Perhaps I am not hip to the new moderation that has flowed from the changeover to DK4?
What is an insult?
My definition is as follows:
Noun: A disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action
(emphasis added is my own)
I will not provide links, or names. This is not a call out diary, or a retaliatory diary. It is however, an attempt to ask whether or not there exists a standard for distinguishing disagreement with insult?
This is not an attempt to instigate anything, or an invitation to further rate comments already made either way. I do not believe in writing diaries for such purposes.
The point of the diary is to ask if a line was crossed into HR'able territory via insult? I think it is clear from my title where I stand on the matter. It is a point worth exploring, I believe, because it is relevant beyond just the comment in question. I think such a standard, if it is something other than the standard definition, is applies to every word, sentence, paragraph, diary, and article written.
In a diary about a Blue Dog, I posited that, in general, a Blue Dog is better than a Republican. I further questioned our fidelity to the 50-State Strategy:
It just isn't. In many cases, if we are doing the work we should be doing, the Blue Dog is just a placeholder for a better Congressperson. In other cases, the Blue Dog, even with a lot of work, is the best we're going to get out of what is a Republican district.
I have no love for the guy, but I will never accept that some Tea Partier is a better choice for the country, or that district.
I know people look at opinion polls and see polling majorities that suggest people are on our side, but they don't draw all districts like people poll, and even if they did, those polling results aren't manifested in the voting results.
I guess we really didn't like the 50-State Strategy as much as we professed not that long ago?
I thought this comment was not responsive to the points I raised:
People like Shuler add bipartisan (and thus "moderate") credence to Republican talking points and policies while undercutting Democratic messaging. They create the appearance of Democratic strength and ability but then undermine by voting like Republicans.
I am not talking about bipartisanship, but the risk-harm calculation of retaining Blue Dogs over conceding seats (also known as votes) to Republicans.The response again, in my opinion, wasn't on the points in contention:
I tried to engage and refocus on the points I raised, as I believe the guy who only gives you 50% is better than the one who gives you 5%, if you're lucky:
We have to be grown ups and learn to work with those we can work with, even if it is only sometimes. We also need to get to work persuading ,organizing and GOTV just like the Right did in establishing their dominance.
And have you ever thought about how we make it hard for him?
I refuse to write off people who are more than a tick to my right but reachable on more issues than they aren't. That is what rightwing ideologues do, I thought we were Progressives?
I'll take the person who gives me 50% over the one who gives me 5%, every day. To not do so is saying a big "F' You" to the people in his district who are working hard in the right direction and try to build something as progressive as possible but need more time and effort than might be required in NY or Cali.
Either Progressives are serious about governing or not. We can't wait around until everyone,or almost everyone loves us and believes as we do in order to get things done. The first principle is never concede to Republicans, period. Spitefulness might feel good, but n this case, it's counterproductive and an open invitation to labels of purity. There are far worse than this guy in the party.
Again, the response was on bipartsanship and how Blue Dogs are not Progressives. The former is not my point, the latter is not a point in contention, we agree:
People like Shuler undermine any effort to persuade. When they're regurgitating the other side's talking points and frames and reinforce them with bipartisanship, they undermine our messaging. They undermine our message when they vote like Republicans and provide bipartisan cover for them; attacks on Republicans from Democrats can be at least somewhat deflected by pointing out how people like Shuler are voting against his party.
When they help obstruct Democratic proposals, they cast the image of Democrats as ineffective. People like Shuler don't help us with GOTV, not when they piss on core Democratic constituencies. "We're less bad" is not an effective message. And on top of it all, people like Shuler are habitually vulnerable and drain away party resources.
The net result is we are made weaker, not stronger. And 2010 was an example of that: ConDems helping to obstruct Democratic proposals, reinforcing right-wing frames, and draining away millions in party money. The net result was massive losses for the Democratic Party two years after being swept to power.
Again, I wanted to get past the standard lecture and on to the point about having to deal with those in our party,who are to our right. So I decided the dialogue was a waste of time and brought it to an end, or so I thought:
I'm sorry you can't deal with reality...and since you did not bother to deal with any of the points I made, I can only take your responses as a manifestation of your inability to deal with the world as it is.
The rest of us will be working on keeping Republicans out of office, even if it means, in certain districts, keeping a Blue Dog. You folks can help the Republicans and tell yourself you're doing it for the greater good.
And then in came another party to drop this and run:
HRd for gratuitous insult n/t
Was I a bit curt? Yes, but is my last comment what passes for insult now? If so, may I suggest the standard is too low and that each day's allocation of HR's.
UPDATE: I appreciate all of the comments, even the ones that I do not agree with, or that aren't nice, or annoy me. What I want to uncover is something more profound. What is the standard for issuing an Insult HR?
Perhaps an insult really is when you are rude, or not nice, or perhaps, you used street vernacular bluntly instead of language more gentile?
I would also add, that this diary is not about continuing the conversation in the original diary. If you love Blue Dogs or Conservadems (insult?), fine, if you hate them, fine. That is a conversation for another diary, on another day. I'm sure as we we get deeper into this election cycle, it is a conversation that will have been thoroughly discussed.
This diary is about when do we issue a HR for an"insult"? What is the clear standard, if any such standard exists.