Sounds good to me. I think they call that a democracy.
Yes, ma'am.
If this was in any way precipitated by the negative reaction to the post about Nader a day or two ago, I'd just like to say that I wasn't nor would I criticize anyone for voting for Nader, but I would criticize Nader for running as a spoiler.
That being said, I wish everyone shared the same respect for voting and the secret ballot that you do, Liss.
But I'm Canadian and I can't even vote down there.
Is it o.k. if I root for somebody? 
If this was in any way precipitated by the negative reaction to the post about Nader a day or two ago...
Brian G. | 02.27.08 - 11:29 am | #
Brian, I think it was prompted by someone who was being a total douche down at the bottom of the active Obama thread from yesterday.
And Liss, damn straight! I really don't appreciate people trying to browbeat my vote. If you have to scare me into voting for your candidate, how good could s/he possibly be?
If this was in any way precipitated by the negative reaction
It wasn't precipitated by any specific incident, or any one person, but by the cumulative effect of seeing various Shakers being maligned for their voting choices (or, worse, presumed voting choices).
I just thought it needed said. That's all.
Shakers who consider engaging in this behavior would also do well to remember that there are contributors and commenters who, by virtue of our sex or the color of our skin, have not been guaranteed the right to vote since this nation's inception.
Excellent point.
Thank you for this post. I was really turned off by the straight up nastiness and name-calling that happened right out of the gate on the Nader thread.
I'm going to get one of those t-shirts that say "Your Candidate Sucks."
Very good, Liss.
There's also the people who piss and moan about how terrible things are and how fershit the government is and then end their self-centered diatribe by saying "And that's why I don't vote!"
The last time someone did that in my presence, I turned and said, "Wait... you made us listen to all your whining for twenty minutes and then you have the gall to tell us you don't vote? Piss off!"
Some people...
I just thought it needed said. That's all.
Melissa McEwan | Homepage | 02.27.08 - 11:34 am |
I understand, and agree. I've seen the nastiness too. I think rational debate over candidates is not only fine but essential for democracy, but denigrating people for their choices is not. In fact, it's the opposite of democracy because the insulting party is trying to control votes through, well, in this case, peer pressure.
Good post. I know it happens every election but it's amazing how many people forget that it's okay for different people to prefer voting for different candidates on the account of them being, you know, different people with different priorities and experiences. There wouldn't be much point in having a democracy or republic if everyone was just going to march in lockstep in voting for the same person.
I noticed each paragraph references "Shakers"; are the same considerations afforded to "non-Shakers", i.e. "trolls" assuming they abide?
I'm going to get one of those t-shirts that say "Your Candidate Sucks."
Angelos
And be sure to get a button which reads:
Impeach the President!
Well, if you're abiding by any reasonable standards of decency, you're not being a troll.
are the same considerations afforded to "non-Shakers", i.e. "trolls" assuming they abide?
I believe it's fair to say you'll get as good as you give.
I'm in a swing state. I'm really going to agonize about this in November, if it comes down to Obama vs McCain.
In Illinois, a state that Obama will obviously and easily carry, my intent to vote for Nader again is a no-brainer.
McLame and Obama don't even approach my liberal ideology, and I intend to vote to make that ideology heard. This system needs to be opened up, though I'm not holding my breath.
I enjoy this post and am spreading it around because I don't tolerate the toxic comments of, "Don't waste your vote, you fool" or "That's just a vote for McCain." Those comments are cynical and, frankly, dangerous, at least to me and my sense of how our democracy is supposed to work.
Anyway, thanks for another great post, Melissa. Your post on Obama yesterday made me so mad that I didn't write it I couldn't sleep last night. Rock On!
I'm really going to agonize about this in November, if it comes down to Obama vs McCain.
Maybe. Or maybe McCain (as he is wont to do) will have thrown an enormous tantrum during one of the debates, calling Obama "a curse word associated with chickens" and yelling into the camera "I am Thor the god of thunder!" while ripping open his shirt to reveal a prominent tattoo of Thor's Oak, prompting his approval ratings to plummet into the single digits.
Ya never know.
Or maybe McCain (as he is wont to do) will have thrown an enormous tantrum during one of the debates, calling Obama "a curse word associated with chickens" and yelling into the camera "I am Thor the god of thunder!" while ripping open his shirt to reveal a prominent tattoo of Thor's Oak, prompting his approval ratings to plummet into the single digits.
I'm so getting the popcorn!
[and I say such as someone that can't vote in this country]
Maybe. Or maybe McCain (as he is wont to do) will have thrown an enormous tantrum during one of the debates, calling Obama "a curse word associated with chickens" and yelling into the camera "I am Thor the god of thunder!" while ripping open his shirt to reveal a prominent tattoo of Thor's Oak, prompting his approval ratings to plummet into the single digits.
Sigh. A girl can dream, can't she?
Good post, and this is why I was extra-super-careful (more so than necessary, probably!) in that Obama thread to emphasize that I wasn't saying your feelings were illegitimate. It's a fraught subject.
Eeeuuuw . . . I have this image in my brain of that pastey old man chest with a tatoo. Blech.
What a wonderful thought though . . .
BTW, love this post.
Missed the blogwhore section again today, hope this is close enough.
Should be "Old People and Women Need Not Apply"
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo...d-not-
apply.php
Beautifully put, and great control of emotion I will add. Come November (supposedly) a new President will be elected and I WILL have voted. My vote too will be for the candidate I feel best represents what is important to me. Two things to point out are that the only voice that will not be "heard" is the non-vote, and that a citizens work does not end at the voting booth. It has only just begun. I suggest that all citizens now have the motivation to follow up voting with activism. Whatever it takes to ensure not an ideology or a vision of what will be, but transparency, rule of law, and adherence to the Constitution of the United States. Reason and integrity are good guides to have in times like these. This is United States of America, not "Parador", even if it feels so. I know that I was active in the past, but personally can't say I did everything I could have to prevent what has been a tragedy in my opinion. I do however endeavor to never have to feel this way again. This administration brought my country to places I never believed possible. Well, now I'm a believer. Blessings of peace and harmony to all.
I'm still holding out hope that McCain, because of possible FEC problems or mistress problems will have to withdraw, then Romney re-enters and fights it out with the Huckster. Well, a girl can dream, can't she?
the only voice that will not be "heard" is the non-vote
please read the whole post again.
there are ways of making your voice heard while not voting.
"and great control of emotion I will add. "
ANyone else hear the dogwhistle?
Melissa - thanks!
I was one of those 'eww this is getting icky' commenters earlier. Glad to see the groundrules on polite and appropriate being laid down as you did.
Thanks.
ANyone else hear the dogwhistle?
Yeah, but just this once I'm willing to grant the benefit of the doubt that the reference was to my tendency to rant rather than my having a snatch.
"was to my tendency to rant rather than my having a snatch"
You're far kinder than I am. I would have assumed that feeling the need to comment on my tendency to rant would have been because of my having a snatch.
Or maybe McCain (as he is wont to do) will have thrown an enormous tantrum during one of the debates, calling Obama "a curse word associated with chickens" and yelling into the camera "I am Thor the god of thunder!" while ripping open his shirt to reveal a prominent tattoo of Thor's Oak, prompting his approval ratings to plummet into the single digits.
Oh please oh please oh please...
I didn't see the Nader post, but I do want to say that telling Nader "NOT TO RUN", (which I see everywhere - hello Buzzflash!) is fundamentally, completely, and wholly anti-democratic. Everyone (of the legal age, born in this country) is entitled to run for prez if they so desire.
I would have assumed that feeling the need to comment on my tendency to rant would have been because of my having a snatch.
I considered this possibility. I also considered that anyone who thinks I come by my ranting via possession of snatchitude hasn't met my dad.
I must apologize again for my "unacceptable" post from yesterday.
As I said yesterday, I am extremely unhappy with the choice of Obama for many many reasons that have all been discussed. Yesterday, I felt as though a choice for someone besides the Democratic nominee was unacceptable. Today, after reading Betty, ZuZu, Paul, Melissa and others I realized that my anger, frustration and hopelessness with our current Administration had affected my support for my principles, beliefs and ideals. Thank you for the reality check.
I live in a swing state (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh with Alabama in betweeen) and I now have no idea what I'm going to do in November. I have some real decisions to make and quite frankly, I'm afraid of living with either decision.
"hasn't met my dad"
We have similar dads.
first, thank you for this post.
second, i have to spend a moment and defend my non-voting friends. Don't non-voters have the right to speak their values and positions as well, without the requirement of voting?
Many non-voting anarchists I know participate in the political process in many more active ways than I. I believe they shouldn't be silenced in a conversation because they chose not to vote. I can't make the argument for them, but i know that in many ways they wish to change the system by more hands on and grassroots measures...
great post! me, i'm 56, it's a hard choice but damn i'm glad we have those choices. i never thought i'd see the day and i so wish my gramma was still alive to vote.
no, i'm not happy about nader. yes, he has every right to run but he did so many good things in the course of his life to do this now sort of makes people either laugh or be angry and i would hate for that to be his legacy.
just my thoughts.
Thank you Melissa.
Everyone has different criteria for picking a candidate to vote for, and we can agree to disagree in a respectful manner. 
I didn't ever consider Melissa's "snatch" in comments as I never heard her bring it up. What I did pick up on was her evident distaste for the way political comments tend to break down to personal attacks. My assumption was that her name on this blog site made her (more than anyone else) feel responsible to moderate, and yes I felt she might have held back a bit of vitriol in the spirit of open debate and decorum. For the dog whistle commenter, I submit that people hear what they want. Why would you want to hear people say things like that I wonder. I promise you if ever I feel the need to comment on anyone's anything, you won't be confused by my words.
Melissa to you personally I apologize if you too felt I slighted you. For several years I have been reading and respecting your efforts at maintaining one of my daily goto web logs. Blessings.
i was talking with a real conservative blowhard yesterday at an AA meeting. i was going over the points of AA tradition that tell him to shut his fucking mouth about politics during meetings. then i said "i'm reasonably certain that come election day my votes will most likely cancel yours out. that leaves everybody else here free to vote their conscience."
voting is personal. i'm glad you have a vote. i have pictures of my great grandmother in her suffragette's sash, carrying a placard. she did this at a time when they weren't all that sure whether or not indians should be allowed to vote.
she'd be proud of you 'liss.
I have some real decisions to make and quite frankly, I'm afraid of living with either decision.
I'm so on that page.
Truthfully, the difficulty of the decision for whom to vote (I've still conceivably got a primary to vote in) is part of what has so deeply aggravated me about the negative judgments of other people's choices.
It's easy to say "Who cares if Obama uses sexist dog whistles and says women should have some control of their bodies and campaigned with a bigot who calls gays sick and disordered -- he's not as bad as McCain on women's and LGBTQ issues!" if it doesn't affect you. But if you're a woman or a gay/bi/trans man being asked to vote for someone who threw you under the bus, that's not easy. It's not easy to swallow that lump of shit and cast an affirmative vote for someone who did that, even if the alternative is worse.
If people really stopped to think about how personally difficult that can be, they wouldn't be so cavalier about treating a third-party vote (for example) as some ill-considered flight of fancy.
Oh yeah. My "unheard voice" only applied to election day, which is why I bothered to point out that things can be done post-election. I know it's a heated time and all right now, but what was the theme to this post again?
Unfortunately, Ralph Nader isn't a "third party." He's more like a "pustule on the ass of humanity" who hasn't accomplished anything in 30 years.
But if you're a woman or a gay/bi/trans man being asked to vote for someone who threw you under the bus, that's not easy. It's not easy to swallow that lump of shit and cast an affirmative vote for someone who did that, even if the alternative is worse.
Knowing that the alternative is worse actually makes it harder for me; it just reinforces that sense I often get from some Dems, including Sen. Obama in this cycle, that they think they can do whatever the fuck they like to me, because I don't have any other option.
The worst part? They're right.
Thanks for the post.
reinforces that sense I often get from some Dems, including Sen. Obama in this cycle, that they think they can do whatever the fuck they like to me, because I don't have any other option
Totally.
I love my fiancé dearly, but this is one of those things we argue about occasionally. He simply cannot fathom how voting third party or not voting on principle can serve an end. He just thinks it's short-sighted, which drives me nuts! I try valiantly to get him to see that since he's not the one who'll be thrown under the bus, he should stop judging those who will. I live in hope though that one day he'll get it. He's generally pretty cognizant of his privilege.
so one other way I try to decide is I base it on what will be the best choice for my daughters (now and when they grow up)-- you know, the long view -- and in this cycle it doesn't make it any clearer. The two big (giant) issues for them are UHC and global warming.
Really weird that the long view doesn't offer clarity; it usually does.
"For the dog whistle commenter, I submit that people hear what they want. Why would you want to hear people say things like that I wonder"
Oy. It's a wonder why people need to dig themselves in deeper.
I live in hope though that one day he'll get it. He's generally pretty cognizant of his privilege.
Bingo!
Great post. I'm so tired of being condescended to and treated like an idiot because I might dare consider voting (or not voting) out of actual political principle instead of sheer pragmatism.
Everyones vote is theirs to cast any way they want and even not at all - good point - hooray for freedom.
IMO some people deserved a little derisive mockery for the loud hand-wringing and announcement of plans to self-immolate come election day. Maybe that did constitute a 'brow-beating' if so - wevs - people will disagree out here, it's the internet. I appreciate that other people have different perspectives and priorities regarding politics and these are often closely associated with some aspect of their identity (or anatomy, or check book, or whatever). I get it that this isn't my blog, it's yours - and as such it will feature emphasis on what's important to you, that's awesome.
If your neighbor told you they planned to burn their house house down tomorrow because they weren't perfectly happy with it today - what would you say to them?
What if it was an attached house, and you lived next store?
(and no, you can't suddenly move away - no cheating)
Our Society is a lot like an neighborhood of attached houses, our fate is in many ways shared - it's what I think. It is how progressive ideas about looking out for others and seeking policy that promotes general welfare and public good forms a moebius strip with self interest. Better outcomes for more people is simply 'better' than taking any more steps down the road of free market fundamentalism - which we certainly will if the GOP keeps control of the government, and might anyway once the Dems lurch rightward attempting to rule from the 'center' or some such garbage. I know it's depressing to contemplate how disappointing and short on accomplishment an Obama or Clinton presidency MIGHT be but I am convinced it wouldn't be as bad for everyone as a GOP victory.
Is this a "Vote against the boogie-man or he's gonna GET YOU!!!" kind of appeal? - I guess it is, and being stampeded around in some irrational fear crazed panic is not a dignified way to run a democracy - but in this case the boogie-man is pretty much real, and I hope you will calmly, fearlessly, vote against him while filled to overflowing with dignity, poise and the understanding that it is necessary. It is necessary because it isn't just your house that will 'burn down' if 'we' fail - it's the whole neighborhood.
It seems to me that for anyone even loosely affiliated with the 'progressive' camp no matter what your favorite top priority issue might be - you stand a far greater chance to LOSE by offering any aid to the GOP than you do in supporting a Dem.
If you disagree with me - vote republican (or symbolically self-immolate) and see what happens.
If this can only be perceived as another iteration of 'get to the back of the bus' - then do whatever you want on election day, freedom rules.
United we stand.
Divided we are at the mercy of the GOP.
WMK: I'm sorry, what did you not understand about "can the snide lectures on how people should behave in this space. Your presumptuous condescension is deeply unappreciated"? Which word is giving you trouble, precisely?
Seriously, if you cannot comment on this issue without being a hectoring asshole, then just STFU.
"IMO some people deserved a little derisive mockery for the loud hand-wringing and announcement of plans to self-immolate come election day"
So, no hurray for freedom then.
"It is necessary because it isn't just your house that will 'burn down' if 'we' fail - it's the whole neighborhood."
WMK bring us yet another round of BACK OF THE BUS, BITCHEZ.
And this is the exact problem. You've always got something more important to deal with then the issues we're raising.
You're saying we all fail, when in reality, it's us that will fall while you enjoy the relative safety of privilege.
Double bingo!
I plan to do this:
If the Elephascist nominee is leading in the Arkanshire by Election Day, or if the race is neck and neck, I will vote for the Democratic nominee, so if the Elephascist wins, I can at least say "Don't blame me".
If the Democratic nominee is leading comfortably, then I will vote for McKinney, if she be the Green nominee.
However, if the Greens nominate Ralph Fucking Nader, I will vote for the Democrat.
Double bingo!
Privilege.
There's your triple bingo.
"hectoring asshole"
May I suggest that, by Royal Decree from the Queen Cunt of Fuck Mountain, WMK's signature be edited to read "Hector Asshole"?
I have voted for the Green candidate in the last two general elections, largely out of following IBW's strategy. Living in MA I figure I have the luxury of doing that since there's no real question about who will win the state. If there were a question about it I would still most likely follow IBW's stated voting plan.
Just wanted to add that I also hope that this time my vote IS counted.
(It's pretty easy to see that your vote was not counted when one of the people you voted for is listed as having "0" votes.)
Absolutely.
I have nothing but respect for the opinions of my fellow human beings; I automatically assume that they are hard won from a lifetime of experience and introspection. I only ever take issue with opinions gathered from misinformation which are used to silence others.
How clever is it to come onto a blog thread, where women and LGBT's are complaining about a candidate that is kicking them around in order to kiss up to other people, and then attempt to use mockery and humiliation, er, "derision" to get them to vote for Obama in the fall?
I mean how far away from "who's your daddy, bitch?" is that, one step? Did you really think that would fly here? I boggle at your persuasive powers, sir. Did you learn them from John "beat the shit out of you" McCain? Does that approach work well at the bank?
WMK: It seems to me that for anyone even loosely affiliated with the 'progressive' camp no matter what your favorite top priority issue might be - you stand a far greater chance to LOSE by offering any aid to the GOP than you do in supporting a Dem.
some of us are not convinced that these are the only options or that voting for a 3rd party candidate or not voting are necessarily "offering any aid to the GOP". and being a woman is not my "favourite top priority issue" -- it's my fucking life.
seriously, this is sooo not the way to convince anyone of what you are saying. it's rude and disrespectful. your behaviour is NOT progressive, it's obnoxious. and if you are representative of entitled male democrats or obama supporters, i am hardly surprised that many of my progressive american friends are having a tough time this primary season.
" How clever is it to come onto a blog thread . . . then attempt to use mockery and humiliation, er, "derision" to get them to vote for Obama in the fall?"
It's not clever, it's privilege. Blind, self-important privilege.
also, doesn't "derision" usually involve somehow bringing the funny? 'coz i ain't laughing, and i don't think anyone else is.
Something else I'm considering is popular vote among registered democratic party members: Clinton is leading there, while Obama's numbers are swelled by republicans and indies, who by the way, can vote his way in TX too.
Having repubs and indies decide the Democratic party's nominee is another strong reason for me to consider a more left-leaning 3rd party candidate, should one (hopefully she) be on the GE ballot in November.
I am a registered Independent. The first election I could vote in, John Anderson ran for president as an Independent. I believed he was the best choice. I voted for him. My boyfriend at the time told me I was "throwing away" my vote. I believed then, and still believe, that my vote counted, and my boyfriend was full of shit.
I am still a registered Independent. I vote for the person that I think will work for the things I believe in. I do not vote, nor will I ever vote, for a "party platform." I am currently working hard to encourage unregistered members of my cadre of friends and family to register to vote. I don't care who they vote for, I care that they vote. I may believe that their reasons for voting for person X are moronic, but at least they are a moron who voted, and their vote counts.
No doubt the boyfriend is still full of shit...
Oh, come off it. There's nothing wrong with telling people they're mistaken, whether about voting or anything else.
8:08--It seems Hector Asshole has a sycophant.
A number of blogs that I've read almost daily for a few years seem to have degenerated into nothing more that hate-athons directed at Clinton and her supporters or Obama and his supporters. I'm talking front page posters. Alledged progressive bloggers acting like 4 year olds fighting over a toy, comment threads so full of hatred and stupid that I think I must have landed at littlegreenfootballs or free republic by accident. Thanks for keeping things civil.
There's nothing wrong with telling people they're mistaken
Telling someone they're mistaken ≠ calling someone names or telling someone they're personally responsible for electoral losses
Aside from that, about the only way someone can be "mistaken" about their own personal vote is if they say something completely incongruous like "I'm voting for John McCain because he's the most likely to ensure the legalization of same-sex marriage."
I didn't defend name calling, but your post didn't ask people to be civil; it announced that you were not going to permit a particular topic of comnversation.
And of course votes can be mistaken for objective reasons, not just because they don't confirm to people's preferences. The people who voted for W made a mistake; perhaps it was a rational vote given their beliefs and desires, but so what? they had the wrong beliefs and desires and acting on them was a mistake.
Look, you're a political activist; you try to influence people's political behavior all the time. Voting is a form of political behavior, and you want Americans to vote differently to the way they do now. You endorsed Edwards; why did you do that if not to try to get people to vote your way and persuade them that other votes would be mistakes?
your post didn't ask people to be civil; it announced that you were not going to permit a particular topic of comnversation
It did? Where? On my screen, it says that people are, in fact, "welcome to discuss what their voting choices are, and why, should they be so inclined" but not welcome to "condemn, insult, ridicule, dismiss, or in any way attempt to marginalize or censure other commenters who do not share those choices, nor are they welcome to accuse anyone of being 'the reason' that previous candidates have lost or that future candidates will lose." I don't know what browser you're using, but you probably want to switch to something less disposed toward rewriting my posts to say I'm banning topics.
Erm, I'm using the browser that causes the following words to appear under your name:
"My vote. Mine.
I don't tell you what to do with yours. Don't tell me what to do with mine."
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. But I don't see how to read that as anything other than a statement that people around here won't be allowed to argue that you should change your mind about who to vote for.
But I don't see how to read that as anything other than a statement that people around here won't be allowed to argue that you should change your mind about who to vote for.
Reading the entire post instead of the title + 17 words helps.
"I don't know what browser you're using, but you probably want to switch to something less disposed toward rewriting my posts to say I'm banning topics."
Well NOW I know what happens with my posts all the time! Eureka!
dpm said: "But I don't see how to read that as anything other than a statement that people around here won't be allowed to argue that you should change your mind about who to vote for."
There's a very easy way to read this as something else -- by simply reading it. "Don't tell me what to do with mine."
Telling is different than argument.
An argument is a collective series of statements to establish to establish a definite proposition.
*OK now, dpm, this is where you say: "No it tisn't"*
and I say: "Yes it is! It isn't just contradiction!"
Strike that second "to establish". I stutter sometimes.
mikefromtexas | 02.27.08 - 8:47 pm | #
Actually, I'm not surprised about that. Consider:
The blogosphere didn't really get going until after Shrub was first inaugurated.
Therefore the reality-based community, up until now, has really been focused upon the Idiot Dauphin War Criminal who really never had any business setting foot in the White House in the first place.
That's no longer the case, and since we are in an historic primary season, it stands to reason that passions are breaking out that have been kept in check since 2001.
Portly Dyke, do you really think the point of the post was that nobody should talk about voting unless they lay out a syllogism?
This tell/argue distinction is silly, because you can do both at once. I can tell you what to do via an argument - "Don't grab that knife by the blade, I just sharpened it and it will cut you!!" That's both a telling and an arguing. So is - "vote for the democrat, who ever it is, because either one of them will prevent the worst excesses of state power being handed to interests we oppose"
Well,here is my specific argument for my original claim: Melissa ended the post by laying down the law in a way that contradicted the earlier passage where she said feel free to talk about voting.
Evidence: it is an argument to say "Don't vote for a third party because voting for Nader is the reason we got stuck with Dubya in the first place". (I'm a recovering Nader supporter, and I repent.) And Melissa, in her post, stated that arguments of that form are out of bounds. You can also condemn people through argument, and she explictly stated that condemnation is impermissible. Therefore, she did state that some arguments are forbidden and some conclusions are not to be drawn.
I suspected her of wanting to shut people up- which she can do, it's her blog - but based on a really dodgy argument that some political activity needs to be talked about with kid gloves. So, as I said, I'm sorry if I've overstated things, but I don't think my reaction was irrational.
needs to be talked about with kid gloves
Have you read any of the threads in which this happened, some of which devolved into people making accusations that people who were merely contemplating not voting for the Democratic nominee would be held responsible if McCain won, and comments like: "If that is your plan this election year then please allow me to extend my most heartfelt and sincere 'FUCK YOU!' to you in advance"?
My clear request to not engage in those types of belligerent silencing tactics and general rude assholery is categorically not equivalent to censoring a subject or forcing people to use "kid gloves." I was requesting some common decency and mutual respect, based on the principle (and enshrined law) that each of our votes is ours alone to do with what we want. Nothing about that enfringes upon anyone's ability to try to persuade or convince or discuss voting choices or strategies.
Your obtuse inability to understand this is increasingly mystifying.
Your request wasn't clear; that what I've been saying. Sometimes,incomprehension is the fault of the writer.
Your obtuse inability to understand this is increasingly mystifying.
Melissa McEwan | Homepage | 02.28.08 - 1:49 am |
He's not unable to understand it, he just wants to cause an argument. As someone that's argued for argument's sake before, I can recognize the signs: not reading the whole post, ignoring explanations of responses, conflating unrelated things, looking for intrapost discontinuity while ignoring outside evidence. Either he's a troll or he's got a stick up his bum about something.
I don't think my reaction was irrational.
dpm
I respectfully submit that you're arguing for the joy of it, rather like the regular trolls do. If you don't understand what common courtesy is, ask your parents. If you feel that your opinions are unwelcome, you could always, I don't know, find a blog that is more to your personal taste and post THERE.
Good post, Melissa.
I don't know what browser you're using, but you probably want to switch to something less disposed toward rewriting my posts to say I'm banning topics.
Melissa McEwan
It must be Microgasm Redaction 7.0 - I suggest Firefox Beta 3.
I suggest Firefox Beta 3.
konagod | Homepage | 02.28.08 - 9:40 am
Ooh, there's a new Firefox? If there were a Mozilla operating system, I'd probably use it...
Amazing! Melissa, do you have a day job or do you spend all day writing posts and trying to run herd on the kids in the playpens?
Back when I was working on my town's Indymedia site we would let lots of stuff thru cuz we were all 'radical act of open publishing' except for the racists and the people wanna do extreme speechcrime.
There's a post in here I'd've deleted...
Anywhoo - I like the Greens better than Nader. I haven't been excited about Ralph since 2000. Don't know why. I also didn't find Kucinich appealing this time around.
Do you have a job, nihilix, or do you spend all day trolling other blogs with limp attempts at insults?
Look, guys, there's nothing I can say to show you I'm arguing in good faith if you're all determined to believe that I'm not.
But look: I raised reservations about one post, and tried to defend them: I did not insult anybody. In return, I got a bunch of people saying I'm stupid, and I can't read properly, and I'm malicious.
So fine, I'll shut up if that's what you all want. Do you mind if I carry on reading the blog, or would you prefer I didn't? If I'm really that unwelcome I guess I should just stay away altogether.
dpm: Your request wasn't clear; that what I've been saying. Sometimes,incomprehension is the fault of the writer.
but not in this case, as most of us -- as in everyone but you and mr. lecture up there -- managed to understand what melissa is saying. most of us have been reading for a while here, and understood the context in which melissa was writing. now if you have been reading here for a while, then how did you miss those ugly threads?
i would tend to believe your claims about good faith arguments a little more if i had ever seen your handle on ANY other comment threads here, wherein you were demonstrating better reading comprehension and a less superior attitude. i really don't understand why people think that the best way to introduce themselves as commenters on a long-established blog is to be belligerent, argumentative and/or deliberately obtuse. yeah, that'll work -- if you want to be taken for a troll.
" I really don't understand why people think that the best way to introduce themselves as commenters on a long-established blog is to be belligerent, argumentative and/or deliberately obtuse."
Or why, after having done so, the same people can't just say "It was wrong to being that way. Let me try again."
Why must they always dig themselves in deeper?
i really don't understand why people think that the best way to introduce themselves as commenters on a long-established blog is to be belligerent, argumentative and/or deliberately obtuse.
Well, on the fair side of things, if you're reading and agree with something, you are probably less likely to say something than if you disagree in part or total with it. If someone truly has not posted a lot, then it could be likely their first attempt might not dot all the i's and cross all the t's to inoculate themselves against a storm of derision. Or they just might not have the time to write a complete rebuttal with callouts. Or they might just have a moment to say I disagree with this one point before they are being blasted for being stupid, inane twits.
Note I mention all of that as a response to what I quoted. I haven't read dpm's comments to judge whether he/she fits into any of that -- if I even should judge.
"If someone truly has not posted a lot, then it could be likely their first attempt might not dot all the i's and cross all the t's to inoculate themselves against a storm of derision."
"they might just have a moment to say I disagree with this one point before they are being blasted for being stupid, inane twits."
Because, there's no dissent allowed on this site, right Dean?
Because we're all a monolithic group who always agrees with one another and never, ever, ever have differences of opinion, right Dean?
Because we're all just evil meanies who don't play nice with people who have absolutely no interest in listening - just yakking endlessly and cluelessly.
You have us *totally* figured out. Really.
dean, i understand what you are saying, but honestly, is it really that difficult for people to look around for a while? get a feel for the place, comment on a few non-controversial items (QotD or something)? let the regulars get to know who they are, before they jump in with both feet. this seems like common politeness to me (but then i am canadian and perhaps preternaturally polite).
it seems to me that one must have a fairly inflated opinion of oneself if one's first blog comment anywhere is to tell the blogmistress that not only is she wrong, but she is a censor.
Oh, come off it. There's nothing wrong with telling people they're mistaken, whether about voting or anything else.
dpm
If I'm not mistaken, this was your first comment on this post.
If it was taken as belligerent instead of as respectfully dissenting...let's see, how does that go, again? Oh, yes--"perhaps it's the fault of the writer, not the reader".
And this rightchere is why Shakesville deserves to become the standard bearer of the progressive blogosphere over a place such as DailyKos, where ridicule seems to be actively encouraged by the people running the circus.
You definitely make this the best place on the net to come for entertainment, enlightenment and even agreeing to disagree on occasion!
There is that, sophie. Everyone is different in how they approach things, though. I don't think they necessarily can't jump in with both feet, especially if they've been a long time reader and come across something they finally feel a need to say something about.
And surely there have been tons nastier real trolls who posted things a lot worse than "Oh come on..."
Betty -- Yes, we really do have a tendency here to jump on someone's case here faster than probably should be. There are some obvious egregious trolls that just deserve to be slapped down, but I think a lot of the arguments here could be avoided by asking real questions (not snarky ones) and getting to actual points and determining if there is just a disagreement or a troll attack etc. happening before moving to total derision and dismissal. It works just fine in other forums I frequent, and we get to have just as much fun blasting morons; there just seems to be a lot less collateral damage.
OKay, I do have to agree with Eric that this place, even so, does have a better sign to noise ratio than MANY other places!
ARGH! sign=signal.. signal to noise ratio... Damn the phone ringing while I'm trying to type. (That's my excuse this time and I'm sticking to it.)
"Portly Dyke, do you really think the point of the post was that nobody should talk about voting unless they lay out a syllogism?"
Uhmmm -- that was a Monty Python reference. Get out much?
"but I think a lot of the arguments here could be avoided by asking real questions (not snarky ones) and getting to actual points and determining if there is just a disagreement or a troll attack etc.happening before moving to total derision and dismissal"
And that's only *our* responsibility? Why are you giving a pass to those who come in with condescension, dismissive attitudes, etc?
Does mommy have to do everything?
Get out much?
No, actually. Why do you ask?
dean: Everyone is different in how they approach things, though. I don't think they necessarily can't jump in with both feet, especially if they've been a long time reader and come across something they finally feel a need to say something about.
yes, but then they can't be surprised if people believe them to be arguing in something less than good faith. you can build your credibility, but that takes time, or you can decide that your opinion is so magically important and vital to share that it trumps all the voices of people here who have taken the time to build their credibility. if you want to jump in with both feet, i don't think that you then get to whine about how you are being "misrepresented". we don't know you. we have no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt. especially when it seems that you have not even read what you are commenting on. (that's directed at dpm and its ilk, not you dean).
Well, since I've been addressed directly:
Cara: obviously, yes, if I got the tone wrong it was my fault. But it isn't obvious what to do: I was far less venomous than some other people who post here regularly without getting told to shut up.
Dyke - I'm sorry, but Monty Python was before my time. (And anyway, wouldn't I have to stay in, rather than go out, to know what's on TV?)
Sophiefair - No, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to spend time working on fitting in before they can feel entitled to speak up. I didn't like that in junior high and I don't think you should expect it here, either.
Since I'm being addressed directly -
Cara- obviously if I got the tone wrong it was my fault. But it is not easy to judge: I was much less venomous than some other people who post here regularly without being told to leave.
Sorry, Dyke: MontyPython was before my time, and I though you were just being pedantic. All I know is the Parrot Sketch.
Sophiefair - I think what you are asking for, in effect, is that people should work at fitting in before they can feel entitled to express a dissenting opinion. So, no, I guess I don't think that's reasonable.
dpm: maybe people shouldn't have to work at fitting in before they comment, but they should at least do the work of understanding the context of a post before diving in.
Especially if they dive in without much rhetorical care.
dpm | 02.28.08 - 1:55 pm |
When nobody here knows you and one of your first comments comes off as rude or hostile, that's different than if you'd expressed disagreement in a civil manner. "Oh, come off it"? Like she's just playing around? That's condescending.
i don't give a shit about "fitting in" like we are in some kind of junior-high clique.
when you meet a new group of people, do you just jump right in and tell them all how wrong they are, or do you actually have some rudimentary social skills? you are in melissa's "house" so to speak, and yet you can't be bothered to take the tour before you start criticizing the decor, and in a very nasty way no less. because i think that accusing melissa of censorship is very nasty -- given the history of this blog. again, something you might know about if you listened for a while instead of spouting off.
dpm -- you can certainljy feel "entitled" to express a dissenting opinion -- entitled is exactly what i would call your opinion, actually.
just remember that we are equally "entitled" to tell you to acquire some reading comprehension skills and to question your "good faith arguments".
"I'm sorry, but Monty Python was before my time."
You poor thing -- first the faulty browser, and then the youtube depravation.
Here you go poppet.
You don't mind me calling you poppet, do you? You being so young and all, Monty-Python-before-my-time blah, blah, blah.
Commenting by HaloScan
