Are there some people here who think DU just shouldn't DISCUSS poverty?

[Ken Burch]

It seems like threads that deal with it here are almost always "unrec" bait.

I know some Dems have this fixation with the idea that the party should never say or stand for anything that makes "teh 'burbs" uncomfortable, but it's getting ridiculous.

One of this party's moral responsibilities is to stand up for the poor when they're slandered(like it didn't during the "welfare mother" smearstorms of the Limbaugh Nineties)and to actively work to reduce poverty.

There's no excuse for "unrecing" threads dealing with the poor.

[cali]

1. any post I write will get unrecs, and I'm sure I'm not the only one

I think it has more to do with petty personality driven shit than any subject.

[tkmorris]

6. Then perhaps it's a personality issue

With all due respect if you piss off one person write it off as a personality conflict, but if you're pissing off huge swaths of humanity you might want to look inward for the answer to that one.

[cali]

8. lol. pissing off segments of people on a political discussion board

is not pissing off huge segments of humanity. respectfully, it's sad to see that you're confused over .

[Kid Dynamite]

36. As a newbie I humbly offer a suggestion

Perhaps people are not pissed at AT your personality, but instead unsatisfied with your blatant substitution of the personal for the political and personality for substance.

For instance, rather than talking about why poverty threads get unrecced, you talk about why YOU get unrecced. First it would help to establish whether you have ever even posted about poverty, gauge the response as best we could, and so on. I don't know because I do not post here often

I would unrecc a "woe is me" rant such as the one you just authored because I am interested in discussing poverty whereas I am not interested in discussing the interpersonal conflicts you apparently can't handle on your own or feel the need to dramatize in places where it is completely inappropriate. I can link you to the Lounge if you don't know where it is.

[TexasObserver]

61. Great post. Absolutely correct. If it's an OP with any "you guys are being unfair" in it ...

... I unrecommend. Anyone who can't start their OP without resorting to whining about who is recommending and who is unrecommending their threads, they'll never get a recommend from me. Why would I want that kind of thread on the Greatest Page?

Posters who make the OP about themselves invite rejection.

[sendero]

122. I'm so sick of hearing about unrecommend...

.... I am going to automatically unrec any thread where the OP mentions unrec.

Get the fuck over it.

[Ken Burch]

129. It's not a thread about "unrec".

It was just that it was impossible to address the subject of the OP WITHOUT mentioning it. You know that.

[waiting for hope]

111. +1

[tkmorris]

130. May I offer you a belated welcome?

You said it better than I did by far. In my defense I have tried many times in the past to get through to that particular poster without success, I'm rather too jaded by it to try very hard anymore.

Welcome to DU Kid, may your words flow freely and often.

:toast:

[Kid Dynamite]

133. Whats all this about Jade?

[JNelson6563]

135. Wish I could rec a comment

You perfectly stae the exact reasons I have this particular poster as the one and only soul on my ignore list. Can't take the narcissism.

Julie

[spiritual_gunfighter]

75. I don't think it is surprising being someone who has read many of

your OPs that you get a lot of unrecs.

[shadowknows69]

97. I think you underestimate yourself cali.

:*

[PufPuf23]

120. One makes a stronger statement without the rude or profane or

condescending.

As you know, that was a lesson of my father.

[Fumesucker]

10. Anyone who takes strong stands on anything at all is going to upset some people..

I have to admit that cali rubs me the wrong way sometimes, but I don't take it personally and would never unrec an OP for that reason, we just disagree on some things, sometimes strongly.

I can only think of one poster whose threads I might unrec simply because of who they are (and I haven't actually done so).. Thank Gawd It Passed..

[QC]

16. Oh yes, Professor Thank-God-It-Passed!

I feel ya!

[shadowknows69]

15. I'm sure I'm as likely to draw some. Perhaps even from you eh? lol

Which in my opinion is the main thing wrong with the system. This place has its cliques and a lot of unreccing is simply personal.

[BlooInBloo]

56. Why haven't I heard of these cliques dammit? How do I join? Is there an application?

Sick of being everybody's target - I need a posse!

[shadowknows69]

82. I see ignored has replied.

[TexasObserver]

59. I recommend your good OPs and unrecommend your bad ones.

When you post something that is more than a personal rant, when you don't post an OP full of "fuckwads" and "fucktards" and such, and say something of substance, I recommend. I don't recommend your personal rants, which are most of the threads you start.

It's not personal. I don't care for threads that are angry rants with juvenile use of language.

[shadowknows69]

81. So just do nothing. You just admitted it is personal.

You said you unrec me when I write personal rants and because of my language. How is that judging me by anything but personal views and not by the content of my posts.

[TexasObserver]

83. No, I just said it is not personal. I don't want juvenile OPs on the Greatest Page.

Write an OP worth recommending, and I'll be glad to recommend it. If you want to use language I find objectionable in an OP for the Greatest Page, that's your choice. Unrecommending it is my choice.

[shadowknows69]

84. Pray tell, what is it I should be writing and what shouldn't I? Oh arbiter of what is juvenile?

[TexasObserver]

86. Well, for starters, your approach in that post is emblematic of the problem.

As I've said, I have no use for angry, petulant OPs that complain about perceived ill treatment by other posters here. I have no use for rants that lack substance but are long on personal animus. And I have no use for OPs which seem to require the use of words like "fucktards."

I don't care if you start such threads, but I will unrecommend them because I think they have no place on the Greatest Page and they are not worthy of recommending on any level.

If all your threads are quality, I'll recommend all of them. If all of your threads are lacking in the qualities I find useful for the Greatest Page, I'll unrecommend all of them.

[shadowknows69]

89. I haven't used one obscenity in this post, and to be fair, I don't think I use it excessively

But to be fair here we all know this is an adult board. I'm far from the most vulgar writer here and I usually only use it for shocking effect. I just "personally" think it is kind of a shallow criteria for what should be on the greatest page. All of my stuff of a certain length goes right to the main page anyway so I don't really care how many recs I get; but like many writers here most of my stuff is completely original works and I like to be read. I think comments on the thread are the best and most courageous way to critique something you don't like and I've never been shy of that. I don't like the easy anonymity of the system. I'd rather have you chastise me intelligently and on the thread in question. To me unrec is juvenile.

[TexasObserver]

105. I don't recall your threads

I don't recall your threads, except I do recall that you favor the personal letter to board type OP, whereas kind I favor the kind best exemplified by the typical thread by Babylonsister.

WHO starts a thread is immaterial to me. If I think an OP deserves a recommend, I'll give it, even if I don't care for the poster. And likewise, I'll unrecommend the thread of a poster I like. I do both of those things many times daily. Content and Title are the only things I care about when recommending or unrecommending.

Here are some of the threads I have recommended today. They all have substantive OPs and all address a topic in a way I find appropriate for the Greatest Page.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8539567&mesg_id=8539567

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6111484&mesg_id=6111484

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6114376&mesg_id=6114376

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6110317&mesg_id=6110317

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6114530&mesg_id=6114530

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6113174&mesg_id=6113174

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6115327&mesg_id=6115327

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6115407&mesg_id=6115407

[shadowknows69]

110. Well, I'll try to link to more of other people's stories and maybe then I'll gain your respect.

Actually? You can keep it. I don't write for anyone but myself anyway.

[shireen]

2. i just recommended it.

Poverty is inhumane. It must be addressed ...

LOUDLY!

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Ah another wrecked-unwrecked disaster of an OP, but well disguised.

If you wish to discuss a topic, please do post a thread about that topic and include the subject in the headline.

[Fumesucker]

9. The subject is "poverty" and it is indeed in the headline..

And I think it is a legitimate OP, why *would* discussions of poverty collect a lot of negative recs?

Other than of course the fact it makes a lot of people uncomfortable to note that not everyone in America is middle class or better?

[Ken Burch]

41. I did

The subject was poverty. The "unrec" thing was just a symptom of how some people get on that subject.

[xultar]

64. +1 -----i can haz free speech?

[redqueen]

77. Yep.

The drama, it's old.

[H2O Man]

4. "Poverty

is the worst form of violence." -- Gandhi

Nominated.

[tkmorris]

5. Amen brother

Poverty is one of my "pet" issues and I am getting a bit tired of so-called Progressives finding ways to not discuss it.

[QC]

7. People perceive it as criticism of the Administration.

We are only supposed to post pinup photos and discuss fluffy bunnies and cute kitties now.

[ThomCat]

21. Yup. We're supposed to pretend that Obama has cured all

of society's problems, or at least have unshakable faith that he certainly will by the end of his term.

If we talk about a Poverty as a real issue that isn't being addressed that implies that Obama isn't doing something right. Can't have that! :wow:

I remember when this used to be a site for critiquing policy and politics, even without our own party.

[QC]

88. That seems like a very, very long time ago, doesn't it?

But isn't Bo just adorable??!!

[saltpoint]

11. People post stuff. Some agree. Some disagree.

There are very good posts on poverty, or election fraud, or political scandal, or health care reform, and not.

It's a forum.

[malaise]

12. Well here's a rec

I agree with you.

[Ken Burch]

42. Thanks

n/t.

[zipplewrath]

13. Example

Since I can't see the posts you are referencing, it is hard to discuss your point. What discussion about poverty do you believe are being supressed? Causes? Solutions? Programs?

[druidity33]

14. It was upsetting

to Sapphire Blue too. I think i got the name right. She was a tireless advocate for the poor here on DU... used to have the best and most passionate threads. Often they were ignored/scorned/sank. Lotta smilie hugs on those threads though. I miss her loud reminders on this issue.

:hug:

[waiting for hope]

112. She was a good friend too to those

who were kind to her. She would get so despondent if something that she posted that required a call to congress to help lift up a bill that involved helping those in need sinking like a stone. And rightly so - she always felt DU was a community of Democrats with a like minded mission and since poverty has been a Democratic cause over the years, you would think it was important.

[tkmorris]

131. SapphireBlue was one of the best DU'ers there ever was

Her daughter posts here once in a while, as Indigo Blue. Some disguise eh? She's every bit as passionate as her mother, only younger. Be sure to say hi to her if you see her, the professional thread-crappers on DU have got her feeling a bit down about the place.

:hug:

[SoCalDem]

17. In recent years, it's become increasingly difficult to "discuss" just about anything here

No matter what issue, or from which standpoint an issue is broached, it's 100% assured that the "usual suspects" will show up and crap on the thread.

It's a rare thread that remains on topic, with civil discussion ensuing.

It's also not surprising why so many "old-timers" are no longer here.

[ThomCat]

22. +1

So damned many good people just aren't here any more. But you're right, it isn't surprising when you step back and take a look at DU now. :(

[raccoon]

30. So it's not just me thinking that DU has gone downhill. nt

[Skittles]

126. fuck no

it took a major downturn when the goosesteppers showed up

[QC]

90. At last...the truth! +1000000000000000000000000

[varelse]

18. There are some on DU who aren't Democrats - or progressives, for that matter

"un"recommending a thread, as opposed to posting objections to the topic or op, takes mere seconds and does not expose the actor to debate or criticism.

However, threads relating to poverty even get trolled in the Poverty forum, sadly. It's not a topic many (non-poor) people are comfortable discussing. Liberals feel pangs of useless guilt (which they often try to assuage by playing "blame the victim" games), moderates are itching to give "helpful" tips and suggestions for pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps, and conservatives can't seem to resist posting "I've got mine so suck it, bitches".

[QC]

91. Do you know what I think is going on with that?

I think that many people here are actually moderate Republicans, but they are too young to know that there was ever such a thing, so they figure that if they are not bugeyed loons, which is pretty much the definition of "Republican" now, they must surely be Democrats.

That's all I can figure when I see something like the recent pile-on thread about Howard Zinn, in which he was declared a lying commie and a dangerous man. Yes, Howard Zinn.

Did you ever imagine that you would see such a thing here?

[varelse]

99. Yes, part of the problem is outdated "branding" and labeling of political parties and positions

I saw the Howard Zinn pile-on phenomenon and I think you are probably correct as to the roots of that.

Serious discussions on poverty and homelessness, however, have long received short shrift here on DU. This seems to reflect a general unwillingness of most Americans to address these topics in conversation or engage in any honest public dialogue about poverty. Apparently, formerly "taboo" topics such as venereal diseases, personal sexual preferences, and even pedophilia are more widely accepted in conversation than poverty, the "new leprosy" of modern society.

[QC]

100. Yeah, I remember posting a thread a few years back about an amazing article on Appalachia

in the Boston Globe. The story moved me to tears, but the thread dropped like a rock. I kicked it a few times and then gave up.

It's much more fun, I guess, to make cheap jokes about incest and bad teeth than to learn something about rural poverty.

[Odin2005]

19. Probably Freeper trolls being A-holes.

Any actual DUer doing it needs a whack across the head.

[ThomCat]

24. Not just freepers and trolls.

Even among democrats, for some reason the focus for the past few years is almost entirely on how everything affects the middle class.

Not everyone is middle class. And measuring everything by how it affects the middle class doesn't tell us anything useful about how bills will affect society as a whole. Most people are poor. The economy is shaped like a pyramid, with poverty at the base.

I wish we could get the focus of our party back on addressing poverty. But Reagan succeeded in demonizing the poor, and ever since the 80s our party has been afraid to really stand up for the poor the way we should. :(

[varelse]

113. Poverty is often seen as a moral or personal failing on the part of the poor person

rather than as a societal ill. Did it really start with Reagan or is the individualistic view of poverty much older? I've read elsewhere that our nation's Puritan roots may have contributed to this worldview.

[LynneSin]

20. Yeah that tinfoil hat is on tight today?

we're not out to get anyone or any type of thread

ugh!

but go on, believe what you will. The other day someone insisted it was the unrecs that tanked a thread over in Editorial and it turns out only 4 people rec'd it an no one unrec.

Not every thread posted is going to get an unslaught of hundreds of recs/unrec. But sure, if you sleep better at night blaming the system for the failure of the thread then so be it.

Oh, and I happily unrec your thread

[Bluenorthwest]

23. So you come to a thread about poverty and jump to name calling

The lack of civility is noted. Who is this 'we' that you speak of? Is there a mouse in your pocket? The royal 'we'?

[LynneSin]

27. No, it wasn't a thread about poverty but another bitch about the 'unrec' thread

if it was a thread about poverty if I read it I probably would have rec'd it.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. It most certainly is a thread about why some reject poverty issues

here. And why they would wish that others not read about them either.
You come spouting off in the plural. "we're" not doing this. Who is this 'we'? Why are you speaking for a group and who is that group? Why are you not simply stating your opinion, but instead using language that implies you speak for many? Do you?
Note that the OP is about why people will unrec a poverty thread without saying why. Then you come on, claiming to represent a magical 'we'. Folks who will not say why, nor show their faces, but instead send one person to do third rate snark while declaring a group mind is being spoken for.
Your post proves the OP to be correct. Craven people. "WE" not a simply I.
Is there a mouse in your pocket? Who is your 'we' that you claim to speak for? Explain.

[LynneSin]

34. Wow, you slam me on the "WE" but you're all happy to use it in your defense

Who are these "WE" that are going around unrecommending threads on poverty? I mean if you're gonna slam me on the use of "WE" then you ought to look in the mirror with that buddy.

Point is WE (meaning you and I along with the OP) are all making assumptions.

Here's a concept - Only a handful of any threads will get recommended or unrecommend. I read dozens of DU threads everyday that have some level of importance to me and most of the time I am probably not bothered with the REC feature.

This is not a diss on poverty, this is just pointing out the obvious. I could take ANY somewhat serious DU thread posted in GD/GDP and make that a claim as "DUers just don't care it's the fault of this unrecommend system", the OP happen to choose poverty.

You write a great post on poverty I'll be happy to recommend it, but this thread is nothing more than a bust on the REC feature.

[Ken Burch]

47. It's not about the rec feature, and you know it.

You got your way on that. Therefore, you have no reason to still be touchy about it.

[LynneSin]

50. Then why did you have to bring it up

You put it in your OP therefore it's about it.

You could have just talked about how DUers aren't doing enough about poverty or not taking enough action and hell, I would have supported it.

But the moment you blamed it on the REC feature means it was all about that.

[Ken Burch]

124. No. it wasn't ALL about that.

At some point, you have got to accept and trust that someone could mention that feature without having it be the point.

[Ken Burch]

45. It is a thread about poverty

The point about unrec'ing was in the service of the point that some people here don't want poverty discussed. And you know it. You just have a personal thing about me, even though I've never done anything to provoke it.

[BlooInBloo]

63. It's a thread whining about unrec, with a thin veneer of poverty.

[ThomCat]

25. The basic point of the OP

that the issue of Poverty doesn't get enough attention, and that it gets ignored when it does get brought up, is true and is a serious issue worthy of discussion.

Minus that last sentence about the Unrec feature, that OP should be getting a lot more serious discussion than it is.

I've seen you speak seriously about poverty in the past, and I know you have strong compassionate opinions. It is a shame that they're buried behind snark at the moment. :(

:hi:

[LynneSin]

28. The OP has been bitching about the changes with the REC feature since day one

what better way to sell his complaint by combining his hatred of the recommendation feature with poverty.

Had this just been a thread about poverty I would not have been the way I was.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. They way "I" was?

What happened to the plural? What happened to speaking for a group, as you were in the first posting? Why that change?
Who are those you speak for until busted for it? "We're not doing this" turns inot "I would not have".
Does not match. Why 'We' followed by "I"? That is the crux of this entire thread, brought forth by you. Speaking for unnamed others. Who refuse to speak for themselves but click that unrec and run.
You went from the voice of 'WE" to just little old you dang fast. Almost as fast as you jumped the snark, and went into personalized attacks on not the text, but the person who posted the text. And you did so under the cover of a magic 'we' that you refuse to name or explain.
So. We. Was that as in "we are not amused, royal subjects' or as in 'me and my clique' or what exactly? You and the rest of your personalities? What? WE. I. Pick one.

[Ken Burch]

44. You know perfectly well this isn't about the "unrec" feature

This IS just a thread about poverty. The fact of people doing the unrec'ing is a symptom.

[LynneSin]

87. Then why did you mention the feature - - TWICE???!!!

:crazy:

[JVS]

107. Who gives a flying fuck? Ken doens't like unrec, we all know that, move the fuck on!

[Ken Burch]

125. It was in the service of the large point about poverty and DU

I honestly WASN'T trying to bring up the OTHER discussion about that.

[Ken Burch]

134. It was and is about poverty.

There's no reason for you to be THIS touchy about the simply MENTION of the feature.

You carry a lot of hatred and paranoia around with you. There's no reason for that.

My point is to end the limits on DU's willingness to discuss poverty.

You have waaaay too much invested in your anger here. Can I kindly suggest you take a few weeks away from DU?

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Again, who is the 'we' you speak of?

You and who? Me and my shadow?

[bvar22]

40. How do you know that?

I would love to know how many "unrecs" a thread has.
How did you determine the exact number of recs and unrecs?
Or did you just make that up?

[TexasObserver]

71. Well said. Good OPs get recommended. Weak ones don't.

There are a lot of unhappy thread starters who simply cannot accept that merely throwing out some topic, and then making the OP about themselves and their displeasure with other DUers, will garner unrecommends.

I recommend threads in which the OP has something to say of substance. Any thread where the OP complains about those using the unrecommend feature gets an unrecommend from me. If they want to see recommends, then they need to learn to adapt, and not start threads with OPs about themselves and their pet peeves.

This thread is not about poverty. It's more unrec pissing and moan by those unhappy with the results of the new feature. They want recommends? Don't start weak ass threads.

[WI_DEM]

31. Why not discuss it then? instead of such a headline? It seems to me this is just another attempt

to discuss the unrec option.

[LynneSin]

35. +1

Probably said it way better than I did

Thank you!

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Don't you mean 'way better than we did'?

Still waiting for an explanation of why you spoke in the plural at first. Very telling if you ask me. And when called on it, you refuse to address it at all. Avoidance of your tactics does not mean you did not use them.
Some folks unrecommmend poverty threads. I'd love to know why. The admins have told us that at least one person has been ousted for unrecommending all GLBT threads. 27% of unrecs were from one person. People have posted threads that say 'we are making lists of those who disagree, to unrecommend not by content, but by who posted it." So we know folks unrec for vile reasons, some of them. Asking why anyone would vote down a poverty thread without saying why is a valid question in the context of those facts. Some vote against all gay threads until they get tomb stoned. They thought they had impunity.
So asking why they voted against GLBT threads was so very accurate that some were banned for what they were doing. Why should poverty threads go unchecked for such abuses? We know they happen. Asking why is just as valid as anything. Ask the tomb stoned bigots.

[LynneSin]

49. At this point just makeup whatever explanation makes you feel good

Ok, fair enough.

I think I've explained my point

[Ken Burch]

48. It isn't. You guys got your way on that thing.

There was no way to discuss the DU attitude towards poverty threads without mentioning that some use "unrec" to block them.

[LynneSin]

53. I thought you said this wasn't about the REC feature

which is it?

I could start a thread just like yours and change poverty to any one of the various topics we discuss here at DU. Hell I could say it was about clean underwear if I wanted to. Not everyone can post a thread that will get dozens of recommendations and make the DU home page - that doesn't make that topic any less important!!!

You put way too much power into a feature that it seems that many DUers don't really think twice about.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

60. "many DUers don't really think twice about"

Clearly YOU do with your hysterical defense of it.

Get a grip.

[LynneSin]

68. And that differs from the OP how?

:shrug:

[xultar]

73. Who's getting hysterical? Discussing this over and over after Skinner

says we're keeping it is insanity.

Plus the OP's post is stupid. Unrec doesn't stop people from discussing anything and why people don't get that tiny little nugget of reality astounds me.

[Ken Burch]

123. I meant it that it wasn't about the unrec feature

This thread IS about an unwillingness to discuss poverty. That's the truth. I had to mention that feature as part of the point I was making. Can you please just accept that?

[xultar]

66. +5

[LWolf]

33. DU should discuss all the pressing issues of the day.

Poverty is a big one.

So is war. The economy. Civil liberties. Health Care. Education.

Those are the threads that should be on the front page, imo.

[midnight]

37. Worse than a mother using welfare is the TARP welfare.

The infastructure of our families who work for a living needs every bit of infusion as the rich. Right now if we destroyed poverty we would hold the key to fixing all that is wrong in this country.

[aikoaiko]

39. I don't see how receiving unrecommends prevents you from discussing poverty on DU.

[xultar]

67. +2 Why people equate Unrec to shit vanishing off the face of the earth confuses me.

[Echo In Light]

43. The most indoctrinated class, the Professional class, sets the tone in either Name Brand party

[saltpoint]

46. One thing that may make the "burbs" uncomfortable is that

people who live in them will be paying more and more money for less and less oil.

In one aspect, suburbs' rationale is based on cheap gasoline. When gas prices rise sharply the rationale to live at a remove from cities and services diminishes.

[datasuspect]

57. suburban development was entirely predicated on cheap gasoline

and racism.

[saltpoint]

119. Hello, datasuspect. The cheap gasoline has consequences that can

be addressed by engineers, namely, cities can be revamped for return populations and rail systems designed and constructed to affordably and smartly move people around to workplaces, school venues, and merchant shopping.

The racist component is not so easily addressed, or solved, but if the nation is willing to turn its face to this racial component, that new city will have more than just impressive public transport. It will have an integrated and mutually respecting public, too.

[LynneSin]

51. First sentence from OP: It seems like threads that deal with it here are almost always "unrec" bait

Moment THAT sentence was put in the OP made it about the UNREC feature.

I would gladly support any thread about how DUers aren't doing enough about poverty -whether it is talk or action.

But the fact that the OP made that the first sentence of his OP says he just wants to bitch about the feature that he has been bitching about since day #1.

If it's just about the lack of DUers talking about Poverty then why even mention the feature not once but TWICE in his thread?

[xultar]

65. +3

[TexasObserver]

72. I recommend your wise posts discussing this thread's OP.

It's pretty simple. Make an OP that doesn't suck and people will Recommend it. This OP is bad for two reasons. One, it is really about the poster's dislike of unrecommend, and Two, it is completely lacking in substance about the alleged topic.

I recommend quality OPs, and this one is far from it, even without the unrec portions.

[Pushed To The Left]

52. K&R

[Iggo]

54. Oh wait.

This is just another unrec bitchfest?

D'oh!

[xultar]

69. +10

[Name removed]

55. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TexasObserver]

58. I don't recommend OPs with almost zero substance, such as this one.

If you want to get recommends instead of unrecommends for a poverty thread, make it about poverty instead of your displeasure with getting unrecommends. I only recommend topics in which the OP has something substantive to say. I don't recommend any thread where the OP merely makes a personal statement or rant about some topic. Those threads are fine for conversation, but have no place on the Greatest Page. They're high on calories and low on nuitrition.

The idea that you can simply announce a topic, such as "poverty," and thereby command recommends is not going to happen with those of us who think a recommended thread should have something besides a poster's personal displeasure with the unrecommends they earn.

I recommend 5-10 of Babylonsister's thread a day because she doesn't simply start threads that have no content except "hey, what about poverty, huh?" I recommend your threads when they say something. When they're just threads to complain about not being recommended, you can bet I will unrecommend that thread.

You wrongly presume that it is merely the topic which compels a recommendation. There are many threads with some topic in the title that are nevertheless mainly personal rants that say nothing of value. This is one of them.

[xultar]

70. +10

[redqueen]

78. Thank you. Well said. (nt)

[LynneSin]

85. +1 for your reply and another +1 for babylonsister

Babylonsister rocks!

[TexasObserver]

106. Yes, she's the board MVP for thread starting, and it's not close.

[Spazito]

101. Well said! n/t

[xultar]

62. OH MY FUCKING GAWD. Maybe the posts on the subject sunk up the joint. FER FUCK SAKE

Just cuz they don't make the greates page doesn't mean we aren't discussing it.

If you make a thread like this one...which is stinking up my laptop...I'm gonna unrec it.

Simple. It won't stop you from kicking it to the top of the page and annoying me out of my fucking mind.

Why in the fuckity fuck fuck do people equate unrec to shit vanishing?

[timeforpeace]

74. We have to go to Mars and back to the moon first, then we can deal with poverty. At least that's

what I read here yesterday.

[Political Heretic]

76. DU's demographics: white, mid-to-upper middle class

That would be my guess.

[QC]

92. Yes, those income surveys we do from time to time are very revealing.

People here tend to be quite comfortable financially, which is why it's hard to discuss anything regarding poverty. It's just too far outside their realm of experience.

[varelse]

115. It probably makes many DU'ers uncomfortable to address this as a political issue

Much easier to toss out a few words of sage advice about investing the "savings" from your second minimum wage job or your monthly disability check, mention that cooking at home is cheaper than eating out, and suggest growing your own organic vegetables on the roof of the car you happen to be living in.

Or even easier: just ignore the thread, and respond instead to the umpteenth post about Sarah Palin's walk-in closet of as yet undropped shoes or the purported sad fate of Michael Jackson's adopted children.

The new "unrec" feature itself has very little to do with this behaviour. Even before it was released, most posts about poverty were either buried in the Poverty subsection of this forum or they were recc'd by a very few people who are alert enough to catch them (or who were pm'd with a link). It's not so much that the threads are getting unrec'd now, as that they have rarely ever drawn sufficient attention or recommendations to stay on the front page.

[QC]

117. I think you are exactly right. n/t

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Political Heretic]

103. demographics aren't stereotypes.

Neither is guessing.

[Greyhound]

79. We have a few poverty homeless advocates that post/ed here and they've seen the

same thing for years. Write about the poor and the homeless and the thread will sink like rock, especially when it is Democrats doing the screwing.

DU just doesn't like to look at the consequences of American post-Raygun politics.
:kick: & R

[Naturyl]

132. +1

One consequence of "American post-Raygun politics" is that poverty has been virtually erased as a viable issue among Democrats.

Democrats today either don't care, believe there is no solution, or spout simplistic variations of the "bootstraps" propaganda.

[HughMoran]

80. Another thread about nothing

:wtf:

[LynneSin]

93. Which is a shame because it could have been about something

When you write 4 sentences and 2 are about the topic you're trying to push and 2 are about the feature you've been bitching about for a week or so that have nothing to do with the topic - well perception is reality.

[BlooInBloo]

95. Au contraire. They've finally found a way to successfully package an anti-unrec payload...

within a real-topic delivery device.

[LynneSin]

98. Perhaps it's the new "K&R" thread

Since "K&R if you ________________" threads pretty much went bye-bye after the REC upgrades we need a new packaging ploy. Now we'll do the "How dare you UNREC my thread about ______________" trick and try to make the poster feel guilty for hitting on UNREC.

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

127. No it isn't.The thread was about poverty

You insisted on twisting this into a thing about "unrec". Check your pm's in a minute.

[Ken Burch]

128. No, it's a thread about a real issue...the unwillingness of some here to discuss real issues

Why must your response to everything be dismissiveness and contempt?

[pitohui]

94. i do not use unrec but also suspect it's a personality issue

one of the frequent posters on poverty (NOT cali) is clearly a very troubled person and could rub people the wrong way, if she's in a thread, then it's possible this would make it unrec bait, i know she's around because i saw her in a thread recently -- she had a good point in that thread but expressed herself most horribly

for myself i would prefer not to use that feature

if the point of view is truly obnoxious and offensive, i use the alert feature and let a mod review it, don't quite grok the purpose of unrec and can't be arsed to figure out what the purpose is other than to play high school personality contest games

[readmoreoften]

102. How can we *discuss* poverty when most people here promote the class system that causes it?

Poverty is caused by hardship in the working class--hardships that inevitably come from deregulation of the powers of totalitarian capitalism: minimum wage stagnates, prices inflate, preventative social programs disappear, soldiers are recruited and discarded, education becomes unattainable, housing is confiscated, people die on the streets.

What's to talk about? Either you oppose this and fight vigiliantly against it or you don't.
Posters don't want to talk about it because they feel superior to poor and immiserated people. They don't want to talk about it because the only concept they have to offer is "charity." Unfortunately right now they're "tapped."

Why don't they talk about it? Because you're invisible and ignored. Why are you invisible and ignored? Because they've already accepted that this society requires some amount of discarded people. They're no more likely to talk to a homeless person demanding justice than a Pakistani war victim demanding reparations.

[QC]

104. +1

[undeterred]

108. There are some spectacularly insensitive people here

who think poverty is important as long as its kept in the abstract. As soon as you start talking about policy and real people they get all conservative.

[the blues]

109. Being unacquainted with the posters on this thread, or their usual posts...

...I offer the following perspective: the OP raises the unrec issue because unrecommending DU threads on poverty parallels a suppression of the discussion of poverty in the Democratic Party at large. Of course, everyone has his or her own reason for recommending or unrecommending a thread; however, Democrats' active avoidance of the topic of poverty remains. Many, myself included, perceive there may be just a paycheck or two between ourselves and poverty. It's a scary thought -- perhaps too scary for Democratic leadership to risk the potential association between Democrats and poverty in the minds of voters. That's where morality and guts come into play. And all too often today, the Democratic Party itself is sadly impoverished when it comes to good... old-fashioned... liberal... morality and guts.

[kenny blankenship]

114. Sssh... This is a Democratic site

We don't give a shit about the poor anymore, working or not. We're chasing those suburban upper middle class votes now, and the big $$$ of the corporations which those upscale voters work for. Their only thought for the poor is to somehow put them all into prison, and maybe to glean a little profit from the enterprise. Talking about poverty embarrasses us in front of our new posh friends.

I believe that great Democrat Will Rogers said it best: "Of the abject pauper nothing needs to be said. But your "workingman", so-called, is no more than a thug himself, one of the criminal underclass, distinguished from them, temporarily, only because I haven't found a way to outsource his job yet. Move his factory to farthest Cathay. Banish his unions, march his son to prison or the Army, whore his daughters out in the street. Any wages given him in excess of that which keeps him barely alive is worse than money wasted: it is a subsidy paid to social disease, brigandage, and Bolshevik rebellion."

[karynnj]

116. Can you give some examples - I can't imagine why a thread dealing with issue of poverty would be

unrecommended. (Unless you are advocating for it :) ) - which I know is not the case.

Could it be that even hough they were about poverty they included something controversial? (I can't imagine what -- I would not have unreccomended your Edwards' post - even though I disagree he was the only person to ever deal with poverty)

[PufPuf23]

118. The measure of a person or a society is how they relate to those

less fortunate by circumstance and even those with cascading bad decisions of their own.

The USA is not a just society when one compares white collar crime to crime from desperation, hopelessness, mental illness or anger.

The strong scapegoat the weak or make them invisible.

We fix lives for the poorest -- see Maslow's hierarchy of needs -- and we make a kind and successful society regardless of material wealth and individual self-indilgence.

I don't recommend nor unrecommend threads and seldom make an OP.

[varelse]

121. For all of you who have responded objecting to the OP's mention of the UNrec feature

Here's a thread open for discussion of poverty which makes no mention of the feature: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6118478&mesg_id=6118478

I look forward to seeing you all over there. Peace out :)