9 thoughts on “South Dakota Standard – Join in. Except for you, buddy.”

  1. Pathetic. If the content is not intellectually retarded now, the in-breeding of ideas will create that result eventually.

    Three cheers for intellectual diversity.

  2. They’re just 16 tweets in. I thought that was pretty quick to have blocked me.

    Was I not supposed to link to them in the sidebar….?

    1. Well I am sorry to hear they blocked you Pat…….Don’t feel bad, Tom Lawrence blocked me as his fb friend. I still believe Tom is a very talented writer and he did a great job when he was editor of the Mitchell Daily Republic. I just hope he practices free speech because the Dakota Standard will be a great news source.

    1. How do you know when a new “[inclusive publication]” is just a self serving online indoctrination point?

      When they describe themselves on their about page this way:

      “The South Dakota Standard is their joint effort to create a common meeting ground for readers and thinkers who care about issues affecting the lives of South Dakotans. All points of view are welcome.”

      But block those with opinions different than theirs ..

      “Free Speech! Free Speech! But just for me!”

      😀

      I’m not saying they should’t be an online cult .. that’s their right. I would, however, like to see some honesty about it.

      1. Solid post. I’ll admit that healthy online debate requires a modicum of curation. There are posts (and posters) to delete and block. To cite an example, we don’t need bots telling us how much they make per hour working from home. But “intelligent” discussion of South Dakota issues, especially political issues, certainly includes Pat Powers. Some liberals accuse him of being a GOP cheerleader. I get that. He’s conservative. He’s a registered Republican. He is, I believe, an elected committeeman. Of course, he’ll often bash Republicans and criticize Republican proposals. So, opinions vary. The point: no honest person can claim he’s ignorant or uninformed on topics of local interest. Although perfectly legal, preemptively excluding Pat from the online conversation is craven & (assuming one believes in JSM’s marketplace of ideas) counterproductive.

    1. They can certainly do that, which I found funny while starting to scan Twitter this AM. Usually I have to make people mad first.

  5. Discussing how Sen. Kamala Harris campaign flamed out, her manager said they made a huge mistake by failing to engage main stream viewpoints/ criticism, preferring to bask in the left wing/ progressive echo chamber. Winning Twitter is not = winning elections. Republicans can make this type of mistake, too. It was one of Romney’s (many) errors in 2012.

    Dakota Standard, Here’s some advice to consider:

    “Democracy requires compromise. This is hard to explain sometimes. You can be completely right, and you still are going to have to engage folks who disagree with you. If you think that the only way forward is to be as uncompromising as possible, you will feel good about yourself, you will enjoy a certain moral purity, but you’re not going to get what you want. And if you don’t get what you want long enough, you will eventually think the whole system is rigged. And that will lead to more cynicism, and less participation, and a downward spiral of more injustice and more anger and more despair. And that’s never been the source of our progress. That’s how we cheat ourselves of progress.”

Comments are closed.