Comment: Wrong direction -- A response to Nystrom

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You are out of line (see in situ)

Wrong direction -- A response to Nystrom


Respectfully, I never acted like I owned the place. Given the overwhelming amount of effort you've put into this venture, I understand your sensitivity when someone disagrees with you over direction.

But, and I write this with all due respect, you are the one who is out of line, sir.

Every day, people on this site tell people how to use this site. It could be as overt as arguing for or against a viewpoint (and engaging in personal criticism of another user), or it could be as subtle as making another user (and their ideas) welcome or unwelcome through the "voting" system, which now (sadly) goes so far as to suppress ideas that are deemed unpopular. This wouldn't be as big an issue if not for the tragic groupthink of those who have remained on your site (most of the non conspiracy folks abandoned it long ago).

You are on the wrong side. That's my opinion. When I think and speak of you, I always place your misguidedness in proper context: you fight hard for this movement and have sacrificed much. But effort does not guarantee results. And good intentions do not equal good judgment. I've seen the polling data. I've looked at the reactions of real people who could be on our side. This includes people in places like Iowa and New Hampshire that will be critical to our achievements (or failures) in 2016. Rather than making this site a place to build the larger movement, you've made it an echo chamber for a very specific type of fringe thinker whose views are incompatible with growth in this movement. If you need more information or want to discuss this further, I am happy to do so.

You own this site, and are free to do with it what you choose. Just because I feel what you do is "not right," doesn't mean I wouldn't fight side by side with you for "the right" to do it. So please don't conflate my prescription for what's best for the movement with marching orders.

P.S. It's ironic that you come down on me, yet keep the Fitzgerald quote in your signature. Are you able to recognize both the value of the Paul-Jones "alliance" and its drawbacks? Are you able to hold both ideas (which aren't even all that opposed, mind you) in your mind at the same time? Or would you rather engage in bullying and force in order to sanitize this website so that it reflects your (sadly, misguided) vision?

You've done a lot of good, but now your site a net liability to political success. I've seen your site bring people together (mainly between 2007 and 2010, and I've seen your dark side. I've been to meetings where we've read some of the very disconcerting things you've written to and about key people in this movement and wondered aloud, "What do we do about this guy?" You can talk about taking Ron Paul's picture down as if that really changes something, but it's still the DailyPaul. Yes, it's YOUR DailyPaul, and it is your RIGHT to do with it what you choose (including, if you so desire, censoring any and all ideas you find disagreeable). We all play our roles. Not all of of have the technical ability or the time to do what you have done. Some of us have to play on the weed-infested fields that exist rather than creating brand new ones. If you object that much when people talk about pulling a weed or two, if those weeds are near and dear to your heart and you'd rather banish good players from your domain than hear even the slightest complaint, that's your prerogative. But do so openly. Do so with the full knowledge that people are watching, that people are keeping track of how you handle the power and responsibility that comes with the stewardship of this site, and that you're approaching a point where taking down Ron Paul's picture isn't enough. You're approaching a point where you ought to rename this site DailyJones, honestly.