would expect someone from FR to say, and just as fully of incorrect base assumptions being used to build incorrect conclusions.

I apologize for being so harsh, but that is what it looks like.

What in God's name are you trying to say? Because, at the very least, you have made a muddle in trying to say it and all your base assumptions on which you've built the shaky edifice of your "point" (whatever it may be) seem to be grossly incorrect.

[Crunchy Frog]

24. Well, you know, he does have a troll as his avatar.

Just sayin'.

[Buzz Clik]

35. It's a demon.

I'm on the brink of 10,000 posts, and I donate to DU twice annually (at least!). Sorry, but I'm not a troll.

I have no problem yanking people's chains, pushing the boundaries, or bringing in rightwing quotes that have some interesting aspects.

Diversity, right?

[tom_paine]

39. Sorry 'bout that, Buzz. That liberalism leads to Marxism bullshit pushes my buttons.

And I know you were just quoting someone else, but it got the best of me.

Peace.

[Buzz Clik]

43. Not a problem. I put the quote here because it rattled my cage.

Putting a quote like that can get a lot of engines revved.

[Buzz Clik]

37. Not sure where to start, tom. Let's begin with the easy stuff:

1. Yeah, I disagree with the quote. (There was more to the quote that created better context, but it was too damned confusing to bring in here.).

2. You seem to have struggled with separating my comments (which were very, very limited) from those of the quote. I simply said it was an interesting view on liberalism, and that embracing diversity while seemingly pushing for equality could be construed as a contradiction. Just as you, I do not see the conflict. This was summarized beautifully in post #16 by RainDog. The part about Maosism, as I stated previously, is simply incorrect.

3. Am I a visitor here? Not exactly. In contrast, I have only lurking rights at the site where the quote originated; believe it or not, my extreme left-wing point of view is unwanted there.

Now that we're past the preliminaries, I would say that you've given one helluva rebuttal to the opening quote. I'll be explaining this in more detail at the bottom of the thread.

[Buzz Clik]

20. Wow! A lot of strong reactions

I won't be in a position to respond for a bit. But, I promise this is neither a hit-and-run nor some stealthy, rightwing attempt to pollute DU. Please check back around 8 pm EST....

[Solon]

21. The strong reactions are because the author you cited apparently failed in psychology...

political science, and social science. The guy makes, in a very literal way, absolutely no sense. I'm trying to parse his statement, and I'm getting a brain cramp in the process. I didn't know it was possible that someone could make so many incorrect assumptions in such a brief statement. "Interesting" wouldn't be a word I would use to describe his statement.

[Buzz Clik]

38. Fair enough.

[Deja Q]

23. Having observed numerous observations,

no comment. :rofl:

[tom_paine]

25. You rock, hypno toad!

:yourock:



I find myself curiously agreeable to everything you say...

[sandnsea]

30. I don't think there are any Maoists here

I think we all celebrate diversity and love to see differing cultures, eyes wide open. I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[shadowknows69]

42. I am Shadow McCloud of the clan McCloud!!!

There can be only one.

[Buzz Clik]

44. McDonald here, with a touch of Ross -- all from my mother's side.

Is that as clannish as we get?

[tom_paine]

45. Ye've got the devvil in yew, Shadow...

BURN HIM!

[Buzz Clik]

47. My explanation of this thread.

The person who wrote this quote is not a fool or an idiot. He is intellegent and well educated, though he is firmly planted on the right and has a strong distaste for those of us on the left. However, he views us differently than most -- he sees us as highly stratified based mostly (I think) on our behavior but also our backgrounds as he perceives them. He assigns us to higher tiers and lower tiers. He seems to enjoy occasionally reading some of our more energetic threads. Thus, his comment, "the most interesting, the most compelling, discussions are those in which the participants are the most diverse." His analysis of DU was fairly decent, though biased, up to this point. (There was a great deal more to the original analysis. I selected only the parts that I wanted to discuss here.)

The second paragraph was fascinating to me. The author seamlessly transitioned from a pretty interesting (and, in my mind, dead on) analysis of DU and bulletin boards in general to a linear, pigeon-holing, sweeping statement about liberalism in general. It was pretty annoying to read the easy and misguided move from Democrat to liberal to Maoist in less than ten words. The problem stems directly from the environment in which he posts. He is surrounded by people who are, by all possible analyses, political simpletons. Everything is black and white with no room for the shades of gray that we all know exist in life. In my opinion, when you are able to post this kind of contradictory material with no one to challenge you, then you do. If he had to face some of the hard-nosed, well constructed arguments seen here, this post would be more balanced. Not that we'd convince him to become a liberal; I simply think he'd avoid cliches.

I do believe the same exists at DU at least to some extent.

[Mythsaje]

48. Before I came to DU

I used to post on the about.com civil liberties boards. A lot of RWer types there, but quite a few were fairly rational libertarian types. (Economically stupid, but generally socially decent). Saw a lot of these folks stand up to gay-bashing and the like.

There weren't a lot of rules. Well, frankly, there weren't any rules that I could see. It was like professional wrestling without the scripts.


But after 9/11, things changed. And then, when the Iraq War started heating up, things changed some more. People I'd assumed were rational began to prove themselves anything but. The cheerleading was over-the-top. Things that would've driven them nuts had a Democratic administration done them were lauded and applauded.

I left in flat disgust. A few weeks later I was here.

I've debated these folks and, well, it's about as productive as shaving a cat. A lot of noise and fury and not much in the way of positive results.

Of course the more diverse threads are generally more interesting. Echo chambers are rather dull, after all. Different points of view are healthy.

This fellow might be intelligent, but narrow-mindedness produces its own kind of idiocy.

[Buzz Clik]

49. Tip of the hat.

Merry Christmas.


And feel better.

[NashVegas]

50. Just Because You Love Monsanto, Doesn't Make Us Evil Mind-Numbed Libruls, Ya Know?

..

[Buzz Clik]

51. Monsanto?