Moving Forward: Your Complaints and Suggestions. Our Plans for 2017.
Alright, in this down week between Christmas and New Years where it seems everyone is on vacation, I thought it would be a good time for some feedback from our readers. Yes, I want you all to be brutally honest with us about your ideas, suggestions, and complaints about Delaware Liberal over the past year.
I know we need to improve our local coverage after being sucked into the Trump Vortex with all other media in the past year. To that end, we will be returning to our Vote Tracking roots in the new year, with some changes. Instead of a large post every few weeks, each relevant piece of legislation will be given its own post, and links to each individual post will be saved on the front page under a single “mothership” post. We will be doing the same for Congress this year, tracking how the Delaware Delegation fights the Fuhrer with all their might, or whether they will capitulate.
I also want to explore ways to change the anonymous commenting system, if at all possible. Sockpuppetry has returned (where more than 1 person has multiple accounts). I know many value the psuedo-anonymity Delaware Liberal provides. But sometimes that leads to some pretty fervent commentary and flame wars.
So have at it. Or at me. I won’t hold anything you say against you.
Once upon a time this was the best political blog in Delaware.
(I know because I spent a lot of time trying to compete with it, and never ran better than a poor second.)
It was part of a community of blogs that was in many ways a big, fractious family of internet pirates (remember Around the Horn?) that unfortunately no longer really exists.
It became an institution that expanded beyond its original borders–podcasts, drinking liberally, radio gigs, charity fund drives, outright campaigning, scooping the News Journal, and even meetings with Governor Markell’s press secretary early on in the Great Blog Summit.
It was fractious, imaginative, trend-setting, and not at all a place for the thin-skinned. I can still remember the Deldem post that started with the words, “Steve Newton thinks I’m an asshole.” We had great cross-blog flame wars … but at least they were usually about something.
It was interesting. That’s the key, right there. It was interesting. You wanted to see who would say what to whom (?), even the gun threads were fun if you looked at them in a whacky sidewise kind of way … at least before Sandy Hook.
The somewhere along the line DL became a franchise operation, essentially, rather than the one-man blog jason started (and, I have to admit, I don’t think I ever got to read because I wasn’t reading blogs that far back), or the three or four regular contributors. They got tired.
I know how that works. I got tired. I tried coming back three or four times, once with that short-lived abortion donviti tried so diligently to start with me, Dana Garrett, Tyler Nixon, and a couple of others. Once you get tired of being a blogger (as opposed to a commenter or somebody who posts on social media), you’re done. I don’t think you ever really get it back. Even jason grew up and had to leave blog Neverland–he’s tamer today and way less spontaneously funny.
Then you guys brought in women–pandora and cassandra–and we all learned the ugly little secret that George Orwell let out in Animal Farm–all of the contributors are equal but some are slightly less equal than others, especially when they want to talk about gender-related issues. Because it turns out that progressives don’t actually do that much better with strong, opinionated women than corporatists, or libertarians, or even conservatives.
And we got the El Som vs DelDem fight about … well, I’m not really sure I even give a shit about what their fight is about. It was so much more fun when everybody was trashing Mike Protack for pink mailers and villifying Dave Burris for trying to out kavips … that I don’t really care about their differences … because it’s fucking boring … I’d rather watch the WWF because at least there’s a plot.
Maybe the days of State political blogs in Delaware are over. Not the days of commentary and controversy, but the days of a blog as the platform. It’s sort of like Turner Classic Movies–in the end it’s all old movies with too many commercials and bad colorization. The world changed: DelawareLiberal hasn’t adapted. There used to be a voice here–now I often feel like a cop called to a domestic dispute. If I keep coming back it’s because I’m friends with some of you outside the blog, and because I could never look away when they ran “Signal 30” in the 9th Grade Health classes, either.
I know this is way too long and that my opinion is hardly determinative, but I think it’s time for you guys to recognize that you’ve got to do something drastic, or just fold the tent and hope that some new political junkies with a new platform come along to pick up the slack. I suspect they will.
Because otherwise you’re pretty much Johnny Unitas playing out the string with the San Diego Chargers, which is a little less embarrassing than getting caught masturbating by your sister when you’re twenty-seven years old … but not much.
Fish or cut bait time, guys. You are all so much better than this.
Steve,
First of all, except for the Libertarian nonsense, you were one of the best bloggers in Delaware – even nationally. I really really miss your blogging, even though we had at it a few times. The depth and breadth of your knowledge always made for insightful reads. I am very sorry that you ran out of steam. Jason once said that blogging is more addictive than crack cocaine – but for most people the coke high toasts or kills you after a few years.
I think that this blog lost its fire during the ACA debate, when it became clear that opposition voices here were not wanted if one was a liberal but did not support Obama.
Now, as can clearly be seen, Obama, as the leader of the Democratic party, has destroyed the Democratic Party nationally. In the last eight years, he has lost the House, the Senate, a Supreme Court Seat, numerous governorships and state houses, and finally his candidate lost the Presidency to Donald Trump.
And then today he has the audacity to say he could have beaten Trump. Well, maybe he could have, but so what? The only election that he ever seemed to care about was his own.
And there were those of us who predicted this coming failure on this blog many years ago, and we were ultimately banned from commenting here for being overly critical of Obama. But we were right.
I used to end my comments 6 years ago with
HCR 2010 = WMD 2002
Because I said the lies that Obama told about the ACA would come back to harm the Democrats when people found what was really going to happen down the line.
Of course, Jason called me “the stupidest fucking guy in Delaware” for writing this.
The flaws and lies associated with Obamacare and the lack of a public option allowed the Republicans to demonize it. Then, as premiums and deductibles rose, the Democrats couldn’t defend it adequately. And they long ago stopped fighting for a public option or medicare for all.
But that is only part of the problem. Obama’s failure to prosecute criminal bankers, to address income inequality, to prosecute the Bush torturers, to address the problem of mass incarceration, to continue domestic spying programs, and to not address federal election reforms also cost him and the Democrats. Not to mention firing Howard Dean and replacing him with Tim Kaine and then Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Oh, and Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff was another disaster, and the “we go high when they go low” political battle cry was just stupid.
So this blog basically became a mouthpiece to defend whatever middle-way nonsense Obama supported when it could have been something much more thoughtful and inspiring.
But, really, I am still the stupidest fucking guy in Delaware.
@disappointed–I always thought that you sounded familiar. Now I know who and why.
Each contributor is very good at their own posts. Just keep doing that, and resist the urge to tear at each other in the comments. There’s no need for DL to have an existential crisis – we need DL more than ever on local as well as national topics.
I suspect when elected Dems collect themselves and some direction begins to form, we can start complaining about them instead of each other. That will feel much better.
Steve, first off, I moved your comment here from yesterday’s open thread since it fits in so well here (I wrote this above post before I read your comment). So, to address some of your comments:
The somewhere along the line DL became a franchise operation, essentially, rather than the one-man blog jason started (and, I have to admit, I don’t think I ever got to read because I wasn’t reading blogs that far back), or the three or four regular contributors. They got tired.
This is a problem. I recognize it. We are tired. We need to change. Hence this post.
And we got the El Som vs DelDem fight about … well, I’m not really sure I even give a shit about what their fight is about.
Aside from the standard Bernie (El Som) v. Hillary (me) fight, I am not really sure. I was angered by his trashing of his own blog, so I lost my temper on him in the comments (though I deleted my posts). But essentially he, and you, are right. In an email, he said I killed the blog this year. I am not sure what he means by that. I suppose he means I dared to support someone other that his Holiness Saint Bernie. Or maybe he means I focused too much on Trump and national politics in the Open Thread. It is why I posted this post, to fight out if he is right.
Then you guys brought in women–pandora and cassandra–and we all learned the ugly little secret that George Orwell let out in Animal Farm–all of the contributors are equal but some are slightly less equal than others, especially when they want to talk about gender-related issues. Because it turns out that progressives don’t actually do that much better with strong, opinionated women than corporatists, or libertarians, or even conservatives.
This is a HUGE issue and you are exactly right. To address this, I want to bring in more diverse writers and writes. More women and African Americans and Latinos. To wake up these White Liberal Men, including myself. But it is a vicious circle. This blog appears hostile to women and minorities, and thus women and minorities either want to leave or they stay away entirely, thus making the blog more hostile.
Steve, what are your ideas on doing something drastic?
@puck. Thanks for your comments, and you are right, we all need to stop fighting each other. And you are right, we need to be focused on local politics.
This is the stuff that drives me crazy and is turning people off. You move comments around without notice, and leave no trail behind, dislodging conversations and creating this Orwellian “present without a past” sort of thing. It looks like a control issue, and that’s honestly what I think it is.
If you want to save this blog you will quit trying to be the Daily DelDem Kos and think about what it was meant to accomplish in the first place.
@Deldem Steve, what are your ideas on doing something drastic?
With all due respect, DD, you have the personality to be a contributor to a blog, and you have the personality to be a commenter, but as much as you love it, you don’t have the personality to manage an ensemble blog. I’m sorry to say that, but it’s true. Want something drastic? Bring in somebody who is this generation’s jason and put them in charge, then sit back and be a contributor.
Deleting your “anger” posts is–as I said above–Orwellian and vaguely insulting to all of us who read them. It’s a form of gaslighting–there, I unsaid it, now you can’t be mad at me or it’s your problem.
I’m not optimistic about your chances, honestly. I think media enterprises have a lifespan and I think this one has been honorable and influential, but I also think it’s done. I’m sorry about that, I’ve enjoyed the community, and I hope to still enjoy many of the people. But it’s nobody’s life’s work or livelihood, and–trust me–there is life after blogging.
I posted something in the Dec. 27 open thread, but it seems to have disappeared. I’ll try again.
This is the perspective of someone who found Delaware Liberal trying to dig up information about this year’s primary campaign. It was invaluable in that regard, and I learned key things about several races that I don’t think I would have known otherwise.
Unfortunately, after Sept. 13, there was nothing for me. Just a bunch of bellyaching about Trump, which you’ve thankfully acknowledged. I disagree with puck that we need DL all that much on national issues– there are plenty of other places I could go for that. A local-level political blog is worthless unless it actually focuses on local politics. So what I need is information about state and county issues and politicians. Again, you’ve acknowledged this, but I’ll go on record to reinforce that point.
I also want to know how I can actually participate in making the state Democratic party more progressive. I’ve heard a fair amount of complaining that that needs to be done, but no actual direction. I can read the party rules until I’m crosseyed but that won’t tell me how things actually work, even on a basic “this is how meetings are conducted” level. It certainly won’t tell me how else I could get involved.
You guys have a wonderful site that provides good info but you drive people away with your overbearing and self righteous attitudes and insistence on your views being the only ones. You threatened me and deleted my post that may have been a little off color but certainly not something the thought police had to come after me for. My liberal activist credentials in this sea of rednecks in Sussex county is as good as anyone’s yet I may be banned or deleted at any time. When I didn’t support Hillary the party establishment fix, I was treated like a right wing Trump supporter. I can post anything I want on the DE Right site and I am always at odds with everyone else there and they don’t threaten to ban me or delete my posts. Might want to self reflect on some of this.
@Aurochs… yeah, we will be focusing on local issues much more in the new year. And party of that will be about getting progressives involved in the local party. A huge event in the Spring of the new year will be the election of a new Chairman of the Delaware Democratic Party. We will be all over that.
“I also want to know how I can actually participate in making the state Democratic party more progressive. ”
Some would say to join your local Dem committee, but in my opinion the best way is to attend legislative hearings and other public meetings where bills and issues are discussed. Most of these meetings are held in fairly intimate rooms where you get to network with other activists, make your views known, and buttonhole your legislators and their staff. This works over time. I’ve done that on education issues for example, but have been unable to do it consistently. The key is to have a larger group attend so there is always a progressive presence and you aren’t marginalized as a lone crank. And you have to know the subject and offer intelligent comments instead of just shouting slogans. Blogging and Facebook groups can be an important organizing tool for this. Unfortunately the important meetings are usually held during the day and in Dover, so that is an obstacle for working people who live above the canal.
@Steve Newton. Point taken on moving comments. I honestly thought your long comment above in the Open Thread would foster discussion here. I am sorry that moving it offended you. I won’t do it again. As for me deleting my comments being a form of gaslighting… good point. I had not thought about it in that way. I also won’t to that going forward.
I suspect that the term “troll” has been expanded, and it’s punishment along with it. That is probably the mouse issue.
I agree with Steve in the weirdness of moving comments around. My philosophy was (when I had a vote) that the administrators were archivists. Everything should remain as it was to avoid what Puck has called the memory hole. So we would have a record of every interesting, prescient, inane or disingenuous comment made by contributors, politicians and commenters.
There should also be a ban on telling anyone that if they don’t like something, they should clear out. This goes for contributors and commenters.
Since we are talking about it, here are the rules on commenting: http://delawareliberal.net//about/.
The rules on trolls has not been expanded. While I do not recall the specific incident, I suspect Mouse published a comment that ran afoul of one or more of those rules (since he says it was off color, it likely ran afoul of Rule 3 and 7).
I appreciate this site for the local politics as well as for keeping tags about what our people in DC are doing. It would be nice to have this blog to help me keep track of what’s happening with the group in DC. You can believe it or not but I do call them on a regular basis to let them know when they do something good, which is not that often, and before important votes to make sure they know I’m watching and to let them how I believe they should be voting on the issue.
The phone call is free; let’s make a resolution to stay on Carper’s ass to make sure he doesn’t start this third way crap! We can’t let Coons off the hook either and we certainly should be watching our new congress lady before she develops any bad habits!
I’m not even sure what troll is? Sometimes I make silly comments to present humor to what seems to be some pretty uptight people in here. I certainly hope I’m not one. I’m getting a bit older and it could describe me though. I my experience with hyper educated liberals, they seem to be getting more and more uptight about everything these days. There’s a lot to laugh about in the coming administration.
And how many zealous environmentalist liberals do you get in here from Sussex County? I should be an honored guest dammit!
While the rules may not have changed, those being accused of being trolls are often not really meeting the standards of 3 or 7, unless the definition is being considered overly broadly. And certainly, some posts by contributors are in violation of rules 3 and 7, with no repercussions.
Mouse has often been off-topic or dense or crude, but no worse than a dozen other contributors and commenters.
Finally, this isn’t really about mouse. Mouse is just a handy example. And yet the Tom-Kline-bot gets it’s daily comment.
“There’s a lot to laugh about in the coming administration.”
In the sense that Hogan’s Heroes was funny, yes.
I like mouse’s comments including the absurdist ones and didn’t know he felt unwelcome.
I’m going to defend DelDem on moving the comments. When there is a more appropriate venue for a particular comment, it /should/ be moved. Steve found his comments again pretty damn quick, so I’m not sure what his problem is. It’s not DelDem’s fault that blogging software invariably has piss-poor comment moderation tools (at least compared to forum software). I’m amazed that he even COULD move a comment.
But no, you shouldn’t be deleting your own comments. You shouldn’t delete anybody’s comments unless they’re spam or abusive. You don’t gain respect by deleting posts you don’t like, even if they’re your own. I’ve seen that happen again and again, on forums and on blogs, and the result was always the same– widespread animosity towards the leadership.
“Some would say to join your local Dem committee, but in my opinion the best way is to attend legislative hearings and other public meetings where bills and issues are discussed. Most of these meetings are held in fairly intimate rooms where you get to network with other activists, make your views known, and buttonhole your legislators and their staff.”
A further obstacle here is finding out when and where these meetings happen. It seems that you already need to be pretty well-networked to glean even that information.
Maybe I’m missing something, but stuff like that is what we need DelDem for. Judging by the massive sums of cash rolling into progressive charities and PACs in the past two months, there’s going to be a lot of new activists soon, and they need direction.
I meant DL, not DelDem. (Maybe while he’s taking suggestions, I should suggest a more personal name?)
@Aurochs. I took Steve’s comments about me to heart. I do have control issues, so I will work on stepping back and allow my hyperbolic personality be a positive as a commenter and contributer and not a negative as a manager. Though, in the structure of DL, we really do not have a manager. We are an equal team of 10 active writers. I edit posts that are not my own to add the pictures and excerpts if they don’t have them, and I guess I am more active daily with the Open Threads and the Daily Delawheres than other writers, but that just makes me more visible, and not a manager. But my bossy controlling attitude must have come through if Steve noticed it, so I will work on that.
I would suggest that a more appropriate method would be to quote a comment. There is now a Steve Newton-sized hole in whatever conversation the comment was pulled from.
@Aurochs. The problem with my moniker is that I have had it so long. And change it to my real name (Jason), then I would be confused with the other, first, and real Jason.
LG, it was moved from yesterday’s open thread and the only comment that responded to it (from Disappointed) was moved as well. It is a rare event when I move comments, and given the reaction here, I won’t do it again.
Yeah, I forgot to read the damn rules. Is there a document I should sign and have notarized lol? I guess my comment that was deleted could have violated the spirit of rule #3 but it wasn’t meant as such. It was merely a comment about getting a butt implant so I looked more ethnic than just an ordinary a white guy. It’s good to consider the context before getting all upset about something like that. Seemed a little overly uptight to me and yes I did feel unwelcome afterward. But I’m an only child and my feelings are easily hurt lol. And I think I’m starting to better understand what the right wingers object to when they refer to “political correctness”.
It would be appropriate to quote or link to the comments, yes, but I don’t think moving them was INappropriate. The entire conversation Steve started was moved, and I see no “hole” in the Dec. 27 open thread, since those were the last three comments there prior to the move and nothing else in that post references them. They were also only a day old, and moving them here increased their visibility.
I’ll shut up now and defer to you, your personality, and the institutional structure of the blog in determining the best way to handle this.
RE: name, the real issue is, I need sleep.
Please, please do not miss an opportunity to point out the police state/fascism now being normalized by our lamestream media and keep up a relentless opposition to it both nationally and locally. Millennials in particular seem to have missed that chapter in their World History courses, or perhaps it was never in the lesson plan.
DD – don’t misunderstand. Steve’s comment is an example. I am suggesting a more hands-off approach to commenters and content. I am sure that some comments that are “lost” are just that commenters forgot which thread they commented on. I’ve done that many times. But comments and posts have occasionally been struck from the record, so who knows.
You are certainly not the only one that has done this, and the audit trail is pretty weak on who did what and when. Don’t take this as an attack on you, just as a facet of the tweaks that can be used to improve the reliability. I am pretty anal-retentive when it comes to this stuff, so your mileage may vary.
Pandora and Cassandra are huge turn offs. I could be alone on this (which I normally am when I write) but for the love of god between the two of them and the way they handle commentors it’s enough to make you not want to comment (almost enough) and not come back to see what the picture of the day is going to be.
It was good to see some fighting between Bulo and Cassandra. That was fun.
Something’s missing from DL. I can’t put my finger on it. Maybe the people over here are tired? You can tell at times DD when you throwing up content to keep things fresh and not have a post sit around too long.
Let me know when you want some personality added back in. You guys could use a shot of it. Sometimes It’s like the Lawrence Welk show around here or Golden Girls. On some occasions it’s He-Haw at best.
From my perspective, the attacks on each other have become too personal. I used to feel like this was a site that presented healthy debate and well rounded opinions. I also believe there should be more focus on progressive social issues, I. e., homelessness, entitlements, jobs, etc..
I know how that works. I got tired. I tried coming back three or four times, once with that short-lived abortion donviti tried so diligently to start with me, Dana Garrett, Tyler Nixon, and a couple of others. Once you get tired of being a blogger (as opposed to a commenter or somebody who posts on social media), you’re done. I don’t think you ever really get it back. Even jason grew up and had to leave blog Neverland–he’s tamer today and way less spontaneously funny.
Boy lesson learned on that one. Shame we couldn’t have kept that thing going. It’s hard to keep the fire that’s for sure and i think it shows after a while.
also to the point disappointed made about Obama and the ACA. The point was made on DL more than a few times that there were other places bashing Obama, and this wasn’t going to be one of them. I don’t know if that was a good or bad move
Yes, I understand how strong women are a huge turnoff to sexist white liberal men. You have made that obviously clear, Donviti. But they won’t be going away. If anything I want to bring more diverse writers onto DL. Not less.
Also, I think we should put much more focus on city and county issues across the state. All politics is local. And, I think Pandora and Cassandra are great!
I agree, more focus on city, county and state issues. And yes, Pandora and Cassandra are great. Some people’s white liberal male bubbles need to be popped.
Is this your blog? you might want to get a vote before you add more milque toast,
Strong woman aren’t a turn off. I married one.
Arrogant, self important, know it all people are
So have at it. Or at me. I won’t hold anything you say against you
No, it is not my blog. But we are not removing two strong writers simply because you do not like them, Donviti.
So, will you un-ban A1? And Delacrat? And any other liberals that you banned for being too far left and/or critical of Obama?
And you have said your piece. You don’t like Cass or Pandora. Got it. And you think we are boring. Got it. And you think you are the missing ingredient, all the while complaining about arrogance. Got it.
I am not holding anything against you.
Donviti is a turn-off. I will make an exception to my above rule and allow you to ban him, DD.
Sheesh. I guess sour grapes don’t improve with aging.
I didn’t ask you to remove them. You couldn’t get the votes to get rid of them.
I just didn’t hold back, like you said was ok to do. Writer(s) on DL have commented on how they don’t like how they handle commentors. I’m not on an island here. You asked, I commented. You want to know how to improve? There’s a suggestion….
This has nothing to do with race, nor do I think gender. I have black friends, 4 by last fb count.
And you have said your piece. You don’t like Cass or Pandora. Got it. And you think we are boring. Got it. And you think you are the missing ingredient, all the while complaining about arrogance. Got it.
I am not holding anything against you.
I think it’s peace?
Yes, a little boring.
I think some personality is the missing ingredient or more cow bell. Not more pictures of water and the Roth Bridge
I am what I am, what can I say.
Definitely agree that more diverse voices are needed if growth is desired. The comments denigrating Cassandra and Pandora, who are excellent, say everything about how sorely more views are needed. I’d also like to see more coverage of Wilmington politics–a lot seems to happen in the city that doesn’t get addressed, especially when there’s a national race or it’s a non-mayoral election year. With a rookie majority council and a new Mayor come 2017 there’s a lot at stake for the state’s largest city and being able to engage and educate more on Wilmington-specific news here would be great.
Franny, thank you for your comment. You are absolutely correct that we need more diversity and more focus on Wilmington. I have spoken with both Cassandra and Pandora about bringing aboard some of the progressives in the city who worked and volunteered on Eugene Young’s campaign and made it such a success to speak on the politics and events of Wilmington. Right now we are trapped in a vicious cycle. People who think DL doesn’t focus on Wilmington and is not diverse enough stay away from DL, thus making it not focus on Wilmington and not diverse enough.
El Som provides the best Leg Hall and street-level political insight out there.
Cassandra has some unique perspectives on Wilmington politics due to her roles IRL and should be sharing more of them.
DelDem is a bully, but I hope a reforming one.
Mitch Crane, if he’s able, could offer some fascinating information.
It’s no surprise that what people here say they want – local and state politics – is also the most difficult to get. Good substantive reported commentary takes time and money and relationships and resources. It’s much easier to do a national roundup and aggregate everything. If TNJ had sufficient experienced well-sourced reporters in Dover instead of just one guy trying to do it all, there wouldn’t be a need for this. But you can tell people are hungry.
Now that Mitch Crane is working for incoming Navarro Administration at the IC, I doubt he will be commenting as much as he did when he was just Chair of the Sussex Dems.
What’s boring is being told that any and all criticism of Pandora or Cassandra is sexist.
What’s wrong with this blog is Pandora, Cassandra and their cohort insisting that the problem with the Third Way Democratic Party isn’t the Third Way, it’s the electorate.
More pointedly, and I’ve said it over and over again only to have it dismissed, apparently, as “too personal,” is the fact that this started as a liberal blog and became a Democratic Party blog. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, but they have less overlap than the Party cohort here believes.
And, finally, that cohort is unwilling to brook criticism from the left, insisting that the left is “falling for” some sort of eleventy-dimensional chess move by the right in criticizing the Third Way. Funny, but liberals were quick to point out that not all criticism of ACA was from the right, but when we criticize the corporate friendliness of the mainstream Democratic Party, suddenly all criticism stems from the right.
Most of the pushback from writers here usually amounts to little more than “shut up, you’re wrong.” Criticism of the Clintons, which I have engaged in since 1992, is dismissed as “Clinton Derangement Syndrome.”
None of this is to say you should change anything. It’s your blog.
PS: I, for one, am less interested in city, state and local politics, mainly because I know most of those people and have a low opinion of their abilities.
Diversity is a good thing but if your viewpoint from your diversity puts you at odds with progressive politics, be prepared to be blasted from the comments section, no matter your gender or race. Just remember to keep the comments about the issue, not about the commenter.
I suspect opinions around the forthcoming actions of our new congresswoman will be a contest of diversity vs. issues.
Well, the Clintons are gone now. The Third Way has been gone since 2006. The DLC has been irrelevant since 2010 since what little members they had left in Congress were all defeated. Obama was not elected as a Third Way or a DLC acolyte. So I guess my complaint to Anonymous would be to update his lingo. It is fine to refer to Obama and Clinton as centrists, or moderates, or center-left liberals. Third Way and DLC are so 90’s.
Anyway, I think the main complaint here from Anonymous is that further left progressives own the word “Liberal” and there should be no one associated with the Democratic Party on DL, and that no one associated with the Party can be a “liberal.”
Yes, you get pushback from both contributors and readers from the Pandora-DD-Cassandra Evil Cabal because we disagree with you on certain issues. That is allowed. I will take your criticism that those in the Pandora-DD-Cassandra Evil Cabal can be dismissive, just as you on the further left can be just as dismissive of our points.
I think we all can be nicer to either other. But this debate is not going away just because you want it to. It is a substantive debate. And in answer to Puck, the debate is not whether Equal Rights (i.e. Identity politics) or Economics should be our message. The debate is whether it should be Economics alone, rather than Economics and Equal Rights. The further left side of the argument, represented by Puck and Anonymous, among others, want us to adopt an Economics alone messaging. I and the Pandora-DD-Cassandra Evil Cabal want it to be Economics and Equality. And we get called Clinton DLC Third Wayers for it. This debate will continue.
I have spoken with both Cassandra and Pandora about bringing aboard some of the progressives in the city who worked and volunteered on Eugene Young’s campaign and made it such a success to speak on the politics and events of Wilmington
So the answer to the solution is to add more insiders from the Delaware’s Democratic party? sheesh
What was successful about it? he lost
So Eugene Young’s volunteer campaign workers are now insiders? LOL, Donviti.
I’ll believe they are not from the inner circle when I see it.
LOL, you know nothing about the Young campaign. It was successful because it took an unknown from nothing to being 200 votes away from winning the Mayor’s office.
“this debate is not going away just because you want it to. It is a substantive debate.”
I agree. That’s why I keep it up. My point isn’t that you should quit the party. It’s that the distance between the Party and the Left is the source of the quarreling. And that I don’t appreciate having points dismissed because I’m “deranged” about the direction the party took under the Clintons.
I also don’t appreciate being told to move on, because there are many more (former) Third Wayers in the party than there are leftists and I’m not interested in throwing out the GOP so we can install more Hoyers, Coonses and Carpers.
I’ll be willing to move on the moment any of your group shows any indication that they know and understand that they took some wrong turns. Until then, I’ll harp on the point that demanding the left fall in line has run its course.
BTW, I had no idea that some of those who no longer post here had been banned. That right there is probably the No. 1 answer to the blog’s problem.
I, for one, would be thrilled if you just turned off comments and it was nothing but posts. If there’s one thing a fair number of commenters here have shown, especially on this thread alone, is that they are more concerned with puffing out their own chests, endlessly bleating about how they’ve been right all along on something, rather than dignified discourse.
Jesus Christ… Even Delaware Dem’s seemingly honest attempt to take stock of what can be done differently is devolving into “You’re terrible because of ‘X'” or “Those two women are what the problem is around here.” Comments like that last one will be what kills this blog, or rather it will be what strips this blog down until it’s the echo-chamber/circle-jerk that it seems like some want it to be.
I’d be happy to contribute to the cause, should DD, Jason, Cass, Pandora think there is value. But if it becomes a matter of where commenters or others effectively create a blog environment that is hostile to the point where folks like Cass or Pandora no longer feel safe/welcome and think it better to disengage, then there will be some folks who will also leave. Not saying that will matter to anyone, but it’s just a fact.
@Prop Joe: Funny, whenever someone disagrees with the prevailing opinion around here, that person is accused of wanting everyone to agree with him, a picture-perfect case of projection, since the accuser is speaking up for the widely held belief, not the minority one.
You realize, I hope, that part of disagreeing with someone usually involves some permutation of “you’re wrong.”
I don’t appreciate having points dismissed because I’m “deranged” about the direction the party took under the Clintons.
Understood. Just so long as you realize that not all criticism of Bernie Sanders and other far left is not just corporatist tripe. For example, I am no moderate. Or centrist. I am a liberal. A pragmatist, to be sure, but no corporatist.
I also don’t appreciate being told to move on, because there are many more (former) Third Wayers in the party than there are leftists and I’m not interested in throwing out the GOP so we can install more Hoyers, Coonses and Carpers.
How about we just focus on keeping Coons, Carper and LBR’s feet to the fire rather than harping on the Clintons. I think the “move on” aspect has to do with the continued animus against Hillary. I think we all agree on opposing the corporatism in Carper.
I’ll be willing to move on the moment any of your group shows any indication that they know and understand that they took some wrong turns. Until then, I’ll harp on the point that demanding the left fall in line has run its course.
Why don’t you list the wrong turns you think I should acknowledge where wrong turns and we can see if there is some agreement to be had so that we can move on from this primary fight. Did you see what I wrote today in the comments section of the Open Thread? Was that sufficient denunciation of Hillary’s campaign from me for you? Here it is again:
“She was, in retrospect, both a bad candidate and the wrong candidate for the moment, and a candidate with a horrible campaign that had a horrible strategy and was premised with bad information and voter models. Indeed, it is amazing to me in spite of all of that, she won the popular vote and was 80,000 votes away from winning the electoral college.”
BTW, I had no idea that some of those who no longer post here had been banned. That right there is probably the No. 1 answer to the blog’s problem.
I am not aware of anyone being banned for ever criticizing Obama, or offering liberal or leftist views, as Disappointed alleged. I will investigate it. But if people were banned it was because they were engaging in trolling, spamming, bigoted behavior or sockpuppetry. Sorry, but leftists have to follow the rules too, just like us corporatist DLCers.
Lost way up in the conversation (and probably moot by now) but for Aurochs here’s why I objected to moving my comment to this thread: normally when that’s done, it’s done via the vehicle called “comment rescue,” in which a contributor wants to pull something out of another thread, highlight it, and make it a special subject of a new thread. It’s done with attribution and it doesn’t actually remove the original comment. That’s not what happened here. What DD did was launch his own “let’s improve our blog thread” after I had made my comment, and then appended my comment as if I were replying to him. In a sense he inverted cause and effect, and created a fake history in doing so.
I doubt that was his intent, but that was the effect. And it’s been going on around here for some time. Over the past 24 hours numerous comments by different contributors and commenters just up and disappeared. I don’t think DD did all of that; I suspect El Som also did some. But it destroys any tapestry of reliability about the conversations and the blog. If you’re going to make a routine thing of it, I will stop reading, because it makes real conversation not just impossible but (again) Orwellian. DD has taken a real history in which he responded to my comment and created a fake one in which I responded to him. I think that’s important no matter who it happened to.
The blog DD is describing for the future may be many things, and they may be good things, but they will not be Delawareliberal. At best they will be a mutation or evolution that attempts to keep the name recognition for a new product. The secret spice to the glory days of DL is that it was edgy and irreverent and quite often funny.
It is none of those things now. I don’t blame the contributors–times changed. There’s less funny about the political world today, and edgy isn’t what it used to be because people have pretty much lost the distinction between edgy and outright whacko. In the world of completely fake news and post-truth there’s nothing much left in the irreverent category, either.
So quit trying to massage the thing–start over. Call it “Spawn of Delaware Liberal” or something else if you must keep the name, hell, move it to snapchat and make it ephemeral, or migrate the page to Reddit or something.
But the fact that contributors and former contributors can’t stop trashing each other even in this thread is pretty much all the evidence you should need that this vehicle needs to be traded in. Maybe I’m alone in that, but I’ve been reading here and commenting since jason, liberalgeek, and donviti were the mainstays (somebody else back then, can’t remember who) and well before everybody else joined.
I love smart strong women and love when they berate me and discuss my character flaws. Hope this doesn’t violate the rules lol
emphasis on local politics will be tedious (there will always be exceptions) and will cost you many of the remaining commenters. most of the people who care about that are political wonks, which is not going to excite anybody but other wonks/party apparatchiks. there aren’t many el soms who can make local politics interesting. better to just mix it in lightly with the other. i realize that calling for more “diversity”is the typical fallback position for a certain kind of progressive when things go south, but diversity alone doesn’t make a writer interesting. on the the other hand, less interesting seems to be the way you want to go. but, hey, have at it. it’s your blog, and there are plenty of other ways for the rest of us to kill time. for all its flaws, delawareliberal often gets the blood running and the mind excited. without that, zzzzzzz.
Steve really really wants us to kill the blog. Perhaps he wants the Delaware Liberal name for himself once we discard it. 😉
Yes, we have evolved. Yes, times have changed. The blog you are describing is from 2003-4 when all we had to oppose was a chimp named W. Thirteen years have passed.
Steve wants you to acknowledge that this blog–as it was–is a dead end. What you want to accomplish cannot be accomplished any longer in this forum. I could be wrong–and I certainly have no power to do anything–but I have an opinion. And that opinion is that the way to save your larger enterprise is too move on.
Yeah, I want the Delaware Liberal name. Like I want donviti as a house guest. (Sorry DV, too good a line to pass up: I bet that you’d be an awesome house guest cause you’d bring good wine.)
I am not there yet. But I appreciate your opinion, since I asked for it. And good Donviti joke.
What we need is for you guys up north to light a fire under your legislators to protect the inland bays. The Inland Bays are a state wide and regional resource. The Sussex Co Council just approved 535 homes on both sides of Love creek off Rt 24. The deforestation in the Inland Bays drainage basin is nauseating. Only help from the state legislator will fix the situation.
I just wish SOMEONE would pay attention to the politics of downstate, when we do get mentioned on here it is either scarce info or wrong info
@DD: Yes, I saw that, and if you really believe it then hurrah.
But my problem has never been with you specifically, because you frequently comment quickly and then reconsider later. Others, whom I have called out for the behavior enough for now, do not do so. One has never been wrong, ever, which makes for a tiresome argument. If I want that, I can get it on any conservative site. The other consistently misinterprets comments in an ad absurdum direction. Again, makes for a tiresome argument.
On the local/national issue: Covering local issues makes you a de facto news source, because we can’t count on the MSM to cover those issues adequately. National issues are mostly commentary, for obvious reasons. There’s no reason you can’t do both, just like there’s no reason the Democratic Party can’t fight for equality of every sort, both social and economic.
Just as you are not a corporate Democrat, I am not against fighting for equality for groups who don’t have it. My point was about the balance in the messaging, which lots of people thought gave short shrift to the economic part of the equation. And the reason for it, I strongly suspect, is that Hillary, a former Republican, did not feel comfortable running against the well-to-do people whose circles she has moved in for 30 years, and whose money she solicited for her campaign.
So, I agree, wrong time for her as a candidate. But I will neither forgive nor forget that the Clinton philosophy, while it gave Democrats 16 years of nominal control of the presidency, accomplished little in the way of liberalism. Even ACA is a non-liberal way of achieving that objective.
@Steve: You seem to be saying that a major part of the problem is with blogs as a medium, that younger generations no longer engage in this manner. Do I have that right?
@Anonymous–yes, for this kind of blog. There are still successful national blogs and thematic blogs, but even the Daily Kos as a platform is severely showing its age.
My kids (twenty-somethings) are into podcasts–they want to listen as they walk or drive and not be bothered by having to read–or reddits. To them Facebook and blogs are Lawrence Welk muzak, and Twitter is approaching Elvis.
Platforms to reach them have about a two to four year lifespan. The up and coming elites (upper middle class technicals with college/graduate education) are inherently minimalists as well. You’d do better advertising with banner ads on Amazon to reach them than using blogs.
As somebody I don’t respect at all said recently (everybody gets off a good line now and again): Politics is now actuarial.
As someone who is contemplating the future of his own blog, I can relate to a lot of this. As someone who was attacked for my beliefs on here twice in the past year, both as headline stories, I found it to be in very poor taste. Especially since one of those articles dealt with someone who was fast becoming a major nuisance in my life and I took action. But I was vilified on here for that course of action while if you look at many comments before and since, you can easily see attempts (some successful) at outing people and the admins did nothing to stop it whatsoever. It is that kind of hypocrisy that leaves a mark. I’m not going to sit here and pretend I was all lovey-dovey on my blog. I would be a hypocrite for saying that. But that is one of my major beefs with this blog and Delaware. People talk out of both sides of their mouth a lot because we are so polarized, on the right or the left, that we fail to see the people behind those beliefs are only human. The presidential election, in my opinion, brought out the absolute worst in many people. In my opinion, both of the major candidates royally sucked. But I also believe someone like Trump would have never won if we weren’t so polarized on the issues. But we can no longer say the right is the minority party. I firmly believe the Dems got very arrogant during the Obama years, so much so that it fractured their own party. I’ve met a few of the writers on here, some I have no clue who they are. But what I do know is I can’t picture things getting better with the two sides at each others throats. I can easily see the GOP having the arrogance that led to the downfall of the Dems. And the cycle just goes on and on. Me, I want to enjoy life for a while and step away from all this insanity.
I kind of agree and disagree with Steve here. I think things are changing and DL would benefit from a bit of updating (I, like his kids, enjoy podcasts, so food for thought), but I’m not so pessimistic that I think the whole blog should just be chucked in the garbage. I’m not sure what improvements could be made to the site that would help, but I think this post is a step in the right direction.
Also, I’d love it if the contributors here could air their grievances someplace besides the public comments. It just looks bad.
People enjoy podcasts when they are made in a studio and edited with professional production values.
Almost any twenty-something technofile can produce a podcast with professional production values.
My kids are 21 and can do it in an afternoon. That’s my point.
“My kids are 21 and can do it in an afternoon. ”
It’s not hard to make one good short podcast. The point is, how many can they do per week on a volunteer basis? Compare that with how long it takes to write a blog post.
How about El Som and Al Mascitti weekly podcast with special guests?
Around the Festivus pole
So, are you going to keep people that you banned for criticizing Obama banned?
Can I lodge a complaint about periods at the end of post titles?
Disappointed, as I said above, no one has ever been banned for criticizing Obama. It doesn’t matter how often you repeat your false allegation, it will not just become true because you say it again. They were banned for other violations of the rules. You can read the rules in the About section, which was mentioned above.
LG, do I do that? LOL.
time for scandals and animals, i tell you. it’s a “seinfeld” reference, but if it could spice up kramer’s fake tv talk show maybe it would give del lib a boost. and the situation here does have a seinfeldian ring to it.
As far as banning goes, it’s tricky. I only ever banned one person, and that’s because he hacked my FB account to make sexual advances at an underage relative, not because of anything he said on my blog. But you can’t necessarily explain all the reasoning–I get that. Still, I have always wondered exactly which rule either Delacrat or Anonone broke.
What’s truly interesting about this conversation is that it appears to be an all-male hangout. A good number of people have advanced the “pandora and cassandra have ruined DL” narrative, but no one seems to have noticed that the only two female contributors have been singled out, and that the voices of those (or any other, far as I can tell) women have been singular in their absence. Then again, I’m not sure I’d come in here right now if I were either of them.
What I do know is that whether you consider pandora or cassandra to be sanctimonious assholes or not, it’s been pretty clear that a large amount of the response to them on this blog has been gender-related. I know because I’ve conducted the following experiment at least half a dozen times:
One of them advances an argument; it and they are dismissed with an oblique gender-related reference. I advance that same argument a few minutes later, in the same or stronger words, and my argument is engaged. Occasionally there is the snarky comment about “the professor” or “the libertarian,” but 100% of the time the argument itself gets engaged by multiple commenters–the same commenters who wouldn’t engage when they made it.
And before you start, it’s not because I’m any nicer or any less sanctimonious than they are. I am foul-mouthed, insufferable, and condescending by turns, and everybody here knows that. (Plus, I generally ratchet up that volume when I’m doing the experiment just to be sure.) So it amazes me no end, like the Inspector in Casablanca, to discover that there really is a lot of sexism in liberal/progressive males in Delaware. I am shocked, I tell you, shocked.
Del Dem, the rules changed significantly since my original alias was banned many years ago. And I was never specifically told why I was banned, but I was threatened to be banned for spelling Obama’s name as O-b-o-m-b-a in protest of his war policies.
I did not violate any of the rules at the time.
What is missing is that you are no longer going to have a Democrat (Socialist) President like you have had for the last 8 years. And that is important, because during everyone of your arguments, even the wildest most leftist, most socialist ones, you could always have the feeling that some how, some way, you must be at least a little bit right, otherwise why would the country even have a socialist president. Even during the last 8 years, when the democrats lost hundreds of seats in state legislatures, you could still point to a democrat president. Even as democrats lost the majority of governors, and dozens and dozens of seats in the U.S. congress (including majorities in both houses of congress), you could still point to a democrat president. But now that is over, and you no longer have that feeling inside of you that jee whiz, we must be right if we have mostly democrats in office. And now your looking for answers, well, here is the problem, conservatives (which you refuse to take advice from), are about problem solving and solutions. Liberals are about arguing and fighting, and are really bad at policy. So all you are left with after 8 years of being wrong, while you continued to trick yourself into believing you were right, is a bunch of meaningless arguments and fights, with not even one accomplishment that is both good for all the individual citizens, and the country as a whole.
Contrary to others, I think you guys had the right mix of national and local politics to keep someone like me—who followed national politics closely, but knew next to nothing about Delaware politics—interested and even wanting to get more involved. I registered as a Dem for the first time in my life this year so I could vote in the primary, and I really credit all of you for helping inform me.
I have tried reading a few other Delaware politics blogs, but honestly I have found them hard to get into without being reasonably deep in those waters to begin with.
Basically a group of condescending, overbearing, self important, intolerant snobs. Particularly on view when you cast one of your own into the wilderness or engage in internal cat fights. regularly you vilify some to an extreme and fawn over others to a similar extreme. But there is enough actual information to make it worth stopping by on occasion. Its your game to run as you wish and with the assault coming on the First Amendment,, carry on.
“but 100% of the time the argument itself gets engaged by multiple commenters–the same commenters who wouldn’t engage when they made it.”
You completely overlook one possible reason: Engaging with you starts a discussion. Engaging with some other people leads to name-calling and scorn. So why would one engage with them once you make yourself available?
“Basically a group of condescending, overbearing, self important, intolerant snobs.”
Says the condescending, overbearing, self-important, intolerant troll.
My own $.02;
This blog is at its best when covering local politics. No one covers the City better than Cassandra, no one covers Leg Hall better than El Som, Brian and Pandora give an inside look into the Delaware education system, etc….
If I want more Trump bashing I can go elsewhere. WDEL and the News Journal have effectively abandoned the field and there is nowhere else to go for local political coverage.
” And now your looking for answers, well, here is the problem, conservatives (which you refuse to take advice from), are about problem solving and solutions. Liberals are about arguing and fighting, and are really bad at policy. ” Wow, and here I thought conservatives were about racial resentments, cultural resentments, paranoia, sexual repression of women and denial of empirical science. Who knew lol
@Anonymous–Engaging with you starts a discussion. Engaging with some other people leads to name-calling and scorn.
That’s bullshit. plain and simple. Engaging me often leads to name-calling and scorn. Engaging you often leads to name-calling and scorn. What appears to be different is that name-calling and scorn from women on this blog leads to a different reception than it does when guys do it.
I completely realize cassandra, for example, can be viciously derogatory. She and I have had those kinds of fights in the past, and probably will do so again. The only difference between the way she reacts when she thinks she’s engaging an idiotic argument and the way you react when doing the same are matters of slight differences in invective. Right … sport?
I’m not sure when you became so thin-skinned, and I’m not sure why you don’t get the point that a couple of women might become increasingly embittered by a consistent dismissal of them, not their arguments. I’m also not sure why you don’t see other people doing it.
But thanks for admitting that it happens.
Can’t we all just get along
@Steve: I do see other people doing it, and I have done it myself. I don’t think I play favorites, gender-wise, when it comes to being brutally dismissive, but I can see where the women take it that way.
As I said somewhere up above, I don’t think they have to change anything. Cassandra is involved with the Democratic Party, and I think belonging to that organization compromises what goes on here — not on local issues so much, because local Democrats can fight among themselves on those issues without being called out as traitors to the cause.
But the just-concluded election season included a much larger-than-usual dollop of unsweetened Kool-Aid. I suppose the ACA arguments presaged this, when people who criticized from the left were told they weren’t being pragmatic. It came out into the open when people who criticized the pre-ordained candidate were told, not very politely, that they were in effect traitors.
Perhaps I am wrong about party involvement compromising some people’s positions — maybe they would act high-handed and dismissively even if unaffiliated. I choose to believe it comes from the perpetual problems inherent in serving two masters.
My skin isn’t all that thin, but I am capable of counting the cuts whether or not they hurt.
Also, my memory might be betraying me here, but most of the pushback to P&C comes when they address “women’s issues,” particularly of the rape-culture sort. Just MHO, but social issues make for losing politics unless you’re pushing for something the majority supports. I think we can all deride catcalling, but I don’t see a political solution for it.
@Anonymous–seriatem (as Gordon Liddy used to say)
I don’t think I play favorites, gender-wise, when it comes to being brutally dismissive, but I can see where the women take it that way. This is an interesting deflection–and unfortunately it is a deflection. It puts all the onus on the person reacting to the statement, and begs the question by contending that as far as you’re concerned your heart is pure, they “take it that way” [and therefore they’re wrong], and then you go back to psycho-analyzing why they’re wrong.
It’s an interesting if relative common deflection that I can also remember being used a few decades ago, to wit: I don’t think I play favorites, race-wise, when it comes to being brutally dismissive, but I can see where the blacks take it that way.. The great part is that you don’t even have to think about your own behavior because you’ve automatically excluded yourself from being a potential offender.
I think belonging to that organization compromises what goes on here is fascinating. People should be pristine, organizationally, to participate in what goes on here? Precisely who? You worked for an organization in your other life. DD is hip-deep in national Democratic politics, El Som in State politics, LG just put himself forward as a candidate in the 10th, I’ve run for office & been a campaign manager for others who did so, Brian is involved on the Finance Review Committee for CSD, John Young sits on the CSD School Board, John Kowalko’s a State Rep, Mike Matthews a former Union President and is currently running for State Union President.
And yet somehow none of them make your list and cassandra is the only one called out by name for compromising what goes on here because of her political involvement outside the blog. Are you getting the double standard?
Or how about this one: people who criticized the pre-ordained candidate were told, not very politely, that they were in effect traitors. One of the major criticisms made by people who criticized Clinton is that she did not inspire great loyalty or enthusiasm. Yet when several of her supporters demonstrated that loyalty and enthusiasm, they got vilified for it. Were they strident? Absolutely (although pandora in particular admitted repeatedly that Clinton had her problems as a candidate). Were the Bernie Bros and the Clinton critics strident? Absolutely.
Double-standard. You criticize people for expressing the behavior that you suggest the candidate doesn’t cause people to express.
Your memory is interesting. The most overtpushback does come when pandora and cassandra discuss gender-related issues, and your next sentence is perfect: Just MHO, but social issues make for losing politics unless you’re pushing for something the majority supports. In other words, STFU about gender issues because even if you’re right, you’re wrong.
Advice like that is why Black people still can’t eat at the Woolworth’s lunch counter, and LGBTQ Americans still can’t get married. Because they need to STFU and follow the majority party line and wait for Massa to free the slaves … but, oh, wait, they didn’t. They talked about uncomfortable shit and got into the faces of the good-intentioned but hapless white heterosexual people and said uncomfortable upsetting shit and probably cost people elections.
Right now there’s a nationwide pushback against LGBTQ rights, for example, and Trump has just filled his cabinet with its advocates/fundraisers. And the people who want to push back LGBTQ rights usually follow that up by going after the uppity women, but hey let’s stick to the stuff that wins elections, which is how to placate white socially conservative workers in the Rust Belt, because–fuck it–you people can get your rights and your equal treatment later, ok?
The sad part is that you honestly don’t see that this is the argument you are making. For an old radical, that’s both amazing and discouraging.
steve newton: this kind of stridency is one reason the democrats couldn’t defeat a fascist for president — and you’re still yammering about the fine-tuning of gender politics. those “pragmatic” hillary fans weren’t so pragmatic after all. they got tripped up by their own naive all-or-nothing idealism — about everything but economics — and were left with nothing.
@Steve: All fair criticisms, but allow me to respond.
I’m not putting the onus on them. My point is that when I treat men that way I’m an asshole, but when I treat women that way I’m a misogynist. See the double-standard there? I didn’t invent it; it’s being applied to me, not by me. As far as “thinking about my own behavior,” I react quickly when something makes me angry. I’m not defending it. I’m pointing out that it’s treated differently when women are the targets.
As for your claim that everyone here is compromised, I think you’re wrong. DD is, I know, in the same boat as Cassandra, and if the discussion were about him I would have included him. El Som is no longer working for the government. None of the others is a member of the blog (I don’t know about LG), and I know and allow for those complicating involvements. As for my own former employment, why do you think I stopped using my real name? I was told by my employer that I could not comment on blogs because I represented my employer, and that came only after a (liberal) someone ran to my employer because I dared disagree with her. (No, it’s not someone who comments here anymore).
As I said, I choose to believe that some of Cassandra’s positions were dictated by her party involvement. I don’t expect anyone to be pristine; I simply allow for it. Knowing that Cassandra initially supported Sanders, I got the feeling she was being ultra-loyal to the nominee mainly for the sake of party unity. I could be wrong. I would be quicker to believe the same about DD except I don’t think he lets that stop him when he’s hot — like me, he posts right away when something gets him mad.
On the Hillary front, the issue wasn’t their loyalty to the nominee, it was about the aspersions cast on anyone who didn’t agree. You get a red X on that one.
As for STFU about gender issues, I feel that way because I don’t see their place on a political level. You can boast of social progress in the law, but you’ll notice that none of the underlying animus has been removed, and indeed a good bit of the whitelash has been in reaction to those laws. Indeed, it can be reasonably argued that the entire modern conservative movement in this country came about because of the Supreme Court’s Brown decision.
You can talk about this as the natural fallout of doing the right thing, which is how I would describe it. But if you’re trying to win elections — a natural topic of discussion during election seasons — a high-profile fight about transgender rights is going to do more harm than good.
A lot of people here like to describe their centrism as pragmatism. But when I engage in pragmatism as described above, it’s not pragmatism anymore, is it? Again, the double standards are not only mine.
The social issues you point to WERE NOT WON AT THE BALLOT BOX. They were won in court, which is why conservatives have made a 30-year project of loading the federal judiciary with right-wing reactionaries.
And something never acknowledged on your side is that candidates certainly DO pick and choose which downtrodden to fight for. I didn’t hear a peep of support for BLM from either Clinton or Sanders. Sure, they gave lip service, but neither of them dared make it a national issue, because everyone involved knows it’s an electoral loser.
Elections are a part of politics, for now at least, but they require much different strategies than ushering a bill through a legislature or formulating fair, efficient public policies. You’ll notice that Republicans said nothing at all about what they intend to do to the country, and nobody shunned them at the ballot box for it. Emphasizing different things at different times is a tactic, not a worldview.
RAn out of editing time, so allow me to add one thing: This country certainly needs a thorough airing of the problems of rape culture. I simply don’t think the election is the proper time to do it, unless you don’t care who wins the election.
Back when we had a functioning Congress, it could have been debated there. This is one of the downsides of a non-functioning government.
Gender politics in leftward circles (including this one) seems to move toward an ever-more narrow and brittle orthodoxy, constantly discovering and expanding on new slights to take umbrage at. Some would call it political correctness. This trajectory often places its adherents at odds with economic issues that would actually help women, like minimum wage increases, national healthcare, or labor protections and work rules reform.
My above comment was not to pile on to the personal criticism of the female contributors here, I That criticism is over the top and not welcome. I like Pandora and Cassandra’s contributions and I have changed some of my viewpoints based on what I have learned form their posts. I’d like to read more from both.
I don’t know if anyone notices but I try to always argue about the issue, not about the person. Sometimes before I submit a comment, I rephrase anything that uses the word “you.” Sometimes it just naturally slips into my writing, but I know it doesn’t give the impression I want.
My point is that when I treat men that way I’m an asshole, but when I treat women that way I’m a misogynist. See the double-standard there? I didn’t invent it; it’s being applied to me, not by me.
I call bullshit. I don’t think the treatment is the same. I realize you don’t see it. But, then, there’s the rub, isn’t it? Who gets to decide? If only the speaker, then nobody is ever misogynist or racist because they always see themselves as even-handed. I’ve not once seen you stop and ask yourself if maybe there is a consistent but subtle difference in how you treat women here who disagree with you–even when they tell you they feel it. Hmmm.
As for your claim that everyone here is compromised I didn’t claim everyone here was compromised. I claimed that everyone here is involved in the ways you said compromises people. You’ve no argument here, and I suspect you know that.
it was about the aspersions cast on anyone who didn’t agree Again, bullshit. You cast aspersions on anybody who doesn’t agree with you all the time. So do I. Why is it somehow more insulting or out of bounds when pandora or cassandra does it? I mean, fucking DD calls people “traitors” in the legal sense, and wishes people dead here when he wants to go hyperbolic. I have never seen you criticize him for that. Yet women ….
As for STFU about gender issues, I feel that way because I don’t see their place on a political level. Thanks for admitting that you think women should STFU about gender issues. Most honest thing you’ve said. After that, the rest of your whole argument is really meaningless, except that I want to extract this gem:
it can be reasonably argued that the entire modern conservative movement in this country came about because of the Supreme Court’s Brown decision. Which, if one was to be logically consistent with the paragraph in which this statement is contained, means that you think it was a political mistake for the Supreme Court to have ended segregation in public schools because it led to a political whitelash.
God forbid we should have political whitelash. We probably should have waited for Southerners to free the slaves, too.
The social issues you point to WERE NOT WON AT THE BALLOT BOX. They were won in court, which is why conservatives have made a 30-year project of loading the federal judiciary with right-wing reactionaries.
Not all politics is about elections. Jeez–why am I even having to tell you that. But you’re also wrong. The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, marriage equality in many states, transgender rights in Delaware–all occurred through the fucking legislative process, which is, you know, part of the ballot box thing. Or didn’t you notice that the LGBTQ community in Delaware went out and collected tens of thousands of signatures … of voters … to get the laws passed?
Of course the modern conservative movement is a reaction to social change. Your answer appears to be make social change so glacial that nobody will notice, because God forbid blacks, or women, or gays should fucking stand up and demand their rights as American citizens, because it might be politically inexpedient and it might cause their opponents to fight back. Maybe in a year or two you’ll think enough time has passed to vote for freeing the slaves in Delaware.
I didn’t hear a peep of support for BLM from either Clinton or Sanders. Sure, they gave lip service, but neither of them dared make it a national issue I’m not sure what to do with this sentence because on the one hand you said they didn’t speak about BLM at all, then you say they did (but not enough to matter). In case it missed your radar, Bernie lost to Clinton in large measure because he couldn’t connect his message–ever–with People of Color. Even though both he and Clinton did voice support for BLM and did get attacked for it by the GOP.
But I guess you’re back with the people in 1992 who think Bill Clinton was especially adroit to have his “Sister Souljah” moment.
Your response is pretty rife with a clear philosophy: rape culture may be real but women need to stop talking about it. Police killing black people is real but people need to stop talking about it. At least in election years, because it might cost us votes. Instead, we need to talk about how to save the jobs of the people who want to roll back time to segregated lunch counters, gays in the closet, and submissive women, so that we can hope to appoint Federal judges who will have the courage to do what you don’t expect candidates to have the guts to do themselves.
Yep. Got it. Back of the bus. That’s what you’re actually saying. How you expect to use that philosophy to fight Donald Trump is beyond me. Maybe you just don’t intend to fight it–because, you know, disagreeing with him might cost votes.
so, steve newton, you think it’s ok that the democrats lost the election because they were, you know, pure. unless you folks get off your high horse the democrats are screwed. if we can’t figure out how to win elections, then there’s no chance to change anything no matter how high your ideals are. i mean, we’re talking about hurt feelings here when we should be talking about how to get the power to effect left-leaning views on identity incrementally, the only way it’s going to work. that said, i for one enjoy this kind of back and forth. more interesting than who’s going to be running in the fourth district.
The bitter clinger rubes in flyover country that came out like cockroaches to vote don’t care about women’s issues, minority issues and the like.
Yes, women who disagree with me always say it’s misogyny, so I guess it is. I haven’t denied it. But then, you can’t really point to any difference in the way I treat people, can you? You’re just going by what the women say. My criticisms are never gender-related. I simply think politics is a poor venue for hectoring people over acting misogynistic in what we must acknowledge is a misogynistic culture. When 53% of white women vote Trump, I really don’t think it’s my misogyny that’s the real problem here, since I vote liberal despite it.
“I mean, fucking DD calls people “traitors” in the legal sense, and wishes people dead here when he wants to go hyperbolic. I have never seen you criticize him for that.”
Because why bother? He’ll retract it as soon as someone does, whether it’s me or not. Cassandra, meanwhile, has never been wrong, not once. Is that a female trait that I’m criticizing, or just the annoying habit of someone who’s accustomed to have to argue for everything she’s gotten? I don’t know, but I suspect the latter — which makes it no less annoying. Besides, my first response is just like his — I reach for the gun I don’t have.
You’re right, I should have edited out not a “peep” of support, because that’s what they gave it, a peep, and when criticized for it they ran back to the center. That’s my point, though you insist on not seeing it. People are perfectly capable of lessening or couching differently their beliefs when THEY think it’s called for. When I think it’s called for, though, it’s misogyny, or worse, incrementalism in the face of injustice.
You cite Sistah Souljah (or however she spelled it) without noting that Clinton’s callow hypocrisy there helped him win the election. Adroit? If you want to call it that, sure. It blunted all the n*****-lover criticism that any white person who sticks up for blacks will get, and it helped him win. That is my point, not whatever you think my point is. You can play to win, or you can play to show off your ideals, but when you do the latter, you don’t do the former. I was willing to back Hillary when she started to sound more like Bernie, but she ditched that play once people like me climbed on board and tried to appeal to moderate Republicans instead. So we had a bunch of people yelling “misogyny!” at every turn while calling themselves pragmatists. See the problem yet?
For that matter, you fail to note that all the legislative successes on every one of those issues came after the courts opened the door — our system is set up for slow change, and none of those forces could force the door open legislatively.
The one social issue that was enacted purely at the ballot box (yet, oddly, without all that much popular support) was temperance. It took 40 years to get it enacted in law and only 12 to show how poorly thought out the entire movement was — thinking that simply making something illegal would make it disappear. It’s the same stupid mistake the anti-abortion people have been making for 50 years, and if they ever did succeed in outlawing it, they would learn the same thing the temperance forces did — you can’t force social change through the law unless you’re willing to accept an enormous number of unforeseen consequences.
Puck makes a good point above: If we got the economic reforms done, some of the social problems would retreat in importance. I didn’t suggest we run on an economic platform — Sanders’ message was one of revenge against the plutocracy, not an actual economic plan, so it got people fired up.
If all you want here is an admission of misogyny, well, I’ve never denied it. But if you’re going to run a blog, I’d think you would know ahead of time that not everyone in your big tent is going to be respectful and polite, and some might even be racists and misogynists. Many unions, in particular, have a long history of racism and sexism, but we were happy to take their money and their votes.
“Your response is pretty rife with a clear philosophy: rape culture may be real but women need to stop talking about it. Police killing black people is real but people need to stop talking about it. At least in election years, because it might cost us votes.”
Bingo, once you add “at least in election years.” Cassandra bemoans the Trump sales pitch of free ice cream (hey, it used to be a free pony!) without considering that most successful campaigns promise things they can’t deliver. There’s a reason that it’s compared to making sausage.
“Instead, we need to talk about how to save the jobs of the people who want to roll back time to segregated lunch counters, gays in the closet, and submissive women, so that we can hope to appoint Federal judges who will have the courage to do what you don’t expect candidates to have the guts to do themselves.”
Wrong. It’s not about saving their jobs. I’ve continually pointed out that their jobs are only the first to go. Sanders’ appeal was about punishing wrongdoers in the plutocracy. Did you see that item I linked yesterday about Carrier? Half the work force there is non-white (mostly African American) and 10 percent is Burmese immigrants. The “white working class” is a myth, because blacks make up a larger percentage of the working class than the upper class, and 75 percent of the African-American population is considered working- or middle-class.
I don’t care what those white hick voters want socially. They’ll be dead soon and so will their social philosophies, except perhaps in the South, where brain-dead “fundamentalist religion” (not really a “religion” at all but an atavistic social movement) will hold sway until white people are outnumbered.
You want to use my words to push me into an extremist corner, the more easily to dismiss me. The philosophy you ascribe to me is not only crude but wrongly ascribed — I believe the place to lobby for social justice is the streets. Even gay rights got no traction until Stonewall. And in the short time since the election, I have yet to see the number of people in the streets that we’re going to need.
The ones I have seen aren’t marching for good government or against Trump and his assault on our government. Even the Jan. 21 march in Washington has been repurposed to women’s reproductive rights, as if that’s the only or most important objectionable position of this president-elect and his proposed cabinet.
We just demonstrated that a coalition built around social issues can lose an election if it ignores other constituencies. We just demonstrated that calls for bipartisanship — isn’t that what “stronger together” means? — fall on deaf ears in a partisan political atmosphere. We are now in a situation where there’s no such thing as facts anymore, after a long period in which they carried no weight.
So go ahead and blame my misogyny if you want. I suppose any one straw could be the one that broke the camel’s back.
@ex-anon: Steve is not a Democrat, he’s a Libertarian, so he doesn’t actually have a dog in the fight.
But if defeating Trump was the election’s highest priority, doesn’t that mean that calling out misogyny should wait? If winning the election is all-important, well, by definition then other things aren’t as important. Yet the Hillary-clingers here want to believe otherwise. They said defeating Trump was job 1, but they didn’t act that way.
all I heard is podcast!
Did you people even see that Jason has tried to do a podcast?!
It’s gonna be huge. Stay tuned for the next episode!
I’d make a great house guest!
Donviti, we will be featuring the podcast more prominently. That is one area that DL will move into the modern times with a permanent podcast.
i know newton is a libertarian, but he seems to regret that trump is president. so he did have a dog in the fight. besides, he sounds more like a progressive than a libertarian, even if that’s what he says he is.
More evidence that the thickheaded left is in no mood to learn anything from this election:
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/29/a-resolution-for-the-internet-in-2017-spare-us-all-your-outrage-over-outrage/
Synopsis: Cinnabon and Steve Martin were criticized for “insensitivity” in their Tweets about Carrie Fisher’s death, and those critics were criticized in their turn. This author isn’t really complaining about the initial people who were outraged, but about backlash to this “outrage” (as if calling Fisher “beautiful,” as Martin did, actually counted as an outrage). “We need to listen to the disempowered.”
Bullshit. We’d be better off if we did, but we don’t “need to.” This election just proved it. In fact, giving vent to such feelings of “outrage” at innocently intended acts is what lots of people hate about liberals. As one commenter noted somewhere, liberals have picked up fundamentalists’ habit of proclaiming themselves the arbiters of morality, and it smells just as bad on us as it does on them.
DD, where is the podcast available? Can I download on itunes (or the native podcast app or whatever)?
I need a flow chart
here’s one of them:
http://delawareliberal.net//2016/12/19/jason-and-donvitis-podcast-season-17-episode-2/
here’s another:
http://delawareliberal.net//2016/12/12/jason330-and-donvitis-podcast-season-14-episode-1/
We’re working on the quality. I promise it will get better
I’d like folks to watch–the few that apparently give a shit–what anonymous is doing. It’s pretty sad. I called him out on the treatment of two female contributors to this blog. He denies it based on the “I’m an asshole to everybody not just women so I cannot be accused of misogyny because I’m the 21st Century’s answer to H. L. Mencken.” Or something.
Then he proceeds to make a case that all women, blacks, LGBTQ citizens should STFU during election years about their issues, and when I challenge him on it, he doubles down: Bingo he says, and then suggests I am trying to make him into an extremist … by quoting him.
I don’t think Anonymous is an extremist. I don’t think at this point that he’s clear enough on what he believes today, right now, to be anything but confused. Maybe that appearance of confusion is because he types so fast when he’s pissed. Couldn’t say.
But let’s go back to the point that he doesn’t want to discuss–how men on this blog treat female contributors. Here’s what he says (again, I’m doing that awful maneuver of quoting him):
Yes, women who disagree with me always say it’s misogyny, so I guess it is. I haven’t denied it. But then, you can’t really point to any difference in the way I treat people, can you? You’re just going by what the women say. My criticisms are never gender-related. I simply think politics is a poor venue for hectoring people over acting misogynistic in what we must acknowledge is a misogynistic culture. When 53% of white women vote Trump, I really don’t think it’s my misogyny that’s the real problem here, since I vote liberal despite it.
How do we deal with this mess of fast typing?
women who disagree with me always say it’s misogyny So it is clearly MORE women saying that, somewhere in your life than just pandora and cassandra here.
so I guess it is. I haven’t denied it. Pure bullshit. You deny it all the time.
But then, you can’t really point to any difference in the way I treat people, can you? Sure I can. I can say dismissive insulting things to you, even label you (in your mind) an extremist, even sarcastically suggest that you’d vote to keep slavery, and you’ve been more careful not to make a personal comment about me or my personality throughout the whole exchange than you ever are with female commenters. You couldn’t even resist psycho-analyzing cassandra’s personality two paragraphs later. With me–and it’s a long-term pattern–you engage; with her you can’t go two sentences without discussing her personality. I don’t see you do that with anybody else.
You’re just going by what the women say. Right. And what they say doesn’t matter? You always get to decide how your words must be taken? The person you are conversing with has not say in the matter? In point of fact that’s NOT what I’m doing. I’ve read and participated in those conversations, looked at what you and others have written and what they’ve written and I have concluded: many of the male contributors/commenters here treat them differently. It’s fucking reality. Own it and get over it.
My criticisms are never gender-related. I simply think politics is a poor venue for hectoring people over acting misogynistic in what we must acknowledge is a misogynistic culture. Great. The position of a man who is not, and cannot be by definition the victim of misogynistic culture. You want women to acknowledge that it sucks to be female and stop talking about it because it interferes with getting votes. In other words: remember your place.
When 53% of white women vote Trump, I really don’t think it’s my misogyny that’s the real problem here Except that here is here on a blog that calls itself Delaware Liberal, and if there’s any space where women or people of color (who appear to be generally notable by their absence) can safely discuss those issues, you’d think it would be on a blog written by liberals and progressives for liberals and progressives, wouldn’t you? Apparently not.
But let’s not forget that you are being hectored over rape culture or misogyny. “Hectored” is defined as “bullying.” So women insisting that they won’t shut up about this topic even after you have declared that it’s politically counter-productive to keep talking, are bullying you by not dropping it? Wow.
And now for the spectators: I do know you’re out there. I love the fact that a libertarian who believes that women should get equal treatment, or that people who lack basic civil liberties should not STFU (even in election years) is a “purist” (or must be a “progressive”). I love the fact that none of you have commented, even once, to notice the complete absence of pandora and cassandra from this thread, because why the hell would they want to walk into this thread where several commenters have discussed them openly as the “problems” of this blog and pretty much nobody but Prop Joe has stepped up to call bullshit.
Wonder why that is? Yeah, I know I’m a pompous asshole, but around here that’s hardly a distinction. This is a blog filled with pompous assholes–that’s the nature of the conversations that happen here. But I’m mildly surprised that only Anonymous is actually willing to come engage–I give him full points for that, by the way, in all seriousness.
But I do wonder how many of you, when the two of them finally get bitter enough over this to just leave, are going to actually notice what’s disappeared from this blog, and how many of you are going to say to yourselves, “Just like a woman, it gets a little heated and she runs”?
Somewhere up in this thread DD said DL should have more women and more people of color as contributors. Tell me, DD, what the fuck about the way things go here right now could possibly make them want to join you? The resounding silence from the contributors to this blog on this issue suggests that you’re perfectly happy with Anonymous as your spokesperson.
steve newton: you’re saying potential new contributors wouldn’t want to be on here because somebody might disagree with them? that would be pretty lame.
Ex-Anon you are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
I said that new contributors wouldn’t want to be here because they will get dismissed and insulted for who they are and not what they say.
But nice try and thanks for playing the deflection game.
“In fact, giving vent to such feelings of “outrage” at innocently intended acts is what lots of people hate about liberals.”
Yep. And I have continually asserted that when everything becomes outrageous nothing is outrageous. Outrage needs to be employed for the truly outrageous, because once you are outrage, how can you escalate your response (and when, because all the facts are not in, it turn out outrage was no a proportionate response, how do you step back from it, without looking like a fool?)
“I don’t think I play favorites, gender-wise, when it comes to being brutally dismissive.”
I agree. Anonymous is generally brutal to everyone. I have not noticed that his responses are gender specific.
“One of them advances an argument; it and they are dismissed with an oblique gender-related reference. I advance that same argument a few minutes later, in the same or stronger words, and my argument is engaged.”
@Steve. Which should prompt you to ask why that is? What is it about you that results in people engaging with you? I will tell you the answer, but I think you already know it (or at least you should). It is simply a measure of respect. Oh, I don’t mean they respect you (which they probably do). I mean you demonstrate respect for them and (except for trolls) are not dismissive even when their word choice or sentence construction is not politically correct. In sum, you seem to search for the intent and meaning (substance rather than form) because you want to further the discussion and not veer off into the cultural and social swamp. Arguing a position without passion or prejudice tends to focus the debate on the ideas rather than the person.
Finally, my suggestions for 2017
1. More effectively cover Delaware politics for all three counties, including county councils.
2. Refrain from policing language and using someone’s language to characterize them which often results in derailing discussions of ideas
3. Resolve to become more inclusive. Most of you are progressives. However, many of your readers and commenters are not. Your community of interest should be everyone in Delaware. Progressives are the minority in Delaware, so you should strive to create allies and seek out shared values, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. Give credit where credit is due without being overtly asteistic.
4. Recognize when progressive institutions and individuals have jumped the shark. 2016 was prime year with things like safe spaces, Halloween costumes, gender pronouns, etc.
I might have a few more suggestions, but I am packing for Cancun and so my thoughts are fleeting. If I do, I will offer them when I return.
@Dave you obviously have missed many of my discussions, and you obviously overrate the role of respect in this forum.
But, more importantly, you’re suggesting that I don’t have to be “tone policed” because you think I police myself (generally) to your satisfaction. See my response to Ex-Anon above.
Yet here’s what begs the question–if you (and presumably all of this libertarian’s kingdom of the liberals) respect my opinion so much, then why are you completely ready to dismiss it. You say you don’t see any evidence of gender as an element in Anonymous’ comments, even though he admits that almost all women who disagree with him DO see it. You’ve missed the (many) references to pandora as “a housewife” when she is making an argument about economics? You’ve missed the fact that ONLY cassandra comes in for deep-seated psychological analysis as part of her tone-policing?
And as for the “pandora and cassandra have never been wrong and its annoying,” school of thought, pretty much the only person on here who will change his tune on a regular basis if confronted with evidence to the contrary is DelDem. Most of the rest of hang on doggedly to the ideas we already had, and fire back. But only in cassandra and pandora is that seen as an issue of tone.
cassandra and I have had our knockdowns. She comes to all gunfights with a gun instead of a knife. I won’t venture a guess why because I’ve only met her in person once in my life at a party, and we spoke for less than five minutes while I was stuffing my face with appetizers. I know when we’ve reached a draw not because either of us acknowledges the lack of victory, but when we both decide not to continue. I know when I’ve lost, and a I slink away. I think I’ve gotten the best side of the argument once or twice in the last eight years, but she’d never admit it and I don’t expect her to do so.
Apparently other people do.
And I have to ask myself why is that? It can’t be arrogance, or venality, or stubbornness, or refusal to give over the smallest possible detail, and it certainly can’t be dismissing other people and calling them names (which she actually does less than I do–she’s just better at making you think she did when she didn’t). So what is it?
Here’s the reversal: I think you are a pretty smart guy, and I think you know just as well as I do. But I don’t think you’re willing to admit it.
or these new writers will be dismissed because what they have to say is unconvincing and wrong-headed. it’s possible, you know. steve newton has the vapors.
So to get this straight, ex-anon, aside from intentionally misinterpreting what I said (and not admitting that you did so), your final word is that there’s no sexism or gender-related issues here. All commenters are treated precisely in the logic of what they say, and anybody who sees process issues … has the vapors.
… which is, by the way, a 19th Century term used to refer to women who are emotionally overcome …
I rest my case. Asshole.
was using the word ironically, of course. you see it’s funny (well maybe a little) to say a man has the vapors when that’s usually what’s said about women. it’s the incongruity of it that’s funny. perhaps a poor attempt to say something in a more vivid way. you can spin it how you want.
@Steve: Lots of people annoy me, because I’m hyper-easily annoyed. Some of them — I’ve never counted the totals by gender — are women. But I learned to get along with Liz Allen, so you can’t say that I dismiss annoying people just because they’re women. We sparred verbally for years, and I never stopped trying to get her to admit being wrong just once, either, even though we mostly agree, as do I with Cassandra.
I’m sure a lot of my nastiness is my misogyny — but as a fish in water, I mostly don’t see it. I don’t know what more you expect of me than to acknowledge that.
Nits:
“And as for the “pandora and cassandra have never been wrong and its annoying,” school of thought,”
I never accused Pandora of that.
“Cassandra would never admit [losing an argument] and I don’t expect her to do so.” Then our standards differ. If you’re wrong, I expect you to admit it, too. When I’m wrong I’m willing to admit it, even if I’m slow to accept it. Pandora’s writing on “yes all women” opened my eyes to much of the rape culture problem, which wasn’t on my radar at all until then. I am not infrequently corrected by more knowledgeable people here. I think that’s true of all of us, and almost all of us would acknowledge that.
I respect Cassandra, but respect doesn’t equal caving in when I think my argument is valid, and frustration gives rise to the psychological cracks. If you want to think it’s because she’s a woman, fine. I can’t prove it’s not, and in the end you believe what you want to believe, based on the evidence you choose.
The troubling part of this discussion to me is that you seem to take the position that all of my criticism of Cassandra invalid not because the arguments are flawed, but because I don’t like or respect women, or powerful women, or whatever the specific charge might be. That’s the definition “argument ad hominem.” Maybe I’ve got that wrong, but that’s what it sounds like to me.
And, as long as l’m talking logical fallacies, you wrote:
“I can say dismissive insulting things to you, even label you (in your mind) an extremist, even sarcastically suggest that you’d vote to keep slavery, and you’ve been more careful not to make a personal comment about me or my personality throughout the whole exchange than you ever are with female commenters.”
That’s because I thought that was a simple example of reductio ad absurdum, a device I’ve sometimes seen you use before. (Also because it became clear that you were baiting me to personally insult you in an attempt to prove your point, and I’m too ODD to fall for that.)
This, for example, is textbook ad absurdum argument: “You want women to acknowledge that it sucks to be female and stop talking about it because it interferes with getting votes. In other words: remember your place.” First you distort my position, and then take it to a (somewhat) logical extreme.
So what do you want me to do, mock you by pointing out that you’re too smart for that, so you must be faking? Or poke at you by asking how you reconcile libertarian doctrine with your personal values, which are more egalitarian than most people’s? I mean I could, but my heart wouldn’t be in it. You just don’t annoy me as much as most people do.
Finally, I am most certainly not the 21st century anything. I’m a 20th century schizoid man. But is it misogynistic to say Hillary might have lost partly because she campaigned not in poetry but in prose?
Thank you Steve Newton. Your commentary throughout this whole thread has been spot on and on behalf of Pandora and Cassandra, I thank you. You are a friend.
@ex-anon:
Oh, my God … the power of irony … I can feel my scrotal sack moving back up into my body cavity … reforming as a vagina … I am pussy whipped … I have been emotional … must man up … have been called womanly …
Look you fucking ankle-biter, let the big people play. Anonymous and I go way back, and we’re adults. We’ll have our goddamn fights as we please. You’re too lightweight even to be considered a troll.
remember that time he was on a blog with you!? good times
steve newton, you said it, i didn’t. but i am saying this: you’re an academic hack at minor school. maybe your students take your crap because they have to, but in the real world you sound pompous and whiny. and who made you the arbiter of what happens on this blog? cassandra is a much smarter writer than you are. maybe that’s why you’re so determined to kiss her ass.
@Steve: Your scrotal sack would actually turn into labia majora, I believe. Your penis would turn into a vagina. But that’s only if you have it done by surgery. When it happens spontaneously, I suppose anything goes.
Whatever the sarcasm emoticon is, mentally insert it here.
@Anonymous–I think we’re making progress here. Let me be clear–I have never intended to suggest that you personally were the only one I see treating women differently on this site. It happens with many, many people, but you’ve actually been the only one with guts enough to come out and discuss it.
I’m not going to go back and look for who told pandora that she couldn’t see clearly because of the mascara in her eyes, or that she shouldn’t comment on economics because she was only a housewife, but I read that here, and I’ve also read people claiming that she was attempting to “censor” them when she called them out for defending a rape culture. I’ve read people complaining that she was attempting to monopolize the blog by posting on gender-related issues.
Maybe none of those comments were you; maybe not.
As for cassandra, first note that I have never said I agreed with her positions 100% or even most of the time. Often she and I differ. But that’s not the point and we both know it. The point is that she gets called out–effectively–as a bitch for simply refusing to give in when she’s convinced she’s right and for being blunt about telling other people that they’ve misrepresented her words or ignored the evidence.
My contention is this: nobody who is a contributor or a major commenter on this blog gets subjected to the crap they get subjected to, and everybody’s got an excuse for it.
We just got a President-elect who grabs women by the pussy both literally and metaphorically. He just named to his cabinet multiple people who want to put LGBTQ Americans back into their closets. He’s reprised Richard Nixon to use “law and order” to declare war on poor and especially Black people. He’s attacked free speech. He’s willing to “register” religious minorities.
74 million people voted against him; 62 million people voted for him. The technicalities of how the game is played, not the consensus of the voters, gave him this position.
Now is NOT the time to shut up about social issues because in the next four years my daughters can have their lives set back by decades by this asshole, his cohorts, and his followers.
And that starts here: by examining what we do to the strong women and black women and (if any are even willing to visit here) LGBTQ women or men who are supposed to be our allies against the oncoming dictatorship. We listen to them. I grant you it’s sometimes difficult because they say difficult things.
But the alternative (if you need a “practical” alternative) is realizing that from the normalization of grab them by the pussy our sisters, daughters, and wives have nowhere to go in this society but down.
And if the very people–male liberals and progressives who claim to be on the side of women and people of color–can’t be challenged to engage in some reflection on their own conduct, then I guess we’re fucking doomed.
So reading 120+ of these comments. Who exactly is qualified to contribute to this blog? Women? Men? White? Black? Latino/a? Anyone unaffiliated with any other organization? People who can admit they’re wrong? Assholes? Steve?
My name is still on the contributor list. If it gets taken off, fine. I don’t do much posting as it is and when I do it’s usually on education and the Christina School District. But seriously, who IS qualified to post here?
@Ex-anon: you’re an academic hack at minor school.
Something you only get to assert because, unlike you, I have the stones to sign my opinions with my real name.
Stupid fuck.
Everyone, subject to the rules of commenting in the About section.
like i said, the guy is whiny.
@Steve: The election is over, so I have no objection to full-throated support for those causes. I just think we were tricked into a public fight over transgender bathroom access, just to pick a much-headlined example, during the months when people were deciding whether or not they’d vote for Clinton. And as comfortable as liberals are with these arguments, understanding them as stumbling blocks to a less-hostile world, the whole idea of “boys in the girls’ locker room” worked to make Democrats look out of the mainstream — certainly the mainstream that winds through the country’s rural areas.
You certainly know and (I assume from your comments) agree with Madison’s tyranny of the majority arguments, and the need to protect the rights of minorities of any kind. But if people think you only stick up for the rights of minorities, it isn’t hard to imagine many wavering voters saying, “They don’t speak for me.” It takes a lot of minorities pulling together to make a majority, even with white, straight, cisgendered males like us tagging along.
Of course I could be wrong about this, and lots of people — you, Cassandra and Pandora included — have told me so. I’m just not convinced that I’m wrong.
@Brian
Anybody is qualified. Even Ex-anon. What I have finally had it with is the tone-policing of cassandra and pandora because of who they are, not what they say.
It’s hilarious that people made uncomfortable by my comments (not you) want to accuse me of dictating what can and can’t happen here. All I’m doing is calling attention to what does happen.
You will note that the tone-policing of them usually starts about two comments into a dialogue. Being as offensive as I could be, it took people nearly two days to try to tone police me. See the difference? I had to try to get tone policed. They just have to take part in an argument.
I know what you mean Steve. I’ll shoulder part of the blame for not saying anything when it’s happened in the past. I know exactly what you’re talking about. I should have more of a spine for opening my mouth when I witness it happening here. I do, however, feel that calling out that type of bullshit is essentially useless here. Maybe I’m wrong and I should have opened my mouth (or engaged my fingers in typing) more.
This whole place reads like a one act play of “No True Scotsman” on repeat.
Hell, pandora got bludgeoned with “not an actual liberal/progressive/democrat” practically every time she spoke up about ..just about anything.
I’m a purist. Or not a “true” democrat since I defected from the independents. puck, Prop Joe, and all the Bernie-crats don’t “belong” at this party. Or at least that’s how it feels. I’m not looking for pats on the back or “there there, it’s okay”. (thank you though Anon). Quite honestly I don’t give a damn whether anyone else feels I’m liberal, progressive, socialist *enough* for their tastes. All those labels are relative to the person using them.
BTW, while this discussion is being had, have you noticed that Republicans are yanking Obamacare out from under us with no replacement? Punting 20 million+ Americans off their insurance plans? Paul Ryan wants a ‘voucher’ system for Medicare, and insurance? This is real shit.
10s of thousands of Delawareans depend on the ACA, Medicaid or Medicare in some form. So while that’s definitely a national political issue, it sure as hell hits home here in the First State. What exactly do we think is going to happen to the 15,000 or so people who got Medicaid coverage under the ACA Medicaid expansion? Suddenly they’ll be in perfect health for the rest of their lives?
It’s infuriating.
@Brian: Your contribution is valued, at least by me. Yours is the kind of citizen journalism we need in an age in which professional journalism is disappearing.
@Steve: I agree that you are just reporting what is going on. And going forward I will try to keep my criticisms focused on issues, not personality. So you did that much good at least.
Also, your experiment was successful, but I think a lot of people are offline during this holiday season, so I’m not sure the time lag would be as long in other circumstances.
@Brian: I agree about what’s going on out there. But when I post links about that stuff, crickets. I post such stuff several times a week, but it rarely elicits more than zero or one comment. Unlike conservatives, who get angry and activist when they’re defeated, liberals seem too stunned to summon much fighting spirit.
Even dim-witted Congressional Republicans seem to have realized that going after Medicare is suicide, so they’re going after Medicaid instead. Divide and conquer, and wrong-foot the Democrats by making them stand up for the increasingly despised poor among us.
@ brian
10s of thousands of Delawareans depend on the ACA, Medicaid or Medicare in some form. So while that’s definitely a national political issue, it sure as hell hits home here in the First State. What exactly do we think is going to happen to the 15,000 or so people who got Medicaid coverage under the ACA Medicaid expansion? Suddenly they’ll be in perfect health for the rest of their lives?
Trinidad Navarro is gonna fix it…his record proves it
The just re-floated proposal for Medicaid is block grants to the states, which opens the program to all manner of potential chicanery. Anti-federalism is something all Republicans agree on so there will be few objections. Democrats would be smart to start using the phrase “Medicare and Medicaid” as often as possible so the two programs are linked more tightly in the public mind. They’re not the same thing, but let the GOP spend its energy explaining reality for a change.
donviti:
“Trinidad Navarro is gonna fix it…his record proves it”
Huh?
Sorry so late to this but I’m not apologizing for disagreeing with Cassandra or Del Dem on Clinton’s shit ass campaign which was utter shit. (Just look at the results). That they can’t back down from defending that shit ass campaign is thier problem not mine.
This is all about Clinton, right? I mean I haven’t read all the comments but the few I read seemed like proxy arguments for the real argument which is how much Clinton sucked as a candidate.
Also .. going back to not commenting here for a while. I only write this now because I am in a hospital waiting room. (Don’t worry nothing serious).
steve newton: sorry about that one comment. i was just pissed off. i actually know nothing about the quality of your academic work. i suspect it’s pretty good. your posts here are often informative and thoughtful. i particularly like the ones comparing the u.s. under trump with hitler’s germany. i believe one thing that happened then is that members of the opposition fought among themselves. we can’t forget that trumpism is our common enemy.
Jason, this has nothing to do with Clinton’s shit ass campaign. Well, this post was really helpful. It has shown us what is wrong with DL: the commenters.
Mouse’s comment was so spot on it bears repeating:
You drive people away with your overbearing and self righteous attitudes and insistence on your views being the only ones.
Happy New Year. Absent change this may be the last year this site enjoys meaningful dialogue.
I know you all praise El Som’s General Assembly coverage and I mostly agree, but I have to say there are times it seems as if he uses this platform just to lash out at the handful of legislators he feels personally wronged him. And that would be fine but because you haven’t recruited any commenters or contributors to balance out his coverage and give another “insider’s” perspective, it seems like we are accepting whatever insight he provides as the absolute truth of the matter. I seem to recall a couple of threads a few months ago where El Som was challenged by a commenter who obviously had connections to Legislative Hall or some sort of insider knowledge. In response to those contributions, both he and others became obsessed with outing that commenter, wanting to expose the person’s motivations instead of responding to the validity of the points they made. In doing so, I haven’t seen that commenter post here since then – although to be fair I could have missed it since I don’t read this site every single day. Perhaps it’s time to recruit some new blood, maybe someone who has actually spent some time in that building since the Democrats took back the House 8 years ago?
“Perhaps it’s time to recruit some new blood”
I don’t know how much time you’ve spent trying to recruit employees for no-pay jobs, but I’ve found over the years that most who will work for meager or no pay are people with a passion for the work, in which case you have to deal with a strong personal agenda that may include some ax-grinding, or those looking to get a foot in the door, in which case you’ll be recruiting a replacement in a year or sooner.
Doesn’t mean it’s bad advice, just that it’s harder to take it than you might think.
I haven’t spent time on this thread, but, Steve, WTF are you talking about?
You’re entitled to your opinion, but the one implication I want to shoot down is the suggestion that I banned whoever this person is from the blog. Didn’t do it, nor did I ask our contributors to do it. I don’t remember the particular thread you’re referencing, and I didn’t become obsessed about outing the person, if indeed there was such a person and such a thread in the first place.
That’s a pretty bizarre comment, I gotta say.
“he and others became obsessed with outing that commenter, wanting to expose the person’s motivations instead of responding to the validity of the points they made.”
Again, I don’t know what experience you might have with people who anonymously come forward with information, but allowing people to make accusations without revealing their motivations is how we get snookered into thinking people like Julian Assange are objective actors. This is the reason that journalists aren’t supposed to give credence to unsourced information — they don’t want to carry someone’s water without knowing what that person is really after (and they don’t want to be found liable if any of it is wrong — see “Rather, Dan.”)
“In doing so, I haven’t seen that commenter post here since then – although to be fair I could have missed it since I don’t read this site every single day.”
It’s not until rereading this that I notice there might be a connection between this commenter and the “new blood” you seek. (Maybe not, in which case never mind): I don’t think you would hire an assistant without doing a background check. Woe to the contractor who hires a sub who, say, belongs to the KKK in his spare time, or to a union whose official does the same.
When people show up to give “inside information” that can’t be verified, the only available avenue of inquiry becomes who the leaker is and why he wants the world to know this. You start with a baseline assumption of revenge, not civic duty — especially if the leaker claims civic duty as a motivation — because you fish where the fish are.
@el som–could you make it clear that the “Steve” you are responding to is not me?
Yes, it is emphatically not Steve Newton. Gonna go out on a limb–his real name might not even be ‘Steve’.
El Som – It never occurred to me that you would have blocked the commenter I referenced before, and I don’t believe anything in my comment suggested that that is what I was suggesting had happened either. Sensitive much?
anonymous- I’m not sure how to respond to the first part of your second comment other than to say that this is a really small state and Id wager that most legitimate insiders might prefer to maintain their anonymity, especially when commenting on a blog like this one.
“When people show up to give “inside information” that can’t be verified, the only available avenue of inquiry becomes who the leaker is and why he wants the world to know this. You start with a baseline assumption of revenge, not civic duty — especially if the leaker claims civic duty as a motivation — because you fish where the fish are.”
Isn’t that basically what I was saying about El Som? He often shares unverifiable information, makes assumptions or predictions based on that information, and most on here just accept it as gospel. This is the case even though it would be totally reasonable to conclude that his motivations for doing so at times have more to do with getting back at those he blames for his demise, as opposed to some sense of civic responsibility?
I’ve followed this thread for three days without my fingers touching the keyboard, but now I’ll weigh in:
1. Overall, you guys are doing a good job but you’d be much more readable if you’d focus on the issues rather than the individuals making the arguments. (When Cassandra and ElSom go to war, I feel like the whole team is headed for a nasty divorce. We can’t afford that because they give us the best commentary on the City of Wilmington and the General Assembly, respectively, that’s available anywhere in the state.)
2. Anonymous made the point early in this thread that, while there is some overlap, this is a “liberal” blog, not a “Democratic Party” blog. To that end (sorry, DelDem), I would suggest that you refrain from posting, in their entirety, the latest statements/news releases from the party’s bigwigs. Go ahead and tell us that Carney has announced a great series of inaugural week events, but don’t give me the whole damn list of celebrations. A link to his website will do. When you do such things, it looks like the blog is the party’s house organ.
3. Bring Steve Newton on as a regular contributor. As libertarians go, he’s suitably liberal for me. If he’s saying he doesn’t have sufficient time to keep his own blog going, let’s welcome some regular commentary from him on this site.
4. I’m not one to go gaga over podcasts (partly because the speakers on my laptop stop working after about two minutes), but I’d listen to ElSom and Al Mascitti for half an hour, or an hour, every week, especially if I could do it at a time of my own choosing. If they’re up for a reunion, you should do what you can to make it happen.
Happy New Year.
Can we have a new complaints thread? This one’s full.
@puck: Most popular thread of the year?
Complaining — what liberals do best?
To whomever: Yes, what I’m saying once applied to El Som. Once he was outed he was no longer an anonymous source, which meant people could weigh what he said against his biases.
The anonymous person you referenced was motivated not by the desire to spill secrets important to the public but by a desire to discredit El Som. You want to read that guy? Tell him to start his own blog, or to contact the management here and lay out his credentials. For all we know, you’re the same guy.
I don’t know how long you’ve been reading this blog, but we used to get occasional comments from Lee Ann Walling, a former journalist who became a key aide to Ruth Ann Minner. She signed her name and we were all able to decide for ourselves the correct balance between her professional duties to spin things and the truth.
“Complaining — what liberals do best?”
Yes, second only to “save America from Republican-caused disasters every ten or so years.”
I can’t comment because I was arbitrarily “baned” by jason. He didn’t like or approve of my POV. That’s 1 of many things wrong with DL.
After reading through my previous comments, I now realize that I came across somewhat harshly in regards to El Som and his contributions to this site. At the onset, I should have made it clear that I appreciate the coverage he provides and I believe it’s extremely useful for those of us who don’t have time to monitor the legislature on a daily basis. My first comment was supposed to simply encourage the powers that be consider adding some new, fresh voices with different perspectives to report on the legislature.
For what it’s worth, it was the Blevins defeat that made me think that a new perspective might be needed. Like countless others, I too was more than a little shocked with the loss of Senator Blevins’ seat. It really did feel like it came out of nowhere for a lot of us, contributors and regular commenters of this community included. Then I wondered why it felt like this loss was one we really didn’t see coming down the tracks. I realized at that point that I couldn’t actually remember the last thing I’d read about Blevins before Election Day- on DL or in the news journal, minus some reassuring words that she was beloved in her district and that she did a fair and competent job as Pro Tem. Trying to understand what I might have missed, I first searched this site for posts about Blevins for any clues. What I found when I put her name in the site’s search engine was surprising to me – there were less than a handful of posts about her since 2009, and of those, one or two discussed polls conducted on this site for her “unscientific approval ratings”. For comparison, I searched Blevin’s counterpart in the House, and of course the Speaker had earned several posts a year for the last four years, which did not surprise anyone whose read the site with any regularity. Obviously I don’t believe Blevins’ loss was in anyway related to DL not covering her enough- the two are unrelated and have nothing to do with the other. However, I do think that maybe this helps to explain why her loss felt like it came out of nowhere, at least for some of the regulars and semi-regulars on this site- she wasn’t on the radar for lots of us prior to her lose either.
Which begs the question, if this blog, with its comprehensive coverage of the General Assembly, wasn’t writing about Blevins, then who would?