Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » Time for change » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
THE UNFULFILLED PROMISE
Posted by Time for change in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Tue Jun 02nd 2009, 11:01 PM
This post is my no means meant to be a thorough discussion of the subject indicated in the above title. Rather, it focuses mostly on my own personal observations and experiences. But I know that many others have encountered similar problems, so perhaps some will find it useful.

Like most other DUers who have posted a lot and offered their opinions on controversial subjects, I have been subjected to my share of flaming. There is one particular type of post in which I have most encountered this problem: those in which I have disputed the “official” versions of various historical events. Since that is the type of post in which I have most frequently encountered incivility, I will begin with that:


My problem with incivility encountered on DU

The phenomenon that I’m talking about is where people who disagree with my ideas, rather than merely express their disagreement, feel it necessary to throw in insults along with their disagreement. Sometimes these people simply respond with insults, with nothing else to go along with them. Those are relatively easy to handle. I either point out DU rules to them, or I ignore them.

Other people include substantive arguments along with their insults and arrogant assertions. Sometimes those arguments are of such a nature as to indicate that the poster has a somewhat high degree of intelligence.

Those are the most difficult for me to deal with. The arguments may be of such quality that, if not for the insults, they would be well worth responding to in a constructive manner. But because of the insults, my first inclination is to respond in kind, by hurling back insults at them. I believe that generally that is not a constructive way to respond. But sometimes my anger gets the best of me, and I do it anyhow.

Another alternative, which I have also tried, is to respond with my own counter-arguments. In some cases that is easy, if I happen to be aware of a good one off the top my head. At the other extreme, a reasonable counter-argument may require a great deal of research and a great deal of time.

But the problem with responding with a good counter-argument to these people is that that any reasonable response is highly unlikely to be fruitful. If somebody is willing to start off an argument with insults, then how likely is it that a counter-response, no matter how well-reasoned, will elicit anything in return but another insult? I have concluded from experience that the chances of that happening are very small. And furthermore, in situations like this I’m so focused on the insults that it’s hard for me to think productively about real arguments.

The dilemma is this: If we refuse to respond, that may give the impression (to third parties) that we are conceding the argument. Yet why should we devote a lot of time to an effort that is almost certain to result in nothing but a spiraling flame war? That is a gross waste of time. Not wanting to retreat, and at the same time not wanting to waste my time on a fruitless effort, I have often tried some middle course whereby I respond with a counter-argument without putting in the time required to develop one that might otherwise be warranted if I was dealing with a reasonable and civil person. But I have found this middle course to result in the worst of both worlds, in that my time is wasted, I get my blood boiling, and I elicit an even more venomous response from the other poster.


Some examples

To clarify what I’m talking about, I’ll give some examples of responses I’ve received from these people:

In response to a post in which I discuss the efforts towards peace made by President Kennedy in the face of intense pressure from the war hawks who filled his military and CIA (and in which I don’t even offer an opinion on how he was assassinated), I received this:

... As this OP confirms, there is no end to the unfounded and unprovable paranoia and tinfoil that some people choose to believe, said paranoia offered without a scintilla of what would constitute proof outside of an elementary school playground.

Why be forced to prove what you can simply assert when so many are gullible enough to follow your lead and heap praise upon your "truth telling" lunacy?

In response to a post in which I defined “conspiracy theorist” as anyone who seriously questions the official government or societal view of reality, I got this:

A "conspiracy theorist" is someone with a near-religious belief in highly implausible conspiracy theories, for no particularly good reason. They believe that all the evidence we have was faked, that all the "real" evidence was covered up, and that anyone who says differently is either uninformed or "in on it" somehow. That's not a "theory"; it's a closed feed-back loop. Since you started with a bad self-definition, your "anti-conspiracy theory" analysis is kinda pointless.

In response to a post in which I say that I will respond to the poster’s criticism, but “that may take a little time because there's a lot of information there. But I'll get back to you”, he responds:

Run, run, run n/t

At a point later in the discussion, in response to my question to the same person, “So you’re relying on the words of Bush and Cheney?” I received this:

The same fucking tactics of every other CT advocate here. Man, it doesn't take much to scratch the surface and get the same old tired bullshit. How disappointing…

Apology rescinded, Time for change. There was a hell of a lot more there besides Bush and Cheney (which may have been true, but when I got to the point where Bush and Cheney’s words were part of his argument, I figured that that was enough to respond to), and anyone who reads my post knows that. You are not arguing in good faith. You are pushing bullshit and you won't listen to reason…

(Adds a couple of paragraphs of actual argument, mixed with “fucking BULLSHIT”. And then)

You get nothing more but mockery from me, Time for change, because that's all you deserve on this issue. In my experience, you push the work of a snake oil salesman and defend him. You evade, you misquote, you distract. You promise to investigate issues and then you keep running…


How to respond to such incivility

As I said above, I’ve responded in many unfruitful ways to these attacks, including acting like them (returning the insults), trying to respond with constructive argument, or trying to find some middle ground between those two extremes. It is rare that any of that works out well. Here is what I think would be an appropriate response to this kind of thing:

Your hostility and insults are noted, and they don’t deserve a response. But I’ll say this one time: Since you are unable or unwilling to discuss your disagreement with me in civil terms, then there appears to be little or no chance that we could have a productive discussion about it. To try to do that would be a great waste of my time and effort. I’ll alert the moderators about your post and hope they handle it as I believe they should. But I won’t respond to you any more.


On the need to discuss controversial issues

When after carrying on a flame war with these people for a while I finally respond to them with something similar to what I proposed above, of course I just get more insults, especially to the effect that since I refuse to discuss it further with them, that means that (to quote a recent response) “I have no doubt that you (referring to me) don't give a flying f*ck as to what the truth is…”.

But that’s not true. I really do care what the truth is. It is true that after reading five and a half books on the JFK assassination, for example, that my mind is pretty much made up on some basic aspects of the case. But I still would like to know more about it, and I do try to keep an open mind on anything that might contradict my views. And I appreciate a good argument. But not when it’s laced with insults. Some people have the patience or temperament for that, I realize. But I don’t.

On the other hand, if someone disagrees with my point of view on a very important manner and is willing to discuss it in a civil manner, I’m more than willing. The best example I have of that is an argument I entered into with two DUers in early 2005 regarding the 2004 presidential election. Because of the largest exit poll discrepancy in a presidential race in U.S. history, combined with electronic black box voting machines and my opinion of George Bush and his cronies, I believed that the election was stolen by means of electronic vote switching. In fact, I did an analysis which I believe lent credence to that proposition.

But these two DUers believed otherwise, and we argued about it. I ended up spending literally hundreds of hours and exchanging possibly thousands of private e-mails with them on the subject. And as far as I recall, we never found it necessary to insult each other about our disagreement.

It was a productive exchange. In the end they led me to believe that electronic vote switching probably had a lot less to do with the 2004 election results than I had originally thought, at least in Ohio (Ohio used very few electronic voting machines in 2004, but Florida is another story), where the election was most clearly decided in the Electoral College. But at the same time, additional avenues of research led me to the conclusion that the presidential election in Ohio was probably decided instead by massive illegal electronic purging of voters. I believe that my two friends at least partially agreed with that conclusion – at least they didn’t express disagreement with it. This was really an ironic twist because illegal purging of voters wouldn’t be reflected in an exit poll discrepancy, since those who went to the polls on Election Day only to find out that they had been purged of their right to vote wouldn’t have been interviewed for an exit poll… presumably.

Anyhow, in the run-up to the 2008 election I posted information on DU, warning of the need to guard against a repeat of the massive voter purging of 2004.


On the need to avoid insulting people

I think that insulting people is generally bad for at least two reasons. First, it cuts off the possibility (or at least the likelihood) of productive discussion. And secondly, I generally don’t see any reason to insult someone because they disagree with me.

Take abortion, for example. I believe that abortion should be legal, primarily because I believe that people should have the right to do what they want as long as they don’t interfere with other peoples’ rights. That belief is magnified by the fact that criminalizing abortion leads to women putting their lives in danger when they feel the need to seek illegal, dangerous abortions. Also important is the fact that I feel little or no empathy for fetuses. I suppose that the reason for that is that I don’t believe they have thoughts or consciousness. I’m not proud to say that I feel little or no empathy for them, but it’s a fact.

In a recent post I had some harsh words to say about the so-called “pro-life” movement:

As part of a political movement that is so anti-life in so many other ways, it makes no sense unless seen as a mindless act of obedience to authority figures – authority figures who profit from war and many other anti-life policies. Such a political movement has to throw in something to make their followers feel self-righteous. The so-called “pro-life” movement is that something, and it costs the leaders of the movement nothing, while supplying them with minions to help them achieve their goals.

Nevertheless, my beliefs on this matter don’t preclude me from believing that at least some people are “pro-life” out of a sincere desire to protect unborn fetuses. In fact, I believe that my sister-in-law and at least two of her three daughters appear to fall into that category. And I have never had the slightest desire to insult them over their beliefs on this issue. Nor have I ever insulted any of my fellow DUers over this issue.


Some final comments

Admittedly there can be a fine line on this issue. I have insulted people in my DU posts in two circumstances. First, I have had some very harsh things – actually insults – to say about right wingers, as part of a political movement. In this case I’m not talking about fellow DUers, but rather about the opposition political movement. My insults in those cases are aimed at ideologies and behaviors that I consider to be terribly destructive to our country and the world. I do name names sometimes (for example, Bush, Cheney). Maybe I go too far sometimes, but I find it difficult to talk about such people in less than harsh terms.

I also sometimes return insults with insults to fellow DUers. I do that usually not out of any reasoned thought process, but simply as a knee-jerk response to being insulted. I don’t believe I should do that, and I’ll try harder not to do it in the future.

I think that insulting fellow DUers has no useful place on DU. We come to DU to have constructive discussions with other people, to learn, and to get emotional support. What good does it do to insult our fellow DUers, even if we strongly disagree with them or if we suspect that they’re trolls? We can offer our opinions on things, even offer constructive criticism without insulting people. Insulting our fellow DUers, while perhaps working for us as a means of releasing our pent-up hostilities or hatreds, serves mainly to cut off discussion and create bad feelings between us.

Discuss (86 comments) | Recommend (+51 votes)
The Unfulfilled Promise
The Unfulfilled Promise of the American Dream: The Widening Gap between the Reality of the United States and its Highest Ideals




Time for change


Notwithstanding the lofty sentiments and purpose of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the reality of the United States of America did not then – and never has – lived up to its ideal. Our nation remains today a long way from fulfilling the promise implied by those ideals. Yet, our Declaration was a great start, and it has long shone as a beacon of hope for people all over the world.

Throughout our history, while many have striven to close the gap between our highest ideals and the reality of our nation, others have focused on the accumulation of private wealth and power, at the expense of everyone else. In recent decades the latter have gained much ground, leading to increasing imperialism abroad and deteriorating democracy at home, characterized by routine (and legal) bribery of our public officials, the fusion of government and private corporate interests (corporatocracy), a corrupt election system largely in the hands of private corporations, a corporate controlled communications media, and the widespread acceptance of Executive Branch secrecy, routinely justified with little if any questioning, by the magic words “national security”. All of this is rapidly turning our country from the democracy proclaimed at our founding into a plutocracy (government by the wealthy and for the wealthy). The result is the most obscene wealth gap our country has ever known, the highest imprisonment rate in the world, rampant militarism, routine flaunting of international law, the least efficient health care system in the developed world, a pending environmental catastrophe that threatens to destroy the life sustaining forces of our planet, and myriad other problems that threaten to destroy our nation and tyrannize our people.

My new book, The Unfulfilled Promise of the American Dream – The Widening Gap between the Reality of the United States and its Highest Ideals, explores the roots and consequences of the demise of our democracy, and why most Americans have been unable to understand this process or even become aware of it. A good understanding of why and how we have deviated so greatly from the ideals of our nation is the first and necessary step towards getting back on the right track and revitalizing our society.

The book is currently being sold in electronic PDF format and can be purchased at http://www.unfulfilledpromise.com/Buy-the-... for $3.99. It will also soon be available in Amazon Kindle format. DU members who cannot afford to buy the book but would like to read it can pm me with your e-mail address, and I will send you a free PDF copy.

I’ve previously posted on DU a slightly earlier version of the introduction to the book, which is also posted at my site. Here is the Table of Contents, followed by a brief description of the three parts of the book:


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
Acknowledgements
Prologue – What is Wrong with the United States of America?

Part I – Root Causes of the Impending Demise of American Democracy
Chapter 1 – Legalized Bribery
Chapter 2 – Human Psychological Factors
Chapter 3 – Corporatocracy
Chapter 4 – Corporate Control of Media
Chapter 5 – Corrupt Election System
Chapter 6 – Government Secrecy
Chapter 7 – American Exceptionalism

Part II – A Sampling of Imperialist Actions
Chapter 8 – Slavery and its Legacy
Chapter 9 – Early U.S. Imperialism
Chapter 10 – U.S. Imperialism in Cold War
Chapter 11 – Iraq War and Occupation
Chapter 12 – Afghanistan War

Part III – Consequences
Chapter 13 – Election of George W. Bush
Chapter 14 – War and Imperialism
Chapter 15 – Class Warfare
Chapter 16 – Predator Financial Class
Chapter 17 – Shock Therapy
Chapter 18 – Contempt for Int. Law
Chapter 19 – The “War on Drugs”
Chapter 20 – Climate Change
Chapter 21 – “War on Terror”
Chapter 22 – Health Care
Chapter 23 – Unaccountable government
Chapter 24 – Response to 9/11 Attacks
Epilogue


PART I – Root Causes of the Impending Demise of American Democracy

It is somewhat difficult to separate the causes of our problems from their consequences, since they combine to form a long chain of cause leading to consequence, leading to more consequences, etcetera. Nevertheless, it seems worth while to identify the root causes of our problems, those that occur early in the chain and lead to so many of the tragic consequences we see today. The only chance we have of reversing the demise of our democracy is through addressing and attacking its root causes.

At the top of the list is the systematic bribery of public officials by the powerful corporations (Chapter 1) whom our government is charged with regulating in the public interest. Instead of calling it bribery, we call it “campaign contributions”, but what we call it isn’t as important as what it is. It is hard to fathom how democracy can survive when such a practice is legal and condoned.

Working in tandem with our system of legalized bribery is the nature of the people who inhabit our country. That is not to say that Americans are inherently substantially different than any other people. Human beings are imperfect, and that is probably a major reason why in a world where civilization began more than five millennia ago, the oldest written national framework of government in the world today – the Constitution of the United States of America – is only a little more than two and a quarter centuries old. Chapter 2 explores the roles of basic human needs, authoritarianism, psychological defense mechanisms used to prevent us from perceiving reality as it is rather than as we’d like it to be, and corrupted ideologies in causing us to passively accept the accumulation of power in the hands of ambitious and ruthless individuals who care about little else than expanding their own wealth and power.

When bribery of public officials is tolerated as an inevitable aspect of public life, government inevitably grows close to the wealthy interests that shower it with money in return for legislative and other favors. A malevolent symbiosis grows between the state and corporate power, resulting in rule by an oligarchy that is highly detrimental to the lives of ordinary people (Chapter 3). Using their accumulated wealth and power to manipulate our legislative process, the oligarchy grabs for more and more control of the communications media (Chapter 4) that are used to control the information available to and shape the attitudes of our nation’s people, in pursuit of their own narrow interests.

Since the 1980s an orchestrated campaign has been underway to demonize “big government”, thereby paving the way for private corporate control over more and more functions that were previously deemed intrinsic functions of government. Among those functions is the running of public elections (Chapter 5) – the function that symbolizes democracy perhaps more than any other single function. Consequently, the purging of selected registered voters from our computerized voter rolls has become a routine recurring event throughout much of our country, and without a doubt determined the results of the 2000 – and probably 2004 as well – presidential election. Just as bad, more and more of the counting of votes in our public elections have been turned over to private corporations, which count our votes using electronic machines using secret software to produce vote counts that cannot be verified by anyone.

Bribery, the fusion of government and private interest, fake and biased news, and corrupt elections are not things that government and its corporate allies want us to know about. Consequently, they construct walls of secrecy (Chapter 6) to keep us from obtaining information that sheds light on their activities. The perfect phrase for facilitating this is “national security”. When our government tells us that the “national security” requires that certain things be kept secret from us, the understanding is that to question such a pronouncement is unpatriotic, and to actually attempt to obtain the “secret” information may be treasonous.

But indefinitely maintaining secrets from the American people can be very difficult, because at least some people want to know what their government is up to. So in addition to the formal mechanisms of secrecy, informal mechanisms are constructed (Chapter 7) to keep vital information away from us. One of the primary methods for doing this is to make certain sensitive subjects taboo – that is, to create the widespread belief that discussion of these topics is so outside the bounds of acceptable human discourse that anyone who discusses them should be shunned by society, or worse. The most common issue that falls into this category is any discussion that sheds light on the disparity between American ideals and the reality of life in our country today.


PART II – A Sampling of Imperialist Actions in U.S. History

Notwithstanding the fact that our founding document says that “all men are created equal” and speaks of the inalienable rights of humankind, the United States has throughout its history partaken of massive exploitation of other peoples.

It is estimated that at the time of our birth, 18% of our population was black slaves. In our expansion westwards during the late 18th and 19th centuries, we decimated the original inhabitants of our continent, and often treated them with great cruelty. In 1846 we manufactured an excuse for war with our neighbor Mexico, in which we continued to expand our country westwards and southwards. In 1893 we began our overseas imperialism with the conquest of Hawaii. Our overseas expansion was greatly accelerated in 1898 with our participation in the Spanish-American War, which led to our conquest of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. With our arrival at world superpower status at the end of World War II, we began the Cold War, which led to and served as a rationalization for covert and/or direct military actions against myriad foreign nations over the next 46 years. With the September 11, 2001 attacks on our country, we declared a perpetual “War on Terror”, which served and continues to serve as an excuse to invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, nations that posed no threat to us. We do not know when or if this perpetual war will ever end. We don’t know how many additional imperial conquests it will lead to.

Most Americans don’t think much about all this. Many of these actions are done in secrecy, and the American people don’t find out about them until many years later – or we never find out about them at all. Those that we do know about are spun into the most favorable light, to make them seem benign or even noble.

But these actions come at great costs: in the lives of our soldiers; in the ruined lives of the peoples of the victim countries; in trillions of dollars cost to our people and their future generations; in our international reputation; in anti-American hatred leading to terrorism; and, to our democracy itself. For how can a nation claim to believe in the inalienable rights of humankind specified in its founding document, while making a mockery of that belief in the way it treats other peoples? For that reason alone it is worth while to take a brief look at our long history of imperialist actions.


PART III – Consequences

In the Prologue I give a brief account of what I see as some of the worst and tragic consequences of the root causes that I discuss in Part I – to enable the reader to see where this book is heading. When elections of our public officials are for sale to the highest bidder… when our public officials are so addicted to the “campaign contributions” of their wealthiest constituents that they develop a symbiotic relationship with them… when our communications media are owned and controlled by an oligarchy of wealthy elites… when our citizenry lack the ability to differentiate propaganda from reality… when we allow machines provided by private corporations to count our votes using secret electronic software… then we should expect that the consequences will not be pretty or comfortable for the vast majority of our citizens.

In Part III, I explore those consequences in much greater detail, in the hope that the reader will agree with me that these are very serious problems, and that they must be successfully addressed if our country is ever to fulfill the promise of its ideals, or even make progress in that direction. When enough Americans recognize our problems as problems, stripped of the gloss and spin put on them by our oligarchy, they will rise up and do something about them. Until then there will be no progress, and we are very likely to head in the direction of all the former empires of our planet, ending in chaos, widespread catastrophe, suffering, and ignominy.

Profile Information
Time for change
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
DU Donor DU Donor
12554 posts
Member since Thu Dec 2nd 2004
Silver Spring, MD, US
Male
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
The Usual Suspects
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
StarStar
AlienGirl has passed away
16 recs : By Contrary1
Star
My Forums
Democratic Underground forums and groups from my "My Forums" list.
Random Journal
Random Journal
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.