What is left and right for DU?

[Ignoramus]

After thread lock #2, I'm disturbed. My thread "The not blaming the troops thing":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4339983#4341910

was locked by Moderator, because:

"As stated, the original post seems inflammatory, in that it equates troops stationed in Iraq with gang members."

What's the policy please? If it's not policy that's fine. I can live with someone acting as moderator being offended by what I say. The moderator is putting much more effort into this than I am by posting, so he/she can decide.

Is it a policy though? 2 is a pattern where I come from.

Will DU have a policy that you can't "denigrate the troops"? How will that differ from the Bill Oreilly's and Hannity's characterizing the radical left (sick) as doing the same?

[The Traveler]

1. My son is going over there

He has strict orders from Dad to do what it takes to survive. I want my boy back from Bush's war. Selfish of me, no doubt.

He is deathly afraid of killing innocent folk. I am afraid his decency will kill him. That is what really sucks about this whole thing, nice guys like my kid are being put in that kind of position for ... what?

Cindy Sheehan gets all this ... and, really, I think you do, too. These guys are running on adrenalin and hope ... and all they really have is each other. Because, it is clear to all, that the leadership of this country DOESN'T give a shit about them.

Good people placed in such situations will, indeed, do bad things ... especially when so encouraged by their leaders. (And, I hate to admit it, by stepfathers who insist they do whatever it takes to come home. There. I am not a saint. So burn me at the stake, already. Fuck it. I want my son HOME!)

[Ignoramus]

7. Every mother's son is good

That's the most basic point that I have to make.

All of us interact with the environment that we are in. Our response is good or bad. Regardless of what our response is, we are still good and there is a path back to what redeems us.

The hardest part of this is that some other mother's son wants to kill us or someone that we love. None the less, they are just as good as we all are, and there is a path back to what redeems them.

When all of us do things that are wrong, it is the action that is wrong. Each of use should hold ourselves accountable for our actions. If someone else harms us, and we can help them to account for their actions then that is good. Usually, they won't know how to account for their actions. If they are going to harm us, in their confusion, then we should protect ourselves from them, before all else.

Punishment is only as good as it is useful as education. There is no point in punishing people as payment for a crime. My point being, I don't think American soldiers should be punished for obeying their orders, with exceptions. Flipped the other way, if someone commits a crime as a civilian in America, and it doesn't represent a tendency that needs to be inhibited, there is no reason to punish them for it, The only concern is preventing the crime from reoccurring.


Or, if I can put it more clearly. I aggree with your husbands advice: Do what you can in desparate situations to stay alive. After the fact, if you have killed someone, you don't have a debt to be collected. You are always good, forever. I imagine the horror of having killed someone as being worse than being in prison due to disobeying orders. But, I'm not a soldier.

[DanCa]

10. Traveller can your hug you boy and tell him to be safe for me.

It's a really terrible predicament to be in. Hang in there am sending positive energy your way hope it helps.

[eleny]

2. Here's something from the rules for DU

National Security
Do not post broad-brush smears against US service people. Do not blame the troops for the mistakes of their officers or their Commander-in-Chief. Show the appropriate level of respect to those individuals who have put their own lives on the line to defend this country.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Hope this helps.

[uppityperson]

3. You need to email the mods and ask that way.

While I might not agree always with the mods, they have the power and you need to send them a pm or email asking. Look under FAQ/rules to find how to contact a mod privately.
[e-mail]

[A-Schwarzenegger]

4. "The moderator is putting much more effort into this than I am"

Doubt it.

[expatriot]

5. if you are earnest, you're falling into the trap

that they've (the pro-war right) has set up for you.

You say that they have set it up so that if you don't support the war then you must not support the troops. Your solution seems to be: Then I will say that I don't support the troops. Which is exactly what they want you to say. They would love to hear more of us say that. We cam not let them define what it means to support the troops.

It makes much better sense to just turn their rhetoric around on them.
"Support the troops: Oppose the war."

To me this last statement is much more logical. It is like they are saying, "Support the firefighters: Support arson." while we are saying "Support the firefighters: Oppose arson."


As for your question as "What is left and right for DU." We are a progressive "left" forum, not a radical "left" forum.

Progressives fight for incremental change within a political system and therefore their discussions must be aimed at promoting progressivism politically by making our best arguments to the people and winning them over. Radicals operate wholly in relation to their ideals, pragmatic political strategy be damned.

Progressives accept the existence of the institutions of the nation-state and the military apparati there-of and do not condemn the soldiers therein for the policy decisions of the administration. We hold those who make directives accountable for their action or those individuals who act out in a heinous and particularly criminal manner.

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. the vast majority of troops are ordinary working class kids

They certainly are not policy makers...

And we must remember that our rightwing enemies would love nothing better than to point at post that denigrate the troops--at the very least it is bad--very, very, very bad politics.

[Luminous Animal]

8. DU is not a place to be honest about how you feel

There is an ideology that must be promoted. And in terms of political activism, political power, and ideology, there's only a little bit wrong with that.

In respect of latest breaking news, DU is an excellent resource. In terms challenging discourse, it is disappointingly flat.

I love the place for it's enthusiasm. I hate the place "don't rock the boat" mentality.

[Desertrose]

13. Have to agree with your assessment of DU, Luminous

couldn't have said it any better...

"In respect of latest breaking news, DU is an excellent resource. In terms challenging discourse, it is disappointingly flat.

I love the place for it's enthusiasm. I hate the place "don't rock the boat" mentality."

[EST]

9. Philosophical hairsplitting is not something

that produces much in the way of results. In the real world there is little room for strong idealogical arguments, unleavened with a dose of pragmatism.
For instance, if you are absolutely, wholeheartedly committed to the edict of "Thou shalt not kill," how much latitude do you have in being responsible for the safety and well being of yourself and your family?
Do you become an easy mark in the real world for anyone who decides he wants to take your life, your possessions, or endanger the lives of those you care for?
If you believe that some violence is appropriate, what happens when that limited violence goes awry and the hypothetical intruder suffers fatal injuries, attributable to you? Clear ideological positions just aren't so clear when they include real people with real notions, beliefs and experiences.

In the case of my own relationship to DU, I view this place as a safe place to get away from the unthinking jerks that are all too common itrw. Right wing points of view, when handled delicately and thoughtfully, can be addressed in these forums but there are posters who are not particularly sympathetic to some points of view, for their own good reasons. Part of the privilege of posting here includes the responsibility for not deliberately offending other's sensibilities, no matter how correct you think you may be.
If one feels the need to be aggressive about touchy subjects, starting up a website called, maybe, "Philosopher's Corner," wherein broaching such subjects without needing to be sensitive is o k, would definitely be in order.

As an example, denigrating someone's religion, or belief therein, is verboten, although a careful discussion of religion is certainly not out of order. I am not a particularly religious person and have some very strong opinions about the subject but a lifetime of experience has taught me that a discussion is to be preferred to an argument-which allows for no winners.

In conclusion, your views can definitely be brought into a discussion, but as the OP, the speculation you bring is inflammatory and could well get bitter in a hurry. Flame wars do not add to any discussion and are strictly off limits here--with very good reason. You have my permission to pm me if I can provide any more detailed assistance.

[Ignoramus]

16. There is a distinction between bashing and criticism

Yes, community is a good thing to build. Or, a bakery is better to build than a loaf of bread.

People to exclude from a conversation are: trolls and time consuming insane people. The problem as that we are all trolls, and we are all time consuming insane people. There is a quantity of trollism and insanity that is over the line.

So, here I am, asking where that line is.

[EST]

18. Put slightly differently--

There is not a huge issue about the questions asked; almost anything is fair game. The point is how the issue is presented. It can be set up as flame bait, as the mod who locked your thread pointed out (as also did I.) Or it can be framed so as to support constructive consideration and discussion. These fora, I have found, are the most flexible I have been associated with, but, as in any skillful approach to convincing and communicating with others, people are people and the way you present your issue is at least as important as your own thoughts are. Flame wars are frowned upon and they result from presentation far more than content.

[Catholic Sensation]

11. what is it with you?

Refering to the troops as gang members and terrorists is not a leftist or a rightist belief, it's simply revolting. People have had threads deleted, memberships in du removed (I agree with doing both I might add) for posting similar garbage. Equating people who are not out to murder with people whose sole existence is to murder is a disgusting thing to do.

[Ignoramus]

14. Make an argument already

Look at what I said and respond to it. You are fixated on a handful of words.

[Catholic Sensation]

15. here's my argument

you appear to be looking for a forum where you can make any kind of outlandish statement you want without anyone pointing out how utterly ridiculous and insensitive it is. I'm saying this isn't your place for it, and the rules of Democratic Underground have been quite clear in that making horrible, repugnant statements about American soldiers (like yours) are against these rules. It's not a sacred cow that people who are not murderers, don't wish to murder, or have any history of murder and are merely doing what their job is (soldier) are not fucking murderers. You sit here and act as though it's some leftist statement to draw a paralel between American soldiers and al Qaeda and the Bloods and somehow DU has become DLC Centrist HQ because a mod didn't care for your utterly repulsive statement.

[Ignoramus]

17. that's closer

I'm looking for a forum where people WILL point out how utterly ridiculous statements are, or aren't. You aren't pointing it out, you are simply asserting that it is so.

You come close, now, by saying:

making horrible, repugnant statements about American soldiers (like yours) are against these rules.

How is it repugnant?

It's not a sacred cow that people who are not murderers, don't wish to murder, or have any history of murder and are merely doing what their job is (soldier) are not fucking murderers.

So, anyone from any country or group that kills because it's their job, is not murdering when they kill?

Gurggh. Let's fix it up a bit. A soldier from any country or any group is presumably acting in good faith. All people are good. Only actions can be bad. Those actions are good or bad, regardless of the people's intentions.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Moderator]

19. Locking.

Please address all questions about DU policy and rules to the administrators of this site.

Thank you.