Wolraich: Obama at the Gates of... Gates
Dr. C: In Praise of Writing Binges
Maiello: Gatsby Doesn't Grate
A few evenings ago I linked to an article at Anti-War.com written by Justin Raimondo.
In the article Raimondo traces what he was able to find out about the people responsible for the movie, Innocence of Muslims. He goes on to describe connections with other political activists and then to suggest that there is circumstantial evidence that supports his inflammatory title, The Pro-Israel Network Behind the Innocence Video.
The next morning I logged on here and saw that there were five or six comments. The first, as I recall, found some value in the article, a couple were confusing to me, and a couple more attacked the article in extremely caustic terms and strongly implied that those terms applied to me as well. Sorry, no direct quotes available.
I then went back to the article to re-read it with the thoughts behind those various reactions in mind. Then I returned to Dagblog to compose a response only to find that the link to the article had been disappeared along with the comments. There was no notice nor explanation of any kind which, as far as I know, is the first time this has happened to anyone or any submission here at Dag.
I expected that I would get an email from Dag explaining some term of service that had been violated or some other reason to justify the action taken. I waited more than twenty-four hours and then used the 'contact' link at the bottom of the page and sent a short request which asked for an explanation from whichever moderator had anonymously taken the action. It has been another day and a half and no one has yet had the courtesy to respond. Not the moderator who took the action nor anyone else on the masthead who might have had feelings one way or another about the action.
When I made my request for an explanation there was another blog post which had already received at least sixty comments. There was obvious racism demonstrated in the blog and highly charged accusations being leveled back and forth between some of the participants. There was argument about whether the author really had demonstrated racism, but Articleman, one of the moderators who could have taken action if he felt it warranted, expressed his opinion quite clearly in the one paragraph I will quote.
This is the eleventy-millionth piece saying the same thing, and the "whoes" and "Mussolini" are absurdly over the top, and I will even second Dijamo's revisiting of the bone-in-mouth image as disabling the author from commenting any further on this topic for me. That was an extreme low point in blogging hereabouts, and deeply offensive to me for the reasons she stated.
So, Articleman decided that he would give no more credence to the author's opinion on that subject but he obviously let that authors opinions stay in view and the conversation to continue. As did every other moderator. Am I to concluded that overt racial bigotry against blacks can be expressed here [I think the article and comments should stay] and the person demonstrating that racism be congratulated on their usual good work but an article about a major international event that is still ongoing cannot be viewed or discussed because it speculates that there were actors in that event that belonged to a group estimated at over thirteen million worldwide, but to point to an article that speculates that even one or a very few of them might have been involved is so far beyond the pale, even if there is evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that any such suggestion must be immediately disappeared with the apparent wish that it never be mentioned again. That seems to be a pretty crooked line dividing what is acceptable to discuss and what is not, as well as how different participants are treated.