Sponsors

Is It Possible To Be Too Open-minded? Email Print

By S M Dixon
11/15/2005 03:11:12 PM EST

Sound-off. This poll allows for multiple choices, so choose all that apply.


KEYWORDS: , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

Poll

Right-wingers Who Want to Post at Political Cortex...
Should have the same right to express themselves as anyone else here 38%
Have plenty of other venues for expression like Powerline, Little Green Footballs, the Free Republic, or their own blog, and should post elsewhere 45%
Might generate comment threads filled with lively debates 45%
Might generate comment threads filled with flaming and right-wing trolls 35%
Are interested in politely challenging left-wing views 0%
Are interested in goading left-wingers into battling posts and comments, leaving Cortexans with less time to post good diaries and articles 45%
Will not see their work hitting the front page due to the voting system 3%
Might see their work hit the front page with the help of right-wing trolls 6%
Thought/answer not listed above (Please specify with a comment) 6%

Votes: 31
Results | Other Polls
< PoliCor Poll | Ken Mehlman kicks off the 2010 campaign! >
 Display:
Is It Possible To Be Too Open-minded? | 23 comments (23 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
to the substance of your post :) (5.00 / 4)
I think the site should be open to everyone willing to engage in honest, civil debate.  

The last thing the lefty blogosphere needs is another echo chamber.  The DU community is one that excludes anyone with even a shade different view. Dailykos is better, but I've noticed the same effort lately to troll-rate or reject anyone who posits a view outside of that that the community embraces as a whole.

We should allow both sides of the brain on this site, both left and right.  That is not to say this isn't a liberal site, but just that we are open to debate and having our ideas challenged rather than rubber-stamped.

I yearn for discussions--real discussions--about policy and politics rather than posting a piece and having 100 comments all saying "great job!" and "me too!"

my $.02

My blog is pretty.

by Georgia10 on 11/15/2005 03:22:21 PM EST

A few thoughts... (none / 0)
"I think the site should be open to everyone willing to engage in honest, civil debate."

I agree, but in three years of political blogging, I have yet to encounter a right-winger online who could do so.

Would you allow a right-winger who is a total stranger to barge into your home? Would you allow that person to start criticizing your ideology -- whether it was done politely or with vitriol? No. Even if you were sitting on the front porch or your door was wide open, you wouldn't tolerate a stranger trespassing on your property  and attacking you in that manner.

I'm fine with fellow lefties challenging my ideas; ultimately, I know that we have the same goals in mind. Right-wingers don't have the same agenda, and never will. They criticize only to divert our attention from other issues and from writing about those issues, so they can criticize us from one of the other dozen or so right-wing community sites that exist; they don't need to do it here.

by S M Dixon on 11/15/2005 04:28:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree (none / 0)
(mostly) in terms of content. The thing that I could easily see as being undesirable is the delivery of the message.

Particularly on a partisan site, those who aren't of the same ideological make-up must be very careful and respectful in their delivery.

Honest debate? Yes. Blowhard chortling? No.

Political Cortex -- Brain Food for the Body Politic

by Tom Ball on 11/15/2005 04:29:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This is a tricky issue. (5.00 / 3)
Establishing the criteria with which to deny someone the opportunity to participate in the discussions either here at PC or anywhere else is fraught with complexities. If we make honesty one of the criteria for participation, how do we differentiate between who's being deliberately dishonest and who is simply expressing genuine belief in false information.

It's sort of like differentiating between ignorance and willful deceit. I know plenty of rightwingers here in south Florida. While it's obvious to me that the loudest and most aggressive ones are the one's who never argue honestly or in good faith, there are plenty of others who are quite sincere and who argue in good faith but who are categorically wrong in virtually all their opinions and conclusions because they've been led to believe things that are flat out untrue.

As someone who's been involved in cult-related issues over many years, I have to say that I regard the current crop of rightwingers as very cultlike in their behaviors. But just as there are those in cults who drink the kool aid, there are those other's who make the kool aid and trick the others into drinking it.

In the rightwing-nutosphere, the same dynamics apply. I make a clear distinction between the propagandists themselves and those whom they manage to infect with their crap, just as I will always distinguish between the cult leaders, recruiters and indoctrinators and the cult followers whom they abuse.

So, as for participating, I hope everyone gets a chance. Trolls will be trolls and usually blow themselves up anyway. A blog with a reality based body of participants will quickly call foul on those who argue disingenuously or who otherwise seek to deliberately screw things up, and these people can then rightly be ejected from the site. I'm happy to be able to ignore several posters with whom I frequently disagree and whose posts I find either unnecessarily aggressive or overly judgmental. But I'm glad they have the opportunity to post their remarks in a variety of venues and are not summarily exiled just because of disagreement as to substance. I'd find it very hard to participate in a site where people were "pre-emptively" banned. I expect such behavior from the Bushwhackers and the evangelical extremists and the rightwingers, but not from independent thinking progressives.

by sbj on 11/15/2005 07:46:10 PM EST

your poll doesn't allow (none / 0)
selection of more than one choice :/

My blog is pretty.

by Georgia10 on 11/15/2005 03:13:46 PM EST

Dammit dammit dammit (none / 0)
The first time I posted the poll, it hit the front page with a title and nothing else. The key words had vanished, the text, and the poll were GONE. I deleted the post immediately.

I thought I'd restored it, but I was wrong, I redid it a third time and I KNOW I checked mulitple choices, but it didn't work.

Grrrrr... Maybe Tom can fix this. I need a #$%@#&%$ cigarette.

by S M Dixon on 11/15/2005 03:17:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Now it does (none / 0)
unfortunately, if you already voted, you won't be able to vote again.

sorry!

Political Cortex -- Brain Food for the Body Politic

by Tom Ball on 11/15/2005 04:26:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank you sir! (none / 0)

by S M Dixon on 11/15/2005 04:28:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
In theory, a good idea (none / 1)
and Free Speech should always be the standard.

But it gets frustrating arguing with people who think, for example, that we should be able to torture people, or that Saddam was a threat or that getting a blowjob had anything to do with running the country.

It's kind of like the KKK, though. Better to let them have their say, so everyone can see just how nutty they really are.

Dissent Protects Democracy

by cscs on 11/15/2005 04:41:32 PM EST

Righties don't need... (none / 0)
...to come here to show how nutty they are, they can show us from any number of other places. This place is private property that's open to the public, but like any establishment, we can reserve the right to refuse service to any customer. So, should we or shouldn't we?

by S M Dixon on 11/15/2005 05:03:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
When I was a kid in the south (5.00 / 2)
Signs reading "we reserve the right to refuse service to any customer" were the same thing as saying "we don't serve blacks."

Just saying, I feel uncomfortable closing out any group.  I'd prefer to let folks say what they want and see if they're interested in rational argument -- or just interested in argument.

by Devilstower on 11/15/2005 09:57:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 0)
I think everyone should be welcome.

The alternative is Red State: will you set up your own "Known Truths" for this site?

Dissent Protects Democracy

by cscs on 11/16/2005 07:10:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I feel so loved! (none / 1)
I'm really kinda surprised at how many people are leaping to the conclusion that I'm a right-wing nutjob. Maybe I just don't post on blogs enough and am using language or points that are normally used by right-wingers. The fact is, I'm not anything. I dabble in liberal and conservative viewpoints depending on the situation. But to clear up confusion as much as I can, GENERALLY I'm socially liberally and financially conservative. I deviate on everything else, and sometimes within those two schools of thought. So, I'm really not a right-winger.

In any event, I feel so special that a poll was created because of something I wrote! It measn people are reading. Yes, it's a poll with negative connotations towards me, so it's not quite a CLEAN victory...

I personally think anyone should be allowed to post. Trolls (real ones) will be weeded out by the voters, and people who respectfully disagree with the normal posting content will hopefully be included in discussions, rather than having polls made about them trying to drum up support to have them expelled from the community.

But that's just my little thought.

by TheBlaz on 11/15/2005 05:38:17 PM EST

The poll was about you? (none / 0)
Damn! I thought it was about me and my stealth conservatism. Sigh.

Honestly, I think we're simply trying to work out as a community some parameters before anything drastic happens. I, at least, didn't think this was about your post (but then, I'm often slow on the uptake. Forgive me.).

by SusanG on 11/15/2005 05:46:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
re: (none / 0)
I'm fairly certain it's about me, as the author mentioned something to that effect within the comments section to my story.

by TheBlaz on 11/15/2005 05:54:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Just Two More Things... (none / 0)
The poll was written before your article even left the editing queue, and it occured to me that most people would think, "So what if wingers and trolls flock here; we can vote them into oblivion so the whole discussion is pointless."

I had no idea your article would be submitted to the front page, so I understand that you would perceive the poll as a real slam, and am still wincing at my timing.

That said, I consider myself the weakest writer among the founders, but I also believe I have a good grasp of where the bar has been set for the standard of writing we want here. As such, I don't believe that your article met that standard, and that has nothing to do with anything but the piece itself.

by S M Dixon on 11/15/2005 06:07:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well, quality .... (none / 1)
given the fact that community voting determines what makes the front page and what does not, is always going to be a subjective matter.

I'm sure there are going to be times when we as individuals disagree as to whether something really is "worthy" or not, but since it's a community decision, we're going to have to live with it, I think.

But that's a whole other issue (or poll).

by SusanG on 11/15/2005 07:06:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
SusanG Said It Best (none / 0)
The poll isn't about you or your post, but your post -- and early-but-now-discarded concerns about your political leaning -- did inspire it.

Again, the poll isn't aimed at you, and I'm very sorry that you have that impression; I should have done a better job at making that clear from the get-go. I just saw an opportunity to launch a discussion on an issue that has concerned me even before we launched the site, but I realized that it was an issue that the entire community should weigh-in on, and that meant waiting until the community consisted of a few hundred folks instead of the dozen-plus founders.

C'mon lurkers, you don't have to comment, but you really should vote!

by S M Dixon on 11/15/2005 06:00:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
re: (5.00 / 2)
Maybe I was being overly sensitive.

No harm done, and thanks for the apology. It's not necessary :-)

by TheBlaz on 11/15/2005 06:07:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I now feel slighted (none / 0)
I want to inspire a poll. I want a poll of my own.

by SusanG on 11/15/2005 06:02:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
SusanG: (none / 0)
Good

Great

ROCKS

(circle one)

:)

by S M Dixon on 11/15/2005 06:09:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This is a progressive political (none / 1)
site.

If audience determines your interest, then you know full well when entering what subjects and issues will arise.

You can also count on not agreeing with every post you see or that posters will identify issues/causes/positions that are important to you. Progressisves tend to enjoy a critical discussion in order to lay arguments out, dissect them, put them back together, and look at all the pieces in minute detail along the way.

Radical right-wingers, unfortunately, are not typically interested in opposing views.  To seek out this site, then, begs the question:  Why are they here?  To attack, to bait, to waste time, to frustrate, to annoy, to pass the time?

I think progressives would welcome anyone to the discussion for useful and serious reasons. One of the unique aspects of the Cortex is its editing queue so that readers can offer suggestions, feedback, and responses that the writer can address before opening that argument up to public view.

That feature alone characterizes a progressive view of blogging and democracy. But it doesn't protect the site from abuse, misuse, or criticism.

If a site visitor is genuinely interested in participating in an environment that promotes democratic ideas and practices, then that user is welcome and would welcome contributions to the discussion.

Why would anyone not interested in such a forum enter? Ah, that's the rub.

Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle. FDR

by btyarbro on 11/15/2005 08:02:48 PM EST

Let the little people prattle (none / 0)
Like most of you I have been irritated and frustrated with troll-like right wing idealogues jumping into discussions without any intention to discuss. There's a tendency on the part of these types to just parrot back whatever Rush or Pat (or whoever their little god is) has been saying. They like to call people names and cite nonsense as 'facts'.

However, I feel uncomfortable with any type of blanket ban. This site has great potential for real vigorous dialogue and debate. I think the voting system will help. I also suggest not responding to idiotic posts the koolaid makers and koolaid drinkers leave, and eventually they will be weeded out.

I welcome a good dialogue with intelligent, thinking, open-minded folks of all beliefs.

If you are going to skate on thin ice, you might as well dance.

by zesty grapher on 11/18/2005 10:15:38 AM EST

Is It Possible To Be Too Open-minded? | 23 comments (23 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
 Display: