Does DU Need More Forums? How about one on achieving democracy itself?

[ulTRAX]

The bedrock political issues I'd most like to discuss with others are just what constitutes morally legitimate government... how does the US square with that definition... what would be our wish list for democratic reforms... what are the obstacles... and what would be a 10-20-50 year plan to achieve these goals.

While there may be plenty of other issues on the progressive agenda... we may never stand a chance to achieve them unless we have a political system that creates an even playing field. The simple fact it our Constitution is not just anti-democratic but getting more so... and in the process more and more resistant to reform. This SHOULD be a topic we all have a vital interest in. But it so much easier to get mired in the present and forget entirely where we hope to go.

I find it curious that as with the Democratic Party generally... the DU seems to have an ideological blind spot against discussing democracy itself.... it's as if the range of permissible thought is to tinker... but not question the foundations of our political system. That was all settled in 1787... right?

I believe these topics deserves their own forum. Such threads don't really fit any other existing group and now get lost in the General Discussion group.

edit to expand title

[liberal72]

1. In the DU lounge I see a lot of sports threads so I say a sports forum.

n/t

[ulTRAX]

2. since when are sports political?

Maybe those threads belong at a sports site.

[liberal72]

12. Since when is half the stuff in the Lounge political.

I am just saying make a forum where people can take a break and talk about sports if they want to.

[ulTRAX]

19. ON-topic vs OFF-topic discussion

liberal72 wrote: "Since when is half the stuff in the Lounge political. I am just saying make a forum where people can take a break and talk about sports if they want to."

I had no idea what you were getting at in your fist post. You wrote"

"In the DU lounge I see a lot of sports threads so I say a sports forum."

And since you included no further explanation I took it as a defense of off topic posting. Having rarely visited the lounge I don't have any clear idea what goes on there. My suggestion was an expansion of forums for what should be ON-topic for this site.... that defining and promoting democracy should be seen as important enough unto itself as to deserve it's own forum.

[liberal72]

33. My bad

I thought you were asking, in general, what should be the next forum. I din't know you were asking for a forum that is on-topic for theis site.

[ulTRAX]

36. uh?

liberal72 wrote: "My bad. I thought you were asking, in general, what should be the next forum. I didn't know you were asking for a forum that is on-topic for this site."

One of is confused and it's becoming contagious. I was NOT asking for an off-topic forum to be created. I was suggesting that the current forums dealt mostly with aspects of our political system but failed to focus any attention by omission of a separate forum, on the bigger bedrock issues of just what democracy was... how is the US system ab obstruction to democratic values... and how that obstruction can be overcome.

Many seem to think that as long as we have paper backups on electronic voting... then that's a victory. My view is that as long as we have an anti-democratic system that weighs one vote in Bush's Florida lead as much as 1000 votes in Gores national lead... then while BBV safeguards are important... they are a sideshow. What's the point of an accurate count when the entire system is rigged?

Democracy means government derives it JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed. If that's the gold standard... how do we get there?

[ulTRAX]

41. ulTRAX gives himself a dope slap

I wrote: "One of is confused and it's becoming contagious. I was NOT asking for an off-topic forum to be created."


Duh ulTRAX... try reading the other posts correctly! My apologies to liberal72.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

5. You should learn more about free speech

The Constitution says nothing about private entities, like DU, limiting their own speech. The First Amendment only applies to the govt, which is prohibited from limiting *political* speech. Commercial speech is fair game, and has ALWAYS been regulated. So is private, politically-related speech. Our Freedom to Associate gives us the freedom to choose who we will associate with, as well as who we will NOT associate with.

That's why the DNC doesn't invite Freepers to the DNC convention, and that's why that is NOT an infringement of free speech.

If, as a Democrat, you feel a commitment to free speech, then I suggest you do a little reading on it and what it was meant to achieve.

[LoZoccolo]

8. Don't worry, we are.

It's not a matter of whether or not we think the government should regulate what people can say. It's a matter of how much we want our time wasted with disruptors coming over here with the latest squawk designed to obstruct real discussion or the latest pass-around email about how they're accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of having 50 people killed or some such nonsense. We reserve the right to preserve the value of the commons which we contribute to financially. Stick around and you'll actually see there's a pretty broad range of opinion - I don't think I've ever been told to leave because I have relatively moderate viewpoints.

[ulTRAX]

10. disrupters vs freedom of association

FBGRemus wrote: You cannot have a true democracy here until.... they remove the language from the registration page saying:"

There's also something called freedom of association. If RR'tards are disrupting OUR freedom of speech here in a private forum... then their rights are secondary. Same with the concept of a thread. It's designed to permit a more orderly discussion of ideas... therefore some limitations should be placed to keep a thread on topic.

Now care to deal with the topic of THIS thread? Or are you just out to disrupt it?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. How about a separate forum for every pet topic from every individual DUer?

[ulTRAX]

6. pet topic? isn't democracy supposed to be the MAIN topic here?

Yet I see no forum dedicated to that topic.

[sangh0]

7. No, it's not

The main topic here is "Politics", not "Democracy"

[ulTRAX]

11. horserace vs long term goals

sangh0 wrote: "No, it's not. The main topic here is "Politics", not "Democracy"

Presumably you mean politics from a democratic perspective.

But that is somewhat meaningless unless there's some idea what that democratic perspective is... and where it wants to go as a political movement. At SOME point those bedrock issues have to be examined... else politics forever will be nothing but a focus on the short term horserace.

One would think that especially after Election 2000... Democrats would be relentless in their determination to question the bedrock assumption of our anti-democratic system. But alas... Democrats are AWOL on democracy itself. I'd hate this site to suffer from the same ideological myopia.

[sangh0]

15. That was incoherent

You seem to be saying that it's "somewhat meaningless" to talk about an issue, say a Gay Marriage ban, unless we talk about "democracy" and what it means over the long term.

I have no idea why you would say such a thing.

[ulTRAX]

17. let's try this again...

sangh0 wrote "That was incoherent. You seem to be saying that it's "somewhat meaningless" to talk about an issue, say a Gay Marriage ban, unless we talk about "democracy" and what it means over the long term. I have no idea why you would say such a thing."

I see the incoherence introduced into this thread is not my doing. If the BEST argument you can make is to distort what I wrote... then color me unimpressed... and I have to wonder why you bother wasting your time. Having a bad day? Let's look at the original exchange again:


sangh0: "No, it's not. The main topic here is "Politics", not "Democracy"

ulTRAX: Presumably you mean politics from a democratic perspective.
But that is somewhat meaningless unless there's some idea what that democratic perspective is... and where it wants to go as a political movement. At SOME point those bedrock issues have to be examined... else politics forever will be nothing but a focus on the short term horserace."


It's clear that I did NOT say discussion of long term democratic goals should be at heart of every conversation. But a having a clear vision and sense of long term goals should be at the heart of any site that claims to be Progressive.

See the difference yet? Or you just out to give me a hard time regardless if you make sense?

[sangha]

30. I didn't distort. I didn't understand what you wrote.

Presumably you mean politics from a democratic perspective.
But that is somewhat meaningless unless there's some idea what that democratic perspective is...

IMO, I think the reason why you see no call for people to discuss what democracy is would be because people have a pretty good idea of their own. I suspect it may have something to do with their interest in politics.

I see discussion of basic democratic ideals, clear visions and long term goals every day on DU. I don't see and deficit there, nor any need for a section devoted to democracy. It sounds like you're looking for GD. Threads like that often do arouse some interest.

[ulTRAX]

35. roger that....

sangha wrote: "I didn't distort. IMO, I think the reason why you see no call for people to discuss what democracy is would be because people have a pretty good idea of their own. I suspect it may have something to do with their interest in politics."

I'm quite aware that many are interested in politics for reason other than I. Some are quite satisfied with the horse race... or bashing the other side. Cool... I can appreciate that. Where I differ is in wanting to return to first principles... and not let the historical justifications for our anti-democratic system blind us to what the rest of the advanced industrial democracies take for granted: the expectation that governments can incorporate democratic principles... and are willing to experiment to bring those principles to life... and not just use them as a hollow self-description.

"I see discussion of basic democratic ideals, clear visions and long term goals every day on DU. I don't see and deficit there...."

On this I have to differ. I started two threads that cut to the heart of the matter
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1189523

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1199976

and it's amazing how many people who seem to believe they are Democrats, Progressives, or Leftists have NOT thought through what democracy means... to the point that they can't recognize an anti-democratic system when it bludgeons them over the head.

"....nor any need for a section devoted to democracy. It sounds like you're looking for GD. Threads like that often do arouse some interest."

That was a suggestion. But the GD forum is clearly overloaded.... some 4200 THREADS... not posts... in just the past 15 days. At some point a forum fails its mission in bringing people together around a topic they want to discuss. There's certainly other topics that could be spun off from the GD forum. There's nothing here at DU that was handed down on a slab.

[sangh0]

37. "Where I differ is in wanting to return to first principles"

That's my point. You differ on this issue from most of us. As your threads seem to demonstrate, there just is not enough interest in those threads to justify placing them in their own forum.

Look, I'm not saying your desire is wrong or immoral. It' seems obvious that you have the best of intentions. However, IMO there is only one way to stir up some interest in this, if that's what you want to do - Start some interesting threads. Post thought-provoking essays that challenge people's assumptions without being hostile to their POV.

[ulTRAX]

39. rethinking democracy

sangh0 wrote: "Where I differ is in wanting to return to first principles. That's my point. You differ on this issue from most of us. As your threads seem to demonstrate, there just is not enough interest in those threads to justify placing them in their own forum."

I have started a few threads on the topic and they were pretty active. But what those threads again proved to me is that even amongst people who believe they are progressives.... or at least Democrats... their minds are stuck in a internal contradiction that Bush may be illegitimate but there's really nothing wrong with our federal system. You see this all the time where the blame for Election 2000 is placed on Kate Harris, GOP thugs stopping the recount.. or the USSC stopping the recount. The REAL culprit in 2000 was our Constitution and the anti-democratic EC. Think about it.. would anyone here REALLY have considered Bush morally legitimate if he had a clear 20,000 vote lead in Florida won a clear victory in the EC.... but Gore still had 530,000 vote lead nationally?

Getting back to first principles simply means refocusing on those principles that underlie a democratic system... using that as a lens to critique our system... and if it's important... identifying the obstacles to reform and devising a plan to finally bring democratic principles to the US. What's the alternative? That the world's only superpower not be under the control of its own people? That we have more George Bush's imposed upon the nation? That such morally illegitimate Presidents take this nation down a path REJECTED by the citizens at the polls?

Let me use an analogy. Many here oppose corporate practices on labor, the environment, privacy, whatever. All these areas are symptoms of the rules corporations play by. We can forever try to oppose those practices... and in 20-50 years still be stamping out brushfires. Or we can focus on the root cause: how corporations are chartered... and whether corporations deserve the rights once reserved for individuals. It's the same with our defective political system. In all to many ways the dysfunctionality is SO pervasive that we begin to see it as the context instead of those first principles.

"Look, I'm not saying your desire is wrong or immoral. It' seems obvious that you have the best of intentions. However, IMO there is only one way to stir up some interest in this, if that's what you want to do - Start some interesting threads. Post thought-provoking essays that challenge people's assumptions without being hostile to their POV."

I think you underestimate the ideological straightjacket the nation is in.... and this is especially disturbing when the Left succumbs. As for who's being hostile... it's a chicken and egg thing. Who's to blame when some cling to their internal contradictions and see such basic discussion as threats?

As for whether the topic deserves it's own forum... there very well may be other topics that would get more interest. Some existing forums now are low traffic... the equality forum had 9 POSTS yesterday... while GD averages 280 THREADS a day. Clearly GD is on overload. Creating more forums is the only solution. I made one suggestion.

Because I see most other topics as symptomatic of the lack of democratic principles in the people as well as the government I believe that if the powers that be at DU can't see that first principles... then the battle is lost. At some point the Left has to know where it wants to take this nation. Right now it's lost fighting the symptoms of a dysfunctional corporate and political system instead of the causes.

[Abe Linkman]

9. ALL of your points are well taken

Most people's political interests embrace only:

* Personalities

* Scandals

* The "horse race"

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. 41152 user registrations since 1/2001 means 41152 ideas about what

should be the main topic.

[ulTRAX]

14. if true...

If your claim is true... then we'd see some evidence of those 41152 users requesting new forums. Please present ANY evidence that backs your claim. I think the vast majority of users are quite content with the current forums.

However, I suggested a legitimate range of topics which SHOULD be at the core of any Progressive movement: identifying the LONG-TERM goals of where we want to take this nation... and how can we accomplish these goals.

I can't find a good fit in any of the existing forums.

[sangh0]

16. more nonsense

You have made numerous assumptions without doing anything at all to back them up. Your latest is "If your claim is true... then we'd see some evidence of those 41152 users requesting new forums"

You have failed to consider the possibility that those 41152 are happy the way things are

[ulTRAX]

18. let's try this again....

Seemingly getting more bizarre by the post sangh0 wrote: "more nonsense. You have made numerous assumptions without doing anything at all to back them up. Your latest is "If your claim is true... then we'd see some evidence of those 41152 users requesting new forums"

You have failed to consider the possibility that those 41152 are happy the way things are"

Again, all the failures are not mine. I was NOT the one who made the original claim. Feanorcurufinwe did when s/he wrote "41152 user registrations since 1/2001 means 41152 ideas about what should be the main topic."

I was merely suggesting a way how Feanorcurufinwe could prove HIS claim.

Got a problem ? Take it up with Feanorcurufinwe.

[ulTRAX]

20. MORE good reasons for expand forum listing

It only makes sense that when a catch-all forum becomes overused... that some spin-off forums are added to reduce volume. The GD group is to the point that threads are getting shoved back to page 2 in 15-30 minutes... there's numerous threads all about the same topic... posts just 2 days old are already being locked and archived. This is nuts. It doesn't give those members who want to devote time to more weighty issues to sink their teeth into a topic.

There's also another problem... this posting from Mods: the GD database is too large and affecting site performance.


Skinner (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-05-03 02:06 PM
Original message
IMPORTANT: YOU CANNOT POST TO THIS ARCHIVE FORUM

This forum is a "moderated" forum, which means that you are not able to post in here.

After weeks of problems, we have a strong suspicion that the primary source of our poor performance is the large size of the General Discussion forum database table.

As a temporary solution to this problem, we now have a General Discussion forum, and a General Discussion Forum Archive. Each day, we will move older threads out of the General Discussion forum into this archive. This will keep the database table for the General Discussion forum small, and will improve website performance.

This is only a temporary solution. Please be aware that bookmarks and links may not work properly under this system. Eventually we hope to create an automated system which will keep bookmarks and links intact. But until that time, we must make do with this imperfect solution.

Thank you for your patience and understanding as we deal with all of these problems.

Skinner
DU Admin

[democracyindanger]

21. Firstly,

if you're serious about this, you should post in the Ask the Admin forum.

Secondly, your do-away-with-the-electoral-college-because-Wyoming-has-too-much-power posts seem to attract enough attention in GD as it is. If you feel you need your very own soapbox, try a blog.

[ulTRAX]

23. when appropriate

Why ask the admins when I'm just trying to discuss the idea with the other members first?

As for other your snotty and unhelpful comment... let the record show that in that thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1189523
we disagreed because you were AGAINST trying to bring democratic reforms to our anti-democratic Constitution. Which makes me wonder why bother posting at a site called the DEMOCRATIC Underground when you obviously have not use or respect for democratic principles? Gee... is that why you want me to leave? Possibly because you can't defend your own positions?

Again, for the record... this is where we left the discussion before you scampered off:

YOU: "Guess what? That's called 'life in the real world.' Referring your choices as the lesser of evils may be accurate in your mind, but it's a pretty defeatist attitude to take. And messing with the Constitution isn't going to ensure your choices are more satisfying."

You obviously confuse our antiquated, dysfunctional, and anti-democratic federal election system with the real world where advanced industrial nations make very real attempts to create democratic systems that truly try to gage the consent of the governed. Whoa!!! What a radical concept!!!

If you are truly in the dark as you seem... try a web search on "proportional representation" for a start.

And, ya, unless you see minor tweaks like better ballot counts as the cure, reforming our anti-democratic Constitution is the ONLY hope that the US will ever become a nation based on democratic principles. Of course maybe I am misreading you. Perhaps you think Bush IS the morally legitimate president because that anti-democratic Star Chamber called the EC anointed him. That our nation MUST accept him and his radical RR'tard agenda as legitimate because he was so anointed.

Well? You can't have it both ways.

[democracyindanger]

28. Blah blah blah

The only reason I "scampered off" is because mocking ridiculous assertions is only entertaining for so long. And despite the fact that your "the Constitution is anti-democratic" assertion is hugely ridiculous, its entertainment value is still limited.

I've never suggested that I want you to leave, nor have I even come close to any statement resembling it. But if you feel you need to put words in my mouth to create some imaginary moral high ground, feel free.

Here's some friendly advice: Make your case that the Constitution is, indeed, anti-democratic. Telling everybody who doesn't agree with you to "try a web search on proportional representation" is a weak counter-argument. If you can't state your case convincingly, I have little desire to Google for articles on your behalf. Also, the Electoral College isn't the reason for *--it was a foul, corrupt Supreme Court decision.

And finishing up my previous post: Thirdly, it just seems to be good manners if, before you lay into DU's general membership as uninterested in democracy (yet another massively ridiculous statement) and create work for the dedicated admins that run this place, you had a little yellow star next to your name. That's right. I played the yellow star card.

[ulTRAX]

31. you scampered off because you can't defend your position

democracyindanger wrote: "The only reason I "scampered off" is because mocking ridiculous assertions is only entertaining for so long. And despite the fact that your "the Constitution is anti-democratic" assertion is hugely ridiculous, its entertainment value is still limited."

You can ONLY make that claim because you are obviously devoid of democratic principles. If democracy includes the concept of one person one vote... and all votes weigh the same.... then the simple math I presented in threads YOU participated in, proves the Constitution is anti-democratic. If the math doesn't convince you Election 2000 should: we now have MINORITY rule, damn it. Bush was imposed upon the nation by an unaccountable, unelected star chamber called the EC. When is it ever going to sink in? Our anti-democratic federal government is ILLEGAL for all other levels of state and local government.

"I've never suggested that I want you to leave, nor have I even come close to any statement resembling it. But if you feel you need to put words in my mouth to create some imaginary moral high ground, feel free."

Since you didn't have the courtesy to quote whatever you're claiming I said... I have no idea WTF you're talking about.

"Here's some friendly advice: Make your case that the Constitution is, indeed, anti-democratic. Telling everybody who doesn't agree with you to "try a web search on proportional representation" is a weak counter-argument. If you can't state your case convincingly, I have little desire to Google for articles on your behalf. Also, the Electoral College isn't the reason for *--it was a foul, corrupt Supreme Court decision."

It's clear you are NOT willing to look at evidence I provided. You are NOT willing to critique the Constitution from the perspective of first principles because you have substituted the defects in the Constitution as your principles and the BEST you can do is defend or apologize for it. It's clear you're intellectually unable to question the anti-democratic foundation of the Constitution regardless of the evidence or how many Bush's are imposed upon the nation. Your bluff and bluster doesn't cut it.

"And finishing up my previous post: Thirdly, it just seems to be good manners if, before you lay into DU's general membership as uninterested in democracy (yet another massively ridiculous statement) and create work for the dedicated admins that run this place, you had a little yellow star next to your name. That's right. I played the yellow star card."

Good for you. I may too when I decide this site is worth it. But you are avoiding the KEY question I asked a few weeks ago... and are avoiding AGAIN.


"And, ya, unless you see minor tweaks like better ballot counts as the cure, reforming our anti-democratic Constitution is the ONLY hope that the US will ever become a nation based on democratic principles. Of course maybe I am misreading you. Perhaps you think Bush IS the morally legitimate president because that anti-democratic Star Chamber called the EC anointed him. That our nation MUST accept him and his radical RR'tard agenda as legitimate because he was so anointed.

Well? You can't have it both ways."


Well?

[ulTRAX]

40. followup

DinD wrote: "I've never suggested that I want you to leave, nor have I even come close to any statement resembling it. But if you feel you need to put words in my mouth to create some imaginary moral high ground, feel free."

Actually I found the comment I was responding to:

democracyindanger wrote: "Secondly, your do-away-with-the-electoral-college-because-Wyoming-has-too-much-power posts seem to attract enough attention in GD as it is. If you feel you need your very own soapbox, try a blog."

It's obvious from your other posts in other threads you are offended by anyone who dares suggest critiquing the Constitution... let alone that it reforming it is VITAL to making progress on a Progressive agenda. You obviously took umbrage that such heresy got ANY attention here. It's also clear that you so resent the topic so much that the only motive you can ascribe to anyone who dare bring it up is that they are egoists searching for a soapbox and they should start a blog. Deny your own comments if you want. I simply interpreted your comments within that greater context you provided.

[peacetalksforall]

22. DU needs a Peace Forum

And Mandela, Tutu, Carter, and every recognized peace and justice seeking leader should be asked to contribute.

Posters should be asked to refrain from sarcastic and cynical comments (of the kind I am prone to make in my contempt for those who are leading this country or their country (Israel specifically) in the wrong direction).

Any report of peace and peaceful resolutions should be posted there as news that is equally important as war news or news of another loss of rights.

News about India and Pakistan scheduling a competition after many years.

News like India, South Africa, and Brazil forming a coalition for peace.

It may be the last Forum that people will check out when the Resident Deficit or Atty Genl or Rove or Perle or the secret VP pulls off another atrocity.

On the other hand, it may be first Forum people will check out to raise their spirits when the news coming out of this imperialistic administration causes us to despair.

It would be novel to think laterally and with hope and proof that man can evolve into something they are capable of attaining.

[mdmc]

24. How about an unregulated FREEPER forum?

Where the greatness of Raygun can be debated. :~)

[ulTRAX]

25. Freeper fish in a barrel!

I like that... we can keep some Freepers as pets to take pot shots at. Just don't let them get loose into the main forums! LOL

[mdmc]

26. ps I would post regarding Democracies in the GD forum

:kick:

[ulTRAX]

27. GD forum is on overload

I just did the math.... in the past 15 days there have been 4200+ new threads started in the DG forum. March 1st was already back on Archive page 86. That's 280+ threads a day. Threads that are not responded to can be locked and archived in as little as 2 days. That's nuts. I used to post in the most popular Usenet NGs and I thought they were getting unmanageable with about 100 new threads a day.

At SOME point a forum loses it's ability to perform it's prime function: to connect people who want to discuss the same topics. I think that point was reached long ago and it's time to look at the topics here... and find out which are so popular as they deserve their own forums.

[mdmc]

29. Now, that I understand.

Perhaps there is a need for more forums.

[ulTRAX]

32. thanks....

I thought the problem here was so painfully obvious but maybe not. Maybe I'm just a bit more tuned into how well NGs function because some years back I used to spend a lot of time on newsgroup config issues; issues like when is a top hierarchy group is too overloaded that it's time to spin off a new sub-group... what should that sub-topic be.... what is its proper name, etc.

[Ysabel]

34. painfully obvious...

yes - i notice it also - interesting thread this...

[mdmc]

38. well, its day two. And the thread still exists.

I find that if I use the ignore thread, "my posts", and bookmark features, I can hold threads for a while, but perhaps not with the input of multiple DU'ers.