PDA

View Full Version : Bloggingheads Bias


Whatfur
10-18-2009, 05:08 PM
I'll just go back to my porch.

nikkibong
10-18-2009, 05:10 PM
Was your thread deleted?

Not cool. Really not cool.

I have to say, there is something to the charge of "bias" here. The thread devoted to the GOP "turning into a cult" is easily as virtiolic and partisan as the 'media bias' thread was.

Perhaps the nannys should have just deleted (if they have to censor at all) whatfur's comments about "pukes" and "bitches?"

This is going to play into the victim complex that some of our conservative commenters have.

And you know what? They'll have a point.

Lyle
10-18-2009, 05:21 PM
What happened?

TwinSwords
10-18-2009, 05:22 PM
I have to say, there is something to the charge of "bias" here. The thread devoted to the GOP "turning into a cult" is easily as virtiolic and partisan as the 'media bias' thread was.
Whatfur's thread wasn't deleted for being partisan.

I could be wrong, but I believe partisanship is quite welcome, even encouraged, in the forum. The whole format of BhTV is devoted to partisan wrangling, after all.



Perhaps the nannys should have just deleted (if they have to censor at all) whatfur's comments about "pukes" and "bitches?"
And his "fuck you," which you must have missed. Problem is, Nikkibong, that if you deleted all of those insults, there wouldn't have been anything left in the thread.


This is going to play into the victim complex that some of our conservative commenters have.

And you know what? They'll have a point.
No, they won't.

nikkibong
10-18-2009, 05:25 PM
I missed the F bomb. But, indeed, what I did see of the thread was really, really ugly.

But this incident points to the problem of these silly comment guidelines, in the first place; they treat us like children. Do the BHTV powers-that-be think that we are going to be irreperably harmed by reading harsh rhetoric here on the forum? Why shield our delicate eyes from them?

bjkeefe
10-18-2009, 05:29 PM
Was your thread deleted?

Not cool. Really not cool.

I'm going to guess it was deleted because the whole thing was turning into Whatfur saying as many nasty things as he could, none of which had anything to do with the thread's purported topic.

I have to say, there is something to the charge of "bias" here.

Of course you do. And you can say this without even having read the thread, amirite?

The thread devoted to the GOP "turning into a cult" is easily as virtiolic and partisan as the 'media bias' thread was.

Another tick mark on our Nikkibong False Equivalence scorecard. Please, keep the hits coming!

If you'd bother to do more than glance at that thread, you'd see that the overwhelming majority of the posts are on-topic (relevant to the declared theme of the thread) and what's more, are essentially just links to news reports. As in, this is what is happening now, in the real world. (As opposed to some utopia where you just scold "both sides" who are "equally bad" because they're "partisan" (the horror! the horror!) until everybody does a group hug.)

On that last: You're never going to get anywhere trying to insist that being partisan is inherently bad, especially in a situation like we're in right now in the US. When a significant fraction of one of the two major political parties is ready, willing, and eager to spread every malicious rumor they can about the President and other members of the other party, not to mention line up in support of braying anti-intellectual loudmouths like Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh, you either do what you can to combat their noise or you roll over and show your belly. You want to play cringing cur, maybe to get more work at the Weekly Standard, that's your business. Me, I'd rather fight back against the wingnuts. Documenting their atrocities is one way, however small.

This is going to play into the victim complex that some of our conservative commenters have.

Ya think? Keen insight there!

And you know what? They'll have a point.

Yeah. Because not being allowed to repeatedly call other commenters "pukes" and "bitches" is clearly discrimination against conservatives. I'm sure everyone on the right is delighted to have you speaking up on their behalf, nikki -- I know I am.

TwinSwords
10-18-2009, 05:34 PM
When a significant fraction of one of the two major political parties is ready, willing, and eager to spread every malicious rumor they can about the President and other members of the other party, not to mention line up in support of braying anti-intellectual loudmouths like Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh, you either do what you can to combat their noise or you roll over and show your belly.

Nikkibong,
I'm just curious. Would you agree with Brendan's characterization, above, of the conservative movement today?

bjkeefe
10-18-2009, 05:36 PM
But this incident points to the problem of these silly comment deadlines, in the first place; they treat us like children. Do the BHTV powers-that-be think that we are going to be irreperably harmed by reading harsh rhetoric here on the forum? Why shield our delicate eyes from them?

I assume you meant "guidelines," which reminds me that I meant to say this part earlier.

I do agree with you about the deleting of posts and threads. On the other hand, it is not my site, or yours.

It has been clear for years now that the site's owner considers the forums (when they're good) to be a big selling point, and it has been clear for about as long that he doesn't like excessive insults and potty mouths. I doubt very much whether he is concerned for your eyes; what he cares about is others who might be put off by this sort of thing. And the bottom line is: his house, his rules.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

nikkibong
10-18-2009, 05:39 PM
Nikkibong,
I'm just curious. Would you agree with Brendan's characterization, above, of the conservative movement today?

That's easy. Yes.

The contempoary Republican Party is an abomination. I don't know why I'm repeatedly being cast as some David Broder clone - albeit a much younger one - I think the notion of the "two sides being equally bad" is a right-wing fairy tale cooked up to normalize the appalling behavior of far too many Republicans.

Just because I am willing to admit that I think rcocean is a witty guy, and that I don't like seeing anyone's threads - be they whatfur's or bjkeefe's - deleted by the nanny - - well, I don't see why I'm being mocked as some unthinking Cokie Roberts - albeit a younger, more masculine one.

AemJeff
10-18-2009, 05:41 PM
As an aside, I don't think the offending thread has been deleted, just delinked.

TwinSwords
10-18-2009, 05:42 PM
I missed the F bomb. But, indeed, what I did see of the thread was really, really ugly.
Then why are you defending it? And making a victim out of the person spreading the poison? I can't imagine why you would want to prop up Whatfur and encourage his behavior.



But this incident points to the problem of these silly comment guidelines, in the first place; they treat us like children. Do the BHTV powers-that-be think that we are going to be irreparably harmed by reading harsh rhetoric here on the forum? Why shield our delicate eyes from them?
I don't think that's the purpose for the comments guidelines. I think the purpose is to keep the forum from degrading into a cesspool. Like attracts like, and if Whatfur's comments are allowed to stand, this forum will attract more people with his disposition and manners.

bjkeefe
10-18-2009, 05:44 PM
I don't know why I'm repeatedly being cast as some David Broder clone ...

I won't speak for others, but the reason I do it is that you have shown a pronounced tendency lately, whether this issue is as small as Whatfur's behavior or as large as issues in national politics, to throw out some "here's something on the left that's just as bad."

I think the notion of the "two sides being equally bad" is a right-wing fairy tale cooked up to normalize the appalling behavior of far too many Republicans.

It's nice to hear you say it, but that is not at all the attitude you have been conveying lately in most of the rest of your comments.

AemJeff
10-18-2009, 05:51 PM
That's easy. Yes.

The contempoary Republican Party is an abomination. I don't know why I'm repeatedly being cast as some David Broder clone - albeit a much younger one - I think the notion of the "two sides being equally bad" is a right-wing fairy tale cooked up to normalize the appalling behavior of far too many Republicans.

Just because I am willing to admit that I think rcocean is a witty guy, and that I don't like seeing anyone's threads - be they whatfur's or bjkeefe's - deleted by the nanny - - well, I don't see why I'm being mocked as some unthinking Cokie Roberts - albeit a younger, more masculine one.

Since you asked! I think your initial post missed a distinction between Whatfur's posts and those of "conservative commenters" on the site. With the exception, perhaps, of Salt, very few people on the site, regardless of their affiliation, post in a way comparable to him. If his contributions are treated differently than most, the first assumption ought not to be that what distinguishes them is his POV. That is certainly among the things Brendan means when he mentions "false equivalences." Secondly, the GOP "turning into a cult" thread may be provocatively titled, but it's mostly a bunch of links. I see very little personal venom among the posts there. So, the comparison rankles, and I think it should.

TwinSwords
10-18-2009, 05:54 PM
That's easy. Yes.

Okay, thank you for answering. Then I have to ask you another question; do you agree with what Brendan concluded immediately following that comment?:

in a situation like we're in right now in the US ... you either do what you can to combat their noise or you roll over and show your belly.

Because you are not combating their noise. Instead, what you do is you cater to their concerns and amplify their complaints. It's as if you're on their team.

nikkibong
10-18-2009, 05:57 PM
I don't think I've pointed to any place in national politics where I've claimed the "left" or "democrats" are "just as bad as the Republicans." Unless you have a link to refute me, I'm going to have to deny that pretty forcefully. David Broder links don't count.

As for the forums: I guess I don't understand why people would post things solely for the purpose of provoking discord. (I guess that's one of the definitions of the rather unpleasant term, "trolling"?) That goes for all sides. So, yes, if I see someone on "my side" posting solely to be hostile or combative to their fellow commenters, I'm going to complain about it. But this is not remotely equivalent to things happening in the "real world" where the Republicans, birtherism and all, have demonstrated themselves to be utterly contemptable.

Yeah, I hate the vitriol - especially when conducted without a hint of levity (cf whatfur).

But -- I DON'T WANT IT TO BE NANNYED!

nikkibong
10-18-2009, 06:03 PM
Okay, thank you for answering. Then I have to ask you another question; do you agree with what Brendan concluded immediately following that comment?:



Because you are not combating their noise. Instead, what you do is you cater to their concerns and amplify their complaints. It's as if you're on their team.

Er, no.

Here's the thing: I want Obama to suceed.

When things happen that only whip up anger and opposition to the Prez, and therefore make him less likely to succeed (I'm looking at you, Nobel Committe), I'm going to say it. That doesn't mean I'm echoing the hysteria of the right wingers.

To put it plainly, again: I'm concerned about the real world implications of hostility towards Obama increasing.

It's actually a very Bob Wright approach. Bob advocates certain steps that would decrease the amount of international terrorism. Some claim he is therefore being "soft on terrorism."

Your accusations about me are actually perfectly analagous.

bjkeefe
10-18-2009, 06:30 PM
I don't think I've pointed to any place in national politics where I've claimed the "left" or "democrats" are "just as bad as the Republicans." Unless you have a link to refute me, I'm going to have to deny that pretty forcefully. David Broder links don't count.

I don't see something that specific among your recent posts, so if it makes you happy, fine, I will agree that you have not "claimed the 'left' or 'democrats' are 'just as bad as the Republicans'," at least not in any of your recent, non-deleted posts.

But I will continue to stand by my sense that you frequently chant the "both sides" mantra, and not just about this forum.

As for the forums: I guess I don't understand why people would post things solely for the purpose of provoking discord. (I guess that's one of the definitions of the rather unpleasant term, "trolling"?)

So how do you feel about that guy who can't stop himself from posting everything negative he can think of about some offsite blogger who hasn't been a diavlogger since near the dawn of this site, and who is rarely used as a reference by other commenters? Would this be to provoke discord, do you think? Could it be called "trolling?"

That goes for all sides.

I still fail to see why you cast this in terms of "sides." If I (or others) post links to news reports about, say, Republican officials and pundits saying objectionable and/or eyebrow-raising things, or, say, poll results showing jaw-dropping results about what the Republican rank and file believe, why is that the same in your mind as one individual whose immaturity, or pathologically low frustration threshold, or whatever, frequently causes him to descend into personal and juvenile invective when he encounters any sort of disagreement?

Seems to me, first, that what I'm doing (and what others are doing) when I/we post these links is at least marginally more important to more people, and second, is generally restricted to a thread dedicated to that topic. Which, to answer an earlier "question" of yours, can be ignored simply by not clicking a link to it.

[...]

But -- I DON'T WANT IT TO BE NANNYED!

What about a commenter who, because he doesn't find something he's reading to his taste, proposes that everyone else STFU about it? Could this be seen as "nannying," do you think?

nikkibong
10-18-2009, 06:43 PM
I don't see something that specific among your recent posts, so if it makes you happy, fine, I will agree that you have not "claimed the 'left' or 'democrats' are 'just as bad as the Republicans'," at least not in any of your recent, non-deleted posts.

But I will continue to stand by my sense that you frequently chant the "both sides" mantra, and not just about this forum.

To quote Lyle, "haha."

And haha some more. You got nothing!

I love the Clintonesque insinuation regarding "non-deleted posts," though, err . . .I have no idea what you're talking about. Am I also not a Muslim, "to the best of your knowledge"? You were just proved wrong, and are choosing what you believe in the fact of contradictory evidence. How . . . Republican.


So how do you feel about that guy who can't stop himself from posting everything negative he can think of about some offsite blogger who hasn't been a diavlogger since near the dawn of this site, and who is rarely used as a reference by other commenters? Would this be to provoke discord, do you think? Could it be called "trolling?"

I consider it offensive that said unnamed blogger, an unreconstructed racist, is considered by many to be a reputable and respectable member of the blogosphere, and the media writ large. (The fact that one of my favorite magazines now has him on their payroll has me reaching for the 'cancel subscription' button.) Those that repsect him include many commenters on this site whom I otherwise respect. It is for that reason that I am attempting to "wake people up" to this moral outrage.


I still fail to see why you cast this in terms of "sides." If I (or others) post links to news reports about, say, Republican officials and pundits saying objectionable things, or, say, poll results showing jaw-dropping results about what the Republican rank and file believe, why is that the same in your mind as one individual whose immaturity, or pathologically low frustration threshold, or whatever, frequently causes him to descend into personal and juvenile invective when he encounters any sort of disagreement?

Seems to me, first, that what I'm doing (and what others are doing) when I/we post these links is at least marginally more important to more people, and second, is generally restricted to a thread dedicated to that topic. Which, to answer an early "question" of yours, can be ignored simply by not clicking a link to it.

Brendan, speaking of "self-awareness,". . .you do post a number of instructive things, but you an admit you seem to always be itching for a fight? I appreciate your links - I have more than "glanced" at your "GOP is turning into a cult" thread - and have gained much information of it. But, far too often, you resort to personal insult. Speaking of which, whatever happened to bloggin noggin?



What about a commenter who, because he doesn't find something he's reading to his taste, proposes that everyone else STFU about it? Could this be seen as "nannying," do you think?

Simply refuting and/or disagreeing does not mean I want to see posts deleted. I'm all for healthy debate.

Ocean
10-18-2009, 07:04 PM
This thread is walking on the very edge. You guys are so funny!

Whatfur
10-18-2009, 07:05 PM
Was your thread deleted?

Not cool. Really not cool.

I have to say, there is something to the charge of "bias" here. The thread devoted to the GOP "turning into a cult" is easily as virtiolic and partisan as the 'media bias' thread was.

Perhaps the nannys should have just deleted (if they have to censor at all) whatfur's comments about "pukes" and "bitches?"

This is going to play into the victim complex that some of our conservative commenters have.

And you know what? They'll have a point.

Yes the thread was deleted and the FU was up for about 10 seconds...just enough for whatever female canine was sitting around pining for a response to read it...and then I deleted it and posted something to the effect of:

"Brendan how about you don't respond to my posts and I won't respond to yours. Deal?"

Go figure.

And YES it was partisan and to deny it is also.

bjkeefe
10-18-2009, 07:24 PM
... whatever female canine was sitting around ...

You just can't help yourself, can you?

Here, have a clue: the only one you're bothering by calling me a bitch is the person who is deleting your posts. You may want to reassess your objectives and tactics.

And YES it was partisan and to deny it is also.

Well, nikkibong did get one thing right -- let the victim cloaks be donned!

It staggers the imagination, 'fur, that even you can't see the difference between supposed "bias" on the part of this site and the site admins' objections to the way you conduct yourself.

bjkeefe
10-18-2009, 07:27 PM
To quote Lyle, "haha."

Can't see why I should bother reading further if looking up to Lyle is the level you're playing at.

If you have a genuine interest in getting me to address anything else you might have to say, my advice to you is to go chill out for a while and come back and try again.

nikkibong
10-18-2009, 07:30 PM
Can't see why I should bother reading further if looking up to Lyle is the level you're playing at.


LOL. (really . . .)

FWIW, I'm plenty interested to hear your response to what I posted above . . .

and, yes, the Lyle hat tip may have just been to irritate you :)

bjkeefe
10-18-2009, 07:37 PM
and, yes, the Lyle hat tip may have just been to irritate you :)

Would that be more of that "solely for the purpose of provoking discord" we've recently heard (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=133839&highlight=provoking+discord#post133839) complaints about?

kidneystones
10-18-2009, 08:01 PM
The charge of bias seems to me very reasonable; but not necessarily a bad thing. Bob is well within his rights to set the terms of discussion.

Over the years, forum administrators have spent a good deal of time energy listening to the complaints of folks like me and acting upon them. The paucity of overtly gay or lesbian guests suggests that there's still a need for greater balance and diversity.

I'd prefer a disclaimer that indicates on the member page whether board members belong to any political party or donate money or time to same. Bhtv turned into an arm of the Obama campaign in 2008. Bob fessed-up very late in the day that he'd embraced Acorn early on; and that his wife and kids were going door to door for the Anthony Robbins candidate. That charge of site bias against Republicans is going to resurface again very soon without disclaimers or disclosure.

That said, in the time since, despite Bob's shrill pique about you know who, bhtv has been extremely responsive. We just need the disclaimers out clearly and early. I'm still waiting for an apology and a thank you, btw, Bob.

If folks are interested in a real fight about censorship I recommend this Times piece on the BNP's Nick Griffin (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6880176.ece) and his upcoming appearance on Question Time.

Whatfur
10-18-2009, 08:22 PM
You just can't help yourself, can you?

Here, have a clue: the only one you're bothering by calling me a bitch is the person who is deleting your posts. You may want to reassess your objectives and tactics.



Well, nikkibong did get one thing right -- let the victim cloaks be donned!

It staggers the imagination, 'fur, that even you can't see the difference between supposed "bias" on the part of this site and the site admins' objections to the way you conduct yourself.

If the moniker fits. Heck you have been known to answer to it. Again...go figure. And conduct myself...oh thats right your are a saint. Again, how about you just stay the hell away from my posts...you add nothing anyway.

And actually I have been told by the site admins that you were the reason for the thread deletion. Way to go.

bjkeefe
10-18-2009, 08:31 PM
If the moniker fits. Heck you have been known to answer to it. Again...go figure.

What's to figure? My answering to your now-cowardly allusions of your old nickname for me ("bitch in heat") only supports what I said earlier -- I don't care that you call me that, or any variation on it. It does seem obvious, though, that the site admins don't like when you do that. Therefore, my suggestion that you reconsider your objectives and tactics -- you're evidently trying to get my goat (and failing) in a way that's getting you unwelcome attention from those authorized to delete your posts.

And conduct myself...oh thats right your are a saint.

Nope. Mine are not a saint. Nor have mine claimed to be.

Again, how about you just stay the hell away from my posts...you add nothing anyway.

Request denied. If you don't want to risk comments on what you post in a public forum, don't post in a public forum.

And actually I have been told by the site admins that you were the reason for the thread deletion. Way to go.

Oh, really? Way to share what was probably intended as a private communication.

If this is true.

Oh, and is that bridge really for sale, too? I'd like to buy it!

Let's pretend this is true. In that case, will you now start whimpering about the conservative bias of this site?

TwinSwords
10-18-2009, 08:34 PM
When things happen that only whip up anger and opposition to the Prez
Forgive me for asking all these questions, but if I may ask another: Do you recognize that the right is going to bash Obama no matter what he does? Republican rage was turned up to 11 on election day and it's going to stay there for the entire duration of the Obama presidency. You shouldn't, IMO, be so concerned with attacking people on your side who you think are guilty of provoking the right. The right is going to freak out no matter what happens. Republicans attack him for taking his wife out to dinner, for god's sake. I can well imagine someone suggesting that maybe Obama should just stop taking Michelle to dinner, because then Republicans could not complain about it.


and therefore make him less likely to succeed (I'm looking at you, Nobel Committe), I'm going to say it.
Winning the Nobel Prize is not going to make Obama less likely to succeed, no matter how limited the imagination or hobbled by their own concerns various non-conservatives who are speaking out against the prize may be. I realize that a lot of people who are not on the right have their own complaints about Obama, and therefore are frustrated that he was recognized by the Nobel Committee. But, again, this shows that they are thinking selfishly about their own pet issues, or that they lack the imagination to grasp the fact that Obama does, indeed, deserve the prize.

I wish I had more time to devote to this forum, but I'll just take the opportunity here to say that running for and winning the presidency was a 2 year, billion dollar effort undertaken and led by Barack Obama that resulted in the defeat of the Republican war machine, ending eight years of Bush/Cheney policy and transforming the face of America and the political atmosphere around the globe. For this reason alone Obama deserves the prize. But that's just the beginning. He's done a number of things since then that seal the deal and make it a no brainer. Has anyone done more to foster "fraternity between nations" in the last year more than Obama? Clearly, no. Does any other living human being have more potential than Obama to bring about meaningful, lasting peace around the globe? Again, no.

As I said, the problem for the non-conservatives who are having fits about Obama's Nobel is their own profound lack of imagination. They have evidently forgotten what it was like having Bush/Cheney in the White House, and have no appreciation for how different things are, now.


To put it plainly, again: I'm concerned about the real world implications of hostility towards Obama increasing.
Me, too. I think the proper response is fighting it, rather than enabling it.



It's actually a very Bob Wright approach. Bob advocates certain steps that would decrease the amount of international terrorism. Some claim he is therefore being "soft on terrorism."
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Can you elaborate? I do know that Bob has said many times that reducing the overall amount of hatred of the US in the world will reduce the risk of terrorist attacks against our country. If people hate the US, as they did under Bush, they are more likely to look the other way when they catch wind of a terrorist plot; they are more likely to contribute money and support to terrorist causes; they are more likely to become terrorists themselves. By the simple act of replacing the Republicans and putting a new face on our country, Obama has, as Bob suggested, massively increased the security of the US. There are now millions, if not (as ZWB suggested) billions of people on this planet who are now more favorably disposed towards the US. In fact, the core of opposition to Obama is here in the USA, among conservatives and selfish liberals who are preoccupied with their own agenda.



Your accusations about me are actually perfectly analagous.
Can you explain?



.

Brenda
10-18-2009, 09:17 PM
And actually I have been told by the site admins that you were the reason for the thread deletion.

This is false.

JonIrenicus
10-18-2009, 09:20 PM
...



So how do you feel about that guy who can't stop himself from posting everything negative he can think of about some offsite blogger who hasn't been a diavlogger since near the dawn of this site, and who is rarely used as a reference by other commenters? Would this be to provoke discord, do you think? Could it be called "trolling?"





That bolded part really did make me laugh.


i.e.

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=3773


Not that it bothers me, at most it provokes an eye roll.


To the larger issue it all comes down to house rules. Forums are not a democracy, I have been banned from enough to know that. (not for vulgarity, in some cases for mere criticism). I've had even more posts deleted. It is annoying, there is no denying that. Especially having ones ability to object denied, though at least here that is not the case, it is relatively lax for the most part.

But being on the receiving end of a post deletion is always annoying. I know that VERY well from other, much more dictatorial forums.



Now, back to the argument between liberals conflicting values, the more anarchistic don't interfere with my speech !!! vs the more authoritarian order must be maintained.


Use weapons and fight hard.


http://k43.pbase.com/o5/42/267742/1/68416045.wGDPMlLK.popcorn.gif

Oh and don't worry, I am NOT enjoying this.

http://k43.pbase.com/o5/42/267742/1/68416045.wGDPMlLK.popcorn.gif

Whatfur
10-18-2009, 09:27 PM
This is false.

Nooooo Really???? I'm shocked!!!

graz
10-18-2009, 09:27 PM
But -- I DON'T WANT IT TO BE NANNYED!

Except by yourself:nikki cleans up his act (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=133056&postcount=41).

Why the self-censorship? Image... adherence to the site guidelines which you complain are disrespectful of our intelligence... what?

Didn't they teach skin-thickening in J-school? Oh yeah, as Franco suggested, being published or posting on the internet does not a journalist make. Words and experience matter and speak for themselves. Don't you trust yours?

TwinSwords
10-18-2009, 09:29 PM
That bolded part really did make me laugh.

i.e.

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=3773


Not that it bothers me, at most it provokes an eye roll.

Jon,
You know this is a bogus comparison, right? There is a difference between saying "fuck you," "you fag," and "you bitch in heat" to another forum member, and starting a thread characterizing another political party in a less than flattering light.

The former is expressly prohibted by the forum rules. The latter is well within the bounds of the purpose of the forum.

Lyle
10-18-2009, 10:13 PM
... that's why you're being mocked. :)

Lyle
10-18-2009, 10:19 PM
I still don't know what is going on, but just start another thread without the bad words or name-calling.

bjkeefe
10-18-2009, 11:24 PM
This is false.

Thanks for the confirmation.

nikkibong
10-19-2009, 12:00 AM
Except by yourself:nikki cleans up his act (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=133056&postcount=41).

Why the self-censorship? Image... adherence to the site guidelines which you complain are disrespectful of our intelligence... what?

Didn't they teach skin-thickening in J-school? Oh yeah, as Franco suggested, being published or posting on the internet does not a journalist make. Words and experience matter and speak for themselves. Don't you trust yours?

What gives, graz? Why the gratuitous shots at my nascent career? Do you think I'm proud to merely be freelancing? Or are you just here to pile on? Are you going to Matt Lewis me now, too, asserting that I'm "not a real liberal"?

In the case you link to, I said something abusive because I was mad, and then thought better of it. So I removed it.

Maybe you can learn something from that.

I find it incredible that bjkeefe said something demonstrably false about me, yet no one raises a whimper in my defense.

And now you, graz. I'm genuinely hurt.

nikkibong
10-19-2009, 12:12 AM
Think of it this way: in the war on terror, some people, of say, the Christopher Hitchens school, advocate fighting terrorists by doing things that purposefully enrage them. Hitchens argues that angering "bad people" is a sign of doing things right. The Bob Wright school, on the other hand, takes a more pragmatic approach, and argues that doing things that don't activley antagonize terrorists is actually in our self-interest: it will ultimately reduce violence. Even though it's somewhat unsavory, at least personally, to do things that may "please" a terrorist, it actually redounds to our benefit in the long run.

I'm making an analagous case for domestic politics. Hardcore partisan warriors like bjkeefe argue in favor of doing things that intentionally antagonize the right. I'm saying that if we really want to enact progressive reform, our best chance is in doing what we can to bring conservatives over to our side. Lobbing abuse at them isn't going to help. Get it?

More broadly, I'm more than a little tired of having to defend my liberal bona fides here. In case you are wondering, I've spent my money and my blood sweat and tears on advancing liberal causes.

I've volunteered my time, without pay, for: Tony Pires, democratic candidate for governor of Rhode Island, David Segal, green party candidate for Providence City Council, a North Korean human rights organization based in Seoul, an Amnesty International chapter based in Providence, RI, Sho Dozono, liberal independent mayoral candidate in Portland, Oregon, and Steve Novick, democratic candidate for Senate in Oregon.

I also traveled to Iowa - without pay - to walk through the snows of West Des Moines - with broncitis - to canvas for Obama. For two weeks, I worked eighteen hours a day with a 103 degree fever to elect our democratic president.

So you all want to say I'm not being sufficently loyal?

Well then all I can say is go fuck yourselves.

bjkeefe
10-19-2009, 01:12 AM
Hardcore partisan warriors like bjkeefe argue in favor doing things that purposively antagonize the right.

Pretending for a moment that your adverb is an actual word, please link to a post where I have made this argument.

NB: I do not document the atrocities of prominent Republicans and conservatives to antagonize the right. It may be a side effect, as getting slapped in the face with the truth does tend to sting a little, but that is not my purpose in gathering and posting the links that I do. I do it to inform the people who are new to the political game, and to show the false equivalence crowd how false their equivalences are.

I'm saying that if we really want to enact progressive reform, our best chance is in doing what we can to bring conservatives over to our side.

How's that been working out so far?

Okay, so we've got a few conservatives trying to call themselves the "new right" or "the next majority" or whatever. But I'd argue that, overwhelmingly, they backed away from the edge the Republican base is rushing to of their own accord, starting with things like Bush's war on science, McCain's choice of Palin, the excessive catering to the Dobson/Perkins bunch, and the general fervor of anti-intellectualism and the "Party of No Ideas" tone.

I'd also say that to the extent that encouragement from the left has helped some on the right move away from the base, it's at least as likely that they were encouraged by the leftosphere's ongoing efforts at cataloging -- and laughing at -- the wingnut foibles as they were by any touchy-feeliness.

However, I see no reason to restrict ourselves to one approach. Just as I am happy to have more accommodating approaches used in addition to my own preferred confrontational style when combating the theocrats, I am happy to try a bunch of approaches to appeal to the more reasonable conservatives, too. Go for whatever you want to do. There is no One True Path.

Lobbing abuse at them isn't going to help. Get it?

You think the 2006 and 2008 elections were won with candy and flowers alone?

More broadly, I'm more than a little tired of having to defend my liberal bona fides here. [...]

The rest of this is 50% self-pity and 50% straw men. I'll just speak for myself here, but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in any of it: I do not ask you for your bona fides. I don't care whether you're a liberal. I am merely responding to the words you post. Previously, when you weren't handing out flyers inviting people to join your Fire Andrew Club, you seemed mostly to post a lot of basic kneejerk contrarianism. Lately, you have been posting an awful lot of "both sides do it." I grant you have stated in this thread that you don't actually believe this latter message, but I will say that it is new to me, today.

nikkibong
10-19-2009, 01:21 AM
The rest of this is 50% self-pity and 50% straw men. I'll just speak for myself here, but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in any of it: I do not ask you for your bona fides. I don't care whether you're a liberal. I am merely responding to the words you post. Previously, when you weren't handing out flyers inviting people to join your Fire Andrew Club, you seemed mostly to post a lot of basic kneejerk contrarianism. Lately, you have been posting an awful lot of "both sides do it." I grant you have stated in this thread that you don't actually believe this latter message, but I will say that it is new to me, today.

Horseshit. When I asked you to provide a link to my claiming that "both sides do it," you had nothing. Yet you persist in repeating the lie. This from the man who calls another commenter here "lial."

As for "knee jerk contrarianism," ok, um, that's obviously a subjective judgment. But i'll take kneejerk contrarianism (whatever that is) over jerkoff bullying any day of the week.

bjkeefe
10-19-2009, 01:41 AM
Horseshit. When I asked you to provide a link to my claiming that "both sides do it," you had nothing. Yet you persist in repeating the lie.

Oh, untwist your knickers. I'm not going to bother looking that hard when I can see you've been editing your posts. You want a couple of recent examples of your false equivalence attitude (where, granted, you don't literally say the word "sides" (at least not any longer)), look here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=133814#post133814) and here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=133822#post133822).

Drop it, nikki. You're protesting too much. If you want to insist that you no longer hold this attitude, fine, whatever. But I know what I've been reading, and so does anyone else whose opinion matters to me.

nikkibong
10-19-2009, 01:46 AM
Oh, untwist your knickers. I'm not going to bother looking that hard when I can see you've been editing your posts. You want a couple of recent examples of your false equivalence attitude (where, granted, you don't literally say the word "sides" (at least not any longer)), look here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=133814#post133814) and here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=133822#post133822).

Drop it, nikki. You're protesting too much. If you want to insist that you no longer hold this attitude, fine, whatever. But I know what I've been reading, and so does anyone else whose opinion matters to me.

You are a pathetic demagogue.

I've edited my comments solely for grammar/spelling reasons. Yet you persist in Clintonesque insinuations regarding "deleted" and "edited" posts. It's worthy of a birther.

bjkeefe
10-19-2009, 01:47 AM
[...]

Okay, whatever.

JonIrenicus
10-19-2009, 02:52 AM
Jon,
You know this is a bogus comparison, right? There is a difference between saying "fuck you," "you fag," and "you bitch in heat" to another forum member, and starting a thread characterizing another political party in a less than flattering light.

The former is expressly prohibted by the forum rules. The latter is well within the bounds of the purpose of the forum.

Different issue. What is prohibited is subject to being removed. House rules. All of that is agreed upon.

But there was a comparison about some other person saying nothing but negative things and painting that in a harsh light, just pointing out it is a hard stone to throw (on a hypocritical level, not a rule breaking level) if you have an entire thread dedicated to throwing stones, with constant updates.

Nothing against the rules about throwing stones, so long as they are within bounds, but lets not get on some soap box about the wrongness of some pistol shooter actions when you have been spraying a steady stream of machine gun fire.

graz
10-19-2009, 03:51 AM
In the case you link to, I said something abusive because I was mad, and then thought better of it. So I removed it.

Maybe you can learn something from that.

I find it incredible that bjkeefe said something demonstrably false about me, yet no one raises a whimper in my defense.

And now you, graz. I'm genuinely hurt.

What gives, graz? Why the gratuitous shots at my nascent career? Do you think I'm proud to merely be freelancing? Or are you just here to pile on? Are you going to Matt Lewis me now, too, asserting that I'm "not a real liberal"?

I'm tweaking you to get at the underlying issue as I see it. Namely, integrity and interpretation of intention. And to point out that each of us sees these rather differently at times, which in turn sets the fellas to fightin'.

I have an antenna tuned for inconsistency and hypocrisy. The signals it has been receiving of late from you are strong. Cleaning up your own comments (whether out of shame or propriety) while criticizing the policy rubbed me wrong. Attacking Brendan or Franco for their stridency while never stopping short of invective or judgement yourself... rankled. (As an aside - How could you have called the more slow than watching paint dry performance of freedomforall in the second Apollo moonshot:Thanks for doing this guys, it was fun to watch.



Your self-pity regarding your dedication to liberal causes in no way offsets my sense of creeping "Beinartitis" in your postings, even if you liken it to Bob Wright. You may even be a David Horowitz in the making for all I know... which has little bearing on the reaction I have to your posts - ideas and attitudes. But it ought not be turned into a personal issue. As you are a journalist, writer etc... Ideally, your words count more than just expressed conviction (Silly Sully by example).

I like the idea of loyalty, and would welcome the opportunity to rise to your defense. But, I honestly don't see the offense that needs redressing.

Well then all I can say is go fuck yourselves.
Now that I can get behind.

bjkeefe
10-19-2009, 04:40 AM
Different issue. What is prohibited is subject to being removed. House rules. All of that is agreed upon.

But there was a comparison about some other person saying nothing but negative things and painting that in a harsh light, just pointing out it is a hard stone to throw (on a hypocritical level, not a rule breaking level) if you have an entire thread dedicated to throwing stones, with constant updates.

Nothing against the rules about throwing stones, so long as they are within bounds, but lets not get on some soap box about the wrongness of some pistol shooter actions when you have been spraying a steady stream of machine gun fire.

Please explain how posting links to news reports, survey results, and the like is "machine gun fire" to the "pistol shooter actions" of insults objectionable enough to the site admins to merit their deletion.

Please explain how passing along factual items of interest and relevance to one of the core themes of this site is "throwing stones."

I thought you people were all about We Report You Decide™.

nikkibong
10-19-2009, 05:08 AM
Why are you pretending not to see the difference between self-editing a post, and having one deleted from on high? I maintain that I should have agency in my own comments. I fail to see how it is "hypocritical" to a) be opposed to the summary deletion of posts by exterior entity, and b) occasionally edit a post of mine as circumstances change. We all engage in certain self-editing: for example, I didn't write out my initial emotional reaction to your post here. Is that "hypocrisy" or just good judgment? What do you tell your wife when she asks if that dress makes her look fat?

In the brouhaha with Franco (where I was called a "nitwit" without any cause) I said something in the heat of the moment, and decided to dial it down to forestall further needless conflict. I don't know, graz, but I think many would consider that "maturity."

Also, I feel no self-pity - a term you cribbed from bjkeefe - for the time I've devoted to liberal causes. I'm proud of the causes I've worked on, and have no regrets. I was just trying to convey how preposterous it was that I was being considered Not Sufficiently Loyal To The Party by having the temerity to suggest that Obama winning the Nobel Prize may not be a good thing for, say, healthcare reform. (Though I guess I was was wrong about that.)

As for Beinaritis (funny term, BTW), I asked bjkeefe to provide examples. None were forthcoming. You may want to check your much vaunted antenna there. Also where you accuse me of being just as strident as bjkeefe and FrancoAmerican, which is preposterous.

UPDATE: I now see that I had a misspelling in my initial post, which I am just edited. Shocking, isn't it? O, I know, my hypocrisy, graz, my hypocrisy!

bjkeefe
10-19-2009, 05:13 AM
Oh, and one more thing:

... if you have an entire thread dedicated to throwing stones, with constant updates.

How many threads have you started, Jon? Looks like (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15&sort=postusername&order=asc&daysprune=-1&page=4) well over one hundred in the "Life, The Universe and Everything" forum alone.

And how many times have you just launched into a post, not in response to anyone else's post, where pretty much the sole object of your post was to bash all liberals?

So ...

... a hard stone to throw (on a hypocritical level, not a rule breaking level) ...

... yeah.

JonIrenicus
10-19-2009, 05:51 AM
Please explain how posting links to news reports, survey results, and the like is "machine gun fire" to the "pistol shooter actions" of insults objectionable enough to the site admins to merit their deletion.

Please explain how passing along factual items of interest and relevance to one of the core themes of this site is "throwing stones."

I thought you people were all about We Report You Decide™.

On second thought I think it is more like throwing feces.

Your problem is that you tend to highlight the worst of your ideological opponents, and then proceed to expose their foolishness and general idiocy and showcase it as proof that the entire enterprise and its members are of the same kind. Treating the entire idea set as having no more merit than the weakest among it.


It is the same thing as picking out the crippled kid on a swim team and only placing yourself and swimming trials against what he can muster... with only one leg and no hands. You watch him flail stupidly, wildly, making a fool of himself, and pat yourself on the back after lapping him a dozen times for being more physically fit and capable than the cripple. Does that make you feel proud?

Let me tell you a secret about some of us, or at least myself. I don't care about highlights of the weakest and dumbest examples of humanity. You get points for highlighting something wrong with a reasonable mind, not a birther.


Of course, some of you contend you have no choice as the other side is all birthers !!!!!

k

Keep beating down those crippled kids, let me know when you are want to take on their captains, whoever they may be.

THOSE are the victories worth celebrating if you win the argument.

JonIrenicus
10-19-2009, 05:55 AM
Oh, and one more thing:



How many threads have you started, Jon? Looks like (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15&sort=postusername&order=asc&daysprune=-1&page=4) well over one hundred in the "Life, The Universe and Everything" forum alone.

And how many times have you just launched into a post, not in response to anyone else's post, where pretty much the sole object of your post was to bash all liberals?

So ...



... yeah.


Unfortunately, I am like you many times. Anytime I launch into Cindy Sheehan, I am doing no more than attacking a crippled kid as the women is a fool. Whether she is right or wrong on the Iraq war, it is for the wrong reasons. Showing that her emotional objections to all wars (even wwII on general principle) is a bad basis for opposition to Iraq, while true, is a cheap point. Cheap because while her rationales are easy to dismiss, you gain no ground from that alone against the harder and more reasonable arguments against the war.

I do not claim to always go for the harder argument, it is hard to see low hanging fruit and not go after it. But the point still stands, picking the weakest arguments apart from the other side is not an accomplishment worth celebrating.

graz
10-19-2009, 02:03 PM
Thanks for trying to treat my complaint with the respect it might not deserve. I certainly ran the risk of coming-off as a self-righteous prick... I may have succeeded. But as you are to be a likely contributor to opinion journals that matter - maybe I provided a public service. One can only hope... which is a comment on the state of the journals - not the writer per se.

Perhaps my antenna needed some fine-tuning or was damaged in the fray. But it serves no purpose to rehash what was an impression and characterization of what I had read. As for the "cribbing" of self-pity, what else would you call that dramatic pleading. You may wish it to convey allegiance or counter charges of betrayal to a cause. But there was no exact charge made. Volunteer as much time as you can afford, while suffering the symptoms of swine flu and impetigo simultaneously, but don't allow the attack on your immune system to compromise your ability to take legitimate criticism. Granted you're claiming to be unfairly accused of thought crimes. Not only is that protesting too much (I'm cribbing), but it doesn't really address the complaint of false equivalency, eg: The defense of whatfur on free speech grounds, while failing to acknowledge the substantive difference between the actual content of the corresponding threads (as equated by you). I read you as saying: We need this opposition to cooperate so as to succeed in satisfying an agenda. So don't criticize or provoke them. After all their ideas are just polar opposites of ours.

I'm not buying that. F#$k that noise. And more power to the likes of Brendan and Franco who fight with conviction. You're entitled to your opinion about how the forum is a microcosm or extension of your goal of uniting the differences between the poles. But you can't force it on others without push-back. I don't even agree that the forum is politics by other means to any large degree. It is what it is and this is this is all I know it to be. Changing minds or garnering votes is done in the trenches, such as your work in Iowa. Posting or interacting here does not a coalition make. Long live free speech. Including the right of those you call-out to react in kind according to their inclinations.

bjkeefe
10-19-2009, 06:59 PM
On second thought I think it is more like throwing feces.

Your problem is that you tend to highlight the worst of your ideological opponents, and then proceed to expose their foolishness and general idiocy and showcase it as proof that the entire enterprise and its members are of the same kind. Treating the entire idea set as having no more merit than the weakest among it.

Well, you're wrong about that bolded part. Maybe I haven't made it clear enough, or maybe you haven't read everything I've posted closely enough, so I'll say it again.

I don't view everyone with whom I disagree as "the same." I don't think all conservatives, or all Republicans, are equal, and in particular, I do not think they are all equally deranged. This is why I so often use the term wingnut -- as a shorthand way to distinguish those I can respect and with whom I can reasonably disagree from the smaller fraction of the population whose views are worth nothing more than mockery (when I am able to step away from my instinctive reaction of horror).

Now, I say "smaller fraction," but that doesn't mean I think it's a trivial fraction. There are many millions of people in this country who have a whole belief system that is anathema to me, and to the ideals of the United States as I understand them, and indeed, to progress as a global civilization, and their numbers make them a matter of concern. Therefore, I think it is useful, even necessary, to call attention to their antics and their words. This is especially true given that they seem to be, at minimum, close to the dominant voice in the Republican Party as matters now stand, and bent on expelling from the Party anyone deemed insufficiently pure.

The problem with the political discourse in this country, and in these forums, is that we're not hearing much from reasonable voices on the right-hand half of the political spectrum. Even you, who in case you're wondering I distinguish in my mind from the disciples of Orly Taitz, do not often offer much room for considered discussion, what with your frequent blanket dismissals and caricatures of "the left" and your tone of adamance on many issues.

And here is a perfect example:

Of course, some of you contend you have no choice as the other side is all birthers !!!!!

It's stupid to put things this way. If you are trying to say that I, in particular, view "the other side" as "all birthers," then say so, and I'll explain why you're wrong. If, on the other hand, you're not just weaseling out with the Nixonian "some," then you're basically arguing against a straw man. No one on this board, and vanishingly small numbers of people in general, view "the other side" as "all birthers."

However, there is no disputing the statistics -- a disturbingly large number of self-described registered Republicans will at least tell a pollster that they believe this nonsense. For those who are sincere about this, it is indisputable that they are warped, and highly likely that it has largely to do with their inability to deal with a president who looks different from them. For those who don't really believe this, but just see it as an opportunity to take a shot in their own little couch-based culture war, this is almost as much of a problem -- we are talking about people who, essentially, have the attitude that a candidate who decisively won a free and fair election has no legitimate right to govern, and so should be opposed by attacking through every means conceivable, no matter how idiotic.

Now, does this mean that I believe that there are no legitimate grounds for disputing Obama's views, or opposing his desired policies? Of course not. But it is true that I rarely hear any disagreements, especially on this site, that strike me as anything more than kneejerk tribalism.

All I can tell you is that if you're upset about being lumped in with the sort of people I have in mind when I talk about wingnuts, or when I add another link to yet another story of yet another prominent Republican singing looney tunes, then you shouldn't be. But it does occur to me that people in general tend to get most upset about things like this when they come too close to the truth. So, all I can tell you is either realize that when I talk about wingnuts, or pass along news of their doings, I'm not necessarily thinking about you, or work harder to make yourself distinguishable from the people I consider a serious source of concern.

And in either case, if you don't like following links to stories about Wingnuts Gone Wild, then don't. How hard is it not to visit one little thread?

But maybe that's not really the problem, is it? Maybe part of what you're really doing here, at base, is telling me that it's impolite to call attention to the foibles of that part of the opposition in this country that I consider unhinged, because it embarrasses you.

If so, too bad. These people haven't had a light shone on them for too long, and among the consequences are an intimidated media, a too-widespread sense that "liberal" is a pejorative, a too-often unquestioned assumption that Democrats are bent on destroying the country, and an attitude that the time when the GOP is out of the majority should be spent only by being as uncooperative and disagreeable as possible, no matter who universal our problems are.

If not, then don't worry about it. And put a little more effort into convincing yourself that yours is not the only way to see things, that other people might have different points of view that are just as legitimate as yours, and most importantly, stop characterizing everything in terms of "sides."

bjkeefe
10-19-2009, 07:03 PM
[...]

I'll let my other (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=133930#post133930) response to you speak to this one, as well.

[Added] But I do appreciate your acknowledging what you did.

Lyle
10-21-2009, 01:53 PM
Whatfur has been banned? What for?

graz
10-21-2009, 02:32 PM
Whatfur has been banned? What for?
For being whatfur. That's for what.

Lyle
10-21-2009, 02:47 PM
Pathetic, if true. Shame bh.tv, shame.