After the unofficial pie purge at dKos, I expected more of the same, while Kos partisans argued that it wasn’t a purge at all, and that those thinking so were, at the very least, a little paranoid.
So I banned these people, and those that have been recommending diaries like it. And I will continue to do so until the purge is complete, and make no mistake — this is a purge.
May I assume that both those of us who thought the purging process would be unofficial, and those who thought there was no intentional purge at all are now equally surprised?
Here’s the whole post by Kos:
Today I did something I’ve never done before (not even during the Fraudster mess), and wish I’d never had to do.
I made a mass banning of people perpetuating a series of bizarre, off-the-wall, unsupported and frankly embarassing conspiracy theories.
I have a high tolerance level for material I deem appropriate for this site, but one thing I REFUSE to allow is bullshit conspiracy theories. You know the ones — Bush and Blair conspired to bomb London in order to take the heat off their respective political problems. I can’t imagine what fucking world these people live in, but it sure ain’t the Reality Based Community.
So I banned these people, and those that have been recommending diaries like it. And I will continue to do so until the purge is complete, and make no mistake — this is a purge.
This is a reality-based community. Those who wish to live outside it should find a new home. This isn’t it. (Emphasis added.)
I guess if you’re assembling a choir to preach to, you have to get rid of anyone singing off-key. And if you want to build a liberal Free Republic, you have to start editing like a freeper.
Now, before this degenerates into a discussion about Markos Moulitsas, I want to steer this in a completely different direction. Forget dKos. Just focus on the theory at work: We are more powerful when we speak with one voice. Maybe “theory” is too weak of a word; it’s indisputably true. But are we smarter when we speak with one voice? How much dissent — including dissenting views of reality — can we tolerate before we lose all cohesion? How much cohesion can we insist upon before we start filtering out unconventional but useful thinking.
One of the dissenting voices in what was otherwise an amen chorus in the comments to Kos’ post pointed out that while he thought the original conspiracy theory was bananas, there were a lot of insightful posts worth reading in the responses to the conspiracy theory. In other words, people who thought it was bullshit calmly and rationally explained why they thought so. Is there a value in permitting — for example — crazies and bigots to speak so that they can be publicly refuted?
A good example of the two sides of this particular debate is the treatment of racism in the US and the EU, Germany being the canonical case. In the US, the KKK can get a parade permit practically any time they want, march down the streets of some small town, and show themselves for the asses and buffoons that they are. In Germany, Neo-Nazis are actively suppressed, impeding their ability to get their hateful message out, but also leaving their flawed doctrine unanswered in public discourse.
The Germans obviously have good reasons for wanting to suppress Nazism: it once led the country into total ruin on a scale that makes Iraq look like a Sunday picnic. One wonders, though, does official suppression really weaken Nazism? Neo-Nazi activity in Germany, both overt and covert, is more active than Klan activity in the US.
I should note here that I don’t count what Kos is doing as censorship. The purged parties can choose another blog or start one of their own. It’s easy and, in most cases, free. It would be different if Kos was a government.
And that’s the question I’m really interested in. What do you think the limits, if any, ought to be to free speech. We can probably all agree to the canonical example of yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater as being something that steps over the line, but where else would you draw that line? When does free speech cease to be an asset and become a liability?
I think you raise a key point… but let me raise another… what is the purpose of DailyKos? Or BooMan for that matter?
If the purpose is to have a place for free and open dialog of progressive or democratic or republican or conservative issues then any censorship should be kept to an absolute minimum. That minimum would be affected by who the intended readership is as well. Is it a family site for kids to come and learn about politics and public discourse? Or is it an adult site where rants and raves and foul language and insults fly?
Or is the purpose to promote a particular point of view or objective? Is the purpose to help win elections for a particular party, side, issue, or candidate?
Markos did not say, but I read between the lines from his many, many posts on the purpose of DailyKos, that the reason for purging what he considers to be the tinfoil hat crowd is that they diminish his website as a poltical player/power and make it that much more possible for the right wing slime machine to marginalize DailyKos and render it ineffective (ala their attempts to smear/marginalize moveon through association with a couple moveon contributors hitler/nazi references).
If Markos’ purpose is to supply a site for free and open discourse for the left side of aisle then such a purge seems inapprppriate.
If Markos’ purpose is to create, build, and promote an online powerhouse in the political battle for the soul of this country then he is well within his rights to set limits and to protect his name and image.
So it is important to understand the purpose in order to put censorship in context.
I would add to the questions above:
Does everyone SHARE whatever goals, purposes, etc. there are?
The only nitpick with what I read in your comment is: you can’t both at once “weed away” what you don’t think fits your goals and purposes, and then present yourself to the larger world as “THE voice” of the “liberal blogosphere” — that contradiction leads to failure, imho.
“Does everyone SHARE whatever goals, purposes, etc. there are?”
And therein lie the many disagreements that have occured over at dKos. It is quite clear that not everyone agrees on what the purpose/goal of dKos is.
As an perfect example of that is the fact that Markos does not present his site as the voice of the liberal blogosphere. He has been quite clear (during the pre-election period this came up again and again) that his is a democratic site and he said so in explicit refutation of being a liberal or progressive site. We, probably the vast majority of the people that participate there, seem to look at the site as the liberal voice but that is not how Markos himself presents the site and he has been very clear on that point.
it has always been regulated. Any political forum without restrictions quickly degenerates into partisan anarchy and flame wars.
This site has grown precisely because of the restrictions I have placed on content. Mainly, that this is a Democratic/Progressive forum, and not a conservative one.
by kos on Fri Jul 8th, 2005 at 14:31:16 PDT
Notice also that he now seems to infer that conservative Democrats or Independents need not apply.
Here’s how he defined the site back in January, 2005:
The community stuff is a seperate beast. It’s not my community. But it’s also not EVERYONE’S community, either. I have set unofficial guidelines — it’s a site for Democratic partisans. Everyone else is welcome, with the understanding that it’s a home for Democrats. So Republicans, Greens, etc, are welcome. But it’s not their home.
You don’t go to Synagogue to argue Christianity. You don’t go to Yoga class and demand to do aerobics. I know I don’t make this point explicit, but I prefer a little bit of gray area. As long as it’s not written in stone, we won’t have well-meaning Greens being kicked off the site by fundamentalist Kosmopolitans.
I wrote a diary about that comment in which I was slammed by more than a few members simply because as a Canadian liberal, I found it hurtful to discover it was not my “home”. I had embraced it as such and stuck around after that, despite his pronouncements.
Anyway, just some history for you…
I think it’s vital that a site has a consistent message as to what its purpose really is. I think BT does.
Indeed, frequently when kos most insists that dKos is Democratic the site is at its least democratic.
Yep. That is correct. I should have used a large D.
Well, it will be interesting to see how tinny and lockstep toward the “centrist Dems” the site gets.
Like this perhaps?
Now, that’s a purge.
You can’t help but agree that kos is headed in that direction… figuratively. You know it.
I doubt it. I’m generally not in favor of censorship and certainly not in favor of purges but the vast majority of the participants there are of the progressive/liberal sort and I suspect that will remain the case.
I certainly don’t debate that Kos is within his rights. I do question whether one can “battle for the soul of this country” when one is actively silencing dissent. The simple fact that the so-called “tinfoil hat” crowd managed to routinely get diaries recommended up on a site that busy suggests that, sound or not, a lot of folks either shared their suspicions or thought it was important to debate them openly.
And as brinnaine notes, if you want to represent yourself as the voice of online liberalism, you lose credibility when you selectively censor liberal views with which you disagree. There is considerable advantage in not silencing the opposition because it demonstrates courage.
It’s questionable whether purging the “tinfoil hats” will hurt the right wing slime machine. It’s not as if they are averse to inventing quotes out of thin air or building straw men, and it’s certainly not like their followers bother to fact-check them on anything.
Personally, I don’t believe that Bush and Blair are competent enough to stage a terrorist attack. If they were that good, Iraq would have been pacified already. I do, however, believe that Bush is craven enough to allow a terrorist attack to happen in order to shore up his political position. (For the record, I don’t believe this was the case with 9/11.) It’s not as if he doesn’t have a track record of screwing Tony Blair and the UK for the sheer fun of it. I think Bush’s complicity in terrorism is a legitimate question; if the evidence is lacking, that will become clear during the debate.
I guess that when it comes down to it, my personal belief is that the chaos of open dissension is more productive in the long run than any kind of censorship.
The one area where I am conflicted — getting back to broader implications — is that I rather like the policy some EU countries have about prosecuting speech which incites hatred. If you preach that group X is the scum of the earth, and then some of your followers harm members of group X, it’s not unreasonable to hold you liable for the harm done. On the other hand, it’s really easy to go from banning hate speech to using the accusation of hate speech as a means of inhibiting perfectly legitimate but controversial speech. What do you think?
Something that should be kept in mind by Kos and all of us, imho: On the day of a horrific event — like yesterday — people, quite naturally, get very upset and say a lot of things they might otherwse not say.
In time, as their shock and grief wears down a bit, their statements will, almost as part of a natural flow, be subsumed by the larger groups’ more popular sentiments.
I think you make…
“I do question whether one can “battle for the soul of this country” when one is actively silencing dissent. The simple fact that the so-called “tinfoil hat” crowd managed to routinely get diaries recommended up on a site that busy suggests that, sound or not, a lot of folks either shared their suspicions or thought it was important to debate them openly.”
… two very good points here.
“And as brinnaine notes, if you want to represent yourself as the voice of online liberalism,”
Please see my response to brinnaine on this point. Kos very explicitly does not present himself or his site as the voice of online liberalism. We all tend to see it that way and it may in fact be that because of the point of view of the majority of participants over there but Markos has been very clear that his is a “democratic” site and not a “liberal/progressive” one.
“… you lose credibility when you selectively censor liberal views with which you disagree. There is considerable advantage in not silencing the opposition because it demonstrates courage.”
I agree. However, rather than courage I would say that it demonstrates confidence in the strength and validity of your own views and positions that you have no fear of them being diminished by oppossing views. It is this very point that I believe is displayed by Bush’s restricting and scripting his public appearances. The strength and validity of the right wing argument is so weak that it cannot survive dissent of any kind. Theirs is the ultiamte mushroom point of view.
“It’s questionable whether purging the “tinfoil hats” will hurt the right wing slime machine. It’s not as if they are averse to inventing quotes out of thin air or building straw men, and it’s certainly not like their followers bother to fact-check them on anything.”
You got that right. Can’t argue that at all.
“Personally, I don’t believe that Bush and Blair are competent enough to stage a terrorist attack. If they were that good, Iraq would have been pacified already.”
Can’t argue that either! They have proven themselves to be completely incompetent.
“I guess that when it comes down to it, my personal belief is that the chaos of open dissension is more productive in the long run than any kind of censorship.”
I agree… but I’m not running one of these sites either.
“What do you think?”
I think it is a tricky, tricky area. There is no simple answer. Certainly if someone is inciting to violence then that is something that can and should be tried. We have similar laws but it is a hard thing to prove and a few word games can save the day while still effectively inciting violence, bigotry, etc.
Likewise the argument of what is tasteful and appropriate for public viewing/speaking. I strongly dislike t-shirts with swear words, sexual inuendo, violent images, etc. Children see such things and I believe that is inappropriate. But who says so and where do you draw the line? I don’t have a clear answer to that. I know what I consider to be over the line but if I was to set it to black and white it would be far to easy to abuse and use as a form of censorship.
When in doubt… protect free speech.
I dislike and disapprove of flag burning or similar actions. I think it is incredibly disrespectful and an act intended to be purposefully hurtful to many people. I strongly disapprove. But an amendment to The Constitution? That’s just idiotic.
I understand Germany’s outlawing the Nazi’s. Can’t argue with their reasons there. At the same time I think you are absolutely right that it simply drives them underground and perhaps even promotes their growth.
At some point when I was young I read about some country somewhere (South Africa perhaps) outlawing an oppressed people’s flag. It was the first time I’d come across such a thing. It made me think about the fact that in America people fly all sorts of other countries flags. We even allow people to fly the Confederate flag.
Think about that a moment.
Our belief in the strength of the idea and concept of America is so great that it is not against the law to fly the flag of an attempt to destroy the country.
I completely understand and sympathize with the positions of many that the confederate flag is a symbol of racism and hatred and is offensive to them. I agree. But I have concluded that I disagree with attempts to suppress it. I don’t think that is the answer. I think the idea of America is great enough to withstand the confederate flag, great enough to withstand marching nazi’s, great enough to withstand marching kkkers, great enough to withstand terrorists of all strips.
This is the basis of my oppossition to much of the so-called Patriot Act and other attempts to stifle American Civil Liberties.
We are greater than that. We are braver than that. The strength of the idea of America does not need such things to win.
The idea of America wins all by itself.
you’ve hit on an important point.
Daily Kos as a community has a lot of pull, not just because it is big, but because its members are activists and opinion leaders.
There is a reason that politicians are posting at the site.
But if the site is easily marginalized, it will become a liability for politicians to post there, and the clout of the community will be diminished.
The only thing that troubles me is that he is declaring what is reality-based. The reality is a big segment of this country no longer trusts the government, and increasingly is willing to think the worst about its motives, tactics, and morals.
I’ve said for over a month that Bush needed a terrorist attack to stop the cratering of support for the war. That doesn’t mean I think he, or anyone in his government would kill innocent Brits to maintain support for the war. But it also means I’m not going to censor anyone who thinks it ought to be explored. You can’t declare what ‘reality’ is by fiat.
So, I fully understand why he is deeply troubled by recommended diaries that are assuming the worst about our government with no evidence to back it up. But I don’t agree that people engaging in that speculation are necessarily living outside of reality. I just wish our government hadn’t lost so much credibility that many people have little trouble believing it would engage in murder.
In that regard, I learned a humbling lesson after the Gulf War.
At that time, I had a home business and worked about 14-18 hours a day, raising a child on my own. My only outlet for news was CNN and the occasional chance to scan the newspapers.
I was riveted by the Congressional testimony of the young, pretty Kuwaiti girl who described the ransackiing of the incubators in Kuwait by Iraqi soldiers. CNN played the clips a lot.
I heard no contradicting view until one day, a rather liberal client mentioned to me that her testimony was false. I’d never heard that from anyone, and I immediately thought he was probably a wacky conspiracy theorist. I dismissed his story.
Well, you know the rest. Eventually I found out, like a lot of busy Americans, that what I thought was true was all a charade.
Importantly: There were NO blogs then. There were a few UNIX-style chat rooms and a couple other fledgling ventures such as Prodigy and the ImagiNation Network (which I still miss badly).
What that taught me was that, if people are consumed by making a living and raising children, it’s very easy to convince them of most anything if the press displays only one view of an event.
It also taught me that it’s not wise to dismiss, out of hand, conspiracy theories. How many lies have we been told that turned out not to be true?
Even I had a hard time believing that Saddam had NO WMDs … surely there were some somewhere.
This is, I guess, a rambling way of saying that I think it’s important not to condemn certain viewpoints as “conspiracy theories,” and to allow such theories the light of day.
(I did not see the diaries/posts that concerned Kos so much. Perhaps they were truly nuts. But, if they had a modicum of logic and were referenced, I don’t see the problem with allowing such diaries to appear where they can be debated and debunked.)
and I assume they have been deleted.
I also note that he is reinstating people that ask to be reinstated.
However, he described the theory that Bush and Blair had bombed the tubes as non-reality based.
I understand not wanting to be associated with that theory, but none of us in a position to know what might, or might not, be deemed necessary by certain people to maintain support for the war.
I don’t think Bush and Blair would do such a thing. But, before I dismiss it as the insane ravings of a lunatic, I must note that there is compelling, if not conclusive, evidence that Russia bombed apartment buildings in Moscow and blamed it on Chechens.
What we are relying on is the decency of our leaders. But there is another point too. It’s one thing to raise a question and another to assume the worst without evidence.
It reflects badly on the site for people to accuse Bush of being willing to sacrifice innocent civilians to maintain support for the war. That doesn’t mean that no one (professional investigators and journalists) should look into the possibility, though.
The way I see it, Kos was stuck with a difficult decision, and I’m sure he agonized over it. In the end, he decided the issue was going to damage the whole community and he acted. I understand.
To be fair to the tinfoil hats, British intelligence does have a history of killing its own people in the pursuit of IRA terrorists — google for “Stakeknife” (sic) if you’re not already familiar with the story.
I don’t think that’s what happened yesterday, but it is not an entirely unreasonable suspicion. Highly improbable, to be sure, but not unreasonable.
I am a tin foil hat wearer, but I can sort of understand why Markos did it — it’s just not what that site is about. But I would only hope there could be a place for those who stray farther afield in their thinking. These blog sites are amazing. What you and Markos and others have done in providing this comunication tool is fantastic. I love the interface, I love the fact that each user has a page where s/he can monitor their posts.
It seems that with a little reorganization, everybody could be satisfied. Perhaps a “conspiracy corner”, where those of us who want to speculate can make use of these blog resources without chasing off others.
And I know it has not even come up here as a point of contention, but with an eye to the future — it is quite possible there will be an influx of tinfoil hats here, and if people here should begin to feel that the site is becoming overrun, maybe some sort of reorganization into subcategories would be the thing to keep everyone happy.
“conspiracy corner”
Hey, I like that. Kind of like the “spoiler threads” on sites such as Television Without Pity – where people claim to know things about TV show episodes in advance of others. Sometimes the spoilers are accurate – and sometimes they’re not. . .
(And yes, I have no shame whatsoever in admitting that I occasionally visit Television Without Pity to read the delightfully snarky recaps of various TV shows. One of those places to visit when you need a little time out from reality.)
******************
Wishing everyone a fabulous weekend filled with peace, love, hope and spiritual strength – and perhaps a glass of wine to go with it.
Bye!
is that it would segregate these ideas from the general community and from the stream of ideas. The result, I’m afraid, is that those who generate conspiracy theories would not have the opportunity to test them for validity and evidence in the wider community, and that those not fond of CTs wouldn’t get to hear any of them.
I think it’s healthy the way it is now. I know it can be annoying, for everyone: those who advance these ideas get slammed, and those who don’t like them have to confront them constantly. But I think it’s for the best even so.
I often speculate about connections between these events, and I am realistically cynical about our government. In fact, there are real conspiracies. So I like hearing about others’ conspiracy theories. But I don’t like phony or exaggerated information (reminds me too much of BushCo!). I don’t think I would be visiting a conspiracy-oriented blog. But I’m dismayed at the idea of a blog purged of edgy, imaginative thinking in this realm.
Can’t we all just get along?
At some point, you have to decide if you trust your community to police itself or not. You also have to take a look at the functionality of your software to see if it’s up to the job. It’s sad that the dKos community just doesn’t seem to be trusted to take care of itself anymore. That’s the crux of it for me.
I posted on one or two and there was actually a good back and forth with a main page poster over there, and I just now found all those posts and diaries were deleted. As far as I saw no one was saying they knew what had happened (and couldn’t give details or whatever), just that we should be open to the possibility that what we are being told by the UK and US governments is not to be taken without a rather large grain of salt.
Do we have any reason at this point to suspect Islamic terrorists other than the fact that everyone seems to think so? I’m sorry, but that’s not enough evidence for me. People did bring up other unexplained events like Oidigo alerts for Israelis on 9/11 (as reported in Ha’aretz) and the mysterious celebrating Israelis in New Jersey that day, but those have been fairly widely reported. I brought up the fact that things like this have happened in the past in human history and that we should at least be open to that possibility (IE, that we are naive if we say out of hand it is not possible).
No offense to anyone that still posts there (like I did tonight), but fuck that place pisses me off any more.
And I think…
“The only thing that troubles me is that he is declaring what is reality-based.”
… this is a very important point. Who decides? Who gets to decide what is reality based and what is not? Yes, it Kos’s site but no one of us is qualified to decide what is reality or conspiracy and what is not. We are all fallible.
Personally I like the community based screening method for such things. It likely to be far more reliable, if slower, and doesn’t set any one individual up for a fall. Those diaries and theories that have merit will percolate to the top and those that are off in the ozone will either fall away and be used for comic relief by the rest of the community.
On the other hand… with this government… who knows? Reading the Judith Miller stories I’m beginning to have all sorts of conspiracy thoughts about the whole anthrax thing. I am not at all prone to conspiracy theories but with these guys… I’m beginning to wonder.
along that line, rather than worry about freeper hits, I suspect Kos is basking in the newfound celebrity from some of the media and political folks. He is sought after as a consultant and as an expert. It probably has been hinted to him about what would put dents in his credibility. He is young, human, smart and ambitious. And it is his blog.
I think we were profoundly lucky to have had it free wheeling for as long as we did. There were a lot of good writers in that mix of folks and I have found a lot of them here as well. So all is not lost, just grist for the mill.
“… make it that much more possible for the right wing slime machine to marginalize DailyKos and render it ineffective (ala their attempts to smear/marginalize moveon through association with a couple moveon contributors hitler/nazi references).”
One of the things thats driving me crazy these days is that the liberals/Democrats keep trying to find a way to hide from this kind of criticism from the right. It was decided that Kerry was “electable” because of his military service. Many of us at the time said, “If you think this helps, I have two words for you… Max Cleland.” And before you knew it, we had the Swift Boat attacks. When will we learn that no matter what we do, no matter who we purge from our ranks, and no matter how careful we are, the right wing will label us as fringe, Nazi’s, unpatriotic, terrorist supporters, etc, etc, etc. Lets give up the attempt to avoid this and just get grounded in who we are, what we think and what we want to do. Enough already!!!
PS Since this might be my first “rant” here, I want to label it as such. Its just something that is really bugging me alot – but not something that I’m directing at anyone in paticular. I know that you were only offering your understanding about the purge at kos. IF this has anything to do with it – my rant applies to him for this reason alone.
One of the things thats driving me crazy these days is that the liberals/Democrats keep trying to find a way to hide from this kind of criticism from the right
I couldn’t agree more. It’s a rigged game, and as long as we keep playing it we’ll keep losing. First, it makes us look shifty — as if we aren’t willing to be honest and forthright about our beliefs. Second, it consumes time and energy more productively spent elsewhere, as it keeps us on the defensive. And third (and in some ways most worryingly, to me), it potentially leads to the loss of important voices and ideas, as we narrow the terms of the debate to some kind of pre-defined threshold of acceptability.
And finally, as you point out: it doesn’t work!
your last paragraph will have to be: It depends. What is the context? What are your goals? A liability to … what? Who?
Also, can we ask about the “limits of free speech” without examining what kinds of power structures are in play? If so, then is it “reality-based” at all?
I haven’t really thought this out.
But, one of the things that initially attracted me most to Daily Kos was the seeming tolerance for all kinds of posts. I was stunned when I read posts that were very critical of Kos himself, and even more surprised when I saw he didn’t erase them — which is fairly typical on the message boards and mailing lists I’ve been on in the past.
I’ve moderated a lot of forums and mailing lists and, over time, learned that I did a better job when I worried less about what people posted. I.e., the controls I exerted had a dampening effect on the entire community. Then there were self-appointed policemen who’d report on this and that person, and that was more ticklish to handle.
That was part of what attracted me at first, too, and it’s why I’m here now. I know that, within the limits of decency, I can say whatever I think here, and folks will treat me with respect even if they disagree, and often they do. I’ve had my mind changed a more than a few times as a result. I think that’s hugely productive and exciting. After all, I already know what I think; the opportunity to be exposed to different views in a congenial atmosphere is like an all-you-can-eat buffet.
In fairness to Kos, his objective is not to run a think tank; he’s trying to be a political organizer.
I wonder, though, if speaking with one voice isn’t a political liability. One of the advantages that the conservative coalition has is a certain deniability. If the GOP as a whole is accused of being the party of Christian Dominionists, any individual GOP politician can say that the GOP is a big tent, and he is not himself a Dominionist. Likewise, a Dem could dismiss accusations of being a tinfoil hat by saying that those people, while part of the party, do not speak for the whole party.
I think that having open and honest dialog is impossible when one fears one will be banned for speaking one’s opinion. I can understand the sentiment behind not wanting one’s site to get bogged down in conspiracy theories, but as a “Fraudster” (that is one who believes that the last election was stolen), I know that I would be less inclined to contribute to a site that threatened me with expulsion if I didn’t “tow the party line”.
I think that to be a progrssive political site, it is important to not slam the door on people. A big tent is just that, one which is open and welcoming to many diverse people.
I liked the german Neo-Nazi comparison to the US KKK. I’ve always had a problem with the Germans on this approach and thought that they were creating more neo-nazis by forbidding their speach. As parents often find out, the more you try to ban something, the more people want to try it.
I think that having open and honest dialog is impossible when one fears one will be banned for speaking one’s opinion.
Very important.
There are a couple DIARY & Comment COPS over there who may be influencing Kos…. I hope not. But I have a hunch.
What those rigidly (and they ARE rigid) P.C./ anti-tin-hat people do is kill true debate and conversation. It’s my way or the highway for them. I’ve been on the receiving end. ‘nuf said.
What I wonder is how those Cops even have time to live lives – they seem to be on a mission to patrol.
No, they don’t have lives.
It is of course nice to have your viewpoint affirmed by others, yet civil discourse helps to open the mind to variants that might otherwise be overlooked. I like your analogy, because I love good food and civil discourse. I have found that many times when I have disagreed with a diarist, if I reflect on their meaning and intent through the words that are used, I can usually come to an understanding of their viewpoint and it is not usually so far outside of my own beliefs as to be abhorrent or objectional to me after all.
I have one primary goal in the upcoming elections and that is get as many progressives elected as possible and turn our ship of state away from its intended course, to crash and burn in Armageddon. To change the course will require women and men of principle and courage who must stand up to the Neo-Cons and make our country a place where might does not make right and we as a people understand that we are not king of the hill and must start giving back to the rest of the world, some of the bounty that has been given to us as a nation.
Out of respect for BooMan and his stated wishes and perhaps to get wider readership for your broader implications questions (which I find quite interesting), might you change the title to take dKos out of it?
Also, if you want everyone to “forget kos” and focus on your larger issue here, how about LINKING to what he wrote instead of posting it out there, and revise the sentence about kos’ “increasingly odd behavior”…. you can say the same thing without being inflamatory. Just suggestions, mind you!
Thanks for listening.
Suggestions taken, in part. I’d rather keep the quote for the benefit of anyone who doesn’t want to visit dKos.
…the things hhad almost 200 comments on it last time I looked! I could get you a permalink if you want though..just a thought, no matter, I am already uncomfrtable about how much this sounds like I am speaking for BooMan and/or the community at large — I have no right to do that.
Back to the free speech stuff!
I can think of a few times when my own personal free speech as worked against my better interests…heh heh, don’t know if I’d go so far as to call it a liability though!
I’d like a link to what Kos wrote as I can’t seem to find any such thread over there.
Last time I looked it was over 500 comments.
You might try this:
http://www.dailykos.com/user/kos
— His diary should be right there. And you can click on the PERMALINK version so you won’t get all the comments.
Thanks Susan…just got home from being out with the kids for dinner.My son asked me about this.Now I can show him where to find it. I’m pooped and going to bed. Night!
You know, I’m going to think about this a bit more (have to run to the Post Office) but I am going to have to say that my answer to “are we more powerful when we speak with one voice” is no.
Will expand when I get back.
Still working on this…I may post it as a diary when it all comes together…right now, it looks something like this:
unity is a myth
one voice demands one speaker, multiple voices do not have to be raised AGAINST each other, harmony sounds good even though each voice is in a different key
SPEAKING WITH ONE VOICE sounds tends too much toward consolidation, condensation (see Orwell’s eveolution of Newspeak) of what can be said and thought
and, perhaps, most importantly, voiceless people can abdicate their responsibility MUCH more easily…
I will keep working on it — the Post Office has installed an auto-teller for stamps and light packages, so i didn’t have to wait at all…bummer that, I do some of my best ruminating in the Post Office! 😉
dKos specifically, I don’t like it when ANYone appropriates my voice (or others’ for that matter, but they have to speak up for themselves) — ESPECAILLY when they haven’t taken the time to listen to it.
It really it me between the eyes with the Carol Darr bruhaha and the incessant “dKos is where the rest of the media turns to see what the liberal progressives are thinking” meme, that I was being appropriated.
More on that some other time too.
especially since kos has always said he was a dem blog not a liberal or a progressive blog. Maybe we flocked there because he had a free wheeling blog and we had somewhere to go? But BooMan hasn’t even put the dem constraint on us. Just the constraint of making nice nice instead of being so negative.
I think this puts it well. Reminds me of my thoughts after the past election, about those of us who voted (mostly for Kerry). I pictured it as a sort of parade (I tend to think in pictures 😉
Many voices singing, some terribly off key, many diverse people – some strolling along quietly, others racing about wildly and loudly, yet others beating drums with different timing, more singing songs that belonged with none of it – … but all heading in the same direction, supporting each other even if the song being sung wasn’t quite our favorite.
That’s pretty much what we are, I think. Or, at least what we need to be. Standing up for one another, supporting one another even if it’s not quite our thing, and allowing all the various voices to have their say, so that they too feel they have an advocate in the government. (Well, as much as any of us feel that, if we are not the banking industry, but still).
Seems to me there might be a middle ground having to do solely with process, and that it just so happens that we get to see it in action every day here at Boo.
BooMan never limits himself only to writing the top of the page, but also dips down in and engages in a serious way–not just one-liners– below the fold. So does Susanhu. I think this makes a HUGE difference in the tone of the site, that it may actually be the single most important factor in keeping the Hidden Comments to a level so low as to be amazing, and that it works an invisible,totally beneficial discipline on the site.
If somebody with an idea, wacky or not, diaries or comments here, that person is just as likely as not to find Boo or Susan talking to them about it. Obviously they don’t have time to get to every diary, but they show up all over the place and set the tone every time they do. That way nothing–or very very little–ever gets out of control, people feel heard, and discussion tends to proceed along sane lines.
I guess what I’m saying is that I suspect purges and censorship are a lot less likely to be “needed” on a blog like this one where the Front Pagers participate in a serious, respectful way on other pages, too.
the importance of the manner in which our Front Pages engage. Respectful, calm, not making everything about them, not taking criticism personally. In the short time I’ve been here, I’ve never seen them make their points by shutting other people down. Maybe I’ve just missed reading them on their off days, lol, but I think not.
All these traits are essential to keeping dialogue open and avoiding censorship, me thinks.
Good point – they are modeling the sort of behavior they would like to see on the site. I am conscious of trying to be respectful here because of this. (I may mess up from time to time when brain fried though:)
The second biggest fight of my 33-year marriage was over free speech. We were fighting about the right of American Nazi Party to march in Skokie. My husband believed that the freedom of speech trumped all other rights while I argued that Skokie’s Jews (40,000 out of a total population of 70,000, 6 of whom were my relatives) had the right to be free from the harassment and fear that the march would engender.
I think the reason that our discussion ended up as a screaming match was because it is very difficult to determine which critical right should outweigh another. Fortunately, the resolution of this particular issue was adjudicated through the courts, rather than through family squabbles. The ANP did end up getting permission for the march but both the ANP and the Jews of Skokie got something more valuable — a confirmation that their points of view would be heard, acknowledged, and fairly considered.
And that’s what’s wrong with the “purge” — it’s a one-sided dismissal without any recourse. And cutting people off without any options increases conflict rather than lessens it. So while I still believe that the Jews of Skokie had a right to live without harassment, I wouldn’t fight with my husband about it now — I’d just calmly point out that where there are rights in conflict, we must ensure that there is process for resolving the conflict which all participants perceive as open and fair. And then I’d tell him to put his damn dirty clothes in the hamper.
the voices of women has already lost all credibility. There is no need to look further.
In general I would refuse to be part of a site that used my presence to push an agenda against my interests, even the interest of discussion.
In many ways this looks like the church squabbles my husband told me he went through as a child in the backwoods of Arkansas. By the time the Pastor called out everyone who didn’t agree, the only member left in his congregation was the snake.
Libel, slander, defamation, false advertising, inciting violence, perjury, making a false police report, plagerism. These are all considered “speech acts,” that is, they go beyond mere speech.
and the silencing of dissent. Conspiracy theory has its place in the American landscape so that we may question the accepted versions of reality. Things aren’t always what they seem. Markos is narrowing himself into a smaller and smaller cubby hole. Fine, if that’s the way he wants it. I browse there less and less these days.
And, when someone comes up with a good definition of “reality”, let me know – especially during these times.
For 2 days now, I’ve watched American TV coverage of the London bombings rife with experts on Al Quaeda explaining why they did them. There was one claim of responsibility by some obscure, self-proclaimed Al Quaeda group on a web site. Who’s to say it wasn’t anti-G8 anarchists who pulled off those bombings? Right now – both angles would be considered conspiracy theories, but the press has no problem proclaiming this is Al Quaeda with no proof whatsover.
Let’s get over ourselves. In the big scheme of things, how much of a grip do we really have on the truth, on reality?
Just tonite I saw a story on CBC TV about the CDC radically downsizing their death estimates due to obesity from some 300,000 to 27,000. Oops. Just a few months ago, the first number was reality. They now say that being a bit overweight may not be so bad. Do you think the MSM will cover this enough so the general public can now relax a bit about this “killer obesity crisis”? Not bloody likely.
We all need to take a step back every now and then, remove ourselves from the hysteria and understand that today’s conspiracy can definitely be tomorrow’s reality and vice versa.
As a Canadian, I support our hate speech laws that prosecute people for outrageous and dangerous claims made about identifiable groups of people. To my mind, that is an acceptable form of stifling speech, as are slander and libel laws.
As for dKos, it’s kos’s blog. I disagree with what he’s done, but I’m no longer a member there anyway, so my opinion about his actions really doesn’t matter. I will say this, however – if I hadn’t left when I did, I would have left now over these actions.
As a Canadian, I support our hate speech laws that prosecute people for outrageous and dangerous claims made about identifiable groups of people. To my mind, that is an acceptable form of stifling speech, as are slander and libel laws.
That’s an interesting perspective that had never before occurred to me, that is, illegalizing hate speech because it is slanderous. And when it gets down to it, that’s exactly what it is. I like that a lot better than banning it because it’s hateful for the simple reason that it’s easier to establish that a statement is false than to determine its intent and emotional content. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion falls outside the line not because it is hateful (though it is) but because it is false and defamatory. Beautiful.
The defamatory aspect is particularly important as a safeguard. Truthful defamatory speech is perfectly legal. But if you defame someone, and they object, the burden of proof falls on you. You couldn’t just run around saying that a secret council of Jews meets every century in the Prague cemetery to plot world domination unless you can produce that secret council or proof of its existence. Be as hostile as you like, but make sure the preponderance of the evidence is on your side before you open your yap.
I really like that idea. It seems less prone to abuse than dragging something as nebulous as hatred into the legal system.
when someone comes up with a good definition of “reality”, let me know – especially during these times.
EXACTLY! We do not know the reality thanks to the FOX MSM clones.
And Rove and Bush and Rumsfeld and Condi etc., etc., They all have been caught in proven lies by people like us- not by the so-called legite reporters.
THEY Conspired againgst the whole world for God’s sake.
talk about conspiracies….
Until we get real information I for one, will keep my tin-foil-hat securely in place. Thank you very much.
This is an unscientific observation, but there’s something about the purge + self-congratulation over at dKos that strikes this man as very male (or perhaps, more precisely, patriarchal). It’s notable that the great exodus to this site happened over a gender issue. And though the content of the current dispute is not gender-related, the behavior of kos and others seems very gendered to me. It reminds me a lot of Clinton’s famous Sister Souljah moment (which was full of interesting, and creepy, racial and gender subtexts).
I find misogynisitic comments over there far more disturbing than conspriracy theories. The conspriracy threads I can read, ignore, be skeptical about, whatever, but they rarely move from my short term to my long term memory. The sexist comments dig deeper. I also find the profanity ridden rants, comments and arguments obnoxious. So, FACETIOUSLY, as I don’t condone the purge, if he wanted to delete this sort of thing, it would be fantastic with me.