I know. Many of you are sick of talking about it, sick of thinking about it, and sick of seeing threads about the unrec function. I don't necessarily blame you for that, but as you may also know, I've been watching this thing, thinking about it, and writing about it a lot over the past week, and I just now realized how counter-productive this function could be here if it remains. I have ethical, civil, and tyranny of the majority objections to it already, but all those objections pale in comparison to this one.

I now realize that my tyranny of the majority objection is off-base and wrong. The unrec function does not allow tyranny of the majority on the Greatest Page. What it really allows is tyranny of the largest minority. I say that because it's clear the unrec function does not keep controversial threads off of the GP, as the admins had hoped it would. Skinner, LynneSin, Laurab, and Robb have all had threads on the unrec function itself (a very divisive topic) that have ascended the list. Two of those threads are near the top of the list as I write this. What the unrec function does is to assure that an OP on a divisive topic must be written by someone who holds the view of the largest minority--not the majority but the largest minority. OPs by posters from a smaller minority are squelched by not being allowed onto the list where they will be seen by a larger audience. Using discussion of the unrec function as an example, the majority, I would bet, actually doesn't care. The larger minority, on the other hand, actively likes it. The smaller minority doesn't like it. Nevertheless, the larger minority (and not the majority) controls the GP. No threads critical of the unrec function have appeared on the GP (to my knowledge) since the function was activated. Controversial threads still appear (the unrec threads themselves), but only the OPs of those who support the position of the larger minority appear.

Now, if I am right about how this function works and about its effect on the GP, imagine what the GP would have looked like during the 2008 Primaries. In December of 2007, iirc, there was no majority opinion on DU (there never really is) regarding our choice for the party's Presidential nomination, but the largest minority supported Dennis Kucinich, naturally. What would the GP have looked like while the Kucinich partisans controlled it? You would have seen lots of positive Kucinich threads, of course, but you would have also seen lots of negative threads about Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and the rest of the field. Pro-Obama threads would be unrec'd into oblivion, as would threads supporting any of the other candidates and any thread critical of Kucinich. Would that have been "representative" of DU or, even, of the Democratic Party as a whole?

Once the field was narrowed, and the largest minority here supported Obama, you would have seen plenty of pro-Obama threads on the GP and plenty of anti-Clinton threads, but threads critical of Obama or flattering of Clinton would not have been allowed to appear. The larger minority would have prevented them from ascending to the GP by using the unrec function. Would that have been "representative" of DU, Democrats, or the Democratic Party? Is that what we would have wanted to project from the Greatest Page and from DU's home page?

The revelation I offer here is that there is never a "majority" opinion here on any issue (unless it involves Republicans, and we generally agree that they are the disloyal opposition who should never, if we can help it, hold power again in the United States). Other than that, on all the issues that really matter, there is no majority here. Instead, there are competing minorities who are trying to persuade other liberal and open-minded people to see their point of view, or to support their candidate, or to DU a given poll, or to donate to a given cause, or, merely, to read an interesting article. We all know that the Democratic Party is a big tent. There is no "majority" in the Democratic Party, any more than there is a "majority" in DU. We are a collection of minorities trying to work together, talking to one another, thinking with one another, and trying to persuade one another.

The unrec function allows the larger minority to dominate the GP and squeeze out all the other minority opinions that are competing for the same, valuable real estate. For that reason, I believe the unrec function is wrong for DU and should be disabled permanently.

Thanks for your kind attention.



-Laelth


Credit where it is due. Better Believe It made a similar argument here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu... . This is just an extension of that argument with some real-world examples to highlight the point. Now that I've had a week to study how the function seems to work, this argument became compelling to me.