As most people know a great number of people have been boycotting Daily Kos for the last week in both a protest to the tone of the discourse on Daily Kos, and to show solidarity with some of the banned members who got caught up in the ensuing Purge of 2011.
But in many ways boycotting was the easy part. It drew attention to the issues, and made a number of people take a step back, and do some self reflection. But now comes the real work, the hard part, how do we fix this? How do we address the underlying issues so things don't degenerate and spin out of control the way they did. Daily Kos is both a sounding board and center of debate, so let's not be under any illusions that heated debates won't erupt here. Heated debates are in many ways good for our party, our movement, and this site, it's where ideas get hashed out in between elections. The question becomes, how to we channel these energies into ways that build our movement not into one that tears it apart? Because this is just the latest in a long number of meta wars that have continued to do damage to this site.
Rather than beat around the bush, let's address the issues surrounding the boycott head one. The intersection of race and politics, what has been described as America's Original Sin*.
I posted this message on Black Kos' Tuesday's Chile to explain my feelings, but since then I've been doing some self reflection (time away from the site will do that) and even from this my feeling have evolved.
As the Black Kos managing editor, I have decided to support this boycott. I felt it was important and necessary to state why we are doing so, in my own words. During the past several months the atmosphere at Daily Kos has become poisoned to the point where there is no longer any meaningful discourse occurring. What was needed was for cooler heads to prevail, and for a more civil tone to be established. Instead, the poisonous atmosphere was allowed to fester and grow until I saw a number of tough sanctions handed out. In my opinion the distribution of these sanctions were neither fair nor even handed. It had a disproportionate effect on members of this community. This unfair distribution is what lead to the calls for the boycott that we support. Justice requires fairness and equity. My criticism of Markos’ decision is based on his tardiness in stepping up and dealing with this situation, until he was forced to use a crude instrument, rather than any personal animosity, ill will, or accusations against him. Waiting as long as he did allowed the rhetoric to get overheated. But when finally responding in anger, Markos labeled many of these people with personal epithets that are close to slander. Daily Kos is his blog in more ways than one.
Black Kos has always strived to be an area for civil discourse on issues that not only directly affect race, but also on its intersections. The intersections of race and gender, of race and sexuality, and yes- race and politics. We have also strived to be Black Kos and not Obama Kos. For example, during the long drawn out Democratic primary we didn’t endorse then Senator Obama until nearly the end, and welcomed Hillary supporters, but we also recognized the historic nature of his run. But history and the Democratic Party also carries a number of heavy ugly stains. Race has divided this party and it's allies. Race has in the past divided labor movements. Race has divided elections. Race has divided each feminist wave. And yes folks race has divided this blog.
We hope that in our absence people will take time to do some self examination and ask “why are we all here?” I’m here to build a movement. But any movement large enough to be capable of making changes in a country as large and diverse as ours requires being in a coalition that makes you uncomfortable. But your willingness to be able to learn to navigate in a group large enough to make you uncomfortable, is directly related to your commitment to that coalition.
State your case and opinions with passion, express your frustrations with vigor, but always do so with respect. The internet is a medium for communication, but the greatest fallacy in any communication is that communication has in fact occurred. We hope that our in our absence folks ponder that fact.
It seems we have two larger issues I hope people will take away from this latest fight. One is of course the role of race in civil discourse on a progressive site. The other is of course how to cool down meta wars. This is just the latest in a long number of meta wars that have continued to do damage to this site.
On the issue of race, I wrote this comment earlier today in response to another comment.
This site's mission is to be both a PROGRESSIVE and a DEMOCRATIC site. Sometimes these two facts conflict.
To some on this site the main purpose is to be more progressive, so they will always push for progressive values over the party. This is great because progressive ideals are the soul of the Democratic party. But sometimes if taken to far this can lead to Nader moments that give us George W. Bush.
To some on this site, the most important thing is elected Democrats. This is important because with out Democrats in control of the States and the House we see how much damage is being done. They will always push for more Democrats because we are a big tent. But sometimes if this is taken to far we start electing Blue Dogs who help conservatives frame issues in a way that hurts progressive ideas.
Ideally we would like to be able to do both (elect more progressive Democrats) but this being life a measure of pragmatism is required. The dividing line over what this level of pragmatism should be is where the majority of the fights on this site develop.
The problem is that the larger debate above became conflated with race when those that chose an oppositional stance began to adopt racially-tinged frames ("naive") in order to articulate their opposition, and became resentful of their perception that African Americans supported this President uncritically. What they never understood was that the differing sides weren't even looking through the same lense.
Great point. One of the things that I've always said is that for the most part liberals suck at "emotional language." The reason conservatives use term like "job-creators", "welfare queens", "culture of life" so much is not because it accurately represents their beliefs but rather that it triggers emotional responses. I really feel that far too many progressives just don't get this. So when they say a phrase innocently (I'm giving the benefit of the doubt) they don't realize the loaded history of that phrase or word. The problem is that too many folks would rather argue the logic of the phrase (I'm not using racist language) rather than to acknowledge the problem associated with what they said. "My rule of thumb** is can you find another way to express that same sentiment without using said word?"
From my own experience I once used the word "drama queen" in a lengthy dairy during a meta war. Someone fired back I was using coded language. I didn't even recognize what I said that was coded. Once I was made aware of how the term was perceived in this context I simply found another way to express my sentiments "stop having temper tantrums". Exact same sentiment was conveyed but without the offending language.
If I can explore my own statement a little more. When discussing points on Daily Kos remember that words carry a subtext of their historical usage. Look at the etymology (history) of words, and you will see that meaning has changed over time. Extremely vulgar terms become "safe" to use in civil discourse (scumbag was once one of the most vulgar terms in the English language), or the same term's meaning will diverge due to geography (fanny in Australia had the same level of vulgarity as Ass does in America).
Now of course this doesn't mean that we all have to be become word police. It also doesn't mean debate should be "shut down" over terms. But it does mean that you should be aware of it. The first rule of writing a persuasive argument, is not to offend your potential argument. As I said before, can you find another way of making the same point? If you can why not do so, if you can't what does it say about your argument.
The last point but in many ways the greater point I would like to make is how do we turn down the heat on these meta wars. What starts out as an argument between two posters evolves into full scale wars. Days, weeks, months, and in some cases years of comments are brought back up. Now with so many people who post here having worked in opposition research this should come as no surprise (hey we are a political site). But we then follow this up with the rec list being taking up with diary, counter diary, and counter-counter diary ad nauseam.
But the larger question becomes, why do so many people join in? Or more to the point why do so few people try to mediate or calm down the dispute?
Social scientist have been studying this crowd behavior for years. It's difficult to understand. But over years especially once public awareness has been raised these types of behaviors can be changed. The question becomes do we want our site to be dominated by flame wars?
I've observed that in most meta wars the participants on both sides communicate on a regular basis and at the very least have an online friendship with members of "their side." So why aren't more people trying to squash these disputes or at least turn them down to a simmer from a boil? My feelings are that Markos hates to have to purge and ban members, so why aren't we doing more self policing on our own?
Yes it's easy to self police when a post is an obvious troll. Much harder to do when it's a point of view your sympathetic to. But of course that's when self policing is most important.
Just some thoughts, I'm glad to be.
Update 1
There is another point that I really should have made more strongly. There is a significant difference between when someone uses a loaded term out of hatred versus using that term out of ignorance. I used to try and make this point more often and haven't over the last few years.
It's incumbent on all of us to at least give everyone the benefit of the doubt. We can't assume that a person is intentionally trying to offend any of our points of views. So if someone writes something offensive, the best thing to do is to engage them and find out if they are aware of what they wrote. If someone writes to you that something offends them don't assume bad faith.
Anyone who who has sent an email versus calling a person, should be familiar with the written word versus spoken word divide. I've experienced a number of disagreements over the years because of email that "didn't sound right". If you ever been in a long term relationship, this is another area of life these thing happen in. You love your spouse but you don't always agree or see things in the same way. How many arguments in relationship happen because of the "perception gap".
Let's assume that the majority of people who participate on this site, want to fight racism, sexism, and build both the progressive and Democratic party. So we may differ in our methods and our passions, but not in our ultimate goals.
Disagreements can be a chance for a learning experience or the start of a fight, the choice is up to all of us.
*Both because of racial slavery and the treatment of Native Americans.
**rule of thumb is also a term that has a debasing history, since I'm quoting something I wrote earlier it's removal would make the quote inaccurate. Go to show that even in a diary dealing with the history of words it's easy to slip up. Words are powerful things.