Come join my liberal echo-chamber!

[KacyRay]

Well… not exactly.

Actually, it’s a discussion group I built in response to a number of complaints I got about my rather outspoken opinions on topics that I would discuss on my FB wall.

You see, not every friend of mine wants to hear about how ridiculous I think religion is, or how vile I find certain politicians or pundits, or how I want the drug war to end. Some people just want to see what’s going on in my life, without having to be subject to my every thought on everything.

So I created a little “safe space” where I could discuss current events and share my thoughts without having to worry about offending my mother-in-law. A lot of people came on board, and now I have a nice little discussion group.

I would to extend an open invitation to (almost) everyone reading this post to come on in. Send me a friend request, and I will add you into the discussion group. The group is closed, meaning other people can see that it exists and who is in it, but only members can see what is posted or commented on in there.

(Disclaimer: The group isn’t quite as active as it was before I deployed, mostly because the momentum was lost once I stopped having regular FB access. As it stands, I can only access it from 7PM to 7AM (GMT+4). And as I usually sleep much of that time, I don’t post quite so much. But once I’m back, it’ll be pretty active again.)

But I’d love to have as many of you in there as are willing to join. It is refreshingly free of spam, trolls, and flame wars. Most of the OP’s come from myself and my wife (Liliwayway here on OL). I would be very happy if it were a bit more active, but there’s no obligation – I realize most of you do a lot of your posting on other forums.

Those to whom the invitation doesn’t apply already know who they are.

(P.S. The title of this post is a tongue-in-cheek reference to a couple folks who believe that my discussion group is a “liberal echo chamber”, even though they are not actually members of the group and therefore cannot see what gets posted in it. I'm not a liberal and it's not an echo chamber. It's just a place to discuss current events and ideas. I invite all here to see for themselves.)

[Robert Baratheon]

As someone with years of direct experience participating in Kacy's "discussion" groups, allow me to outline some of the basic ground rules so that readers here can decide whether it might be of interest to them.

Kacy wishes to be seen as a critical thinker who challenges his own assumptions. He bolsters this public persona by creating "discussion" groups for others to join and paricipate in with his express permission. It is a virtual club, or padded sparring group, if you will. None of this should be confused with actual truth-seeking, which is a much messier and difficult process for the individual engaging in introspection. As a result, you are free to agree with Kacy, especially as part of a concerted mugging of right-wing popular entertainment icons; or to politely dissent on any topic that isn't directly threatening to Kacy's existing worldview and persona. What you are not free to do is analyze personal anecdotes with a critical eye, or ask for justification of something you view as inconsistent within the philosophical framework. This will be viewed as an "attack" on the group leader and will be swiftly stamped out like a lit match on the floor of a powder house.

So, for example, a good topic for this discussion group would be: "Alex Jones: Tin-Foil Hatter or Cold, Calculating Profiteer?" All the usual knuckle-dragging right-wing crash-test dummies solicited by Kacy will show up with their poor grammar and non-sequiturs, get their heads summarily handed to them by the social justice league, and then slink back off until they are summoned again in defense of their false idols. All in pursuit of reaching a better undertanding, of course ("I am right and they are wrong.")

Conversely, you are not welcome in this group if, such as me or SB, you would actually like to *learn* something by challenging others or having your own assumptions challenged in return.

[Robert Baratheon]

Kacy, I return to you in good faith and with a proposition for you. It is based on a number of stipulations I would be willing to accept in the course of extending you the full benefit of the doubt. The first would be that you actually welcome those with divergent viewpoints participating in this discussion group of yours. The second would be that you are actually willing to debate with me (and SB) so long as we refrain from what you have called "insulting" behavior.

We obviously have very different views on what constitutes an "insult" in the context of these discussions. We further disagree on how an emotionally responsible individual should respond to being challenged in that way. In light of this disagreement on etiquette, I would be willing to tresolve the conflict, entirely on my end, by promising to refrain from any discussion of your life experiences, choices, or circumstances beyond what would be available to me from information posted within the thread itself. In other words, it would be as if we were total strangers participating in an online forum. Thus, we would be having a discussion on the merits without the possibility of any deleterious ad hominem attacks.

Is this something you would be willing to accept in exchange for welcoming my participation in your group on a trial basis? Or are you too heavily invested in your demonization of me at this point to extend to me the same benefit of the doubt I would be willing to extend to you?

[KacyRay]

Note: RB does not speak for what I actually think or want. All are welcome, and there's nothing more I'd like than for someone to offer new ideas I can feed off. I would welcome the injection of new ideas and personalities to contribute material or comment on whatever gets posted there. That's why I'm extending a blanket invitation to all - even dennismay and his support for Beck, even william scherk and his support for PZ Myers... everyone. The invitation stands for all.

RB is a guy who has a chip on his shoulder because he can't accept that I've disengaged with him due to his behavior. He has to keep trying to convince himself that I did so because I just can't stand to have my worldview challenged, all evidence to the contrary.

See - that would make him responsible, and that's an unacceptable proposition.

Anyway, I've gotten no hits yet. But be assured, I would be very happy to have some objectivist (or objectivism-informed) folks around to comment and discuss anything we talk about in there. You are all invited.

[KacyRay]

Kacy, I return to you in good faith and with a proposition for you. It is based on a number of stipulations I would be willing to accept in the course of extending you the full benefit of the doubt. The first would be that you actually welcome those with divergent viewpoints participating in this discussion group of yours. The second would be that you are actually willing to debate with me (and SB) so long as we refrain from what you have called "insulting" behavior.

We obviously have very different views on what constitutes an "insult" in the context of these discussions. We further disagree on how an emotionally responsible individual should respond to being challenged in that way. In light of this disagreement on etiquette, I would be willing to tresolve the conflict, entirely on my end, by promising to refrain from any discussion of your life experiences, choices, or circumstances beyond what would be available to me from information posted within the thread itself. In other words, it would be as if we were total strangers participating in an online forum. Thus, we would be having a discussion on the merits without the possibility of any deleterious ad hominem attacks.

Is this something you would be willing to accept in exchange for welcoming my participation in your group on a trial basis? Or are you too heavily invested in your demonization of me at this point to extend to me the same benefit of the doubt I would be willing to extend to you?

No. And you have a lot of balls asking.

You still don't acknowledge your own behavior. you don't acknowledge that the entire reason I gave up on your is for your incessant ad homs and overt discourtesy and disrespect. And to this day you're still pulling stunts like in comment #2 here... who are you to speak for who is welcome in my discussion group? Who are you to speak on how I wish to be seen? And who are you to speak of what goes on in a very modest discussion group of which you have never been a part?

(You know what goes on there? Me and my wife post articles and comment on them... and so do other people. That's what goes on there. Ohhh scary!!)

So you continue to be insulting, you continue to exhibit your character disorder, and you continue to be a pain-in-the-ass in general. Then you offer some sort of truce, as though you have something to offer me that I'd be willing to trade my self-respect for?

How about this? How about you just take this as a learning point. How about you just learn from this that when you shit on good people, you don't get a "do-over". How about you learn that no point you have to make, however brilliant you think it might be, gives you license to be insulting and disrespectful while communicating it?

You've burned your bridge, Dan. Get over it. And you're the only one to have done so, so stop blaming me, stop accusing me, stop trolling me, and stop speaking for me.

The people at OL don't need your advice, and they don't need you to form their opinions for them. If my discussion group was the third rung of liberal echo-chamber hell that you claim it is, I'm pretty sure any one of them could figure it out on their own really quick, without your help. So if you're so confident in your position, why not encourage everyone here to join my group as well, so that they can all corroborate your view?

The answer is obvious.

By the way... I know what narcissist means. Do I strike you as a person who does not choose their words deliberately? It's always interesting to see you begin a rant with a false assumption and then extrapolate an entire thesis on it. I'm still not sure why you think this is worth your time.

As far as SB - don't expect that you and him are going to receive the same treatment from me. A lot of social capital gets built up in 25 years, so as aggravating as he can be (and boy, can he be!), he and I go back far enough and have been best friends long enough that I have no choice but to just absorb some of the less-pleasant personality quirks he's developed over the years. There are maybe 2 or three other people I can think of that would get that sort of pass from me. Sorry, you're not on that list.

I'd be very happy to have some OLers share their thoughts in that group. If that doesn't happen, hey, that's fine too. But the idea that I'm selective about who I let in there to join in the discussion - a bunch of liberals plus some token doltish right-wingers - should be put to rest forever. I'm extending an open invitation to the most intelligent group I've been able to find online, most of whom are decidedly and firmly planted on the right side of the aisle. The only one's not invited are YOU (for your insulting behavior) and SB (because when you turn down an invitation, you should not expect another one). But neither of those cases has anything to do with any alleged reluctance to have my worldview or ideas challenged.

Now... I'm am positive that no one here at OL wants to hear any more on this issue, so let's be done with this. Go ahead and post the inevitable "last word", blaming and accusing me. I know you can't resist. But I'm not going to be entertaining this any longer.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kacy,

I went ahead and joined to see what evil you guys are plotting over their under the cover of darkness.

(Like I said, I can't promise to post very much or very often. I write way too much as it is. But I'll bop around there at times.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

RB,

Where are my manners?

Welcome to OL.

Sorry you guys are not getting along and it has a history, but I want to stay out of it.

God knows I have enough schisms to worry about.

Michael

[KacyRay]

Schisms? What schisms???

heh... just kidding.

Good to have you in there. Don't feel obligated to be active - like most forums, there are more lurkers than active participants. But like I said, your input will always be welcome.

See, I need someone to keep me in line when I start getting all liberal and progressive and stuff. And then come the echoes...

[Robert Baratheon]

Kacy, this may come as a shock to you, but you haven't exactly been a model friend to me in these 13 years we've known each other. Initially, I was puzzled by a lot of your behavior - friendly and engaged one minute, totally dismissive of me the next. I lost count of how many times you told me on the ICC I was basically an ignorant kid who had no place to comment - nice thing to tell a 16-year-old who looked up to you. It took a number of years of frustration before I realized you weren't actually interested in me or anything I had to say, only in boosting your own ego through me as a conduit. Think about it: how many times have you earnestly asked for my opinion on anything? I can't think of even one time. You wanted somebody younger and impressionable you could tutor with your objectivist/atheist ideas. That worked well for a small period, but when I quickly outgrew that relationship, you never displayed the slightest interest in relating to me on equal terms. Again, really nice.

Through my writings I've contributed in part to at least three of your personal "epiphanies" and intellectual growth over the years. I won't go into these at length here because that would risk "insulting" you further according to your strange definition of that term. Never once have you given me an ounce of credit, nor have you ever taken responsibility for your own behavior in being incredibly rude, insulting, and dismissive toward me when I tried again and again to convince you of the realities you were ignoring (then later accepted as true). Much of the really bad behavior you have essentially admitted you don't even remember because you were under the influence at the time (see: epiphany #3).

This moral high-ground you are now claiming is all just a manufactured component of your ego-centric persona. Take a hard look - everything you do is all about you and the attention it brings you. Your recent "creature feature" post is nothing more than an invitation to be the center of attention and talk about yourself, always on a 100% safe topic that doesn't risk any hard introspection or criticism from others. When SB and I try to talk about anything important with you, you immediately go apoplectic and rip into us on a personal level as a regressive defense mechanism. It shouldn't surprise you that he and I have many of the same frustrations with you and have reached many of the same conclusions. On this very blog, MSK has affirmed everything we've been telling you about your social media behavior for the past two years! But SB and I are both just jerks, right? So you can ignore everything we have to say. How convenient for you. And you keep repeating this inherently contradictory statement that I'm the "only" one you've ever had these issues with except for your best friend, as if that supports your position rather than undermines it. Take some responsibility for yourself and your own behavior, objectivist. I expected you to respond in precisely this way, but just know that I fully intended to make good on my end of the proposal and engage in good-faith debate in your group if you did in fact try to take the high road.

[Robert Baratheon]

MSK - Thank you for the welcome. I can see you run a very fine blog here. The blog, and your moderation of it, came very highly recommended from another one of your members, whose opinion I value a great deal. If Kacy is willing, I'm fully ready to put this unpleasantness behind us and stick to neutral discussion topics. But since this entire thread is little more than obvious jab at me and SB, I felt obliged to respond.

[KacyRay]

Dan,

If you want to hash out issues like those you brought up in #9, that's fine. I'll respond in PM's, as I'm sure no one else here wants to hear any more. Like I said, being that your behavior was public, I have no compunction about publicly responding. But conversation that has no general interest to the forum can take place in PM's. To continue here would be discourteous to OL.

Just realize that nothing we talk about is going to change my decision.

And the purpose of this thread was two-fold: 1) I really do want more people in my discussion group, and I really do want to increase the diversity of comments offered there. I genuinely do hope more folks take me up on that offer. 2) I do want to dispel any notion that I deliberately surround myself with people that will do nothing more than "echo" (or re-enforce) ideas and beliefs I already hold. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

In fact, the only "selectivity" I engage in is this - I try to select only people who I know are able to discuss contentious topics ("hot topics", as I call them) without taking anything personal or getting upset at having their views challenged. That discussion group was created specifically because my mother-in-law kept getting upset at seeing some of the views I was expressing, and she was constantly giving my wife an earful about it.

So I created that group so that my wife and I could talk about those kinds of things without upsetting people who aren't able to have their views challenged. And I invited everyone from my friends list - all of them - who I felt would be suited for or interested in spirited discussion.

But that sort of talk just isn't for everyone. I have no problem with it, and I suspect most, if not all, members of OL are of the same temperament.

I've invited folks at ICC into the group. I've invited people from other areas of the net that I frequent. Now I'm inviting OLers.

SB was one of the first ones I invited in, but he left when I told him you wouldn't be on the guest list. And that's fine... but any notion that he was not invited in because I can't stand having my fragile eggshell worldview challenge by you two intellectual giants is comical.

This thread was genuine in its purpose, and the invite will stand... even once the thread itself is buried over time. [so if you are reading these words for the first time in the year 2016... consider yourself invited into my Hot Topic discussion group. ]

[Brant Gaede]

MSK - Thank you for the welcome. I can see you run a very fine blog here. The blog, and your moderation of it, came very highly recommended from another one of your members, whose opinion I value a great deal. If Kacy is willing, I'm fully ready to put this unpleasantness behind us and stick to neutral discussion topics. But since this entire thread is little more than obvious jab at me and SB, I felt obliged to respond.

RB, your post 2 made what you are complaining about. I actually like your idea-issue substantive stuff. Lots of facts and I think valid generalizations. As for Kacy, he can't hold a liberal-progressive candle to my Momma. My late sister would likely remind you of Jane Fonda, except she never manned an anti-aircraft gun. I could go on--my Father was an America-firster-American nationalist anti-Semitic power-luster too smart for his own ambition--but as you might tell, I seldom go into high dudgeon until people start beating and shooting innocents. This joint would be boring as heck if the Kacys of our world didn't wander in here.

--Brant

BTW, Kacy, my Momma hated Obama: "He's no good!" (2008)

[KacyRay]

Brant,

My mother and father both disliked Obama. They had an autographed picture of Dubya in their living room during the Bush years. My mother didn't care much for politics. The last thing I remember placing in my father's casket with him was his autographed picture of Rush Limbaugh. He was dittohead until the very end.

RIP both of them - 5 Apr 2011

[Robert Baratheon]

So when the conversation was a red-faced, frothing Kacy as the center of attention blasting RB on what an all-bad archetype he supposedly was, Kacy had "no compunction about publicly responding." Now that this false dichotomy between the all-good Kacy and all-bad RB has been dismantled by a dose of reality, i.e., real things that actually happened, it's been quietly shifted to "I'll respond in PM's." I reiterate, how convenient for you. Don't bother, I've seen no evidence that you're ready to have a real conversation on these topics - all you've done here is insult me and demonize me, while you hypocritically complained at the same time about me insulting you.

I'll just say that you're lucky many of your friends, such as SB and me to name two, gave YOU a second chance when you finally emerged from your "lost decade" of functioning alcoholism. Guess what - that wasn't such a fun period for us, and I only told you that constantly. Hey, what's step 9 of that program again? I won't be losing any sleep waiting for MY apology. We know from your posts that the Great Kacy can do no wrong!

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

My mother and father both disliked Obama. They had an autographed picture of Dubya in their living room during the Bush years. My mother didn't care much for politics. The last thing I remember placing in my father's casket with him was his autographed picture of Rush Limbaugh. He was dittohead until the very end.

RIP both of them - 5 Apr 2011

Kacy, sorry you lost your parents at a comparatively young age.

--Brant

[KacyRay]

Brant,

Thank you. They were both in their mid-60's, so they were relatively young. But when my wife and I went to go settle their estate and we learned about each of their medical conditions... We aren't sure they would've had that much longer.

They were fried-egg eating, red meat loving, whole milk drinking, sedentary lifestyle-living down-home church-going folks. And now that I know how their story was to end, I'm glad they enjoyed every drop of it all.

Neither wanted to survive the other - they both said so. So this ending really is a happy one.

[Brant Gaede]

My Mother was 96--almost 97. Genetically I'm programmed from both family sides to live into my 90s in pretty good health.

--Brant

and genetically I'm not supposed to be all but bald, so I walk my dog and go to the doctor and don't free climb ice sheets