digitalreporter wrote:
] ] As she wrote in an op-ed essay for the Atlanta Journal-
] ] Constitution: "I was frightened that my neighbors were
] ] going to hurt me because I dared to express my opinion.
] ] This could not be happening. Not in America, right?"
] ]
] ] But it is happening here.

This incredulty sounds false to me.

The reality is that politics are FAR more polarized right now then they usually are.

You either think that the U.S. attacked Afghanistan primarily because they wanted to build an oil pipeline or you think that we should turn Iraq into a parking lot. We live in an emotionally charged time and the radicals rule, on both ends of the spectrum. Woe be to one whose gut takes them to the wrong side of the spectrum, whether you are right in San Francisco, or left in Houston, or middle of the road anywhere. You will be attacked. You are being attacked.

Calling yourself out as a victim in the manner portrayed in this article is just self serving bullshit. Its a way of claiming the moral high ground. There is no moral high ground. You will be attacked if your beleifs conflict with your community, regardless of where your community is on the spectrum.

Its really affecting MemeStreams. We're all here and we're all posting and we know we all have different feelings about whats going on. We're NOT discussing. We can. The capability is there. The will is not. I sense that people are afraid to really engage this subject because they know that any engaged discourse is just going to devolve into bitter arguement.

Weblogging has taken over the past world of bulletin board systems BECAUSE weblogging is a way of broadcasting your views AS OPPOSED to conversing about them. Blogging is popular NOW because of the war, and the polarization.

At some time in the distant future we will seek warmer and more engaged forms of conversation. Today we do not because the tension between all of us is as thick as mud, and we dare not cut it for fear that we will rip our society apart.

Decius wrote:
]
] Its really affecting MemeStreams. We're all here and we're all
] posting and we know we all have different feelings about whats
] going on. We're NOT discussing. We can. The capability is
] there. The will is not. I sense that people are afraid to
] really engage this subject because they know that any engaged
] discourse is just going to devolve into bitter arguement.

Pfft. I disagree, and take offense with the statement, "The will is not." The capability *is* here, and the will, and the discussions. I've already been going back and forth with another Memestreams member about the situation. He's more on the "dove" side, and I'm more on the "hawk" side, and we've been able to present our different views while simultaneously offering respect for the opinion of the other side. And Memestreams aside, I show no hesitation to enter into debates on this matter in offline venues (and do, on pretty much a daily basis).

I think it *is* a good thing to encourage discussion, and sometimes Memestreams can be a good place for such a discussion, though more often it can be difficult to maintain a thread because Memestreams seems more focused on the capability to "discuss external links" rather than "discuss internal opinions." But for one of the main sysops of the site to post something implying that the members of this community are cowards for not discussing things to *his* satisfaction, I think is inappropriate. Let's go more for the carrot instead of the stick, hmm?

Elonka wrote:
] Decius wrote:
] ]
] ] Its really affecting MemeStreams. We're all here and we're
] all
] ] posting and we know we all have different feelings about
] whats
] ] going on. We're NOT discussing. We can. The capability is
] ] there. The will is not. I sense that people are afraid to
] ] really engage this subject because they know that any
] engaged
] ] discourse is just going to devolve into bitter arguement.
]
] Pfft. I disagree, and take offense with the statement, "The
] will is not." The capability *is* here, and the will, and the
] discussions. I've already been going back and forth with
] another Memestreams member about the situation. He's more on
] the "dove" side, and I'm more on the "hawk" side, and we've
] been able to present our different views while simultaneously
] offering respect for the opinion of the other side. And
] Memestreams aside, I show no hesitation to enter into debates
] on this matter in offline venues (and do, on pretty much a
] daily basis).
]
] I think it *is* a good thing to encourage discussion, and
] sometimes Memestreams can be a good place for such a
] discussion, though more often it can be difficult to maintain
] a thread because Memestreams seems more focused on the
] capability to "discuss external links" rather than "discuss
] internal opinions." But for one of the main sysops of the
] site to post something implying that the members of this
] community are cowards for not discussing things to *his*
] satisfaction, I think is inappropriate. Let's go more for the
] carrot instead of the stick, hmm?

I kinda have to agree with Elonka. There is a fair amount of discussion going on within Memestreams, and elsewhere. I think the polarization is starting to melt a bit. I have found that within my circle of friends and colleagues, the hard lines are starting to blur. People who were more 'dove' (great analogy!) are coming to the middle. People who were more 'hawk' are questioning the administration's actions.

It *is* an interesting time. And people *are* frightened. The thing that I find most dispicable in this moment is the complete lack of LEADERSHIP amongst anyone. Everyone has been more focused on spewing opinions, but I've yet to see a calm head emerge with a direction or a plan that isn't simply "we're in hot pursuit". It's to be expected that the populace gets polarized in this environment because there's no one to keep them from overreacting. Thankfully, the amount of foot dragging has helped people to start killing off their fog and start thinking on their own a bit about what's going on.

Props to Tony Blair for being the closest thing to this right now, but his visibility in the US is basically reduced to playing Ed McMahon to Dubya's Johnny Carson.

Elonka wrote:
] internal opinions." But for one of the main sysops of the
] site to post something implying that the members of this
] community are cowards for not discussing things to *his*
] satisfaction, I think is inappropriate. Let's go more for the
] carrot instead of the stick, hmm?

Um, I rest my case?

I haven't called anyone a coward. *I* haven't engaged this issue as much as *I* would like to because everytime I have, I've found myself in an intractable personal brawl rather then a constructive conversation. Much like the one I find myself in now. I'm frustrated that I seem to find fewer and fewer people who are willing to talk about this stuff rather then fight about it. I managed to extrapolate that into an observation about the nature of blogging that I (still) think is interesting. It wasn't directed at anyone and it sure as hell wasn't some kind of edict. And yet you've decided to take it personally and you've attacked me for saying it.

I'm glad that you and flynn have been able to find constructive conversation about this stuff. I haven't. I can't even talk about how I can't talk about this stuff without getting attacked by someone. Thank you for proving my point.