for being singled out by Leon for a post of mine. I am not.
I am not the most liberal member who posts here although I am usually in the more liberal camp. I have a wide range of opinions, many not toeing party lines.
What I think is disingenuous of you Leon, is that you clip the posts prior to this one, & act as if it was a primary post. It wasn't. It was a follow up of a "fun" post. The diary was linked in a post & I read it. It's CheneysLoveChild post Marine Intelligence Report: Anbar lost for good . Now that isn't a "fun" title, nor is the post "fun", but it does bring some humor along with it. Read it for yourself.
It was preceded by: I thought Bush, Cheney & the rest were oil company (0.00 / 0)
businessman. Why are they running the country like they are CEO's of GM or Ford. I guess we should be thankful they are doing that instead of choosing PanAm or TWA as guideposts.
by: kindness @ Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 09:40:27 AM MDT
[ Reply ]
and:
I would be willing to pay more in taxes... (8.50 / 2)
... to cover their "golden parachutes" if they left office to "spend more time with their families" today.
by: CheneysLoveChild @ Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 09:42:53 AM MDT
[ Parent | Reply
So please Leon, don't get your dander up over this. I don't think we would be better off losing our President or Vice President to hunting "accidents".
But I am curious, don't you have better things to do with your time than having riteous indignation about tongue in cheek posts written on non front page diaries?
I am not your enemy. I may not be Ender's best bud here, but I thought I was in good graces. Sorry you took offense.
to be reminded, but for a single comment that garnered not a single positive response, this is quite the rebuttal. I'd be a bit more concerned about overall rhetoric here, although I'll be the first to admit that I've lost my temper once or twice, as well. Maybe that's the nature of sites that deal with multiple sides of highly controversial topics, but it can get out of hand.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Why is that fun? Why is that acceptable? And it's not just you, and I've never really had a problem with you before that one comment, but it pisses me off the way this "joke" has become mainstream on the left.
Here's the thing; I've now had three friends who were targets of lefty "blogswarms." They received threatening phone calls at work, home, horrible emails, FBI involved. I don't hang with online lefties, so I don't know if they have similar stories. But the point is, some of the people online would make anyone familiar with the blogosphere nervous as hell about some of the the people you encounter on here. When "let's shoot Bush" becomes common, fare, I'd be nervous if I were him. And that ain't cool.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
I'm sorry I came down on kindness so hard; what irritates me is how often I seem to see it these days. And, you have someone who writes it in a book (Sheehan) and she's practically a saint to a lot of people. Why is that okay?
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
but do you have a link to what she said/wrote? Right now, all you've got is a link to someone else's link to someone else's claim that she's admitted to thinking something like this.
But otherwise, I agree: I'm not a fan of death threats from either side of aisle. When I was hanging at dkos more often (my consumption is down lately), we'd troll-rate the hell out of stuff like that.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Why are you getting worked up about Cinday Sheehan. She is hardly an icon of the left.
The right conflates her status to be yet another stereotypical buzzword to get their side riled up.
Like you said both sides have extremists, and you can hunt and pick and get all worked up about it.
Why is okay for Rush LImbaugh, who actually is a saint on the right, to wonder and hope that Katie Couric might get run over by a New York bus? It's not. Or was that just a joke.
Yet Rush is a mover and a shaker for conservatives, offering them guidance, council and coaching on why liberals are destroying America. (Lovely sentiment) It's hard to reach out your hand to someone how accuses half the country of being traitors.
It's hard not to have extreme feelings in both cases. Partisanship is alive and well on BOTH sides of the aisle. Just sayin'
While it would be reasonable to point to this as "This may a reason why conservatives don't post here", there really isn't a fair comparison.
If someone offered to send the President "All the hotdogs he could eat" in reference to his choking incident, that's calling him stupid, not suggesting someone should do the world a favor.
I am curious as to whether your constraining this to politicians was intentional or not. Personally, I find it just as objectionable that someone wish that journalists or any anti-war innocent be put in a situation where they would "realize the error of their ways" in a fatal manner.
You have no reason to do so. I was trying to put my post in perspective.
I recognize that you, quite properly, took offense.
I felt bad & apologized. Please forgive me for some of my tactless humor.
But...part of what was supposed to be humorous, ie - the CEO presidents & whatnot, was that they aren't running the country like the oil executives that I would expect or prefer to see.
Do I wish that Anbar Province is lost to us? God I hope not. But I do think that that will only be able to be judged 10 or 20 years down the road. Right now, the US is the punching bag clown that keeps coming back up. We can't help that till we aren't there to be that clown. Then, they'll focus on themselves & start to work on their problems. If we continue to give advice & fund them, they'll appreciate the US, just like teenagers eventually see the wisdom of their parents and learn to appreciate and enjoy them.
these days to work up a lot of sympathy for the right for any verbiage thrown in its general direction -- whether appropriate or tasteless.
At one time it would have been unthinkable to call the other sides traitors or terrorist sympathizers. A columnist who says she wants to see a major newspaper building blown up would have been instantly fired instead of lauded on the speaking circuit.
But not these days. Outrage over such remarks is usually sneered at or ignored or it brings an admonishment to lighten up. Or you are told that the offending speaker is not to be taken too seriously.
So, if that's the way it's gonna be, then I guess that's the way it'll be.
I forgot about the campaign against the Free Press. The laundry list just goes on and on and on and on.
I guess we are supposed to tip toe around their feelings and delicate sensibilites while they call us anti-American for daring to have a different point of view. It is really a little frightening...... the efforts to silence people.
The issue is hyperbole or, if you prefer, bad taste.
Does everyone conduct themselves in a politically correct, gentlemanly way, or do they resort to exaggeration, character assassination and other rhetorical tricks?
Who decides where to draw the line?
Personally I see two approaches, the first is to let outrageous comments go unanswered. Postings that get no rise out of people fizzle quickly. The problem is that some people get so upset they just have to respond.
The second is to warn people that they are behaving badly. Sometimes this works, especially when people don't realize how others take their remarks.
I feel banning should be a last resort. I found that redstate did it too much and ended up predictable and uninteresting as a result. It is politically pure, however.
Unfortunately most blog software is rather primitive. Other social networks like usenet have much better client tools, so that certain persons, or topics can be automatically filtered out.
Acting moderately when our political leaders are setting a poor example is hard for many bloggers.
right there on the front page. A couple more bannings to do at redstate, if you're serious.
That is, I'm not saying you're not serious, and I do appreciate your commitment to cracking down. This kind of rhetoric is toxic not only because it sinks the level of discourse, but because envisioning your enemy as sub-human is precisely the type of mindset we're both trying to fight in our own ways.
But the internet's a tricky place. People come here to vent and occasionally say stupid things because they're happy to hide under the cloak of anonymity, or because they figure everyone else will appreciate their brand of humor, or because they just want to let off steam in a way they don't intend seriously. And then you get readers who aren't on the same wavelength, and they get put off by those comments - and rightly so, since they're things one wouldn't say in a crowd of people one didn't know.
Eh, I don't know. I'm a fan of just letting someone know when a particular comment is unacceptable. Most people are reasonable, and will apologize and move on. If the user continues, in face of that, to make that sort of comment - then I'd have much less of a problem with more severe measures.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
and I think many liberal blogs are much too slow to pull the trigger, but in my ever-so-humble opinion RS does a pretty lousy job with bannings. They get the trolls, but there are editors at RS who ban when (legitimately) challenged in arguments, who apply grossly inconsistent standards, and who misunderstand and mischaracterize perfectly clear posts and ban based on their warped impression. This isn't true of the majority of the editors by any means but the net result is to allow a few hotheads to weed out posters they simply don't like. I guess it all depends on what you're looking for in a blog, and this approach works much better for a politically unified blog like RS than it would here, but personally I think you sacrifice some of the more thoughtful posters while retaining cheerleaders.
Caveat: I'm not really impartial here =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I'd like to give Leon the benefit of the doubt (really,I would), but it's just not there! This is the usual whinging by the rightwing! It's perfectly okay for popular bloggers or commentators (other than Ann Coulter, let's not forget William Bennet's comments concerning the press, or Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, LGF, and the list goes on and on) on the right to call for the death of journalists and politicians they don't like, to call for their imprisonment for doing their jobs, but someone who does not have a major media outlet (yes,I know it's supposedly in Cindy Sheehan's book, but Leon can't point to it,can he), now that's an outrage!
It's just Bullshit. It's the old "Oh, why can't we all be civil?" crap! And then Leon and co. will just knife us all in the back again when it suits them.
This is the usual whinging by the rightwing! It's perfectly okay for popular bloggers or commentators (other than Ann Coulter, let's not forget William Bennet's comments concerning the press, or Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, LGF, and the list goes on and on) on the right to call for the death of journalists and politicians they don't like
I think I pretty well explained that this is not true.
"Oh, why can't we all be civil?" crap!
I'd settle for less than that, at this point - but I'm starting to sound like a broken record on this reading point.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Between grousing that newspaper publishers, for engaging in potentially treasonous acts, should be punished for treason, and saying that politicians should be assassinated for their policy choices. I hope I don't really have to spell that out.
Nevertheless, I'll agree that the comment skated the line, and I think it was pretty effectively rebutted.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Bill Bennett is on videotape having said it, LGF has more than it's fair share of commenters calling for the deaths of journos and politicos; hell, even this site had Ender calling for the NYT to be tried for treason (but not the WSJ; no,that wouldn't do). And again, the list goes on and on.
Nor should we forget Coulter's remarks about taking out a justice or two. And again, she wasn't alone in that. That particular piece of violence against our institutions of government were met with resounding cheers from the rightwing blogosphere. And not just from the so-called nutjobs. Or do you think statements such as "Five trees,five ropes, five justices; you do the math" are simply from the nutjobs. Because if you do,you should probably stop reading Glenn Reynolds, among others, of the defenders of that particular post.
That I don't support it, which would be enough to answer your objection, if that were your true interest, rather than having another excuse to rant and display your impressive grasp of profanity, combined with your absolute fearlessness to defy the conformity your elementary school teachers tried to stamp upon you.
Keep on Speaking Truth to Power™, brother!
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Your whole post is a rant about supposed incivility; about how terrible it is that someone may have made a tasteless joke. Or meant it. Given that there is no context for what you posted, we have no way of knowing whether it was a joke, or if it was indead heartfelt. And, I'm sure, that if it is indeed considered a threat, the FBI will be by shortly.
As for my impressive grasp of profanity: "There are damn few words in the English language, and I'm going to use every damn one of them."
... that we do owe it to each other to try to ratchet back the rhetoric a bit in the interest of making discussion possible here (where that's possible). And while I think Leon may have perhaps overreacted to the 'joke' in question, I do understand his point and agree with the substance of it.
This cuts both ways, though -- and there's more to it than simply staying away from personal insults, not using profanity, and avoiding jokes involving the deaths of the political opposition.
I, for instance, find it equally objectionable that I've been accused of wishing to give terrorists 'candy, flowers, and hugs' because I am categorically opposed to the use of torture. I find it objectionable that my patriotism has been questioned because I believe that the Iraq War has been terribly mismanaged, and the 'reconstruction' effort has been almost completely inept and was/is riddled with corruption. I find it objectionable that I have been labeled as a Stalinist because I believe that society should have a robust safety net that is funded by taxes.
And I'm not even particularly liberal really -- and I'm certainly not an absolute pacifist. I don't even categorically discount conservatism -- I think it plays an important role (though I must confess I don't really understand the current administration's particular brand of conservatism, which seems in many ways to be antithetical to my understanding of conservatism).
There's room to talk about stuff. We could do that, if we were willing to stop trying to paint each other as stereotypical cartoon characters full time, and actually give each other the benefit of the doubt a little bit...
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
One could say that the large number of meta postings on this site (postings about postings) is an indication that it is not functioning properly as a site for policy debates.
My summary of the meta topic:
1. Some people (primarily libetarians) stick with their positions through thick and thin.
2. This outrages those (primarily liberals) who wonder why their "factual" rebuttals are treated as if they were never said.
3. This, in turn, causes the more passionate to slip into uncivil behavior fueled by frustration.
All of this is because of two underlying flaws in the premise of this site. The first is that those with an authoritarian personality (who tend to be more conservative) are willing to have their beliefs challenged in an open debate.
The second is that true conservatives (as opposed to libertarians) are interested in debating at all. There seem to be few true conservatives in the blogosphere, the most thoughtful tend to work for print publications such as the National Review. Either because of their personalities or the profession they are in they prefer to pontificate rather than debate, thus print or non-interactive forums are their primary choice.
So, the assumption that this could be a place where liberals and conservatives debate the issues seems not to be true. The rapid meltdown of the founders should have been a cautionary sign.
in this day and age. You can find such comments on almost every single blog that allows comments.
I think Leon was pointing out a line of civility.
Copying posts from either right or left leaning blogs isn't necessary because, well, see paragraph 1.
A separate debate could be made about who is worse. Who is worse? Frankly, we don't take the cake to anything. Ever read any overseas blogs? Middle East blogs? They make Redstate, LGF, DKos look like kids play.
I'm less offended by individual posters who put up dumb stuff (including mine), as they are just individual posters. I am much more concerned about Leaders saying outrageous things. That includes journalists, people who think they are media journalists(Rush, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, I am sure the left also has names that could be put in the same category, I'll leave that to our more conservative members), politicians, religious leaders. I say that because they have a standing within their audience. Their words carry weight. In a world this populated, there is always one person of delicate balance that can be thrown over the side to some leaders statements and they will act out what they feel that leader has said.
So, I'm not excusing my own comments, I'm just pointing out my idea of the impact statements can make is also a function of who makes the statement. In that context, I'm a nobody.
I see two sides looking at the same set of facts and coming to wholly different conclusions. Instead of respecting the differences, disagreement is seen as un-American. IN light of the fact that we just passed another anniversary of terrorist attacks, emotions, tensions are running high.
It seems strangely ironic that the war on terror is framed as a war of ideology (the evils of islam), and wrong thinking is not to be tolerated. Therefore those that are wrong thinking, ie liberals, are morphed into the "enemy".
Exagerating the threats to our country has being entrenched in fundamentalist idealogies, then associating that with Islam and also Democrats or liberals. There is a segment of our society that is vested in the thought that we must defeat evil, that evil is a way of thinking wrongly about the threats to our country....... and that includes democrats and liberals who are thinking wrongly about the threats to our country. The hatred and passion that comes out against this enemy, might in fact be misplaced when it is set squarely on the shoulders of "liberals".
We have seen republicans associating terrorists and democrats in political campaigns, merging the face of people that attacked this country with the face of people running for office in this country. I think this is very unhealthy. The price we pay for this kind of politicization is way too high.
Doesn't it come down to an issue of respect.
Like the pro-choice debate. It is very difficult to reach common ground, when one side chooses to respect the life of the mother, and the other side choses to respect the growth of an embroyo.
One side sees it as individual liberty and the other sides sees it as the haulocast. The war on terror, Iraq and 9/11 are being politically bludgeoned for partisan gain, in much the same way. We pay a price for this purposeful division of the people in our country.
... or anyone else for that matter, come to some kind of physical harm is not funny. Not in the slightest.
Making fun of Cheney's hunting prowess (or lack thereof) is fai game, but applying that to a president (even a president I think is a complete numbskull), is not humorous to me.
On the other hand, I find Leon's claim of insult somehwat humorous given some of the tuly awful things I have heard and seen written about Clinton on conservative sites. I always have to laugh when Republicans scream about "Bush hatred" given the level of vitriol directed at Clinton for more than a decade now. Talk about not being able to let go...
On a related subject, I also think that politicians' kids should be free from attack, as well. I've had a number of arguments with fellow liberals about insulting the Bush twins. As I've pointed out numerous times, thank god my old man wasn't a pol, because some of the crap I pulled when I was younger was not pretty.
I'm not saying their conduct, when egregious, deserves a pass, but the kinds of scathing attacks I have read about them from time to time are unjustified. I felt the same way when Rush Limbaugh, in his particularly nasty way, mocked the appearance of Chelsea Clinton. He just proved what an ass he was with that crap.
My two cents...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Comments :
Excellent post!
I would like to be able to say I am honored
for being singled out by Leon for a post of mine. I am not.
I am not the most liberal member who posts here although I am usually in the more liberal camp. I have a wide range of opinions, many not toeing party lines.
What I think is disingenuous of you Leon, is that you clip the posts prior to this one, & act as if it was a primary post. It wasn't. It was a follow up of a "fun" post. The diary was linked in a post & I read it. It's CheneysLoveChild post Marine Intelligence Report: Anbar lost for good
. Now that isn't a "fun" title, nor is the post "fun", but it does bring some humor along with it. Read it for yourself.
It was preceded by:
I thought Bush, Cheney & the rest were oil company (0.00 / 0)
businessman. Why are they running the country like they are CEO's of GM or Ford. I guess we should be thankful they are doing that instead of choosing PanAm or TWA as guideposts.
by: kindness @ Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 09:40:27 AM MDT
[ Reply ]
and:
I would be willing to pay more in taxes... (8.50 / 2)
... to cover their "golden parachutes" if they left office to "spend more time with their families" today.
by: CheneysLoveChild @ Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 09:42:53 AM MDT
[ Parent | Reply
So please Leon, don't get your dander up over this. I don't think we would be better off losing our President or Vice President to hunting "accidents".
But I am curious, don't you have better things to do with your time than having riteous indignation about tongue in cheek posts written on non front page diaries?
I am not your enemy. I may not be Ender's best bud here, but I thought I was in good graces. Sorry you took offense.
I suppose it's good
to be reminded, but for a single comment that garnered not a single positive response, this is quite the rebuttal. I'd be a bit more concerned about overall rhetoric here, although I'll be the first to admit that I've lost my temper once or twice, as well. Maybe that's the nature of sites that deal with multiple sides of highly controversial topics, but it can get out of hand.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Okay
Why is that fun? Why is that acceptable? And it's not just you, and I've never really had a problem with you before that one comment, but it pisses me off the way this "joke" has become mainstream on the left.
Here's the thing; I've now had three friends who were targets of lefty "blogswarms." They received threatening phone calls at work, home, horrible emails, FBI involved. I don't hang with online lefties, so I don't know if they have similar stories. But the point is, some of the people online would make anyone familiar with the blogosphere nervous as hell about some of the the people you encounter on here. When "let's shoot Bush" becomes common, fare, I'd be nervous if I were him. And that ain't cool.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Okay, fine
I'm sorry I came down on kindness so hard; what irritates me is how often I seem to see it these days. And, you have someone who writes it in a book (Sheehan) and she's practically a saint to a lot of people. Why is that okay?
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Mainstream?
How is that Mainstream?
It's not,
but do you have a link to what she said/wrote? Right now, all you've got is a link to someone else's link to someone else's claim that she's admitted to thinking something like this.
But otherwise, I agree: I'm not a fan of death threats from either side of aisle. When I was hanging at dkos more often (my consumption is down lately), we'd troll-rate the hell out of stuff like that.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
It's not okay
Why are you getting worked up about Cinday Sheehan. She is hardly an icon of the left.
The right conflates her status to be yet another stereotypical buzzword to get their side riled up.
Like you said both sides have extremists, and you can hunt and pick and get all worked up about it.
Why is okay for Rush LImbaugh, who actually is a saint on the right, to wonder and hope that Katie Couric might get run over by a New York bus? It's not. Or was that just a joke.
Russ goes after Katie Couric
Yet Rush is a mover and a shaker for conservatives, offering them guidance, council and coaching on why liberals are destroying America. (Lovely sentiment) It's hard to reach out your hand to someone how accuses half the country of being traitors.
It's hard not to have extreme feelings in both cases. Partisanship is alive and well on BOTH sides of the aisle. Just sayin'
I'm only half stupid
It's in her book
So, unless there's an online copy of it, I can't help you further - there's this
and this 
.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
I don't see the relationship
While it would be reasonable to point to this as "This may a reason why conservatives don't post here", there really isn't a fair comparison.
If someone offered to send the President "All the hotdogs he could eat" in reference to his choking incident, that's calling him stupid, not suggesting someone should do the world a favor.
I am curious as to whether your constraining this to politicians was intentional or not. Personally, I find it just as objectionable that someone wish that journalists or any anti-war innocent be put in a situation where they would "realize the error of their ways" in a fatal manner.
I wasn't asking you to apologize Leon.
You have no reason to do so. I was trying to put my post in perspective.
I recognize that you, quite properly, took offense.
I felt bad & apologized. Please forgive me for some of my tactless humor.
But...part of what was supposed to be humorous, ie - the CEO presidents & whatnot, was that they aren't running the country like the oil executives that I would expect or prefer to see.
Do I wish that Anbar Province is lost to us? God I hope not. But I do think that that will only be able to be judged 10 or 20 years down the road. Right now, the US is the punching bag clown that keeps coming back up. We can't help that till we aren't there to be that clown. Then, they'll focus on themselves & start to work on their problems. If we continue to give advice & fund them, they'll appreciate the US, just like teenagers eventually see the wisdom of their parents and learn to appreciate and enjoy them.
You know, it's mighty hard
these days to work up a lot of sympathy for the right for any verbiage thrown in its general direction -- whether appropriate or tasteless.
At one time it would have been unthinkable to call the other sides traitors or terrorist sympathizers. A columnist who says she wants to see a major newspaper building blown up would have been instantly fired instead of lauded on the speaking circuit.
But not these days. Outrage over such remarks is usually sneered at or ignored or it brings an admonishment to lighten up. Or you are told that the offending speaker is not to be taken too seriously.
So, if that's the way it's gonna be, then I guess that's the way it'll be.
qui tacet consentire
Good point
I forgot about the campaign against the Free Press. The laundry list just goes on and on and on and on.
I guess we are supposed to tip toe around their feelings and delicate sensibilites while they call us anti-American for daring to have a different point of view. It is really a little frightening...... the efforts to silence people.
I'm only half stupid
Hyperbole
The issue is hyperbole or, if you prefer, bad taste.
Does everyone conduct themselves in a politically correct, gentlemanly way, or do they resort to exaggeration, character assassination and other rhetorical tricks?
Who decides where to draw the line?
Personally I see two approaches, the first is to let outrageous comments go unanswered. Postings that get no rise out of people fizzle quickly. The problem is that some people get so upset they just have to respond.
The second is to warn people that they are behaving badly. Sometimes this works, especially when people don't realize how others take their remarks.
I feel banning should be a last resort. I found that redstate did it too much and ended up predictable and uninteresting as a result. It is politically pure, however.
Unfortunately most blog software is rather primitive. Other social networks like usenet have much better client tools, so that certain persons, or topics can be automatically filtered out.
Acting moderately when our political leaders are setting a poor example is hard for many bloggers.
--- Policies not Politics
Didn't even have to dig:
right there on the front page. A couple more bannings
to do at redstate, if you're serious.
That is, I'm not saying you're not serious, and I do appreciate your commitment to cracking down. This kind of rhetoric is toxic not only because it sinks the level of discourse, but because envisioning your enemy as sub-human is precisely the type of mindset we're both trying to fight in our own ways.
But the internet's a tricky place. People come here to vent and occasionally say stupid things because they're happy to hide under the cloak of anonymity, or because they figure everyone else will appreciate their brand of humor, or because they just want to let off steam in a way they don't intend seriously. And then you get readers who aren't on the same wavelength, and they get put off by those comments - and rightly so, since they're things one wouldn't say in a crowd of people one didn't know.
Eh, I don't know. I'm a fan of just letting someone know when a particular comment is unacceptable. Most people are reasonable, and will apologize and move on. If the user continues, in face of that, to make that sort of comment - then I'd have much less of a problem with more severe measures.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Banning is sometimes necessary
and I think many liberal blogs are much too slow to pull the trigger, but in my ever-so-humble opinion RS does a pretty lousy job with bannings. They get the trolls, but there are editors at RS who ban when (legitimately) challenged in arguments, who apply grossly inconsistent standards, and who misunderstand and mischaracterize perfectly clear posts and ban based on their warped impression. This isn't true of the majority of the editors by any means but the net result is to allow a few hotheads to weed out posters they simply don't like. I guess it all depends on what you're looking for in a blog, and this approach works much better for a politically unified blog like RS than it would here, but personally I think you sacrifice some of the more thoughtful posters while retaining cheerleaders.
Caveat: I'm not really impartial here =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
SSDD!
I'd like to give Leon the benefit of the doubt (really,I would), but it's just not there! This is the usual whinging by the rightwing! It's perfectly okay for popular bloggers or commentators (other than Ann Coulter, let's not forget William Bennet's comments concerning the press, or Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, LGF, and the list goes on and on) on the right to call for the death of journalists and politicians they don't like, to call for their imprisonment for doing their jobs, but someone who does not have a major media outlet (yes,I know it's supposedly in Cindy Sheehan's book, but Leon can't point to it,can he), now that's an outrage!
It's just Bullshit. It's the old "Oh, why can't we all be civil?" crap! And then Leon and co. will just knife us all in the back again when it suits them.
"Lefty blogswarms?"
Is this another strawman? Can you talk more about this--because it seems like you are generalizing the Left, which is not fair.
Eh
You've been here long enough to understand how this works. Consider this an official warning. Thanks.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
To expand
Please watch the profanity and try to be reasonably civil to fellow posters, as you've already been warned
to do before. Thanks.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
It is indeed SSDD
This is the usual whinging by the rightwing! It's perfectly okay for popular bloggers or commentators (other than Ann Coulter, let's not forget William Bennet's comments concerning the press, or Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, LGF, and the list goes on and on) on the right to call for the death of journalists and politicians they don't like
I think I pretty well explained that this is not true.
"Oh, why can't we all be civil?" crap!
I'd settle for less than that, at this point - but I'm starting to sound like a broken record on this reading point.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
There's a qualitiative difference
Between grousing that newspaper publishers, for engaging in potentially treasonous acts, should be punished for treason, and saying that politicians should be assassinated for their policy choices. I hope I don't really have to spell that out.
Nevertheless, I'll agree that the comment skated the line, and I think it was pretty effectively rebutted.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
You haven't explained anything.
Bill Bennett is on videotape having said it, LGF has more than it's fair share of commenters calling for the deaths of journos and politicos; hell, even this site had Ender calling for the NYT to be tried for treason (but not the WSJ; no,that wouldn't do). And again, the list goes on and on.
Nor should we forget Coulter's remarks about taking out a justice or two. And again, she wasn't alone in that. That particular piece of violence against our institutions of government were met with resounding cheers from the rightwing blogosphere. And not just from the so-called nutjobs. Or do you think statements such as "Five trees,five ropes, five justices; you do the math" are simply from the nutjobs. Because if you do,you should probably stop reading Glenn Reynolds, among others, of the defenders of that particular post.
I think I've explained
That I don't support it, which would be enough to answer your objection, if that were your true interest, rather than having another excuse to rant and display your impressive grasp of profanity, combined with your absolute fearlessness to defy the conformity your elementary school teachers tried to stamp upon you.
Keep on Speaking Truth to Power™, brother!
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Pot, meet Kettle...
Your whole post is a rant about supposed incivility; about how terrible it is that someone may have made a tasteless joke. Or meant it. Given that there is no context for what you posted, we have no way of knowing whether it was a joke, or if it was indead heartfelt. And, I'm sure, that if it is indeed considered a threat, the FBI will be by shortly.
As for my impressive grasp of profanity: "There are damn few words in the English language, and I'm going to use every damn one of them."
We're going to have to have to agree
on that, then, because what you consider a qualitative difference, I consider pretty morally bankrupt either way.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I think...
... that we do owe it to each other to try to ratchet back the rhetoric a bit in the interest of making discussion possible here (where that's possible). And while I think Leon may have perhaps overreacted to the 'joke' in question, I do understand his point and agree with the substance of it.
This cuts both ways, though -- and there's more to it than simply staying away from personal insults, not using profanity, and avoiding jokes involving the deaths of the political opposition.
I, for instance, find it equally objectionable that I've been accused of wishing to give terrorists 'candy, flowers, and hugs' because I am categorically opposed to the use of torture. I find it objectionable that my patriotism has been questioned because I believe that the Iraq War has been terribly mismanaged, and the 'reconstruction' effort has been almost completely inept and was/is riddled with corruption. I find it objectionable that I have been labeled as a Stalinist because I believe that society should have a robust safety net that is funded by taxes.
And I'm not even particularly liberal really -- and I'm certainly not an absolute pacifist. I don't even categorically discount conservatism -- I think it plays an important role (though I must confess I don't really understand the current administration's particular brand of conservatism, which seems in many ways to be antithetical to my understanding of conservatism).
There's room to talk about stuff. We could do that, if we were willing to stop trying to paint each other as stereotypical cartoon characters full time, and actually give each other the benefit of the doubt a little bit...
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
meta
One could say that the large number of meta postings on this site (postings about postings) is an indication that it is not functioning properly as a site for policy debates.
My summary of the meta topic:
1. Some people (primarily libetarians) stick with their positions through thick and thin.
2. This outrages those (primarily liberals) who wonder why their "factual" rebuttals are treated as if they were never said.
3. This, in turn, causes the more passionate to slip into uncivil behavior fueled by frustration.
All of this is because of two underlying flaws in the premise of this site. The first is that those with an authoritarian personality (who tend to be more conservative) are willing to have their beliefs challenged in an open debate.
The second is that true conservatives (as opposed to libertarians) are interested in debating at all. There seem to be few true conservatives in the blogosphere, the most thoughtful tend to work for print publications such as the National Review. Either because of their personalities or the profession they are in they prefer to pontificate rather than debate, thus print or non-interactive forums are their primary choice.
So, the assumption that this could be a place where liberals and conservatives debate the issues seems not to be true. The rapid meltdown of the founders should have been a cautionary sign.
--- Policies not Politics
Pulling outrageous posts from blogs is easy
in this day and age. You can find such comments on almost every single blog that allows comments.
I think Leon was pointing out a line of civility.
Copying posts from either right or left leaning blogs isn't necessary because, well, see paragraph 1.
A separate debate could be made about who is worse. Who is worse? Frankly, we don't take the cake to anything. Ever read any overseas blogs? Middle East blogs? They make Redstate, LGF, DKos look like kids play.
I'm less offended by individual posters who put up dumb stuff (including mine), as they are just individual posters. I am much more concerned about Leaders saying outrageous things. That includes journalists, people who think they are media journalists(Rush, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, I am sure the left also has names that could be put in the same category, I'll leave that to our more conservative members), politicians, religious leaders. I say that because they have a standing within their audience. Their words carry weight. In a world this populated, there is always one person of delicate balance that can be thrown over the side to some leaders statements and they will act out what they feel that leader has said.
So, I'm not excusing my own comments, I'm just pointing out my idea of the impact statements can make is also a function of who makes the statement. In that context, I'm a nobody.
Since I wasn't here then
what happened? And precipitated the meltdown.
I see two sides looking at the same set of facts and coming to wholly different conclusions. Instead of respecting the differences, disagreement is seen as un-American. IN light of the fact that we just passed another anniversary of terrorist attacks, emotions, tensions are running high.
It seems strangely ironic that the war on terror is framed as a war of ideology (the evils of islam), and wrong thinking is not to be tolerated. Therefore those that are wrong thinking, ie liberals, are morphed into the "enemy".
Exagerating the threats to our country has being entrenched in fundamentalist idealogies, then associating that with Islam and also Democrats or liberals. There is a segment of our society that is vested in the thought that we must defeat evil, that evil is a way of thinking wrongly about the threats to our country....... and that includes democrats and liberals who are thinking wrongly about the threats to our country. The hatred and passion that comes out against this enemy, might in fact be misplaced when it is set squarely on the shoulders of "liberals".
We have seen republicans associating terrorists and democrats in political campaigns, merging the face of people that attacked this country with the face of people running for office in this country. I think this is very unhealthy. The price we pay for this kind of politicization is way too high.
Doesn't it come down to an issue of respect.
Like the pro-choice debate. It is very difficult to reach common ground, when one side chooses to respect the life of the mother, and the other side choses to respect the growth of an embroyo.
One side sees it as individual liberty and the other sides sees it as the haulocast. The war on terror, Iraq and 9/11 are being politically bludgeoned for partisan gain, in much the same way. We pay a price for this purposeful division of the people in our country.
I hope it changes soon.
I'm only half stupid
Personally, I think suggesting or inferring that Bush
... or anyone else for that matter, come to some kind of physical harm is not funny. Not in the slightest.
Making fun of Cheney's hunting prowess (or lack thereof) is fai game, but applying that to a president (even a president I think is a complete numbskull), is not humorous to me.
On the other hand, I find Leon's claim of insult somehwat humorous given some of the tuly awful things I have heard and seen written about Clinton on conservative sites. I always have to laugh when Republicans scream about "Bush hatred" given the level of vitriol directed at Clinton for more than a decade now. Talk about not being able to let go...
On a related subject, I also think that politicians' kids should be free from attack, as well. I've had a number of arguments with fellow liberals about insulting the Bush twins. As I've pointed out numerous times, thank god my old man wasn't a pol, because some of the crap I pulled when I was younger was not pretty.
I'm not saying their conduct, when egregious, deserves a pass, but the kinds of scathing attacks I have read about them from time to time are unjustified. I felt the same way when Rush Limbaugh, in his particularly nasty way, mocked the appearance of Chelsea Clinton. He just proved what an ass he was with that crap.
My two cents...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?