Come to TMR
Hey y'all come over to the Minority Report.... we're having a liveblogg join us....
Submitted by Steven Foley on Sun, 2008-06-01 20:38
-->
- Steven Foley's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Tags:
Comments :
shoot, I just saw this
I replayed the liveblog, looks like y'all had a good time and I'll definitely try to make the next one.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Banning policy?
I'd come over now and again depending on your banning policy. If you ban for posting porn, gratuitous swearing, threats... that's different than banning because you don't like the view point (ala most political sites).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yeah, that's what I thought
banned after one day because at TMR indictments count as "KnownFacts" (their term for things that aren't true but widely believed).
figure that one out...
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Dude you were banned because...
...Docj, a moderator, told everyone to to stop and you refused and kept posting -- blatantly not listening to our moderators is a banable offense -- and he explained it clearly in that thread. Coming hear and pretending it was for some other reason is petty!
As a front page poster I thought you might have more tact than to come to a conservative site with a condensing tone and a superiority complex which goes over well here but not there.
Look I know your style but they don't and although your views are wildly different everyone was willing to engage until it was clear the conversation was going nowhere at which point everyone was told to move on.
Not that you'd want to but an apology email to Docj would reactivate your account
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Uh, no, Steve
DocJ said we all needed to move on, but he also falsely claimed a verifiable fact was a "knowfact" and threatened to ban me if I made any more such arguments. When I presented the evidence that I was right he said "I said it was non-negotiable" and banned me. It had nothing to do with not moving on, it had to do with him being wrong and then finding it more convenient to ban than admit his mistake.
Again, no. I was being very nice to the people there. Notice that I used an abundance of smileys and went out of my way to be nice when they were often rude in return. Notice Joliphants remark (maybe it was Jaded, can't recall) which was a blatant personal attack in violation of the site rules (with of course no repercussions).
Moving on would be fine, the problem is that if the site administrators want to set themselves up as final arbitrators of proof (and to ban people when proven wrong) then really what's the point? You either will or will not allow opposing views. Allowing them so long as they always pretend you were right all along doesn't count.
If I'd done anything wrong I'd apologize.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
...
It seems you damaged his pride, you disobeyed a direct order from a superior and you pointed out that the superior was wrong.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Uh, Yes, Tlaloc
This is absurd and the last I'm going to say about it... the thread is there for all to see.
Your excuses here are just that.
The error here was clearly yours if for nothing else other than jumping into a forum you didn't lurk at long enough to get a feel for and talking down to them as if you were bringing truth to us rubes on the right. Just because the almighty Tlaloc says something it's magically so, may play here, but it doesn't mean a damn thing anywhere else.
Look I've read you long enough to know your ego will never allow you too be wrong about anything so maybe it's for the best.
We welcome other views as long as their presented in a proper manner which you did to begin with but insisting you're right and ignoring the other sides argument running the thread off topic and off the rails is suited for a site like this one not TMR It's not a left vs. right debate site
So you came, you broke a rule, and got banned
And now, as customary, you can him and ha and get in the last word in.
I won't be checking back!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
That was interesting reading
I just went through that TMR thread where you got banned.
Interesting that a place called The Minority Report is so eager to avoid a minority (for that site) opinion. Considering the nastiness from folks that are apparently in good standing there. It was pretty clear that you got banned because you disagreed with someone with the power to ban.
Also, funny that Steve would complain about a desire to get the last word in considering how the moderator needed to get his last word in on the subject of the discussion AFTER banning you.
Has anyone read The Jungle? Or heard of the Robber Baraons?
Thank God, that GR is sane, especially compared to some of the folks on TMR.
There is some great stuff in there, if they didn't agree with their end conclusions, then they would rip their arguments a new one:
"You trust politicians far too much. n.t"
Submitted by simpson316 on Mon,
But simpson316 trust the free market, its not like its a Jungle out there in a free market.
Also from simpson316
Politicians and CEO's have different rules to follow.
Why not also compare the number of wins Kobe Bryant had to the number of wins that Tom Brady had, the one with the most wins is better.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Keywords
"not open to negotiation",
.... or if you are stuck in the ditch don't ask for help. Self interest and hard work will prevail to liberate you from the muck. If and only if you do NOT negotiate the terrain, you can defend your position from the ditch whence you can make your bed and lay in it, hoping perhaps for a scrap of cardboard.. Brilliant!
I'm only half stupid
Why are you asking about strawmen?
I didn't see anything in that comment that was talking about stawmen, just the one comment about that "being the last straw" as in "the straw that broke the camel's back" which is something different. Or did I miss something there?
(I don't mean anything by this, BTW, it could be a simple mistake.)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I didn'nt see Tlaloc raining down Straw Men
Of late however, you've tossed out a couple of unbelievably silly strawmen (the nuclear bomb thing was a howler),
The way I read it, Tlaloc was just getting his foot in the door and showing that just because someone can do something, that doesn't entitle them to do so.
Careful with all that straw, man - it's been pretty dry around here.
The strawman of the cold cruel businessman who will steal bread from the poor rather than help his fellow man. Look up the world PHILANTHROPY -- the word government does not appear anywhere in the definition.
It might be best to use dry, dull, literal language when disagreeing with someone on TMR, lest one be accused of propping up straw men.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Oh, OK.
I thought your comment was related to the quote directly above it which doesn't talk about strawmen. My bad.
I had read the thread the day Tlaloc had posted his comment on being banned. I have refrained from commenting because I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other.
On the one hand I will agree that Tlaloc was being much more polite there than I have seen him here (at times), so in that sense he deserves some credit. They definitely went for the gutter before he did, but then again that's their turf.
On the other hand, while he was being polite he was also being his usual bombastic self which puts most people off who don't agree with him. I, of course, bear him no ill will in that respect and still respond to him whereas he seems to have been bloodied once to often to continue to respond to my challenges. You may have noticed that he is afraid to respond to me directly, but rather prefers to skulk around until he can respond to me indirectly through someone else's post.
So while I tend to agree with his opponents in that thread on the substance, I personally wouldn't have banned him for being superciliously ignorant of his own ignorance. You just have to accept that he doesn't know how wrong he is sometimes, and he appears incapable of learning to recognize as much based on a wealth of opportunity to do so.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You're probably right about that
I tend to think in terms of allusions so its natural for me to argue using them, but they of course can be treacherous if everyone isn't starting from the same assumptions.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I give hinz credit
for this statement:
Maybe Brendan should try approaching him. I honestly wouldn't mind seeing him over here. In fact I wouldn't mind seeing the whole crew over here (your too, Steve). I think it'd be good for all of us.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Good idea (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Brendan, By all means
Brendan,
By all means encourage those guys (overlap with the RedState crowd) to come here to SC.
Hinz is a very typical partisan blog a**hole who applies the ol' double standard to those who challenge his side's talking points. I think folks like him prefer the echo chambers where they and their buddies can circle the wagons when a challenger shows up, but perhaps he, and some others like him, can be persuaded to spend at least some of their time on neutral ground, if they can stand the insecurity they will probably feel outside of the safe, insular confines of their echo chambers.
But I'd love to see Hinzy over here. Maybe he can tell me again what a crazy lefty troll I am for contending that the Bush tax cuts have NOT caused higher revenues, among his many other fine diagnoses of me. That would be great, because here at SC if he made such a charge he'd have to either debate me substantively or be seen as avoiding such debate. Wouldn't that be swell!
I thank you for your kind words
I love you too
<a href="http://theminorityreportblog.com">The Minority Report Network</a>
You should spend some time
You should spend some time blogging here on SC. Get out more, so to speak -- as in "get out of the partisan echo chamber blogs". On those blogs people's capacity for critical thought and rational, mature discussion/debate of issues atrophies. One element of this problem is that people can get away with responding to legitimate arguments/questions that challenge their position and talking points by getting evasive, circling the wagons, and banning. I know this from my experience at RedState (as "BrooksRob" -- I'm sure you recall) as well as on liberal econ blogs (pretty much the same experience -- knee jerk hostility to any question or argument that seems to threaten some cherished talking point, evasiveness, paranoia, personal attacks, banning, etc.). I recently commented at TMR for the first time (I was "Brooks"), and it was same bullsh*t, different place (which isn't surprising, since you guys at TMR are RedState regulars (and I'm sure you just love being able to play Moe Lane and "Blam!" and "Ca-Click" people). Here's the thread http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/story/aekowalski/2008/06/26/histori...
yes I knew it was you
and you are certainly right, it WAS the same old bulls**t from when you used to post at RS -- some things (and people) never change.
I actually was HOPING you would still be there by the time I got home -- but, of course, I knew you wouldn't have survived the cut.
you can blame it on the "echo chamber" if you would like. Introspection was not your strong suit.
<a href="http://theminorityreportblog.com">The Minority Report Network</a>
You were hoping that only
You were hoping that only because YOU wanted to be the one to ban me, not because you wished to engage substantively.
Introspection was not your strong suit.
Recognizing irony in your own statements is not yours.
Get out more, David. Leave the safe, insular confines of the right-wing echo chambers and dare to engage in real, rational debate (or, dare I suggest it, discussion) with people coming from a variety of ideological perspectives on a neutral-ground site like this one where you can't get away with the whole circling the wagons routine. It would be good for your personal growth. Scary for you, I know, but try to grow a pair.
you were banned for the same reason
you get banned everywhere you go -- because you engage in endless -- and mindless -- circular arguments.
As I said, I knew it was you -- and I knew that you would NEVER stop your pointless question/non-answer/question/non-answer/question merry-go-round that is every single thread in which you are engaged.
You "KNOW" you are right, and so nothing presented to you sinks in. It is what you did at RedState -- and it is what you do here. You HAVE to get in the last word, and you HAVE to be right.
<a href="http://theminorityreportblog.com">The Minority Report Network</a>
Too bad for you, Hinzy, but
Too bad for you, Hinzy, but people here on SC (with the probable exception of GoRight, who is apparently just a "talking points" hyperpartisan like you -- but with the balls to come here instead of just hanging out in an echo chamber, and perhaps one other person I won't mention) know that I am more than willing to engage in rational discussion/debate and to both ask and respond to questions.
I've been banned on right and left hyperpartisan echo chamber blogs because I the premises and logic underlying some of their cherished talking points, and because people react with hostility, paranoia, evasiveness, and of course, blatant double standards re: conduct (tone, responsiveness, etc.) which are usually used as a pretext for baning.
What I wonder is:
Are you just unable to see when people are being evasive (rather than giving real answers to clear questions) when the responses are coming from your side? In other words, can you see such conduct for what it is when the responses are coming from the other side in response to questions from someone on your side?
Or are you simply not intelligent enough to distinguish a real answer to a question from some response that is irrelevant or a straw man or a non sequitur, and unable to distinguish a legitimate question worthy of an answer from an unworthy question?
I don't expect the correct answer to the above questions to come from you, of course.
All I can say (again) is: Get out more.
last word
<a href="http://theminorityreportblog.com">The Minority Report Network</a>
last word
last word
<a href="http://theminorityreportblog.com">The Minority Report Network</a>
...
Its nice to see that anyone that disagrees or brings a different perspective on TMR is considered a troll. Because different perspectives being broached in discussion are obviously troll like behaviours
Good thing my first post on there is on a topic that I agree with the original poster.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
You may want to keep track of your own words
Your own words make it pretty clear that he was banned because you and yours consider banning to be fun; one of the perks of the job and a power to be relished. That's fine, its your blog, but let's at least be honest about it when you wander outside your home turf.
As The Fonz* would say:
As The Fonz* would say: Exactamundo!
These guys spent a lot of time on RedState watching with envy as power-trip moderator Moe Lane booted anyone who refuted anything Moe said (if the challenger persisted after Moe's replies), and who seemed to have great fun "blamming" anyone. Now they have their own playground where they can start their own pick-up football games and tell anyone new who shows up and shows some skill that he's cheating and can't play anymore, and anyway he sucked (all that in lieu of just trying to outplay him if they thought they could).
And just to be clear, it's the same crap on partisan echo chamber blogs on the left. Very little critical thought and rational debate, and much ideological inbreeding, closing of minds, and outright hostility to anyone who disturbs that pattern.
* Am I dating myself with my reference to The Fonz? I don't know how old you are, but I assume anyone under, say, 35, may not get the reference.
Happy days are here again.
Hard to say if you are dating yourself as I'm just over your age cutoff. Considering that "Jumping the Shark" has entered the vernacular thanks to Happy Days, you should get some extra years on the reference.
The shame is that there is a pretty thorough and useful discussion about the multiple dimensions of Absolutism when it comes to rights that was completely ignored. Specifically that a right can be absolute as far as 'must be protected' vs being absolute in scope. I.e. Freedom of Speech is absolute in that the government can never legitimately pass a law specifically purposed to limit content of speech. At the same time, where the government has another very legitimate purpose (protecting citizens physical well-being from riots) they can pass laws that have an unintended consequence of limiting speech (the common "Yelling fire in a crowded building" example) provided that there is no less onerous and feasible alternative.
Since the highly relevant desire to protect citizens from physical violence (provide for the common defense and all) comes into conflict more often with a right to bear arms (arms designed to cause physical violence) the 2nd amendment conflicts with legitimate government purposes much more often than the others.
Lots of squishy stuff on the 2nd, as laws against stinger missiles really are puposed towards infringing on people's ability to keep and bear arms.
Like I said, an interesting conversation. A shame nobody was willing to actually pick it up and run with it.
Well, if you're 35+, you may
Well, if you're 35+, you may remember All in the Family. I was in a bar a few years ago talking to this much younger girl, and -- don't ask my why or how -- I referenced Archie Bunker. She looked at me quizzically and asked "Who's Archie Bunker?" Yeah, I felt pathetically old at that moment.
A shame nobody was willing to actually pick it up and run with it.
Exactly. And if they had done so, they would have found in me a desire to listen and seriously consider their arguments. And it so happens that I see reasonably good arguments on both sides of the debate over whether or not the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on some way on service in a militia.
As for the absoluteness of the right (whether simply absolute, or absolute for a particular purpose such as self-defense), at least one or two of those jokers seemed to be contradicting themselves, or at least giving some indication of doing so (e.g., stating belief in an absolute right, but seemingly agreeing with Scalia's position that it was NOT absolute), so I asked them about that apparent contradiction. But they have a paranoid streak and/or a fear of having to defend their arguments and position against a real challenge (which they won't get from their fellow hyperpartisans in the echo chamber), so they refused to give straight answers to straight questions. That's par for the course on partisan echo chamber blogs of both right and left.
One note re: your comment on First Amendment. You write:
Freedom of Speech is absolute in that the government can never legitimately pass a law specifically purposed to limit content of speech.
What about laws against seditious speech? I mean, I guess you could say that that conflicts with "another very legitimate government purpose", but couldn't a rationale like that be used quite broadly, such as criminalizing speech advocating (or opposing) a war on grounds that the policy they advocate could harm people or even lead to the defeat of the nation and end of our government? I realize some lines can be drawn, but I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your point that the right to free speech can be absolute except when in conflict with other legitimate governmental purposes.
I guess that it comes down
I guess that it comes down to the use of the right.
ie It is illegal to use firearms to rob a liquor store.
It is illegal to encourage/order others to start riot using speech.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
But is "seditious speech"
But is "seditious speech" necessarily inciting a riot? I guess it arguably is, but is it necessarily? Could there be speech that is considered seditious under the law that could arguably NOT be calling for violent overthrow of the U.S. government?
Also, it occurs to me that many argue that the rational behind the 2nd Amendment is for the people to retain the ability to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical (which is, at least arguably, in the eyes of the beholder) then is there a conflict with laws against seditious speech. That is, if the people have the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms so that they can overthrow the (federal) government if they deem it necessary, then how can laws against seditious speech be constitutional? That's not a rhetorical question; just something that just occurred to me and about which I'm wondering.
(sorry to use the word "arguably" so many times in this comment. Not trying to be weasely, just trying to be precise)
I was dealing with a very
I was dealing with a very narrow topic.
More or less along the lines of explicitly encouraging others to start a riot.
Not allowing "seditious speech" can be a razor's edge to try to enforce. Intent to start a riot should have to be proven in those cases. It definitely shouldn't be a per se violation of the law to use seditious speech in and of itself.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Laws against sedition vs seditious speech
I'm very untrusting of laws against seditious speech as sedition seems to be in the ears of the listener. If you set aside this implementation however, one can certainly argue preventing violent overthrow of the government is an legitimate government purpose. But no, I think that criminalizing speech concerning a war is pretty clearly about the content of the speech as opposed to being narrowly tailored to keep a violent revolution at bay. That speech has other purposes (free exchange of ideas to further the debate) that fall pretty square in the middle of the Freedom of Speech Required for a Democracy to Function domain.
My point on 'absolutism' is that it is axiomatic that Free Speech = Good. No legitimate law can hinge on the idea that free and open exchange of ideas is a bad thing. That does not mean that the level of Good is absolute. "Shoot him" is speech, but the mere fact that speech is being used to coordinate a crime does not remove the evil of the crime.
Freedom of Religion is easier to discuss in some ways. You can't outlaw a specific religion, but just because your religion requires murder in some cases doesn't protect that murder. Yet minor 'crimes', such as certain types of drug use are considered minor enough that they ARE protected (Native American rituals) as the harm caused by the drug use are considered minor enough that they must bow to the strong desire to protect religious activities.
It is a standard Type I vs Type II error issue IMO
No legitimate law can hinge
I can understand why explicitly advocating violent crime could be a legitimate restriction of speech, but what if the speech were advocating overthrow of the government but NOT by violent means -- in other words, NOT by violating any law other than seeking the overthrow of the government (let's say, advocating a general strike until our leaders scrap the U.S. Constitution and draft a new one and submit it for approval via some particular process) ?
Response moved to end Threadjack
Response is Here
ok, I'll go there, but as
ok, I'll go there, but as for "threadjack", there wasn't much of a post, so if it's a threadjack at all, it's of the very minor variety.
Also, the poster is a type of jacker himself, usually in the context of typical partisan echo chamber blog circle jerks.
A real Threadjacking.
Your link inevitably led me to those Young Earth Creationist
that don't understand that their God could have created living things through evolution.
Evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive, those YEC scare me.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
reading comprehension being your poor suit
"'cause we KNOW he was not going to EVER actually ANSWER a question"
Hello! Can you read? Several times he was asked to provide his own thoughts on the subject. He was offered the opportunity to provide HIS thoughts. He chose instead to continue to play games.
"'cause we KNOW he was not going to EVER actually ANSWER a question"
discussion requires a, you know, back and forth -- and Brooksy was NEVER EVER going to engage in any back and forth -- he was going to engage is his normal everyday BS...
But then you knew that.
<a href="http://theminorityreportblog.com">The Minority Report Network</a>
And how exactly do you KNOW
And how exactly do you KNOW that, Hinzy?
Guess what, genius, I planned to do just that. But -- and I know this is the crime of the century -- I actually wanted people to explain to me what seemed to be a flaw in their position (by answering my questions) before having to state my own position on the issue itself and debating MY view. As I asked (rhetorically) on that thread, is it really a requirement that someone state his position on an issue in order to ask questions and receive straight answers from a group of people about the view that they hold?
On liberal econ blogs, people were repeatedly stating or strongly implying that if Social Security were projected to be fully "solvent" forever (an assumption they make, and which I granted them just for the sake of argument, even though it's very much contrarian and dubious), then that would mean that cutting projected Social Security ("SS") spending could not help reduce our overall long-term fiscal imbalance, because -- their argument goes -- if it's fully "solvent", then it's "self-sustaining" or "self-sufficient" and does not have anything to do with overall deficits, and anyway if we already were projecting full, infinite SS solvency, then cutting projected SS spending could only result in ever growing, unnecessarily large SS Trust Fund surpluses rather than possibly helping to reduce overall deficits. I pointed out to them that this argument is nonsensical, as a matter of basic algebra, logic, and the few relevant facts. I was merely offering them a correction of a fundamental conceptual/analytical error they were making, and upon which they were basing their position on an important issue. Many of them refused to respond to the actual point I made and instead demanded to know what exactly I was advocating regarding Social Security policy (and many claiming that I was essentially part of the right-wing conspiracy to kill Social Security, and was being disingenuous). Well, what the heck does whatever policy I advocate have to do with the merits of my conceptual point?
On RedState, I pointed out to people that it is wrong to conclude (particularly via the terribly weak, oversimplistic "analysis" some were applying) that the Bush tax cuts were responsible for increasing revenues. I explained why their "analysis" (for lack of a better word) was clearly inadequate on analytical grounds (e.g., correlation analysis), and I provided numerous quotes of conservative economists, including Bush's own top economists, expressing the oppostive view from that which the RedState folks were firmly contending. Some folks demanded to know if I was advocating tax increases or not. Well, what the heck does that have to do with the merits of my arguments about the likelihood of a particular degree of revenue feedback effect of the Bush tax cuts?
I ask if the view of folks on TMR is that the right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right or not, and if not, what limitations would be considered constitutional and on what basis? Does someone need to know my position to answer that question?
Steven Foley responds, saying:
I then ask Foley:
Why does he need to know MY views on the 2nd Amendment and related policy before answering those questions and explaining why what appears to be a contradiction in his statements is not really a contradiction?
Yet all I get is refusal to answer (that is, to provide real answers, not just filler or irrelevancies or statements that seem to contradict each other with no attempt to reconcile them), and an insistence that I shift instead to stating MY view, and then presumably debating THAT (at BEST, that is, and probably rational debate wouldn't even take place then).
Here's what it comes down to, Hinzy: evasion and paranoia. Someone shows up and asks a tough, legitimate question that seems to challenge your side's position and talking points. You (plural you) feel insecure about your ability to defend your position and arguments if you engage substantively and to a reasonably thorough extent. So you (1) want to find out exactly who this questioner is -- is he possibly one of "us" or is he one of "them", and (2) begin evasive tactics to get away from actually answering these tough questions he's presenting (and one of them is to try to shift the debate to his position on the issue, rather than let him focus on the apparent or at least potential weakness in your argument).
Hinzy, I think if you had $5 on you and we were in a cash-only restaurant with no ATM around, and you told me that you planned to order the $4 burger and a $3 beer and thought you'd have enough cash to cover it, and I told you your math was wrong and tried to explain it to you, you'd refuse to discuss it with me rationally unless and until I told you if I thought you should go on a diet, if I was a vegetarian, etc.
I know no such thing
Having engaged in many detailed discussions with him where we
a) disagreed
and
b) where he has been more than willing to answer relevant questions.
It isn't like the other folks on your board were unwilling to continue the discussion with him, that wasn't the issue.
If you were going to ban him because he was using up bandwidth and stopping meaningful discussion you would have been happy that it was done sooner rather than later. Instead, you expressed disappointment that you didn't get to enjoy the fun of doing it yourself.
Actually, I was sorry to see him ban you
when I came home and saw the thread I thought that he *might* have been a little trigger happy -- but I would not undermine his authority to do so by reversing it.
I would say that a request to be reinstated would probably be accepted.
As to posting regularly over here...I've been here before and lost interest. Between trying to build our own site, post regularly on RedState and other Conservative sites, work a "paying" job and find a publisher for my novel -- while working on a second -- I don't find a lot of time to argue on merry-go-round-type websites. I left RedState for several months for that very reason.
I'll peek in from time to time, but seriously doubt I'll have the time to be a regular jouster.
<a href="http://theminorityreportblog.com">The Minority Report Network</a>
Good luck with the novels
Out of curiosity, what conservative sites besides RS and TMR do you particularly recommend?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Please provide a link to
Please provide a link to that thread. I've been on the receiving end of blatant double standards regarding tone and conduct on partisan blogs of both right and left, and I know first hand that such double standards are often used as pretexts to silence someone chalenging that "side's" talking points, so I want to see for myself what happened in this case. Thanks.
Ask and ye shall receive
The actual banning starts with this final bit
and apparently this comment by one 'Jaded'
is what Steve meant when he said that they 'welcome other views'
Thanks k. I read part of the
Thanks k. I read part of the thread and the banning part and it's fairly clear to me that this banning was typical hyperpartisan bullsh*t, using ridiculously bogus pretexts. Moderator tells a commenter that he's got his facts wrong while simultaneously telling him that the argument is over and he is not allowed to respond further. Moderator tells commenter that his comments were irrelevant to the post, even though they were (from the ones I checked) very much relevant to the broader issue applying to the post on minimum wage -- regulatory/governmental role in helping and protecting people vs. the free market.
Same old, same old. Partisan moderator, banning someone simply (1) because he challenged that partisan group's "talking point" and (2) because he challenged a moderator who didn't want to lose face personally, while inventing a pretext that obviously reflects a double standard (and as usual, it's unclear if the moderator really somehow believes he is applying a single standard or is aware that it is just a pretext).
I see this all too often on both left and right partisan blogs. In fact, it seems to be the norm rather than the exception.
SwordsCrossed is an oasis in a desert of "echo chamber" blogs, the latter comprised of knee-jerk, group-think "circle the wagons" commenters and super-lame moderators who act grossly unfairly for both partisan reasons and just to avoid personal embarrassment, intimidate others from refuting their arguments, and get off on their power to ban.
Well, hopefully the constructive thing to take from this
is that both sides are interested in talking to one another (that was a long discussion at TMR) and that there are venues where that can take place (like here, mostly, or the Forvm) as well as sites more geared towards intra-ideological posting.
We should start up our debates again, now that TMR is getting larger maybe they'd come participate.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Partitioning of argument
You know, something that's always struck me kind of strange is how much emphasis they put on preventing thread drift at Redstate (and TMR seems to take the same stance). I've never really gotten the point.
In the first point it seems like trying to sweep back the tide- futile and a lot of work. Internet conversations are going to drift. Now that may be less that ideal in some cases (by burying the original point) but it can also be positive by allowing the argument to roam off of the original topic into related areas, sometimes even surprisingly related.
It almost seems as if RS want to rigidly keep every issue segregated from all other issues, as if pretending that issues exist in a vacuum, devoid of any connection to a larger tapestry of life.
I don't get it.
I haven't spent much of any time at Kos or DU or any of the bigger lefty blogs. Do any of them do the same thing?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I would say dKos does, although not in a top-down
systematic fashion. It's my impression that users tend to berate people who "threadjack" to stay on topic.
For a medium-size lefty blog that enforces strict on-topic conversation, see TalkLeft. They just delete anything the mods consider off-topic, then they have open threads for random user comments.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson