Free Speech 101 (For DU Beginners)

[SidneyCarton]

I have the right to express my opinion.

You have the right to think my opinion is stupid and tell me so.

I have the right to tell you that your reasons for thinking my opinion is stupid are even dumber.

You have the right to tell me to go to hell.

I have the right to not give a damn.

Either of us has the right to put the other on ignore if we can't stand what the other one writes.



It's really quite simple folks, people who disagree with you, and argue with you aren't stifiling your freedom of speech, they're exercising their own. It is assumed that the majority of us rec or unrec threads based on some personal judgment of their individual merits, though there are likely random rec'ers and unrec'ers as well, such is life. Opinions are like armpits, we all have them, and their odor is likely to offend some of us.

[YOY]

1. Add...the only thing that cannot constitutionally tell you to shut up is the government.

n.t.

[Xipe Totec]

2. Well said. K&R.

[TexasObserver]

3. Accurate.

And they can always stick their fingers in their ears, or eyes, to remove the offending opinion.

For the hardest cases, accompanying that action by saying "la la la la" loudly may help keep the offending information from reaching those sensitive ears.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Addendum: You do *not* have a gawd-given right to the Greatest page.

[SidneyCarton]

5. Exactly.

Freedom of speech does not mean a guarantee of popular acclamation, and it never has.

[SidDithers]

15. +1...nt

Sid

[mamaleah]

17. Thank you! n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

71. Wish I could rec this comment.

[bertman]

6. "Ignore" is ignorant and arrogant. There have been many threads on DU where I have

had heated disagreements (to the point of thinking the other poster was an imbecile) only to find that the person with whom I disagreed strenuously on that post was bringing up some excellent points on another post.

If you don't like what someone says, refute it in your own post or just stop reading and go to the next post. Putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and screaming nah nah nah nah, does not add to your body of knowledge.

[SidneyCarton]

9. I see ignore as more of a self-preservation mechanism than anything else.

There have been some posters on this board who I have attempted to engage in conversation only to realize that we really have nothing constructive to say to each other, and that any attempt at communication between us tends to boil down to mutual insults and flaming. In these cases I have found it safer to ignore them, as it makes the arrangement more pleasant for the both of us. Perhaps you have thicker skin, if so I salute you.

[omega minimo]

30. That is all very true

and reason not to overuse Ignore. Until yesterday's ugliness. Now it's another tool to customize the DU experience. Plenty of fish in the sea.

[scubadude]

69. Hear Hear! That is why I come here, to learn, and inform.

I've had many heated discussions with folks whose thinking I detest, and yet at times have come away with an appreciation to some subtle point to which previously I was unaware. At other times I have persuaded. This is the rich result of public discourse. We don't all agree and that is from what learning springs.

I disagree with unrecommend, yet I believe that most like it. Perhaps it makes them feel more secure knowing that they have power to control to some degree what the rest of the group sees. They may feel uncomfortable when views alternate to their's are brought to the groups attention. Of course the owners and moderators of this forum are apt to side with the largest group, it pays their salaries after all, and it only makes sense that they milk it for all they can get.

This board is slowly moving towards group think and intolerance and a requirement for conformity. That is a bad thing to me. I think for myself. I make my own decisions. I learn something almost every day here, and risk the chance of being offended or of being offensive to someone else. I have probably offended a whole lot of folks with all this unrec business already, but to me it matters. I for one am not here for popularity, I am hear as I said to learn and perhaps persuade, and I have never put anyone on ignore.

In this lurching towards conformity. I have noticed attempts to silence or marginalize valid points of view because they were uncomfortable to the bulk of the group (Obama made a mistake, he can do no wrong!). Move a post to the 911 area because it mentions LIHOP (uncomfortable). Moderators ignore questions made with no explanations. Calling folks tin foil hatters when they mention anything unusual or something that requires a group to pull off (conspiracy theory). Yet every day as hindsight catches up with the Bush administration we see that there indeed were groups of folks working together to get their way. Isn't that what politics is about, convincing the larger group you are right?

So go ahead, put me on ignore. I'll still be paying attention to you, so that perhaps I may learn something. I'm doomed in that way. I understand my imperfection and am willing to listen and learn. I don't like being led around by the nose however much you recommend it, but hey, it's all politics, right? That doesn't mean I have to like it.

Scuba

[Mist]

7. Well said, Sidney! Happy to give this a rec. nt

[kenfrequed]

8. If you disagree...

Wouldn't posting a reply or adding a message and explaining "Why" you disagree be more useful in dialouge than clicking unrecommend?

(I also unrecommended this thread.)

[SidneyCarton]

10. Feel free, I'm not expecting a lot of friendly recs for this post.

[CJCRANE]

14. Then why have an anonymous recommend feature?

It should work both ways.

[kenfrequed]

16. Hmm

The difference-

If some group of corporate PR posters stop on en masse for five minutes to recommend something it will take time to knock it back down to where it ought to be with unrecs.


If some corporate PR posters stomp on with a bunch of unrec's than the post may be consigned forever to the basement and never see the light of day.

The equivalence sounds theoretically sound but ends up not being equivalent.

[LynneSin]

28. Yes because that's what those Corporate PR types do all day - Unrec threads

which explains why the three of the first threads on the DU great page were about such beloved Corporate types like Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney and Michael Moore

:eyes:

FACT: You get one chance to vote. Any more votes in a thread require a sock puppet and the Admins track those and ban you

FACT: After 24 hours you can't even vote anymore on the thread.


Corporate PR folks have better things to do than to monitor every webforum out there. Take off the tinfoil hat please!

[kenfrequed]

33. Yup

And there we go.... tinfoil.

Ultimate dismissive manuever and ad hominem.

So corporations ignore the internet and don't do any manipulation at all? Really? Are you certain about that?

I think that you should consider that most people that are inently interested in politics on the left tend to get their information from the internet. Almost every democrat in my congressional distract claims to have an internet presence and most of them eagerly slurp up URL's or whatever other information they can get on bills and candidates.

I think it is myopic to assume that lobbyist groups and PR organizations are unaware of this.

Just because big names get to the top of the greatest page (BTW this change is less than 48 hours old so it is difficult to say what will occur afterwards) does not automatically mean there is no manipulation. That is tantamount to saying that the republicans did not ATTEMPT election fraud in 2008 because Obama won. Sort of an inverse "Post Hoc" fallacy there.

[LynneSin]

39. I don't know about you but I just try to enjoy the website

and not screw my tinfoil hat on too tightly. When I see something well written, that shows the author put great effort into it - I'll recommend it. When I see an idea that should be promoted I recommend it. And when I see something I disagree I'll unrecommended. In 24 hrs I've seen enough of my serious threads with a <0 and figured - whelp folks didn't like that idea and I move on to the next one. I dont' read into it that some secret sect of Corporate bigwigs have a room full of peons whose only job is to unrec anything and everythign that constitutes 'free thought'

It's just a website, seriously. Perhaps ifyou're putting that much thought into it then you should step away from the computer and enjoy the RL a bit.

[kenfrequed]

48. PR isn't really secret

Now you characterize an entire industry as "a conspiracy?"

Do PR firms exist or don't they?

What do they exist to do if not to control information and spread slanted or outright disinformation?


Yes this is one website of dozens that, if you had a few operators working at, you could nudge and budge public opinion amongst the most ardent political activists a bit. Is it worth it to do this? I kind of think it might be.


And this isn't about an oblique term like "PR groups targeting all free thought" or whatever straw-man/ad absurdem nonsense you manage to catapult out with yoru charges of 'tin foil.' This is about how easy or hard we make information control.

[SidneyCarton]

53. How many active DUers are there?

look at the general opinions expressed over the board, do they strongly mimic the actually policy positions taken by the Party as a whole, no. If DU were representative of the Democratic electorate as a whole in this country, we would have run Kucinich in 04 and 08. Considering the relatively small number of active DUers, coupled with our effective disconnect from actual party policy (thus suggesting the weakness of our actual policy-making influence within the party) I would say that TPTB don't really see us as much of a threat. As such, while I see the possibility of what you suggest, I would argue that the likelihood of such an event is low.

[LynneSin]

55. Take a deep breath - seriously

It's a webforum, one of a trillion you can find anywhere out there on the internets.

Have fun, post stuff, goof on freepers and get laid. What else can I say?

[kenfrequed]

59. A trillion?

Really?

Naw too easy. Look, there really only are a handful and a half of big progressive websites that have a decent population and actually have been mentioned offline.

There certainly aren't 'a trillion' of them or any other imaginary number.

There could be fifty heavy traffic websites and a PR group could contract maybe a dozen people to easily manage four times that number.

I'm breathing easily because this sort of thing has been done. Wikipedia has been repeatedly hit. Trolling, sock-puppeting, and any other numbers of habits and behavoirs wouldn't even have names if they haven't been done.

Your sort of like the opposite of a conspiracy theorist. Crazy conspiracy theorists believe "Everything is a conpsiracy." You sort of decide "every thing is a conspiracy theory" as a straw man/ad absurdem tactic (I picked out the ad absurdem tendency early) and then denounce it all. Really just a mirror image of an equally wild position.

[LynneSin]

61. wow that tinfoil hat is screwed on real tight isn't it

Reality is that a large majority of DUers have posted and said that they are fine with this system. Give it a few weeks to see how it works out before generating your conspiracy theories. In 2 weeks we'll find something new and interesting to be all outraged about but this? Pul-lease. :eyes:

*** wonders how soon til he replies again with his bizarro plots of DU dominiation by the corporate media thru use of recommendation system ***

[kenfrequed]

62. ad hominem/strawman combo platter

Can I have a number #9 please.

Yes, with a side of ad absurdem?

Thanks please.

[kenfrequed]

63. Oh and I should mention again

That my original point in this discussion was to suggest how much better discussion could be served by... I dunno actually posting something. You know, making an argument and backing it up a bit with facts.

The Unrec allows any creepign crawling troll to come along and just ditto out an unrec for free with no actual debate or discussion.

[LynneSin]

65. And guess what the original REC system did the SAME EXACT THING!!!

Except now those who abused the REC system don't have the ability to push their one-sided agendas onto the homepage. You don't think creepy crawly trolls didn't REC stuff that made us look batshit crazy?

Oh the humanity!

:crazy:

[LynneSin]

64. Yeah, I figured you go there

When you get to far off the edge with your theories and people still aren't buying them - go for the Strawman ploy

:crazy:

[kenfrequed]

66. ploy?

I am sorry but when you truck in logical fallacies expect to get called on it occasionally.

[LynneSin]

73. Sweetie, you haven't said one logical thing in this whole thread

conspiracy theories, for the most part, aren't very logical.

It's just a feature - deal with it.

When you make sense perhaps I'll actually reply back as such. But for you I figured I'll keep it simple

[kenfrequed]

75. I am sorry but you are wrong

You have thown out fallacy after fallacy and I have even pointed a few out for you.

The things I have speculated about are entirely possible and there have been many attempts to manipulate data, information, and opinion using the internet. You have chosen to deride, scorn, mock, insult, misrepresent and demonstrate some lack of information about the PR industry.

I don't know what your motive is or why you attatch to some "that doesn't happen" worldview when there is ample evidence that it does. You must believe yourself to be logical I suppose but I don't know for the life of me why you jump to the x-files when someone points something like this out.

[Ms. Toad]

70. Huh? The arithmetic is identical.

Assuming an invasion of corporate PR posters (which I consider highly unlikely), it will take identical lengths of time for DU (other than the invasion of corporate posters) to counteract the influence by either knocking down or recommending back up. No difference.

[Romulox]

11. There's no "free speech" on a private forum such as this one. nt

[earth mom]

12. UR nt

[redqueen]

13. lol

[LynneSin]

41. And it still has a +15 as oppose to your thread with 500 replies and

go figure

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. Unlike ignore, rec and unrec change the viewing experience for others. n/t

[fizzgig]

35. but not keeping something kicked also changes our viewing experience

i have a very hard time imagining that duers go to the greatest page, click on an op, go right back to the greatest page, click on an op, etc, etc.

if you keep a thread kicked in the big forums, people are still going to see it. i never go to the greatest or latest page, or even the home page for that matter. i go right to the forums i enjoy and navigate from there. i don't even read threads based on the number of recs it has. if the subject line interests me, i read it. if it doesn't, i move on.

if you think a thread is important, keep it kicked.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. That's true. Kicking is meant to change the viewing experience of others as well.

I visit the greatest page daily. If the top OP ("Recommend this if you think that bad things are bad!" or "Kick if you like Andy!") seems interesting, I'll read it. Then I'll click the back arrow and check out the next, etc. etc. I may not view every post, but I certainly am more likely to read the recommended posts than the relatively obscure, yet often better, ones in the various topic forums.

[fizzgig]

44. but that's your choice

you're limiting what you see, not the unrec feature.

[lumberjack_jeff]

49. Not entirely. The architecture influences what items are on the menu. n/t

[MoonRiver]

19. And this thread is now on the Greatest Page.

nuff said

[tekisui]

20. Not anymore.

:evilgrin:

[tekisui]

21. .

[Hepburn]

22. Look again....

...and see a good reason to get rid of this bullshit unR system.

JMHO

[tekisui]

24. I think if a post gets 5 recs it should make it to the GP.

Regardless of how many unrecs it gets.

[anigbrowl]

68. That's a pretty low standard for greatness

It's kind of irrelevant to me as I don't read the GP, but I have sometimes found it irritating to see threads that are devoid of any informative or original content and just posted as crowd pleasers (eg rec this thread if you think DU is awesome, or rec this thread if you think the GOP sux!), and people posting '5th rec!!!! off to the greatest with you!!!'. Occasionally people seem to use the GP as a way to keep score in some kind of social game.

[tekisui]

25. dupe

[GoneOffShore]

23. Voice of reason soon to be covered in bullshit shoveled by the fans of circular reasoning.

Sorry for the metaphoric mix.

[johnaries]

26. Exactly. thanks! K&R

[omega minimo]

27. You are free to post an antagonistic, negative, mocking OP proving this is bringing out pettiness

[LynneSin]

29. Well heck you're the master at doing that

:eyes:

[omega minimo]

31. C'mon LS you accused ME of stalking last night. Why are you pulling this shit now?

I'm serious, enjoy your pettybutton.

[SidneyCarton]

34. For the love of Cthulthu, Omega grow a hide!

The whole point of my post was to illustrate that disagreement is not stifling, it is also not necessarily antagonistic, mocking or negative. Had I written the OP like this...

I have the right to express my opinion.

If you disagree you are a corporatist/DLC/Freeper Whore and should be tombstoned immediately.

It would have been all of the above. It also would have likely accurately reflected your own point of view as well as those of many of the others with problems with the Unrec feature. Neither you, nor I, nor any other poster on this board has an absolute, inalienable right to have their post appear on the greatest page, deal with it.

[omega minimo]

37. You're still doing it

The OP and that post both come from a position of antagonism and conflict.

When the herd mentality has weeded out all the "fringe" posters, who will they blame for the infighting then?

Maybe no one will even notice.

Not all of us come here to fight.

[SidneyCarton]

38. "herd mentality" who is being antagonistic here?

You are not entitled to a post ending up on the "greatest page."

You are not entitled to fawning adoration of your every opinion.

You are not entitled to having your assertions stand unquestioned.

You are not entitled to denouncing anyone you disagree with while your own arguments must be accepted at face value as absolute truth.

This is called freedom of speech, you can call me a fascist and I can call you delusional and neither of us are in the wrong. No one is silencing you Omega, but you seem determined to silence the "herd." Do quiet sheep slaughter easier?

[omega minimo]

43. No one said any of that, except you. I'm shocked at how petty people apparently have been viewing

"Greatest." It's really sad.

[SidneyCarton]

45. If you don't believe any of the above, then why the anger?

Is it the shock of realizing you may be in the minority on this board?

Is it the realization that you weren't as "mainstream" as you once thought?

Or do you honestly think the board has been utterly infiltrated by Corporatist/DLC/Freeper hordes who are bent on snuffing out the last flickering lights of progressive thought here?

Seriously Omega, you came to this thread and wanted to argue, the chip is on your shoulder, not mine. So what is your real problem?

[omega minimo]

46. You are free to post an antagonistic, negative, mocking OP proving this is bringing out pettiness

That's all I said.

I added that it is sad.

There's already belligerence and jockeying for position here every day. This has brought out how invested many folks are in that. And proud of it.

I'm not angry. They are.

So be it.

[SidneyCarton]

47. And yet the OP was none of the above, it was pointing out a oft neglected point about free speech.

You chose to come in offended, guns blazing and rail at me for my "antagonism."

Step away from the computer for a while, none of this really matters, its bytes and bytes, and bs and as such is ultimately unfulfilling.

[omega minimo]

50. Read your own OP. Your assumptions about how a discussion progresses, From the first line

:shrug:


I made a statement about it (you probably still can't see how your OP comes off) and you project this:

"You chose to come in offended, guns blazing and rail at me for my "antagonism." "

Not offended, no guns blazing, no railing.

That's in your head.

[SidneyCarton]

51. Really...

Is there no sense of nuance, no sense of satire, no understanding of basic examples in you reading comprehension skills?

1. this was an exemplary meta-thread, showing the possible progression of a disagreement.

2. for the sake of keeping it short enough to read (outside of the R/T forum most DU'ers aren't big on reading long OP's) I did not go over all the possible tactics in discussion (I doubt it's possible anyway.)

3. the point of the OP was to point out that one may disagree in free speech, and there is nothing wrong with it, indeed it is intended to work that way.

Sadly it seems that you came in spoiling for a fight, and determined to be offended. I can't really to anything about that, so I'm sorry, I hope your life away from DU is less dramatic than the one you have here, because if not you are truly to be pitied.

[omega minimo]

52. You're just repeating your own projections. More antagonism. Want the last word? Fine.

[SidneyCarton]

54. Thanks.

[hfojvt]

58. I think it's kinda funny how I posted a few hours later

essentially agreeing with you, without having read this subthread. Although the OP did not intend it, I sorta didn't like the way he suggested a typical discussion would go, as an exchange of name-calling and hostility.

Some of those exchanges would be borderline against DU rules, especially since I think there is a rule calling for civility.

It was a generic discussion in the OP, but the exchange could have involved a generic disagreement rather than an example of name-calling and hostility.

[omega minimo]

60. Yes, we agreed without agreeing to agree, didn't we?

:spray:


Your points are well put. It seems the OP acknowledged in his reply to you, that his "examplar" was from a POV, perhaps caught up in the moment of current tensions.

The point remains that this has brought out different attitutdes and expectations of how we communicate here. So much belligerence and bitterness has been confirmed as being intentional, it's enlightening.

So many folks come on strong, "blunt force," including the "name-calling and hostility" and then refer to all that mess as "disagreeing." Then they get mad about being called on it.

One possible outcome is that more folks will gravitate toward others of similar communication style.

As did we. :pals:

[MoonRiver]

32. It's on, but in the two star section.

I didn't know we had star sections! Is this a new addition also?

[SidneyCarton]

36. No, we've always had them, but haven't even looked.

I don't enter through the greatest page, and rarely check it out.

[seabeyond]

42. here here.... n/t

[hfojvt]

56. perhaps you should include argument or logic 101 too

If you think the primary method of communicating are things like 'stupid' and 'even dumber' then there is a problem here.

Perhaps it should be possible to talk about facts and other things you know without insulting the intellegence of people who either do not know those facts or believe they know other things through their own reading, experience, observation and contemplation.

Even people who sometimes mis-spell the word 'intelligence'.

[SidneyCarton]

57. look it was exemplar, and a blunt instrument at that.

I freely admit that many discussions on DU don't go that way, but my point was not to create a stereotypical DU discussion, but to point out that all these reactions are allowed under the idea of free speech.

As to the argument or logic 101, if you would like to volunteer the posts, I think it would be a wonderful idea, i'd even rec them.

[falcon97]

67. That's idiotic

:sarcasm:

[Pacifist Patriot]

72. Surely I am not the only one who recommended threads based...

on quality of writing and interest of topic and would unrecommend using the same criteria. I have recommended threads that contained ideas with which I did not agree simply because I thought they were well-written, logically presented, compelling and worthy of existence on the Greatest Page for further discussion.

I do not see myself unrecommending a thread simply because someone said something with which I disagree. I will unrecommend a thread if it is poorly written, contains an abundance of flawed logic or merely perpetuates right wing talking points with no substance to back it up.

I refuse to believe I am the only person on this site with these types of criteria. I wish people would let it play out for a couple of weeks. If it seems to be abused or is diminishing the quality of discussion on the Greatest Page I'm going to have to trust the site administrators to figure that out. I am always free to come and go as I please. Doesn't seem quite enough to ruffle my feathers at this stage.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. On a point of accuracy: you don't have the right to tell people to 'go to hell' on DU

that would be considered going to far. But the rest looks accurate.