This started as a comment on the “Don’t be a Prick” thread, but the more I think about it, the more perfect I find the analogy. My daughter is watching Shrek this morning; the first one, about Lord Farquaat and his attempts to perfect his kingdom of Duloc. Of course the hero of the movie is the ogre Shrek. Isn’t it interesting how in movies it’s the non-comformists who are always the heroes? Not so in life, I’m afraid. Every community moves towards conformity and group-think in one way or another. It’s what Carolyn Myss and Stuart Wilde refer to as the “tribal” mind. Non-conformity invites shunning and shaming behavior from the enforcers of tribal norms.
I’ve actually been observing the shunning and shaming of Parker, with increasing horror, for some months now, and assumed she’d be banned sooner or later. Sooner it is. Parker certainly can be a bit of an ogre. No argument. I can see why she might push people’s buttons. She’s certainly pushed mine on occasion. But having one’s buttons pushed is part of life. People abrade each other. I don’t know how to break it you folks, but life was not designed to be comfortable.
The message of Shrek is both simple and profound. Life cannot be made perfect. That is it’s beauty. We grow through our interactions with others, which constantly test our limits and our preconceptions and throw us out of our comfort zone. The quest for perfect harmony invites tyranny and comes at the expense of liberty.
So, my daughter is watching Shrek today. She does so often. We got her the boxed set a while ago, because, in addition to being very clever and entertaining, these movies teach a value system that we would very much like instill in her. We want her to grow up respecting that people come in a range of shapes, sizes, and personality types, and that true beauty is in imperfection. For my part, I’m enjoying the soundtrack in the background as I drink my morning coffee and wonder which of us unique, fairy tale creatures will be consigned to the swamp next.
Personally, I’ll hang with the exiles in the swamp (Donkey, the 3 blind mice, etc.) ANY day than with the “pod people” of Duloc!
Tell you daughter I say “hi” — how much was the box set and does it include anything that the two single DVDs don’t have? (We have both of those….)
Well, hold onto your hat. The boxed set includes Shrek 3D, in which the ghost of Lord Farquaat returns to claim his queen. It comes with 3D glasses for the full experience. Pretty awesome. It also has some bonus material, like endless takes of Shrek burping, which my daughter enjoys way, way too much. I don’t remember how much it was. We got it at Costco so it was fairly reasonable.
I’ll see you in the exile swamp.
Too bad both of our TVs are over 10 years old….we tried this out with Spy Kids 3D, and I must say, it didn’t look too great on our TVs. Guess, we;ll have to wait until we’re really rich and can but a nice flat screen the size of the back wall! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL — ahem, sorry. Does the 3D have a regular version too? I may look for it and save up!
Thanks!
Quote: The quest for perfect harmony invites tyranny and comes at the expense of liberty.
And that is what some people are asking for on Booman Tribune–“perfect harmony”.
They’ve invited those of us who are discontented to depart–shut up or leave.
It’s most un-democratic and illiberal.
It’s ultimately self-defeating, as well. I’ve seen this movie before–to quote a famous Resident of the United States–on other “community” websites.
First, a banning or two for egregious misbehaviour.
Then, more bannings–and this time they are not publicly discussed, and the reasons for the bannings become increasingly suspect.
Eventually, an atmosphere of fear falls over the “community”, in which those who remain begin to censor themselves because one never knows when the axe will fall.
A lot of people have cried that this “community” is “falling apart”. It needn’t be so; every crisis also presents an opportunity for change, an opportunity to grow, a chance to take a new direction. The size and diversity of Booman Tribune has grown–one might take the recent spate of troubles as growing pains. A site cannot remain in blissful infancy forever; it grows into adolescence and with adolescence comes a questioning of identity and direction. I take all of these as neither good nor bad in and of themselves–they will be bad if we make them so, or good if we make them so.
But if the “community” IS “falling apart”, then blame must be settled squarely on the shoulders of those who run this website, not on those who have expressed discomfort or discontent. As we have learned with Mr. Bush, one cannot simultaneously claim authority and absolve oneself of responsibility when things go wrong. If you’re driving the bus when it goes over a cliff, it’s not credible to turn to the passengers and say, “Well, this is all YOUR fault.”
Signed,
A Concerned and Observant Passenger
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t you one of the people telling Parker (among others) to “shut up or leave” because of her opinions about the military?
I’ve never told anybody to “shut up and leave” (except Aloha on this thread, and then I was being sarcastic). That’s never been my attitude–although I’ve been on the RECEIVING end of such an attitude.
Did I say I always agree with Parker? No, I did not. But I defend the rights of people even if I disagree with them.
I’m going to try for a response here to your comment spider – although it might be a little of the “late to the party” variety.
I’ve been reading all of these threads and trying to organize my thoughts. I actually find that from my perspective everyone who has taken the time to write about their reactions has said something that is of value to me. I just don’t think I can stake out a clearly defined “position” on all of this. So it makes it hard to engage.
But I did go back and re-read Susan’s diary “Don’t be a prick” to see what exactly she said about her communication with Parker and where things stand as of that writing.
Maybe I read it differently than others – but Susan said that she is still in conversation with Parker – its not completely over yet. And I am still holding out to hear Boo’s take on all of this.
I think that rather than writing about the demise of the pond, maybe our energies would be better spent trying to find out how to help support the ongoing conversation that, according to Susan, is currently happening with Parker. Seeing this as the begining of the string of “potential” bannings seems to only assume that conversation is over.
From what I understand about the history of this blog, I have heard of 2 bannings (prior to this issue with Parker). I don’t know anything about the first, but the most recent seems to have been for the same reason that this is happening with Parker. Susan says they have been in conversation with her about bad-mouthing (ie name-calling) and accusing Boo of making money from his connections to kos. Since she’s been slamming kos and other blogs for months now, I assume its the later that pushed things over the top.
Lets hope Parker is willing to hear how much that accusation against Boo is destructive and that Susan is open to hearing that the other stuff is not really the heart of the matter. Thats my wish for now.
Seeing this as the begining of the string of “potential” bannings seems to only assume that conversation is over.
I make no assumption that the conversation is over, only that I have no say in that conversation. It’s like watching the clash of the Titans, or rather, like watching the Titans secretly deliberate about us mere mortals. I’m quite sure that I don’t know all the ins and outs of what led to this decision. I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that if such transparency of process were available, I would disagree with their reasons. I’m assuming that because I certainly disagree with the reasons stated thus far.
I am just wondering how many more of these diaries we will have to have before this gets settled?
For better or worse the genie is out of the bottle. I fail to see how it will be put back in again, and that’s being optimistic. So it goes. The banning of a community member who perhaps was abrasive but nonetheless valued by many was a mistake. The continued much ado about next to nothing regarding Big Orange was also a mistake. Those mistakes have repercussions. So it goes.
that if this is bothering people, then let them have their say. The timing is completely shitty with Booman being away but hopefully there will be some type of resolution soon.
You really think this will get settled? That’s what I call optimism!
Unless by “settled” you mean when all this is swept firmly under the carpet forcing us to accept the “peace at any price” imposed on us. Or as a favorite poet of mine wrote:
As many as we want to post, alohaleezy.
If you don’t like this diary, you can leave, right?
Wow! So you are doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing. I have no voice here? If I disagree with something I have no right to that opinion? Please.
Not pleasant being dismissed is it? Having your right to express an opinion questioned. I know I don’t care for it. I bet Parker didn’t either.
This is crap! And you know it! Shame on you!
I know you admited earlier that you have a hard time not “rising to bait”, and I’ll agree with you there.
If you disagree with what shadowthief is doing, by all means, say so and argue your points, but can you please quit with the “shame on you” shit? It makes my skin crawl!
Shame on me?! For what? Pointing out that your statement is ironic? You’re becoming abusive, aloha. I really don’t appreciate the hostility.
He started out that way. A long time ago in a galaxy not so far away (it’s that smallish one two galaxies over…you know the one…the only one that hasn’t got a Starbucks yet)
You’re defending Parker and accusing this other person of being abusive? Is someone only abusive because you don’t agree with what they say?
As someone who has been on the wrong end of Parker’s diatribes, been cursed at and called a sellout and a traitor to my principles, I am stunned that nobody else is willing to see how far Parker went in violating the “Don’t Be a Prick” rule. I don’t even care about the kos stuff, if you keep accusing people of nefarious deeds or intent – as she did with me, and apparently Booman too – that qualifies pretty well as being a prick. And if she won’t stop, then how is that not grounds for banning?
Here’s the difference. Neither Shadowthief, nor I, are calling for aloha to be banned. I simply called her on her verbiage. I’ve done the same with Parker when she’s gone off on me.
Okay. So, and forgive me but I am just not getting this – if you agree Parker’s been abusive, that she’s repeatedly violated the Don’t Be a Prick rule, how is that not grounds for banning? Especially if Susan has talked to her about it and got ripped a new one, which is what it sounds like happened.
And I was going to add… why does this have to be about Kos when really it seems like it’s just about Parker’s behavior?
I don’t recall reading anywhere a statement from management as to the specific reasons for Parker’s banning. I’ve only read a lot of interpretation from people who aren’t truly in a position to know.
As others have suggested in the wake of this event, the admonition to not be a “prick” no longer seems to be a sufficient guideline. It’s definition is entirely subjective, and as it applies to decisions of banning we have absolutely no idea. It’s never been spelled out what constitutes bannable behavior. If there’s a method to this madness, it has not been sufficiently explained to me.
Oh, there you go again, insisting on “facts”. You probably read books, too. NON-fiction books. Whatever will we do with you?
Didn’t you send me that Stephen Colbert quote–“I don’t trust books, they’re all facts–no heart.”? That Stephen Colbert is a very wise man. We should make him our new king.
Your posts have been giving me belly laughs all day. Thank you.
It seems I misunderstood the previous arguments.
I have NOT said that Parker didn’t deserve to be banned.
I have NOT said that Parker DID deserve to be banned.
I HAVE said, and AM saying, that the process by which Parker was banned was done in secret, and made public only after I and a few others revealed that Parker had emailed us with the news she was banned.
I speak only for myself, not Parker, not anyone else, in saying that I want three things:
I want everything out in the open, not done secretly, mysteriously, for vague reasons.
I find it quite suspicious that Parker, for example, was banished after SusanHu frontpaged a diary in which she complained that she had received “reports” that Bootribbers were (gasp) criticising prominent DKos frontpagers (Markos and Armando, she means). The two events are linked quite closely in time.
Was Parker “bumped off” merely to keep things peaceable with the Almighty Kos? If so, it’s a bullshit reason to knock her off this site.
There ARE legitimate reasons to banish somebody from a website. At the very least, I want to know if Parker was banished for legitimate reasons or ones that I cannot accept.
Banishing someone for vague, unexplained reasons, and without a public announcement of the banning (how did SusanHu think she was going to get away with keeping this all quiet?) can only serve to stir up fear and controversy.
If this is truly a “community”, then let us conduct our affairs, especially in a matter as serious as denying somebody her right to be heard on this site, in the honourable light of day–not skulking about in the dead of night.
Right to be heard, I don’t think anyone has an absolute right to be heard here or anywhere, some people have to find or found their own venue to be heard. Not a given right.
I have my own site, if I have problems with a poster I will do what I see fit as the site owner to correct that even if it means suspending privileges. I don’t have to discuss it with anyone and neither does Susan or Booman. Not that I anticipate problems on my non political site, but nevertheless, it’s my money as I have said repeatedly and I would not spend my money to have my guest be abusive towards me.
Freedom of speech does not grant one the right to post where ever and what ever one wishes…
Diane, the problem is, we don’t know for a fact why Parker was banned.
I have a REAL problem with this statement you just made: I don’t think anyone has an absolute right to be heard here or anywhere…
Oh, really? So freedom of speech depends on the venue? You know, that’s why they have those odious “free speech zones”, where protestors against President Bush are put behind fences many streets away from the sight and hearing of His Majesty. I am certain that the folk who created those “free speech zones” would certainly agree that I don’t think anyone has an absolute right to be heard here or anywhere…
I would submit to you that free speech without proximity to those at whom the speech is directed, means nothing. If Booman Tribune cannot tolerate dissent, which is the essence of democracy, then how can the people on Booman Tribune honestly advocate for democracy in the United States?
Not only that, but as Recordkeeper and I have pointed out here and elsewhere, we all make a contribution towards this site.
We click on blogads and buy merchandise from Booman’s store, thereby helping the finances of the site.
We contribute, for free, diaries and comments in diaries that take many hours of our valuable time.
Without our reading and our writing, this site is nothing but an empty shell. It is the people here who animate this site, give it life and soul. Yet according to you, we can and should be cast out at the whim of the site’s creator.
Well, so much for “valuing” the “members” of the “community”. If the site creator is cross with us, we are wiped out of existence on this site. It’s a decidely un-democratic and illiberal notion.
Now, on to the specific case of Parker and the principle involved in her case:
Was Parker banned for implying that Booman was sucking up to Kos for economic reasons?
Nobody has clearly stated so.
If so, couldn’t Booman, or SusanHu, refute that charge with their version of the truth?
A lot of people have read Parker’s statement–the one that she claims got her banned–and didn’t see anything abusive in it. They saw a charge that should have been refuted.
Or is the rule here, “Don’t question the motives or purity of purpose of Booman?”
Again, we don’t know–because nowhere is that rule stated.
It’s all vagueness and implication.
Also, if there was nothing wrong in the banning of Parker, why wasn’t it publicly announced? Why did the Bootrib “community” learn about it from my posting on another diary, and not from SusanHu? If the banning was for legitimate reasons, then why not just say, publicly, “Parker has been banned because she violated X rule”?
Diane, you cannot tell me for a fact WHY Parker was banned because you weren’t one of the people who made that decision. The decision to ban Parker was made either by SusanHu or Booman or by both of them. As SusanHu says that she is emailing Parker back and forth about the banning, it seems that SusanHu has a great deal of say in who is and is not banned.
So all we are left with, in absence of a clear explanation, is conjecture and a piling on by people who have some scores to settle with Parker.
And this isn’t so much about Parker as it is about how this blog is run. Some here seem to be satisfied with the explanation that Booman and SusanHu can do as they damn well please in running the place, and if we don’t like it, we can hit the highway.
But in the same breath, these same people say this is a “community” and we are all united in fellowship, etc.
You know we have been over and over this and I just can’t go on discussing it, for it has become tiresome…People have given very good comments about democracies and so on but that makes no difference to your views or comments so I don’t know what further I can say.
I do think that Susan has said why, but I am not going to go searching for her comment.
If you or Parker or anyone else leave or are banned from the site it will survive, lord knows we are not lacking for diariests and we do not need any one’s particular writing…
My wonder is why you and others continue on here if you are so uncomfortable with following requests of site owners.
As someone said before communties can exsist within and without democracies and it’s just an absurd argument to present in my opinion…
At this point I have had it with this subject and I will certainly try to stay out of it entirely.
This sort of disussion as has been going on does more to destroy community than any banning of anyone person ever could.
It is beginning to look like some need this site more than the site needs them, and why I wonder, to make use of the audience that Booman has gathered here after a lot of hard work….Use his audience, but don’t respect his wishes is a hard thing for me to fathom.
Holy crap, start your own sites, do all the work to get people there, pay the money for site names and programming and hosting and then tell me you will not want control of what you have built. If you can build a site, and I have done so, so I speak from experience, it is a very difficult process that is far from an easy thing to do, but go ahead and do it and then come back and tell me how willing you are to let members, key word, members, run the place…
anyone else leave or are banned from the site it will survive, lord knows we are not lacking for diariests and we do not need any one’s particular writing…
Not being confrontational — just curious. Are you speaking for site management with this statement or is this your personal opinion? It comes across as somewhat unappreciate or dismissive of those who provide content here.
You are a particular person, and your writing is needed. This place would not be the same without you. You have a wonderful gift for making people feel good, for noticing things other people miss.
And it’s not the same without Parker. She also has a unique gift, for slapping people in the face with the rotten trout that they left on the counter, either on purpose or because they couldn’t be bothered.
Every person, those with a divinely bestowed gift of word writing, and those who struggle with the words but whose ideas somehow make it to the page, the courteous smoothers of conflict, and the instigators of controversy, the erudite and scholarly polyglots with extensive knowledge of history and world affairs and overactive vocabularies, and those who know nothing of that, but know right from wrong, the place is not the same when any single one leaves, and the place is enriched by every one who comes.
The site owner is just that – the site owner. The people who come to the site, he can never own. He can ban them, but if they want to come back, they can change nicks and proxies and be back in five minutes, or they can stay away, and it is the owner’s loss, and the community’s loss. A high price to pay for the impossible goal of a rudeness-free environment, and in my opinion, and I say this as one who has frequently been on the receiving end of it, it is not only an impossible goal, but not really a desirable one.
Wow. That was really beautiful. Thank you for sharing that.
I find myself agreeing with Ductape Fatwa a lot more these days.
Isn’t that one of the seven signs of the Apocalypse?
Anyway, in tribute to the “Shrek” theme, I think we ought to sing the song that the mechanised greeting device plays when Donkey and Shrek first present themselves at the gates of Duloc, Lord Farquaat’s “perfect” principality:
Welcome to Duloc
such a perfect town
here we have some rules,
let us lay them down,
don’t make waves,
stay in line,
and we’ll get along fine,
Duloc is a perfect place
please keep feet of the grass,
shine your shoes,
wipe your…………face!
Duloc is,
Duloc is,
Duloc is a perfect place
My question to you Duct, is why do we need slapping in the face, that’s what I want to know and it suggests that we are found in need of same…
It really is quite something to be called dead wrong…by you..and if I were a word freak, I might take exception to your use of the word dead…
If I am dead wrong, then so be it, but they are my opinions so I wonder how they can be called wrong in any sense. How can you or anyone tell me what I think and feel is wrong, that’s the one thing I hold sacred, my right to think and feel without being questioned as to its validity or even slapped by those who feel my very own opinions are wrong. If I changed my words to conform to yours would they then be dead right. Very subjective I think.
Now I say to one and all, I am bowing out of this thread and on to something else.
You may feel that you are, but even if you left, you would still have you, so there is something for the philosophers to haggle over. 🙂
You certainly have the right to your view, but that is what it is – your view. I don’t share it, and I will presume to say that I am not alone in that view. In fact, I think that the people on here who would consider you replaceable are very few.
I think that you, and shirl, who expressed a similar view, are selling yourselves short. I think you underestimate just how much people appreciate the gifts you bring to this site.
And yes, people do need to be slapped in the face sometimes, to wake them up, and if they are rude, their rudeness is also a statement, or an indication of a bad mood. People are human beings, and something about this place makes us willing to be human more. That also is irreplaceable.
And “dead wrong” is just a figure of speech. I thought I knew the origins and all for it, but I can’t remember right now, I think it has something to do with seafaring.
Okay. I did not fully understand your complaint before but now I do. Thank you for explaining it. I think I agree.
But in my mind, Susan did address points 1 and 3:
1. In the instant case, the person has been informed many times — and in very clear language — that 1) it is not okay to call other people names, and 2) that it’s not okay to accuse other bloggers of being in cahoots to make a lot of money (“The ONLY REASON people are sucking up to that twit [Kos] is because he seems to have been given the reigns to pass out potlitical favors in terms of Blogads for the upcoming elections…”).
and
3. BY THE WAY: I have left the door open. I did not slam the door.
Well, if the reason Parker was banned is because she questioned Markos’ financial dealings, and those of other bloggers, then she’s got good company.
Does SusanHu, or you, really, truly believe that other bloggers don’t act in concert with Markos Moulitsa, aka the Great and Powerful Kos, to make money for their blogs?
I’ve already posted this elsewhere, but apparently it bears repeating:
My Due Diligence on the Liberal Ad Network
The Drudge Retort has been kicked out of the Liberal Blog Advertising Network, a group of 75 liberal sites organized by Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos and Chris Bowers and Jerome Armstrong of MyDD under the guidance of BlogPAC, a political action committee that Moulitsas and Armstrong began in 2004.
Bowers personally invited me to join the network in May 2005, sending several e-mails until I agreed to become one of its founding members. I thought it was a good way to bring liberal blogs closer together and make some money in the 2006 election year, so I’ve been working on it for six months, running the network’s “Advertise Liberally” ad on the Retort 6.5 million times during that span and setting up a private blog for members.
Liberal Blog Advertising NetworkThe network has been experiencing a double super-secret flamewar since Bowers announced in mid-October that they were unilaterally changing the rules in a way that excludes several well-trafficked members, including the Retort, Raw Story and Smirking Chimp.
At this time next year, I planned to be sunning on the deck of a new yacht bought with political ad riches, thanks to our country’s lack of meaningful campaign finance reform. I saw myself picking up the New York Times, reading about the newly elected Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, the first day of Karl Rove’s prison term and the Texas Rangers’ victory in the World Series.
Instead, I’ve just given six months of effort and free ad space worth $2,200 to a liberal ad network that’s now my competition.
Some conservatives will have a field day with this, suggesting that liberal bloggers don’t know the business world because we’re up in our ivory towers smoking medicinal marijuana as we search for gay spotted owls who want to get married. But things could be worse for the liberal ad network — it could be Pajamas Media.
I think the moral of this story is simple: Practice due diligence before getting into business with Moulitsas, Armstrong and Bowers. A trait that makes them entertaining bloggers — a talent for getting into fights they don’t need to have — doesn’t translate well to making a network of weblogs advertiser friendly.
I realized this a few weeks ago when Moulitsas used the Daily Kos front page to threaten potential advertisers:
… campaigns should advertise on blogs to reach readers, not to “endorse” the publication. We’re bloggers. We’ll say things that are “controversial”. If campaigns don’t think they can weather such storms, then by all means they should NOT advertise on blogs.
Because every time a campaign freaks out at a blogger and pulls their ads, we’re going to raise a stink about it and inevitably make that campaign look bad. So they should think long and hard before putting money into a Blogad campaign.
My jaw dropped when I read this response to the Kaine gubernatorial campaign in Virginia, which pulled an ad from Steve Gilliard because of his provocative depiction of an African-American politician in blackface. The political situation for a Democrat in a tight race, days before the election, was less important than a blogger’s need to keep it real.
Moulitsas can afford to say crazy shit like that, because Democratic politicians view Daily Kos as an ATM machine and assembly line for grass-roots liberal activists. He charges $1,400 a week for ads and regularly sells 6-8 of them.
For the rest of the 75-minus-me members in the liberal ad network, “don’t pull an ad or we’ll hurt you” is a bit of a tough sell.
By Rogers Cadenhead, posted at his blog
http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/2806/my-due-diligence-liberal-ad-network
So Susan stated clearly why Parker was banned and has left the door open for reinstatement, but you don’t agree with her reasons. There is plenty of room for a productive discussion there.
I just don’t see it being about a future wave of indiscriminate banning. But maybe an occasional disagreement about a particular action.
It could be called a clear statement if it had been made when the banning occurred rather than having been dragged out well after the fact. SusanHu’s initial response to the question of whether and why Parker was banned was that she thought it was “self-evident.” What we still don’t know is whether asking Booman about the financial dealings of this site and the Liberal Ad Network is grounds for banning. That kind of unclarity has a chilling effect on speech. Although I guess making and publicly posting a rule that management considers all questions about its finances, ad revenue, and relationship to the Liberal Ad Network as a banning offense might have undesirable effects as well.
I would feel very comfortable assuming that a question to Boo about the financial dealings of this site and the Liberal Ad Network would be well recieved and responded to. According to what I have seen, that is NOT what the last two people who were banned did. They made accusations about the financial dealings that both Boo and Susan have repeatedly denied.
If it would help, I’d be happy to ask the above question when Boo gets back and see what happens.
Just to be clear: The above article that I posted does not mention Booman Tribune, either directly or obliquely. It focuses on the Unholy Trinity of Markos, Armando, and Jerome and their business dealings.
I posted it to show that there ARE substantial questions about the ethics and competency of these three highly visible men who are so influential in the “progressive” blogosphere.
Like it or not, these three chaps are “big dogs” in the blogosphere, and their influence, as far as I can divine, is growing.
But I have serious questions as to whether these three men are honest in their business dealings, and are competent to handle the responsibility they have taken onto themselves. I’ll not accept any rule that says I can’t ask these questions. If, in the course of asking, Booman feels that his integrity is also questioned because of his business dealings with Markos, Jerome, and Armando, then the proper thing to do, as always, is to answer any questions people have and settle the matter.
Refusing to answer questions, or stating that it’s prohibited to ask such questions in the first place, will not settle the matter–it will only make it worse in the long run.
I have seen no evidence to show that Booman has been other than honest and ethical in his business dealings. I HAVE seen evidence to show that Markos, Armando, and Jerome have been dishonest and unethical in their business dealings (including screwing over Jeff Tiedrich, the founder of the Smirking Chimp and a chap who is supposedly a friend of Markos Moulitsa, not to mention a pioneer in the progressive blogosphere).
Markos’s partner is Jerome Armstrong, who is a different person from me.
First of all I am a she not a he. You would know that if you were around here a little more. How was I being abusive? That is just not true.
My apologies for confusing your gender, madam.
I will amend my statement above to read as follows:
“Aloha is NOT becoming abusive. SHE started out that way.”
I have a very long memory, Aloha. I HAVE been paying attention to how you treat others on this site almost since the first moment I arrived here. Your gender is irrelevant to me.
If you don’t know how you are being abusive, perhaps you ought to ponder on it awhile, and it will come to you.
But probably not.
You know what I have admitted my over the top comments on other occassions and have apologised to those concerned. It is not behavoir I have been proud of. I feel you are attacking me here for past disagreements. Some of us are trying to heal wounds. None of us is perfect and especially not me. Never said I was. But please do show me how I was being abusive? In this thread. I voiced my opinion. Recordkeeper disagreed and then I said lets just agree to disagree. I went away. I come back and there is this piling on. I am really sad.
Leezy… just walk away. <<hug>>
Thanks Lil…you are right. I think I will walk away for a very long time.
Please don’t let a few people who have spent the past few days stirring up as much shit as they could drive you away. That’s not what this place is about.
that’s not what this place used to be about. I appreciate very much your concern. I just don’t want to be here anymore. It isn’t fun and it isn’t productive and it isn’t what I believe Booman set out for it to be. It really is too bad because there is so much talent here.
This isn’t the place to say everything I want to Alohaleezy and I don’t know your email so I’ll just say that I would miss you very much.
Library lil, I have aloha’s email and I will be happy to forward one to her if you want.. BTW you might enjoy Village Blue, I think it is your kind of place so please do come over and check us out and join if you like it.
Consider that my invitation. Anyone else need therapy, come on over…
Thanks, Diane, I’ll see you over there though you won’t always see me as I lurk more than write.
So we are supposed to be “sad” for you but Parker deserved to be banned for the exact same behaviour?
Hm, seems we have a standard that is double.
And of course you get a “hug” and are told to walk away from mean old Shadowthief–after being abusive once again. You have not only been abusive in the past, but TODAY.
But that’s the problem when we lack clear standards and rules for behaviour–you get away with your bad deeds, and Parker is punished (probably) for hers.
Ah, well, who said the world is fair?
Or as Will Muny said in “Unforgiven”: “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.
Aloha,
It was I who said you were becoming abusive because you tried to shut me down with “shaming,” rather than address the point I was making. You have not apologized to me for that or even acknowledged it. It is not the first time you have been rude to me and not apologized for it. Just so we’re clear, I am not carrying any grudges or resentments where you are concerned. I have no anger towards you at all, but in the interest honesty, clarity, and, as you say, healing of wounds, I think it bears mentioning.
I just have to say to all who will read these words, Aloha rates very high in my book because she is always willing at the end of a disagreement to say she is sorry….a lot more than most who get into these things on this site…
So Aloha, don’t you dare leave this site and don’t let this small minority drive you away…
I am very serious, but if you must take a leave of absense then you just come right over to Village Blue and we will welcome you there with open arms.
And I am getting sick of the minority driving out valued members simply because they cannot take this disension.
I just have to say to all who will read these words, Aloha rates very high in my book because she is always willing at the end of a disagreement to say she is sorry….
Really? Because she seems to be pointedly ignoring my attempts at bringing this to closure. It’s a good thing I’m not heavily invested in receiving an apology, because I have yet to ever receive one from her.
I am curious where you all who hate this site so much will go to complain about it, oh I forgot, you do it here.
Firstly, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the comment you are responding to.
Secondly, I would defy you to a find a single instance of me saying that I “hate” this site. I like this site quite a bit and that’s why I visit it often.
Why is it that you equate even the most measured critiques and queries about genuine concerns with hatred? You sound, to my ear, like the right wing nuts who respond to every criticism of the political system with accusations of “hating America.” That’s the rough equivalent of the logic you’ve displayed. I equate questioning our political leadership with patriotism and questioning of the direction of this site with my devotion to it.
Hate, is a word I chose to use.and I was making an observation..now you want to refine it down and say I chose the wrong word…do you call what is going on here love…do you call this contributing to the welfare of this site.
How quick you and Yaright were to pounce on my use of this word, and now “I” sound like a “wing nut”..how funny,
Hate, is a word I chose to use.and I was making an observation..now you want to refine it down and say I chose the wrong word…do you call what is going on here love…
As you employed the word “hate” to characterize my feelings and motivations, I feel well within my rights to correct you and set the record straight. I do not consider love to be the opposite of hate. I consider it to be the opposite of fear. (With a tip of the hat to Marianne Williamson.) I’d say there is lot of both love and fear occurring on this site at the present moment. For my part, I am absolutely in a place of love at this moment.
do you call this contributing to the welfare of this site.
In a word, yes.
The historian Henry Steele Commager wrote: “Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.”
The American author James Baldwin wrote: “I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”
The great Supreme Court justice William O. Douglas wrote: “Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”
Wise words. Words by which to live.
Diane,
that was uncalled for.
Would you care to explain why you think some folks hate this site?
Can you find any evidence of this ‘site-hatred’ directed toward Booman Tribune say… prior to the front page admonishments to speak no ill of the orange?
And do you get the irony of claiming ‘they’ (including myself, I suppose) hate this site?
Do ‘they’ also hate freedom, and America?
Because, after all, they dare question a policy. They dare ask for an explanation.
it’s pretty damn obvious to many of us and I didn’t name any names and I sure did not name yours, but to continuously carry on with this line of dialogue is to my mind not very caring of the site, sorry I didn’t inquire of you the proper word to use.
Uncalled for comment…really…
Well I could say this diary was uncalled for…so what.
Yeah, lets just blow up my use of the word hate, and equate me with what now, and you damn well know this is not about daring to ask a question or demanding an explanation. People have been trying for days now to explain what Susan has already stated but to no avail..so what do you want to call it, it’s disrupting the site, more and more folks are saying they can’t take it anymore and leaving, so is that what you call love.
I suggest everyone take a few steps away from their keyboards and wait for Booman to reenter the fray (hopefully tomorrow). It is clear that there are many question marks regarding this situation, and hopefully he will be able to answer them.
But this type of back and forth is doing nothing but causing more anger, hurt feelings and strife.
My $0.04
I will apologise for sending the “shame on you” message yesterday.You are right, it was rude.
involved a poster named paulucla …. but of course, I could be remembering an entirely different incident.
Thank you,
that is indeed who it was.
Apology accepted. I thank you for acknowledging that.
Diane,
You know how much I appreciate you, but I think I have to disagree with you here.
The Aloha-Parker friction has been going on for months. Its a shame to call it that, because Parker never went out of her way to give Aloha trouble. Aloha on the other hand has been waging a low grade conflict to get Parker banned for a very long time.
So if the concern is that a small group of people are trying to drive out members of this community, I’d have to agree.
This all started when Aloha’s personal friend chose to disagree with Parker (in one of Parker’s diaries). I’m pretty sure that friend just happened to be furryjester. And he was pretty dismissive of parker’s position. She naturally defended it. He took this as a personal attack. Aloha leapt to the defense of her friend, and it snowballed. Parker merely dismissed the criticism as being … uninformed, and went on with life.
Ah well, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but no one’s opinion is automatically entitled to respect. Otherwise we’d be teaching intelligent design, right?
I believe Parker’s dismissal of this disputed position was taken as a personal affront. Personally, I think people should be treated with respect. Ideas should be subject to criticism.
With scoop’s .. erm… ‘wonderful’ search feature, finding the original thread could take some time. Since Parker is gone, its hard to ask her. Perhaps Aloha or Furry (if it was furry) remember exactly when this incident took place. I suppose one could read all of Parker’s diaries and look for it, but she writes so darn many.
Anyhow, I’m aware of some of the many wonderful things Aloha has done. I’m sure she’s an otherwise charming person. But when it comes to Parker, she’s had a seething vendetta for a long time — characterized by snide or derogatory interjections, often off topic, in a variety of different diaries — going out of her way to criticise Parker, or muse why she wasn’t banned already. And I don’t much care for that.
People are free to come and go, but it sucks to see any non-Republicans forced out of here, officially or by group pressure. And to get back to Recordkeepers point, I’m concerned that the official but ill explained ouster is going to spawn even more unofficial pressurings.
I don’t want Aloha to leave. I didn’t want Parker banned. But honestly, I don’t think anyone has to fear Aloha leaving.
In fact, the only people I’m really concerned may leave this place (voluntarily or otherwise), are the same ones others are accusing of forcing people out.
Its so…Bush.
The Aloha-Parker friction has been going on for months. Its a shame to call it that, because Parker never went out of her way to give Aloha trouble. Aloha on the other hand has been waging a low grade conflict to get Parker banned for a very long time.
I saw an example of this in November, and it was shocking. Aloha really whaled on Parker, and honestly, Parker didn’t do anything to deserve it. It puzzled me at the time b/c aloha is great with everyone else (including me).
Diane is wonderful. She’s been kind and welcoming in the FBC, but in this thread I’m seeing a completely different person who is basically saying people are easily replaceable. I don’t get it.
this thread is becoming about me….why….cause I used the word hate, let me refine this down then, those who find disatisfaction with this site then, will that do, will that be better…
And I am not perfect anymore than anyone else. I have my hot buttons and this is becoming one to me cause I see people leaving here, I see Susanhu distressed and Booman out there with no way to communicate.
It’s true Ahoha has her faults, as do we all, but this is not about her, but it becomes about her, now it becomes about me because I said one word you didn’t like. Well sorry, and call me fallible.
People are replacable, sad to say, I am replacable…and I harbor no illusions that I am not…words will go on without me if I weren’t here.
Just seems to me that if people are unhappy with this site and can’t find resolution, then why stay for heavens sake. People who like and admire anothers words can go and find them on another site, or blog. This is not the only blog residence in the internet.
this thread is becoming about me
Not at all.
It’s true Ahoha has her faults
If she does, I wouldn’t know about them. I just know that her and Parker had some sort of issue between them. She’s here to give us her perspective to the extent that she’s interested in doing so — Parker is not.
People are replacable, sad to say, I am replacable
See, I disagree with you on this, but from a completely different perspective. I run my own business. I have clients. Members here are clients as they contribute site content and provide hits which are registered to set ad rates.
About the last thing I want to do in my business is look for new clients. In fact, the #1 reason for small business failure is that the owner has to spend too much time growing the business using non-billable time.
This is also my response to Shirlstars below.
I just looked at your site Village Blue — you’ve put together a nice site.
Reasoned thinking dblhelix. Diane has run and does run her own business, I have run my own. And your thoughts about using time to replace clients is right on. And that is part of what concerns some of us, because, believe it or not there are numbers of folks right now leaving booman’s site.
Folks in general have their jobs to go to or businesses to run, their families to take care of and a few spare moments or hours to frequent blog places that they feel welcome at and don’t have to fend off attacks or be party to those attacking others.
They have enough going on in their lives that this constant (this week) squabling and insulting others is just too tiresome and disruptive to make this a place they want to come to. Many of us left other sites for similar reasons.
That does not mean we don’t and won’t disagree. That happens several times a day. Disagreement is different from what is going on here.
If you don’t see the difference, then I don’t have the skills to show them to you.
So all of you enjoy your irreplaceableness, and gather your forces to bring forth whatever it is you wish to accomplish. I wish you all well, sincerely I do.
those who find disatisfaction with this site then, will that do, will that be better…
So then, in your world, dissatisfaction is grounds for walking away from things you care about. Sorry, but I just don’t share that world view. I think that before you give up on situations and people, you try to resolve the differences. Every crisis is an opportunity for growth. I guess we just have differing views on what it means to be committed to a process.
No, diane, this isn’t ‘attack the people who disagree’.
This is ‘stand up to the people who dismiss our concerns’.
I suspected your position in this was to protect Susan.
That’s admirable.
It also doesn’t allow for anyone but Susan to be ‘right’ or have a valid point. And not even really Susan, more appropriately your impression of what Susan would want.
I’m sorry you see this blog as any less of a ‘home’ than say our country.
Of course our country is more ‘real’. But we have less say in it. We don’t have to do a darn thing to belong to it. Booman tribune was different. We all chose to be here. Even as just participants, we helped create it. True, none of us is critical to its functioning, but the same could be said of your real-life family. If you were gone, they’d get along without you, too. Does that make your place in your family any less important to you?
I’m loyal to what this place once stood for. If its no longer going to be like that, perhaps I will leave. Since the site owner hasn’t spelled things out yet, I’ll hang around and wait, and hope that in the meantime some of the people I respect around here, will at least recognize my position as legitimate, and not dismiss it. And if not, I’ll at least let people who are concerned know I feel the same as they do.
That used to be a big part of the pond — showing support and caring for fellow members.
Diane, you’re here taking sides with those you view as ‘friends’. Okay. Why you feel the need to come into a diary written by Recordkeeper, who is also a member of this place, and imply R is part of a problem, I don’t understand. Is that necessary for you to ‘support’ your friends Susan and Aloha?
Must you take sides to ‘defend’ them? Must you come into this diary and separate the community into two groups — those who unconditionally support Susan/Boo, and those who question them? Even when the questioning is off in a diary, out of everyone else’s way?
Some of the most wounding conflicts I’ve seen here have all involved the perception that someone’s friend is attacked, and others feeling compelled to step into the fight and escalate it in the name of protecting their friends:
Aloha and furryjester? and Parker
various members and Susan/Boo and those who question
Booman and #2 at the big orange and Parker (among others)
There are other forms of conflict here. Do you recall Brinnaine and Aloha?
Both of them were disappointed their ‘friends’ didn’t step in and take their sides. Well, they made up a few days later. Its not forgotten, but its barely a sore spot between the two of them. Most importantly, it didn’t split the community the way it would have if we’d all taken sides.
When your friend does something they may need to reverse themselves on, you actually hurt them by jumping in and pounding their (perhaps temporary) position. You bind them to a decision, and make it that much harder to ever take back.
As for protecting Booman and Susan, I really feel bad for their own personal pains. And I wish they would have taken the breaks they so richly deserve, and taken some time to heal. Jane Hamsher or jpol or stevenD could have kept this boat afloat for a few weeks — if they weren’t asked to make major changes. Major changes deserve the smart touch of Booman himself, and surely any major changes could have waited.
In the end, Booman and Susan need our support — not our protection. They run the joint. They have the power to make any changes they see fit. That doesn’t mean those changes will be easy. But its their responsiblity at the end of the day.
I’m not sure how what you’ve been doing in this diary was supposed to show Susan support, or to help ease her situation, or really do any good at all. You drew a line, and declared some of us to be over it. If Susan felt that were the case, she could have come right out herself and said so.
Unfortunately, I think that same some of us were very sure of where the line used to be, and are only questioning exactly where the line is now and why it was moved.
So confronting us about the line wasn’t exactly going to make us hush up. And since we’re off in the corner in this completely non-recommended diary falling off the page, I’m not sure how we were really troubling anyone, let alone Susan. But surely stirring us up wasn’t really going to make anything better, was it?
I believe you had good intentions at heart. I don’t question your right to believe what you will. I’m just not sure what you’ve been doing here is a good way to accomplish what you want at this point.
Look, I happened to make a comment using the word hate in one sentence, it was my view, perhaps too harsh, but nevertheless I threw it out there much as you all throw words out everyday…I was not implying Recordkeeper hated the site, tho it must seem so, but I intended it in a general way…
In the last couple of days and streching back into the weekend, and the the week before that, I have been trying with all my might to bring whatever peace I can to the site.
I spent last night commenting on dont be a prick diary, till 1:30 in the morning…this diary was a spin off of a response to me from last night.now I use the word hate, and support Aloha when she has been attacked and suddenly I am the site phariah.
Shadowthief has supported recordkeeper, many try to support other, so now I am criticized for that support.
I am thinking I don’t like this political blogging business at all anymore, it’s become untenable to me.
I really don’t give a freaking fart about what anyone thinks about anything political anymore and I am sick to death of being slapped in the face as Ductape puts it with everyone’s pet issue that they think must be heard..
Here’s the deal, I am going to post FBC Cafe on Friday because I promised Cabin Girl I would and then I am taking at least a week off from this site and after that I will consider if I want to be here at all.
I have my own site (and it’s nice and peaceful there), to retire to and anyone who finds me irreplacable can find me there in the interim.
I just need to get away from all of this.
diane,
I’m sorry that you feel like you’ve been made a pariah. I certainly don’t view you that way. I take issue with some of what you say, but I certainly don’t mean to demonize you. I realize that you and others are trying to restore a sense of peace and equilibrium to this site. But peace that is achieved by silencing people, by telling them to “get over” their feelings, concerns, and questions, is not so much peace, as oppression. When we shut each other down like that, the feelings don’t go away. They grow under the surface as resentment, and when that building anger erupts it is usually far more destructive than airing things out when they occur would be.
I will largely second this. “Peace” is not the absence of conflict. Peace comes about by trying as well we can to hash out our differences, and by trying to empathize with others as well as we can. I will certainly admit that I am hardly perfect in that regard – merely another flawed human. But it’s worth the effort.
On a personal note, I noticed that my marriage got a lot better once my wife and I began to talk and listen to each other when we had disagreements rather than sweeping those disagreements under the rug. The latter only led to much larger conflicts later.
For what it’s worth.
Here’s a thought. Perhaps folks are “unsatisfied” with a particular questionable decision on the part of the site’s owners/managers, and not necessarily the site itself. I suppose there are various approaches to handling “dissatisfaction.” One could simply abandon ship. One might instead stick around, ask questions, and fight if need be to find a resolution to whatever is “unsatisfactory.” That latter option is my preferred one.
Part of me now wonders, out of morbid curiousity I suppose, if I would now be lumped in with the so-called “BooTrib haters.” Then again, I think I’m better off not knowing as I really don’t need the added friction at this point in my life, and I know myself well enough after nearly 4 decades of existence to realize that I am both long of memory and short on forgiveness.
Anyhoo, I find the decision to ban Parker highly questionable, and the friction leading up to and following said banning to have been mostly preventable. It’s saddening that some good folks are either on the verge of an exodus or already gone in the aftermath. On some level their voices are not replaceable. My opinion, and one that’s isn’t going to change.
It appears to me that some of you have such a heightened sense of self-importance that it boggles the mind.
There is not one of us here that can’t and won’t be replaced in a heartbeat and after a few days very few will even realize we aren’t here. Psychology 101, 5 year olds belive the world and all it contains revolves around them. They are the all powerful being in their worlds, the cause and reason for all things. This is starting to sound very much like a group of 5 year old type thinking.
The question has been asked and answered. A number of you don’t like the answer. Booman who is not able to be on line, in the midst of moving to an apartment, in the midst of a divorce, will be back in touch when he can, I think tomorrow. So the purpose of beating this issue into the ground is What? I forget.
Very strange behavior from what I had assumed were reasonable adult people.
I suppose if all those of us who have read and seen more of this in the past few days than we have in the past 9 months and are duly tired of it all just leave this diary and the discussion and walk away to more interesting and productive interactions, whoever chooses to stay will carry on without us, and no doubt happily so. And I have a hunch not one of us leaving this diary would be missed for 2 seconds.
All of us are unique, but none of us is irreplaceable in the blog sense of things. Just my opinion
This is starting to sound very much like a group of 5 year old type thinking.
Please see my response to Diane. Hardly the product of 5 yr-old type thinking.
Yeah, I just don’t know…
At least we’re not two dimensional stereotypes?
It wasn’t too long ago that Diane and I were supporting each other as we tried to be peacemakers here. Thing is, I know we both still think we are.
I happen to think the old rules that had “no sacred cows” worked just fine. If anything needed to be changed, it was perhaps a need to reign in the personal attacks (like the Nov incident you spoke of).
Diane seems to believe that peace could better be achieved if everyone just did what Booman asked of them, and perhaps banning folks who didn’t obey was for the greater good? (please, Diane, I don’t mean to speak for you, I’m simply trying to understand — so feel free to correct me here).
The problem I have with “sacred cows” (currently just the blogosphere, aka the orange and crew), is that it creates an ostracized group — an ill defined one at best. And recent actions on the site seem to confirm my fears.
With the “prick” rule, it was almost self evident. We’d occasionally tell someone they were acting a prick. That’d shame them into reforming their behavior. We didn’t police thought, just communication.
Now we’re headed towards policing thought. Person A’s factual account of an event is person B’s violation of the “sacred cow” rule. And so they can feel justified in attacking people for even mentioning certain topics. The more egregious of them will say “I’m defending the site owner”.
Sheesh. Let the site owner and the mods do the policing. Tacitly approving or even borderline encouraging folks to take it into their own hands lets the natural friction we as humans have with each other be vented in the guise of “protecting the site” or “enforcing the rules”.
Booman’s #1 tool for enforcing good behavior around here has always been the respect of the community members. That wasn’t earned because he paid the bills. It was earned by treating us each in turn with respect, and not asking anything of us we didn’t willingly want to give, and because he went out of his way to respect differences of opinion and thought.
Maybe Man Eegee is right. Maybe everything will make sense when Booman comes back and explains what’s going on.
I’m just not too hopeful.
I don’t know if this bell can be un-rung.
If anyone can pull this together Booman can. Otherwise, the first great exodus really has begun.
And for the snickering few who can’t wait for it to start, they may be sadly disappointed when it turns out it’s going to be some of folks they don’t like, and some of the ones they do, and unfortunately for them, just enough from each side will stay to keep this going…
that this issue can be resolved, call it youthful optimism or delusion; I’ll claim it either way.
I’m not worried about unringing any bells, in fact I’m glad it’s been rung. It does signal, however, a challenge to the membership of this site. I may be putting too much faith in Booman, but I believe he will facilitate a discussion that will be both productive and satisfying to all sides. That’s where the challenge comes into play, will we allow ourselves to descend into a back-and-forth shouting match that gets us nowhere? or will we all be willing to seek some common ground on what it means to maintain dialogue in this forum that remains respectful and refrains from personal attack.
I have tried to be in a listening mode today while going through these threads and I managed to decipher some common ground that I hope will be given a chance. There is alot of confusion, anger, bitterness, etc. flowing hard in all directions but beneath it all is what I feel to be an honest concern for this site to flourish.
Peace to you and everyone else; sorry for the rambling.
Yaright, thank you for this analysis. I was wholly unaware of the specifics of the matter, but this confirms my suspicion that Aloha had an agenda when it came to Parker.
I, too, am very uncomfortable with people advocating that others be banned, or openly speculating why they haven’t been banned, and I will say it straight and plain: It’s wrong.
I fully expect that, at this moment, there are people either privately or publicly asking for MY banning. Because I “hate” this site, I suppose.
Well, if honest criticism and questions about the fairness and wisdom of site policies is equated with hatred, then I’m afraid we’ve gone through the looking glass.
knock it off, just because I used the word hate, doesn’t mean all these ramifications that everyone keeps inserting in here and I can just see this go on and on.
Leave me out of your fights and I am staying out of all of yours….
And I am NOT suggesting to anyone that anyone gets banned.
You seem surprised that the word “hate”, and the accusation that critics (including me, Recordkeeper, and others) “hate” Booman Tribune has evoked a strong response.
“Hate” is a strong word. “Hating” the site is a strong accusation.
Given the strength of your charge, and its reckless disregard for the carefully constructed, thoughtful criticisms I and others have made regarding a few of the policies on Booman Tribune, the response has been far milder than you deserved.
Furryjester is not a personal friend of mine, just for the record.
Thanks for clarifying that, Aloha.
Was it furryjester who was involved in the incident with Parker, or was it someone else? If I’m confusing furry with someone else, I’d like to apologize and set the record straight.
It is someone else.
I was being sarcastic. It’s called “a taste of your own medicine”. And you went ballistic, didn’t you?
Now you know how it feels–even if I wasn’t serious about my remark. Doesn’t feel very good when you’re told to “shut up or leave”, does it?
That’s because it’s wrong to tell people that. But I didn’t see you defending me when I was told today and yesterday to do just that–shut up or leave the site.
Maybe next time you see old Shadowthief in trouble, you’ll defend me on the principle that everybody ought to be heard.
Maybe. But somehow I don’t think you will.
and meanwhile
just sayin….
Yup.
At the moment, some frogs are losing sight of the pond for lillypads.
Hey! I resemble that remark!
I hope to get on this tomorrow–but the day is packed, we shall see…I just got back in from my kids’ (drumming) class and am tying up some business loose ends.
See, I think what the world needs is more Donkey. So Shrek can act however he wants, but Donkey will just keep jumping up and down and cracking jokes and obnoxiously shouting, let’sbefriends!let’sbefriends!let’sbefriends! until either Shrek’s heart melts or he kills Donkey out of sheer annoyance.
And that’s my bray for the day.
Ok…I will engage here. I have up to this point stayed pretty much in lurking mode. This is just my very humble opinion. I came to the blogs shortly before the 04 election. I was looking for hope, answers to the problems we face as a country. I am just one person looking for information and want to learn how to be a better more involved citizen not only of this country but the world. There is so much hate in the world, so much death and I feel hopeless to change it most days. BUT I will not give up because I owe it to my grand daughter, your children all children to try and help in whatever small way I can to make a difference and get these criminals, these war profiteers, these fascisits out of the GD White House and for that matter out of my home.
I believe that we have much more important things to do than continue to this in diary after diary. I believe everyone has made their points, none of which are right or wrong, just their opinions and it is time to get on to the business of taking back our country. Can we do that? Please?
Aloha,
Your priorities are your own and you are welcome to them. That you don’t think bannings and purges in the blogosphere are important, in the greater scheme of things is your opinion, and I have no interest in divesting you of it. But you do seem to have an interest in silencing a discussion that some of us find important. It feels a little control-freaky to me, and I have to ask that you respect my boundaries on this.
I do think this matters. I believe that how we act in every aspect of our lives affects the entire universe. I believe it is every bit as important to sweep one’s own front walk as it is to try to clean up the political process. I believe it is hypocritical to fight for the liberty the founding fathers of our nation shed their blood for, while squelching free speech in the blogosphere when people raise uncomfortable questions. Those are my priorities at this moment in time.
I can respect that Recordkeeper. This discussion has been going on for several days now. I believe in free speech otherwise I would have not posted my feelings on the matter. The threads on these diaries have been 100s of comments long. Guess we all have our own priorities but the banning of Parker is not one of mine.She was continually asked to lighten up on the Kos bashing. She could not adhere to that request and that was her choice and her priority. Parker had many very interesting diaries no doubt but does that excuse bad behavior? i don’t get why that is so acceptable to so many here. That is not even really being discussed. Go back throughout her history and you will se several instances of threads that had nothing to do with Kos or abortion yet she continually brought her passion for those issues into threads/diaries that were not even close to those subjects.Have any of you considered that? I don’t like banning but I think Parker was fair warned and given alot of leeway. Hey, I have gone way over the top several times and I was told to take it offline and calm down. I honored that request. Every community has rules or laws. Why is that so hard to accept? I will leave the rest of you to hash this out.
“Bad behavior” is in the eye of the beholder. I read a number of the comments you refer to and the responses to them. I found many of the responses far more offensive than her comments. The rules about Kos bashing have changed several times and I’m really not clear on where we stand on that. I am clear that there was one set of rules applied to Parker and another to others who sprinkled comments about “the big orange” on various threads. From my observation post, it looks like Parker was singled out as a dissident and numerous attempts were made to pressure her to conform to some implied societal norm. I found it revolting. As I said in my diary, I fully acknowledge that Parker is abrasive. So what. We need the occasional gadfly to keep us honest in our lives. It looks to me like this whole thing has come down to two things: personalities and sacred cows. I don’t believe in censorship being applied to accommodate those issues.
I respectfully disagree and will leave it at that.On to more important things, for me.
I’m fairly new here, and get the feeling that this is a debate amoung “old hands”, but may I suggest that we consider why there is criticism and defense of the other site in question ?
I would not speak for Parker, not knowing what is in her mind, but my concern is that the public may believe DailyKos speaks for Democrats. As we all wrestle for the soul of the party, many of us have powerful reactions to what we perceive as “Republican-lite” positions taken there, and feel bound to protest in the strongest terms possible. Were that site less large and influential, nobody would care.
I think what we are seeing here is a microcosm of the old debate around unquestioning support for “our” side, even when our side is working against our interests, because the other side is so much worse.
As a fairly new poster here, I feel hesitant to write this, but I think we’re arguing past the real issues, and won’t make must progress until we tackle them.
If I understand your point, and I’m not sure I do, you are speaking to issues that are central concerns of mine: the pressure to be “loyal” to one side or the other even when loyalty is not warranted, the high visibility of that other site giving them a very big megaphone, and the fact that lofty position should be reflected in a high level of responsibility and accountability. I would disagree, however, that concerns over this latest turn of events is a distraction from those issues. Rather, I think it is emblematic.
It is emblematic.
That is exactly what I meant, but you said it better than I.
I was responding to a general tone down thread that this is a tempest in a teacup.
The only thing I see as a tempest in a teapot is the general paranoia among some regarding what they perceive as rampant Kos-bashing. More serious is the simple fact that these blogs are really microcosms of our aching planet. With regard for the Dems, there is a sickness that infested the party long ago. The partisans don’t see it and don’t want to. To paraphrase an old Last Poets line, “Democrats are afraid of the revolution.” When faced with those who refuse to aim their energy exclusively at the GOP, they flip out. Happened at Big Orange. I’m sufficiently jaded enough to believe it’s happening here.
So it goes.
I agree.
Big Orange, like the Democratic Party leadership, needs to be held to account if they tell their natural constituency to shut up so as not to upset some mythical middle they want to soothe and court. I fervently hope that disagreement with Kos’ positions will not be interpreted as bashing, but as contributing to discussions about the needs of America. Many of us left DKos because our voices were an unwelcome distraction from the drive to elect anybody with a “D” behind his/her name.
“Democrats are afraid of the revolution.” When faced with those who refuse to aim their energy exclusively at the GOP, they flip out.
Incredibly insightful statement! Wow. I left the party and went independent when they handed Bush a blank check for war in Iraq. That was the final straw. Seeing as how my husband had to go fight in that stupid war, I took that one really personally. But you are so right. They are terrified of any threat to the status quo. And whenever I point any of this out, the partisan refrain is, “Would you rather have Bush?” It’s such binary thinking. You must belong to one tribe or the other. You must! They don’t want to face the sickness that has infested the entire system, including the Democratic Party.
Well, the political consultants–the 21st century of the hired gunslinger–certainly aren’t going to advise the Democrats nor the Republicans to clean things up.
Those consultants are getting rich off a system that is entirely “pay for play”. Three million dollars is now the minimum required for a congressional candidate to START against an incumbent. Now, where are candidates going to get that sort of money?
Kos and others like him have seen their opportunity in the current system and taken it–DailyKos is seen as an ATM machine for candidates. Naturally nobody there wants to upset the status quo, because they have the status quo all figured out and know how to “work the system” to their advantage.
Change the system? Reform it so that, for example, the public airwaves are provided free of charge to candidates? (The television and radio bands are, after all, public property, not private property.) Give public financing to campaigns? Not a bit of it! There’s no profit in that.
I am appalled at the existence of DailyKos because squats on the “liberal” blogosphere like Smaug the dragon on his hoard of gold, defending things EXACTLY THE WAY THEY ARE. What is required is some clever Hobbit to steal Smaug’s gold from him.
Any Hobbits out there who want to burgle the dragon’s gold?