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?
