Gin-and-whiskey's comment is a pretty good summation of the inter-left conflict without resorting to cries of "PC police" and "censorship," two arguments not completely without merit but seem incomplete in a way. (The censorship debate is a false one in that no one is actually being censored according to the legal definition of the word, but I think it's the closest to grasp on to, especially when frustrated.) Apparently not many people agree with it.
So what am I not seeing?
I absolutely agree that the left blogosphere can be overly dogmatic, not always sympathetic to context, and cliquish beyond words. (Of course, one could say that about any corner of the internet.) Outrage is currency. And balanced critique is good for keeping that in check. Writers like Freddie DeBoer and Michelle Goldberg can write polarizing pieces and still have a platform in which to speak. Although both have been roundly -- and at times unfairly -- criticized, their place in the pantheon of liberal bloggers is probably pretty safe. For someone just getting their footing, it's not so easy or comfortable. This is where most of my issues lie. If your place in the group isn't secure, it's a hell of a lot easier to parrot back whatever the loudest, angriest voices are saying to assert yourself as one of them. I guess what I'm saying is more people on the fringes need to speak up, but the problem with being on the fringes is you're on the fringes.
