Apparently, DNC stands for “Do Not Comment”. I visited the Democratic National Committee website, and proceeded to check out their blog page, Kicking Ass . I read a short blurb regarding the Halliburton story, and then I registered on the blog and posted a comment to the effect that Halliburton could use Cheney back at the helm. My posted comment elicited this somewhat unrelated response:
When Cheney went to work at Halliburton, it is reported they had about 4 off shore accounts. When he left, they had 44. Two, with the joblessness, what are our troops going to do for jobs when they return home. Thirdly, last night we heard the doctors in Iraq are furious because after all these months the hospitals there still don’t have antibiotics.
Posted by Don and verna withrow :: 12/16/03 04:37 PM
I posted a second response comment, very lucid, no ranting or profanity. Immediately following my second comment, a new poster who identified himself as a Democrat opined that if the Dems could merely offer up a candidate with a credible National Security agenda, he would happily vote for him/her. As of 8 o’clock this evening, both of my comments have been deleted from the blog and my login has been disabled. They even pulled the comment from the registered Democrat in search of a viable candidate. This is their idea of tolerance, inclusion, The Party of the People. They should be selling some nice brownshirts at the DNC online giftshop.
I witnessed this strange episode. The powers that be don’t seem to mind conspiracy theories or wild rants, as long as these are directed against Republicans. But a calm and thoughtful presentation of opposing ideas, this they do not tolerate. Whoever administers the DNC blog is not helping the Democratic cause by this kind of behavior.
Andy, this is good news. It means that they are living in a fantasy world of groupthink, not even open to rational and constructive criticism. Darwinian selection will necessarily destroy anyone who tries to function like that. Good. This generation of Democrats is setting itself for a crushing defeat by living in an ideological delusion instead of reality.
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of guys.
I’ve had that very experience at a number of leftist blogs. You type something that challenges preconceived notions and which they can’t refute, then bam. You can’t post and your very posts have vanished. Stalinists.
Seems to be the G.W. campaign website blog doesn’t accept comments at all? I reckon he doesn’t require any input from voters being all knowing.
The RNC doesn’t seem to have a blog.
Minus points for everyone!
Even Brad DeLong bans/deletes dissent on his blog.
Sicko, foul-mouthed anti-GOP rants are fine, but I have seen very polite, tightly reasoned pro-Bush comments and commenters flushed into the memory hole.
Couple this with Dean’s “bush knew” imply, Albright’s “they’ve got Osama in a meatlocker” and the general paranoia that have sent bloggers like Jorne Barger into a Bush sabbatical and you’ve got to wonder if this is healthy for our country, having so many raving lunatics running around. This helps W win, but I feel badly for the old school Democrats. It’s going to take a decade or two to repair from this madness.
Well, Yankinlondon, I think minus only half a point for the GOP. It is one thing to not have comments, maybe that can be criticized. But it is much worse to have them but not tolerate any actual … commentary.
Incidentally, I recently deleted a couple of comments on this site. They were simply insults which offered no basis for discussion or response. When I see that, off it goes. Someone can be critical and even harshly so, but mere insults won’t be tolerated.
Lex, you’re a jerk! (testing deletionability)
Lex, your last point is well taken. I should emphasize that Andy’s comments on the DNC blog were civil, rational, impersonal and made in a spirit of well-intentioned give and take. IOW they were the antithesis of the comments that you deleted from our blog.
Scott, I will leave yours on as a demonstration of my extraordinary forbearance.
Jonathan. Yes, exactly. Andy’s comments on the DNC site were exactly the kind of thinge we WANT to see on here.
It’s interesting to note that, historically, the Democrats have recovered from being marched off a cliff in a Presidential election at the very next election — see ’72-’76 and ’88-’92. The DNC editor who’s deleting reasonable dissent may be inadvertently acting to herd all the nutjobs into one conceptual feedlot, where they may be metaphorically slaughtered in ’04, thereby allowing a recovery of sanity in ’05-’07.
Oh, and I’ll delete non-constructively critical comments on my posts so fast it will make your head spin. Metaphorically, that is.
Jay,
Dick Morris has another take on the recent history of the Democrats and what it implies for their electoral prospects.
The left in America periodically has explosions of rage in the Democratic primary process the way Republicans every so often have anti-foreigner blow outs.
The problem is that this time the Internet let the leftists realize they’re primary potential far sooner and faster than historically. That and the fact the Democrats have been out of power in the House for more than 10 years and effectively that long in the Senate due too filibuster means there is no “Democratic Establishment” to get a good candidate — a governor of a mid-size to large state — to go out and “Take one for the party” facing an incumbent wartime President.
So there is no alternative creditable liberal candidate like Tsonges (sp?) or Dukakus (sp?) to head off a leftist take over.
The problem this time out is that we are at war and the Democrats are going to pollute their brand name with the taint of treason ala the post Civil War era without any functioning, self-financing, independent party structure to rebuild with.
This problem means the South is lost to Democrats on the Federal level for a generation. I would rate the Republicans picking up four of the five open Southern Democratic Senate seats at 75% because of their “Patriotism Deficit.”
Jonathan,
Morris is right about the marginalization. But Clinton/Gore ‘centrism’ was always strategic, not sincere. And Dole & Kemp were mushy in ’96. (Remember Kemp accepting Gore’s compliment: ‘You’re not a Klansman like the rest of your party’?)They were no match for two shameless liars.
Noel,
Morris is excellent on tactical politics but has a tin ear for ideology. I read him for the politics and ignore the nonsense about Clinton’s supposed great ideas, centrism, etc.
we don’t delete posts here; rant all you want.
It’s sad. It’s lame. But I’m thankful you tried. Although I must admit I’m not surprised anymore. I’m actually amazed at how intolerant, religious – in the pejorative, zealot sense – and condescending modern leftists have become. Few of them are used to argue their ideas based on facts and reason. They rarely get over the shock of your even disagreeing with any bit of their faith. In so many ways, they have become the bad, mean, angry conservatives they so despise.
I recently tried to make a list of leftists I have respect for. Turns out most of them are either dead, or have taken great distances with the beliefs of their youth. Most of the dead ones put their feet where their mouth was and fought Franco in Spain, or some other fascist power, including communist ones when the people they supported proved them wrong. Not your average braindead volunteer human shield. They showed intelligence, and courage. Their passion did result in blindness, sometimes with terrible consequences.
Unfortunately, their contemporary counterparts show all their quirks, faults and vices, with none of their redeeming qualities. Since the latter usually involve physical courage and admitting one is wrong, it is no surprise.
I must admit I can still handle leftists every now and then, or even enjoy their presence. As long as they’re young, female, beautiful, witty, and prone to long, meandering, open-minded, calm discussions over the perfect pint of Guinness. (Hi Jane…)
And if they’re absolute pacifists, as long as they’ve learned their beliefs and earned their scars in the mud of Vietnam or some other forsaken battlefield, dealing with the unspeakable evils of the real thing on a daily basis. I can respect those too and learn something in their rare presence.
As for the rest of them, they’re mostly noise. Kicking their own Ass and shooting their own feet.
Lack of a comment feature could very well mean lack of a desire to police the loonies posting nonsense. For that matter, it could mean a lack of desire to open oneself to criticism for censorship. Seems to me the press would jump all over the RNC if they deleted anything, while the DNC is getting a free pass. No suprises there, eh?
You can go to the Anti-Idiotarian Rotweiller (www.nicedoggie.net) and scream and rant for either side without being deleted, although it’s unabashedly right-wing. But try going to Democratic Underground and doing the same…sane debate and links to back yourself up earns the “ban hammer.”
Sorry to say, but it isn’t just liberal websites.
I am a hardcore conservative; I even worked for G.W. Bush in connection with the 2000 Florida issues (not to make too much of it: I worked in a purely volunteer capacity).
Nonetheless, I was banned on Lucianne.com.
I posted there regularly; two or three times a day. No profanity. Some dissenting opinions, (particularly on legal issues), but no rants, no hate. I even emailed back and forth a couple of times with Lucianne herself (or someone who signed her emails Lucianne), commending them on their 9/11 coverage.
That’s pretty lame, just like your experience with the DNC site.
I had the same experience at meta-filter. One evening on 2 different threads, I posted – using different prose, different words, style, emphasis, etc. – that the American left wing was on the wrong side of history.
The next day my metafilter account of 3 years in good-standing was revoked. I e-mailed the site manager who replied that he had received complaints that I had spammed the board. I protested politely. No mercy. I am banned on metafilter.
This is especially insulting given metafilter’s tolerance of gutter language and conspiracy theories presented as fact by leftists.
Yet I’m strangely at peace, for like you, I see all of this as a sign of democrat decay.
On that note: Go Dean!
In a volunteer, career Army, the troops don’t have to worry about finding jobs when they return. They have jobs. They’re in the Armed Forces.
“It’s interesting to note that, historically, the Democrats have recovered from being marched off a cliff in a Presidential election at the very next election — see ’72-’76 and ’88-’92.”
Jay, this seems to not hold up when you include the ’84 election.
I’ve attempted to post a couple of times in Dean’s blog – with no luck. I ask what’s going on with Dean’s refusal to open his records, while demanding that GWB open all his – and get deleted. I get on a thread where people are complaining about trolls, and mention that the trolls are actually bringing up subjects that need to be addressed in Dean’s platform in order for him to stay viable – and that post disappears.
Deviate from the orthodoxy, and you become an ‘unperson’. So much for the party of inclusion – you can do anything you want except question the party. As it is, I think they’re setting themselves up to become as relevant in future elections as the Whigs are today.
http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/whig.html
I have had the same problem at the Kicking Ass blog. Back when the so-called Plame-gate was hot news I implied it was all being blown out of proportion. My account was deleted and the post was deleted.
I used to contribute to the Daily Probe, a left-leaning humor website (which might be about to go dark, more’s the pity.) They gladly accepted all my poo jokes, masturbation gags, and all, but every political jape (from the right) was treated with puzzlement and then contempt. (The final straw was my frequent references to that hero of song and story, “Mumia, the doe-eyed cop killer.”) Meanwhile, their weekly reliance on “Bush so stupid, looks like a chimp, mangled a word” gags distressed me so much that I contacted the owner and let him know how un-funny and juvenile the site was becoming.
For my troubles, I was subjected to escalating abuse and finally barred from the publication.
I realize that The Probe would never become as big as The Onion, but the saddest part, to me, is that they were never even interested in trying. They’re doing the same thing with the campaign. Their response to the utter humiliation of the Gore campaign seems to be to ratchet up the Gore-like tactics: contempt for the sheeple, the pretense that they’re the only alternative to an evil Right wing, etc. etc. The very definition of insanity.
Seems to me the ideology police are their most active when the ideology is most suspect; e.g., the Dems are about to collectively drink the Dean koolaid, and intuitively they know something is just not quite right. But, instead of reversing course, they press on with greater effort, hoping their enthusiasim suppresses their doubts, and stifling the dissenters for fear of exposure. It’s sorta like the “Emperor Has No Clothes” fable, except in this case they delete the truth teller’s comments.
Hypocritical? Sure. Anti-democratic? Absolutely. Perfectly human? Yep, that too. But as a lifelong Republican who’se never voted for a Democrat (and very unlikely ever will), I have to confess I hope this Democrat-stoked Bush-hatred burns itself out, like a virus. I fear this polarization (and it wasn’t much better when Clinton was president) isn’t very good for the civility of our democratic process.
Banned at Atrios and Hesiod…merely for expressing a centrist, logical and dispassionate view. Shouted down by the denizens and then ISP banned. What’s new?
Democrats.org is a GOP front to make the Dems look silly
Kickin’ Ass isn’t the only so-called open-minded and progressive site that will not tolerate open discusions. Check out this message from the dailyKOS (Markos Moulitsas Zuniga) sent to me earlier this week.
Original Message
From: “Markos Moulitsas”
To:
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 11:39 PM
Subject: You’ve been banned
> So no need to create another account. It’s easy for me to wipe out any
> comments you make and ban you again, so I’d rather save you the time.
>
> Might I recommend:
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com
>
> That’s where your ilk hang out.
>
> My site is for progressives, and you obviously don’t qualify. Thanks,
>
> kos
>
Same thing happened to me on the Daily Kos. Make a conservative comment, get banned.
I, too, have been kicked off the dailyKOS. I was baffled as I was civil and temperate in my posting which was to refute one of the wilder theories posted by a fantical Deanie (and there are some very wild ones).
It’s obvious that dailyKOS is meant only as a Greek chorus site and has no interest in discussing and debating a particular issue.
Such hypocrisy. It reminds me of my graduate days up in Boulder, Colorado where you were invited to participate in classroom discussions IF you toed the liberal line.
Guys, thanks for posting this comment.
I, too, have been banned from the dailyKOS – an epidemic.
Jonathan in his initial posting above hit the nail on the head:
“The powers that be don’t seem to mind conspiracy theories or wild rants, as long as these are directed against Republicans. But a calm and thoughtful presentation of opposing ideas, this they do not tolerate.”
Kudos on your posting and your great blog which I have been introduced to, as of today, via the great one’s blog.
No one will ever be banned or have comments deleted on my blog based merely on the content of their opinion. There are exactly 2 situations in which I have deleted comments. One was a comment that consisted in its entirety of the words “fuck you”, and the other is comment spamming.
But if you review the blog my husband and I maintain (Haight Speech), you will see that there is a good deal of vitriol, dissent, and just plain bad English in the comments, particularly on issues like giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. :)
Not to defend Kos, Atrios, et al, since I don’t agree with them politically, but one point needs to be made: these are THEIR sites, and they may run them as they wish. If they wish to ban those who disagree with them, that’s their right. It’s a pity that they’re so close-minded as to remove the one thing that will force them to think, examine and consider what they believe, that is, constructive criticism. That would only improve their writing and help them in the long run. But if they don’t want that, fine.
I suspect most here would agree — they can run their sites as they wish, thought it’s a pity they can’t tolerate dissent. It does cause one to consider that they aren’t as open-minded, tolerant and respectful of dissent as they claim.
I’d try to put in an opposing view-point to see if I got banned here…but I’ve never actually posted at DNC, Kos, Atrios, DU, etc. – so I don’t have any experience to draw from.
So has anyone here made a Right-wing screed at one of these sites and NOT gotten banned? Might be good to have a list of Lefty sites that are actually interesting in debating the issues.
But then, they wouldn’t really be Lefty anymore, would they? Oh well.
For fun you guys should look up the term “Cognitive Dissonance” – it’s a well understood psychological problem.
Let me get this straight … You’re upset because a Democrat Party web site interested in promoting the platform and candidates of Democrats, pulls postings that contradict these overt goals? Are y’all high?
Would you expect Pepsi to argue the merits of Coke? You don’t go to the DNC web page looking for debate any more than you would go to the RNC site. Grow up people.
A new policy over at dailyKOS – “It is clear that our nominee will be either Dean or Clark. No one else has a shot. Therefore, I will not criticize or point to criticism of either of those two candidates.”
Even some loyal dailyKOS posters don’t like it:
Re: New dKos policy (3.00 / 2)
Sorry Kos, I have to disagree with you almost entirely. First off, your assertion that it’s Dean or Clark and no one else is not only insulting and un-Democratic, it’s not even realistic.
Secondly, I won’t, and shouldn’t keep my mouth shut if Clark comes out with another one of his policy blunders, like being for the flag-burning amendment. Hell, I have the right to criticize him as I want.
Thirdly, even though I am a Dean supporter, I want the right to trash him, too. On Sunday I was less then impressed by Dean’s performance. Not only do I have the right to say that, but it should be said, for the sake of the candidate.
by McDonald on Thu Dec 18th, 2003 at 18:58:17 UTC
Steve White, I agree with what you’re saying, just as it is our right to disagree with them.
Their desire to shut down dissent speaks for the weakness of their ideas. After all, if they can’t defend them, or even admit that other ideas may be valid but that they don’t accept them, then it indicates that they’re afraid of anything which challenges their world view.
I wish I could say that it’s limited to only one side of the political spectrum, but the ability to compartmentalize thought is all too human.
Sure, they’re free to do whatever they want with their sites, but if this is what they want to do, what a waste of their time, energy, and money. It’s the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling, “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!”
Others at dailyKOS don’t like the new policy either (like me):
Don’t Tread on Me (3.81 / 11)
Kos,
I also disagree with you here 157%. First of all, because your admonition to “stay positive” can only have the effect of stifling debate and discussion, hurting everyone.
Not only is it impractical and pollyanna-ish….it’s un-American. This is the nation of the Lincoln-Douglas tradition…of Sam Adams, Sojourner Truth and the Berkeley Free Speech movement. The idea that free and open debate is somehow hurtful to anyone is anathema to that history.
_______________________________________
Re: New dKos policy (3.50 / 4)
There is another concern about the new policy that I failed to address earlier. If blogs are to live up to their promise, we need a couple of blogs where all our people can gather apart from whatever wing of the party they belong to. The new policy is a threat to the ability of this site to fufill that role and could weaken its standing in the blogsphere.
by James on Thu Dec 18th, 2003 at 19:08:10 UTC
_________________________________________________
Re: New dKos policy (3.66 / 3)
Kos, this is a transcendantly silly policy and will significantly detract from the value of dKos as a source of information. The premature anointment of anybody is completely unjustifiable (and I must say I’m getting a bit sick of the drumbeat of Clark, Clark, Clark, Clark, Clark, which cannot, in my view, be justified by the polls), and even if it could be justified it’s utterly counterproductive.
I’ve been in the trenches defending Dean with the best of them, but I have never sought to gag his critics. That doesn’t strengthen him; it weakens him. A candidate must be able to repel attacks, not simply stick his fingers in his ears and start humming loudly. I find Lieberman as tiresome as anybody, but that’s because he persists in making criticisms which don’t pass the laugh test. Just like your policy.
If you think some particular attack is egregiously stupid or ill-informed, mock it or ignore it. But dKos is — or so I’ve always thought — a site for information and debate. You can’t inform if what’s going on is not reported, and we can’t debate if the information isn’t there.
And besides, not to put too fine a point on it — if you ignore criticisms of your chosen candidates, the Diaries will simply pick up the slack and more and more people will ignore the front page.
This policy doesn’t help Dean, it doesn’t help Clark, it doesn’t help your readers, and it doesn’t help you. Who does it help?
ABB ’04: Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us.
by schwa on Thu Dec 18th, 2003 at 20:21:07 UTC
I have to agree with Steve on this. It is their web site and they can do wantever they want with posts except change the content. If they are going to delete civil discourse I am not interested in listening to them. I hope that some of them understand that.
Clark –
You are correct, which is why I should have been more specific. I see ’84 as a rerun of ’80, with the VP nominee stepping up to the top of the ticket, while ’88 was de novo, as it were.
I think the things to watch for, assuming a distinct lack of Democratic success next year, are: 1) moderation, or the lack thereof, in ’08; 2) pronounced geographic regionalization of the Democratic vote.
David/Steve:
Good points. It is probably a good practice not to deal with these intolerant sites. But does anyone have any liberal websites that are open to civil debates?
I’ve been banned for making tedious comments at some excellent blogs.
The RNC does have a blog, on their Team Leader website – you can comment on just about anything on the site….But you have to be a Team Leader in order to comment….
http://www.gopteamleader.com/blog/index.asp
Wow I came here from the insta man and got floored
Maybe someone would care to explain how to make my pc footprint invisible I’ve removed cookies, but there must be something else
I’ve had the somewhat ignominious distinction of being banned from: the dailyKOS, Democratic Underground and Kickin’ Ass. Thus, I have achieved a trifecta and should shoot for being banned by Atrios to claim the Grand Slam.
The thing is that I’ve always been respectful, civil (eschewing personal attacks and name-calling) and careful to avoid the flamers. But, it is now quite obvious to me that the aforementioned sites do not want discussion and debate.
One exception that I would make is TalkingPoints which doesn’t take comments, but Joshua Marshall has almost always responded to my reasoned e-mails (usually on South Dakota politics to which he has incongruous affinity for). This I respect and he has even had responses that have changed my alignment on an issue. That’s what an open forum should be about – reasoned debate and discussion that may change, but at base will clarify an issue without histrionics.
TO: Andy Bizub
RE: Ack!!!
You mean the DNC has hired Armed Liberal to run their blog comments section? HORROR!!!!!
That’s his MO. Don’t disagree with him. Or be lucid about it. He’ll delete the comment and, if you ask him where it went, he’ll delete the topic. And if you have the temerity to persist, he’ll delete YOU.
How funny, these ‘liberals’ be.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Fair and Balanced caveat: Atrios runs an honest, intelligent blog, even if I disagree with him. And I have gotten into spirited disagreements with his fans in his comment boards, and my comments are still there.
Any blog or forum administrator is free to moderate his personal site however he wants, but that freedom won’t save him from the consequences of foolish and intolerant behavior.
I was a longtime lurker on Metafilter and was prepared to shell out a couple bucks for an account. Then 9-11 hit, and what had always been a left-leaning site rapidly became intolerant to any debate that didn’t fit their preconcieved memes. The rational conservative voices I enjoyed reading began disappearing or leaving in open digust (many had already vanished) and the site turned into an echo chamber. The occasional brave or unsuspecting heretics were shouted down, attacked, or deleted, but never answered. I lost interest and never went back.
Lurking behind all this is the question, what is a comment section supposed to be? Most people leaving comments here have been assuming that it is a place for a conversation, and acting accordingly. We ChicagoBoyz endorse that approach, and we have been willing to put up with some serious disagreement and even some stupidity and rudeness, to maintain a conversation.
The Donk board is not that. It is just a cheerleading section. Worse, it creates a pretense of a conversation where there really isn’t one. But, hey, OK. Fine. As several have said — It’s their board, they can do what they want. (Of course, anybody should feel free to delete comments which are simply rude, insulting, or otherwise unproductive.) But they ultimately do themselves, their ideas, and their own cause a disservice if they are unwilling to subject them to CIVIL and INTELLIGENT argument.
All true about the leftist’s not wanting other ideas….but try preaching from the altar of a church that Jesus never criticized premarital sex and that he even promoted it (John 4:14)! In most churches, you can forget what the Bible actually says…its the party line or you’re not even their acquaintance anymore. Then take Stephen Den Beste who has one of the top 3 conservative blogs at http://www.denbeste.nu: the guy won’t be friends with you anymore if you suggest that the Vietnam War was necessary (after Goldwater lost). Denbeste’s dogma on that: we conservatives need to maintain our credibility with the left by being honest! Honest?? A generation on the left has built their entire dogma based on the lie that it was wrong to stop Chinese and Soviet communist expansion in Asia…and one of our best bloggers won’t even touch this shibboleth and disrepect me for asking him to reexamine it? I can think of other examples of where right wing bloggers hide their heads in the sand: Denbeste and others will not touch the subject of why, since so many attractive young women are Dean supporters and anti-war, we should care more about stopping the polarization now then simply allowing the liberals to take themselves over a cliff a year from now. The sexual aspects of this war are not touched with a ten foot pole by conservative bloggers. Why?? How about this: would Fox News ever come out specifically defending premarital sex and condemning the Christian right for promoting abstinence among teenage girls who will be 18 in a few months? Don’t we males all secretly desire college coeds?? Then why not say so!! We conservatives are just as pig-headed and dense as liberals and that is why I was a Clintonite when I failed to see that we were at war with Al Qaeda in the 90s. I semi-condoned Clinton’s behavior with that intern: Monica was gorgeous at the time of the affair. He had a sham marriage. Do you think Republicans did and would now allow me much space to voice too many pro-premarital sex ideas?
Another theme that quickly gets deleted from all comment areas (conservative or liberal): why are people still living downtown or downwind of major cities in the USA? Nobody wants to even think about the subject. Young women and men are moving into major cities every day, looking for jobs and an active single life. Nothing about 9-11 has registered in terms of maybe “spreading ourselves out” in case of a suitcase nuke attack. — I have lost friendships with conservative bloggers simply because I wanted the theme considered. Few people of any persuasion have really open minds.
The sole validity of any theory rests on how well and truly it predicts behavior. Well, we certainly have a lot of strange (and common) behavior crying for some explanation, don’t we?
Find and read “The Anti-Conceptual Mentality” parts I, II, and III from the Ayn Rand Newsletters, 1973. Written just over a generation ago.
Check at the door the things you think you know about her and prepare to be fascinated.
With due respect, some are missing a point here: The DNC seeks to put forward a candidate for a position in a representative form of government. For them to host a blog and then deny certain commentary solely on the basis of philisophical content is disingenous at best. If they aren’t going to accept respectful commentary , then don’t host the site, and certainly do not call it a blog, or provide a clear disclaimer that commentary will be posted only if it agrees with the DNC position.
TO: Andy B
RE: The Point of Blogging
“For them to host a blog and then deny certain commentary solely on the basis of philisophical content is disingenous at best. If they aren’t going to accept respectful commentary , then don’t host the site, and certainly do not call it a blog…” — Andy B
What we are seeing here is an example of how ‘tolerant’ the Democrats are. They’ll tolerate anyone, as long as you agree with them.
Disagree and they’d just as soon ‘kill’ you. Hitler was like that.
And, by the by, as I pointed out earlier, people who call themselves ‘liberal’ are not necessarily what they claim. Even if the ARE operating a blog. It can readily become a hall of mirrors, reflecting only what they want to have there; their opinion alone.
As some Wag put it, 2000 years ago, “A tree is know by its fruit.”
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Let us not forget that its their blog. They can do what they want with it. But what they do do is very ‘telling’. And it ‘stinks’, too.
Somebody’s got a better imagination than I do. John 4:14 (NRSV): “… but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.” Premarital sex, huh?
The issue isn’t that sites or organizations may consider some ideas off-topic (especially when they don’t make any sense). The issue is that even cautious, incremental dissent regarding the candidate they’re promoting is being deleted, and the dissenters are being denied future access. It’s a social system with no negative feedback, and it will crash. Historically, this has been followed by a correction the next time around. If the Dems march off a cliff twice in a row, the only thing propping their party up will be state election laws.
TO: Jay Manifold
RE: The Big Rock Cometh
“The issue is that even cautious, incremental dissent regarding the candidate they’re promoting is being deleted, and the dissenters are being denied future access. It’s a social system with no negative feedback, and it will crash.” — Jay Manifold
The “hall of mirrors” meets the “rock of reality”.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. — President James Madison [Notes on Virginia]]
This includes, I believe, dissenting opinions.
I’m almost fifty. Conservatives of my generation, at least, understood that to be a conservative meant having to defend your views at all times. Defending our views is something we got used to doing at an early age.
Liberals have not had to deal with such an environment until relatively recently. They’ve always had a sycophantic journalistic crew to ask them softball questions, and set conservatives and Republicans up with loaded questions and irrelevant but polemically effective side issues. The Big Media, as James Lileks has written, is used to lecturing; the Internet is not a lecture, but a conversation.
On the Internet, without Peter Jennings to run interference, liberals find themselves confronted with questions and arguments they never had to worry about in the old days. They got lazy. As the incompetent Major Powers (in “Heartbreak Ridge”) opined, “Laziness breeds inefficiency.”
Obviously, I’m not a liberal, but I’m not speaking now about the validity of the liberal critique, only the attitude liberals take when forced to defend it. Nine times out of ten, liberals are flabbergasted when anyone from the Right challenges their assertions. They seem (I’m guessing here) to feel that their arguments are above questioning, especially by the rabble (meaning us conservatives).
If all liberals were like this, politics would be no fun at all. Fortunately, there are liberals like Nat Hentoff, Camille Paglia, Dan Drezner, and (in the broadcast media) Tim Russert — all very sharp-minded, knowledgeable, and even brilliant. The Democratic Party could use a few million just like them, very badly.
For a very brief while, I was reading Naked Writing, a blog by a gay left-liberal. I agreed with some of his or her (don’t know which sex) opinions, such as being in favor of gay marriage, but not others, such as the incessant Bush-bashing and anti-war nitpickery.
In a thread on Rev. V. Gene Robinson (the gay Episcopal bishop in New Hampshire), I left a comment disdaining Robinson’s beatification by the major media and the gay community, and quoted a few paragraphs from a Lileks Bleat on how if Robinson had left his wife for another woman, rather than a man, nobody would have mistaken him for a saint.
Unsurprisingly, the comment was deleted; the blogger probably judged it blasphemous. I reposted it with an introductory comment along the lines of, “Hm, wonder why my post is no longer here…” Surprise, it got deleted too.
What we are seeing here is an example of how ‘tolerant’ the Democrats are. They’ll tolerate anyone, as long as you agree with them.
Yup. They love diversity — best thing in the world. But only as long as everyone thinks alike.
Same thing happend to me on a Dean site. They were commenting on Rumsfeld’s known/unknown speeech; about how it was incomprehensible etc etc. I wrote back that it was a reasonable comments about what we know and how we know it. I even used a scientific analogy with Black Holes as a for instance. We knew nothing about them only a very few years ago and did not know that we did not know. Their reply follows:
Hi Peter,
I’ll make a deal with you. You stop telling lies about Democrats and we’ll stop telling the TRUTH about Republicans. Merry Christmas!
DR
Maybe not Stalinist but surely rather closed
TO: Peter
RE: Maybe…
“They were commenting on Rumsfeld’s known/unknown speeech; about how it was incomprehensible etc etc….” — Peter
…THAT’s their problem. They do not know what they do not know. And apparently they don’t know English enough to know that they do not know it. But they won’t let you know because they don’t know themselves.
That’s a no-no, in politics.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Ignorance is when you don’t know something. Stupidity is ignorance with pride.]
I got banned from Free Republic. I have yet to find out why. They won’t tell me if it’s my libertarian attitude (they have posted some of my drug war articles from Sierra Times) or my sarcastic “kill all the athiests” (I have seen worse recently) comments.
The Freepers seem to have an especial dislike for libertarian or as tthey like to say libertine thought.
Well, these folks know they are right. If you don’t agree, you’re one of the sheeple. But of course sheeple are baaned from discourse with their betters. And that’s fine, that’s their right. But if they start trading mint jelly recipes…
Banned at LGF for no descerning reason….cept not following the sheeple.
Happens on both sides.
AS said before….what else is new?
TO: caleb
RE: Really?
“Banned at LGF for no descerning reason….cept not following the sheeple.” — caleb
Did you ask Charles? I’ve been the quite a bit and he’s rather tolerant, even of ‘trolls’. [Note: He justs asks people not to ‘feed’ them.]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Came here from Instaman and I am blown away—you guys have a GREAT discussion site going here. Pefect example of Jeff jarvis’s concept that the readers—the audience—is as much the source of the news as “news events.” The subject you are discussing is the event: us–the “audience” —participating in exposing the intolerance of “progressives.” I find blogs like this way better than “being told” by “commentators.”
Would you agree that the Internet has become a new key to liberty?
Thanks
Nitronora
Banned at LGF for no descerning reason….cept not following the sheeple.
Can the DNC really be compared to LGF? I imagine the latter is a purely personal enterprise, while the former is organized, regulated in some fashion (501-c-something?)
If you indeed did respond to the folks at LGF as if they were sheeple you were probably banned because you were percieved to be in contempt. And maybe that’s why those on the right get booted off some left wing blogs…tho if they’re polite…
Of course, I don’t know the situation and won’t judge, and you might have only said sheeple because I said sheeple first.
Best wishes to you Caleb!
Nitronora:
Short answer, yes. Anything that opens up lines of communications is a key to liberty.
Right on target Lee Dise! Those liberals were protected from reality sooooo much by the media, the UN, the world-wide left, and so on, that they lost the ability to think for themselves. I’ve met some really sad cases where people won’t even see what’s in their nose. I guess too much protection makes you a wimp and an idiot. :)
Just for fun delete one or two Lefty comments from any of your own blogs. Within an hour they’ll be screaming that you’re violating their first amendment rights, that you’re intruding on their right to free speech, that you’re a coward who can’t even fight rationally against their unassailable reason.
Everyone in jail is innocent, if you ask them.
Instead of looking at what they say, look at how they say it. It can be most telling.
How funny – It seems as if my post from yesterday on this thread was -gasp- DELETED!!! Talk about hipocrisy. You people are ridiculous.
By the way, the reason I came back to this site was because a link from Instapundit. He called the deleting of posts the “Crushing of Dissent.” Ironic how his site doesn’t even allow comments. Another example of right wing hipocrisy.
Sure Chris. The “right wing” has the exclusivity, the monpoly *and* the copyright on hypocrisy (check your spelling by the way; if you’re going to lecture others about hypocrisy, at least learn how to spell it). We only remove those comments that are personally abusive or defamatory. And spam. Very few have been removed. We would never remove the kind of posts made by Andy on the DNC blog, or one of its answers. That’s silly.
The fact is, your own comment right here is going to stay right where it is. Now, if you were right about us, you’d expect it to go, don’t you ? Looks like we’re not fitting your shallow, predictable stereotypes. Bummer, that.
This is a good forum discussion – the previous missive from spelling-challenged Chris excepted. Although I’m a Democrat I too am concerned about the intolerance for other opinions at some of the more prominent Dem/liberal sites. I, too, have been banned from the dailyKOS for the heretical notion of rebutting some of the more obnoxious comments about Lieberman and Gephardt. In fact, the dailyKOS has explicitly stated his new policy of not allowing any criticism of Dean (and secondarily of Clark) as they are his “chosen ones”. Such intolerance is a betrayal of the liberal view of a free and open community of thought.
I am quite chagrined at this trend.
Glenn Reynolds is right wing.
And I am Marie of Roumania.
“Hipocrisy”? Get a spell-checker. Then grow up.
Chris, in addition to not being able to spell, is apparently missing a key distinction. I didn’t see his supposedly deleted post. But I know my fellow ChicagoBoyz. If someone deleted a comment, it was because it was not adding anything useful to the conversation. No one has said that deleting ANY comment is inappropriate. That would be stupidity. The problem is deleting comments which actually add something intelligent to the conversation. And who will be the judge of that? The person or persons whose blog it is. Does this require the exercise of judgment? Of course. Will there be disagreements on the margin? Of course.
This is all pretty obvious, but I find the kind of people who put insulting, vulgar, way off-topic or otherwise useless comments on here are also the most snarky about insisting on their “right to be heard”. Sorry dude, this is our front porch, and if you are tedious or offensive, you will be hustled along. Behave appropriately and you are welcome to comment to your little heart’s content.
Here’s my recipe for Guacamole, oh and a copy of the letter I got from a Nigerian general’s son…oh, shoot that’s too far off-topic.
Dude, you guys have totally been instalanched. Love to see you get this kind of traffic.
–scott
Scott — “instalanched”. Cool term. Glad to get it.
Save that guacamole recipe for another day.
TO: Chris Dub
RE: Evidence Please
“How funny – It seems as if my post from yesterday on this thread was -gasp- DELETED!!! Talk about hipocrisy. You people are ridiculous.” — Chris Dub
Got anything to support your allegation?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: DakotaDem
RE: Banned by KOS
“I, too, have been banned from the dailyKOS for the heretical notion of rebutting some of the more obnoxious comments…” — DakotaDem
Me too, but for different topics than Democratic candidates. Refute them, effectively, and they’ll ‘kill’ you.
Imagine what they’d do if they actually had power.
RE: Posting Policies
“In fact, the dailyKOS has explicitly stated his new policy of not allowing any criticism of Dean (and secondarily of Clark) as they are his “chosen ones”. ” — DakotaDem
It’s only logical. Can’t have people throwing ‘rocks’ in their ‘hall of mirrors’.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Sorry about the spelling, but give me a break, everyone mispells something occasionally. Its childish to jump on someone for mispelling, and it shows that people don’t want to argue my point but merely say – hey that guys dumb, he can’t spell.
The original post pointed out that no commments are allowed on the Bush blog, and the RNC doesn’t even have a blog.
Furthermore, the DNC blog is not set up to be a debating society. It is there so the DNC can communicate from their Democratic constitutents and build morale. They don’t want other opinions. This is censorship, but it is for a reason. Don’t cry because they won’t let you post there, that’s the beauty of blogs – go start your own.
Chris Dub,
From the DNC Blog’s “About” page:
“We don’t think so. One of the most common complaints about politicians and political parties is that there’s no real communication between those of us in Washington and the rest of America.”
“We put out press releases, email newsletters, fundraising appeals, form letters, and advertisements. You write letters, volunteer, and donate.”
“But where’s the frank, one-on-one communication? Blogs make that possible. On Kicking Ass, you’re going to meet real people at the DNC and hear our real thoughts. And we’re going to listen to you.”
“Frank”, “real thoughts”, “real communication”
Doesn’t sound like what you describe. Maybe they should add your post to their “About” page so we could see it for what it really is. Based on your description, I would call the current “About” page false advertising. Nothing new for the DNC.
One last thing, spelling doesn’t usually count for much on this Blog (I am terrible at spelling), but when you call the hosts hypocrites you should expect a little blow back. (I beleive that was a run on sentence)
Jim English
Chicago
Go Bears!
TO: Chris Dub
RE: As I Was Saying…
“The original post pointed out that no commments are allowed on the Bush blog, and the RNC doesn’t even have a blog.” — Chris Dub
Can you back up your allegation with proof? I haven’t read everything here. I don’t recall seeing your post in the first place.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: Chris Dub
RE: Childish Matters
“…everyone mispells something occasionally. Its childish to jump on someone for mispelling, and it shows that people don’t want to argue my point but merely say – hey that guys dumb, he can’t spell.” — Chris Dub
No. The point is not that you misspell things occasionally.
The point is you do it very frequently. So frequently that you seem to be an example of the vaunted public edjucation sistyms lak of sukksess in doeng wha itz soupposed to b doeng….
…teaching people how to function in society instead of social engineering.
If you can’t do the basic things necessary to interact with your fellow members of society, read, write, compute, what gives you the idea that they will accept your arguments relating to matters so lofty as politics?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I’d not mention ‘dumb’ in your posts if I were you. As things are now, some people might get the idea that you’re misspelling your surname…Du(m)b.
P.S. Don’t take it too personally. I rebuked my own daughter over her problems like this some years back. She didn’t talk to me again for years afterwards. But I’ve heard from her again and she’s much better now.
We’ve been around for 5 years and believe in free speech, have won the webby awards in 2000 as part of politics.com (before they were sold during the tech crash), and two Access magazine awards. The forum is called Opinion Forum on the Delphiforums network http://forums.delphiforums.com/pc-opinion/start
The staff are conservative leaning but trust me, ALL views are welcome including the nuttiest leftists around!
Why is it ‘right wingers’ seem MUCH more tolerant in regards to free speech than supposed liberals?
TO: Andy B et al
RE: Chris Dub’s Complaint
“We’ve been around for 5 years and believe in free speech…
ALL views are welcome including the nuttiest leftists around!” — Andy B [I suspect but there is no “by” line]
I see where others have commented that the RNC has no blog, e.g., yankinlondon.
Chris complains that his post to that affect was ‘deleted’. If so, why wouldn’t yankinlondon’s be deleted as well, as it seems to be the same meme.
Furthermore, Chris has yet to provide any evidence supporting his allegation.
I suspect Chris B. Du(m)b or something worse.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[/lurk off]
The real funny thing is that this comment thread reads like an exact mirror image of the “Lefty Hate” that y’all are bitching about. Talk about Sheeple and Group Think.
The constant here is a common aspect of human nature to divide the world into US and THEM, and the group psychology that emerges from this binary view. I haven’t seen anything in people’s attitudes and language here that looks even remotely different from the lefty sites that you disparage. It’s downright tribal.
Take another look Alex, I asked for nothing more than two-way interaction, having proffered a logical, inoffensive argument on the blog of “the party of tolerance and inclusion”, only to be not tolerated and excluded. I did not assail the DNC, didn’t insult anyone personally, did not even intimate that there was an “us” and “them”. With the exception of a handful of comments (out of 92 so far), I haven’t seen anything in this thread that looks like a flame. I think that most respondents are baffled by the deletions more than anything else. It seems to me that YOU are the one trying to delineate an Us vs.Them dynamic. I don’t see how it’s funny, I think it is rather pathetic.
I’ve gotten a lot better reception when I sprinkle rational criticism in an extremely orthodox forum with in-group code words. If you are trying to make a point that wouldn’t go down smoothly to a leftist audience, refer to Bush as “the Shrub” even as you inch around to defending him.
Works wonders, how silly people can be at times.
But yeah, any quote unquote liberal site than bans discussion is dictionary impared, they need to look up liberal. That’s why I call them lefties rather than liberals, it’s more accurate.
Good point by David Mercer. For the same reason I question the usage of the word “progressive”. “Progressing” toward what?
*Sigh* I am a registered Dem and have always voted D or independent. In the primary I’ll be voting for Lieberman and in the general for the president. It’s all about the war.
My friends who are Deanies or such barely speak to me any more. I’m harshing their liberal buzz or something.
The current version of the Democratic Party must be smashed.
I’m in the same boat with Russ. Unfortunately, my fear is that Dean will drag Democratic Senators such as my own Tom Daschle, as well as Dorgan, Boxer and Murray down with him. I do want to see this country kept safe – and if that takes holding my nose and voting for “Shrub”, so be it – but I do NOT want the Republicans to increase their majority in the Senate.
Instapundit’s running gag about “the crushing of dissent in Ashcroft’s America” refers to people who go on national television to claim that they are being censored or silenced. A sidebar to it is the notion now common among leftists that disagreement with their ideas equates to censorahip. I don’t read Instapundit religiously, but I haven’t noticed any link between the “crushing of dissent” gag and the deletion of comments from blogs.
Speaking of reading religiously, I Googled John 4:14 and wound up reading the entirety of John 4 in the King James Version here. There is simply nothing in there that could be remotely understood as Jesus encouraging non-marital sex.
For what its worth, I’ve had no banning issues on either CalPundit or Dan Drezner. That being said, the responses I see on CalPundit are mighty shrill from time to time.
On the other hand, I’ve not been banned by Hesiod, who one could easily argue fits the stereotype of the screeching leftist.
All in all, however, I guess it doesn’t bother me awful much, insofar as posting to a site where I’ll be guaranteed ichor and venom for my troubles is a site where reasoned argument won’t get a lot of support anyways.
All,
I had comments on Dean’s Iraq policy. I “questioned” people on dailykos. I am now given troll status and my comments are hidden.
DK is Nazi.
We know that Dean “became” anti-war over the summer as he wanted to be different than Kerry, et al. See kausfiles.com. You can see his conflict statements on Iraq on WashPost editorial a while ago. Even a week ago on CNN Inside Politics with Judy W., he made fun of religion. This weekend he has “discovered” Jesus.
I guess to “question” people of why they are supporting the ANGRY WHITE MAN is making people feel bad and they are resorting to hiding comments, etc.
The irony is that there is NO such blog structure for non-leftists. None. So, I think Dean will win.
Ali Karim Bey
I disagree Ali. The inherent stupidity of the majority of leftists is there, in all its glory, for all to see, only when their comments are left untouched on any sane blog page.
http://www.hillary.org/hc/Hillary_Clinton_Forum_1080_chat1.cgi Commie Socialist Site
http://www.hillary.org/hc/Hillary_Clinton_Forum_1079_chat1.cgi, The Dems out of Control!