Mrrzy, I am using this as an example of the dynamics on Mudcat (in my humble observations,). You are perceptive and direct enough yourself to understand this not a personal statement or attack on you.

Mrrzy's opening premise is outrageous, and I assume it was intended to be outrageous and trollish, knowing that Mrrzy is a very bright and informed woman, and not likely to ignorantly think the riots in Vancouver had anything to do with "Americanism," whatever the heck that means.

From the long history of the positions and posts Mrrzy has made on Mudcat, it is clear that she tends toward libertarian with liberal leanings. Because of that, most of the responses to her initial post have called her on the erroneous thinking, but have done so in moderate, non-reactionary voices, have failed to respond to her trolling in a manner that feeds the trollishness, and have not demanded that she own up to the trollishness. Because we perceive her in most respects as being aligned with shared points of view, we respond rather than react, and ignore the inflammatory factor, thus rendering it inflamable.

pdq did not react any differently to her initial outrageous assertion than would have several liberal or left-leaning members, had Mrrzy previously established her reputation on this site as being conservative or reactionary right wing.

An alternative and equally plausible explanation for the view expressed in Mrrzy's first post and the title of the thread is that she is an emotional thinker to the point that she has strong anti-American bias that significantly distorts her perceptions.

It seems to me the best explanation for the nearly entirely appropriate and thoughtful responses, vs emotionally reactionary and inflamatory reactions that turn a thread into shite in quick order, has to do with how we view the poster as much as how we view the idea.


Given all the above, pdq's reactionary reply is absolutely no different from the frequently seen knee jerk reactions of some of us liberal and left leaning posters when a conservative or right-winger posts a similarly outrageous assertion.

What I mostly see in this thread is the capacity to respond rather than react. Imagine a Mudcat where we liberals had the same tolerance for the errors or intentional trollish/provocateur postings of conservatives and reactionary right-wingers as we extend to people with the same traits who happen to have more in common with our our liberal or leftist leanings.

The responses to Mzzry largely offer gentle correction, does not put her on the spot for her trollishness, and therefore make her defensive. The reactions to pdq's posts, which are entirely in the same vein as Mzzry's initial posts are very different.

Why is it ok to tolerate the irrational thinking and inflamatory posts of a liberal without disparaging that person, while it is not ok to extend the same toleration to a conservative?