dagblog - Comments for "Recommended Reading for Earnest Voters"

Kat, objecting to what

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 15:05:27 +0000

In reply to But of course that's not what

Kat, objecting to what someone writer does not violate the ToS. Disparaging the blogger does. So an argument about whether a picture is racist is fine. An argument whether the person who posted it is a closet racist is not.

That can be a thin line to tread, and I've treaded it enough to know. As moderator, I've often been in the position of trying to explain to someone why what they said is offensive without violating my own ToS. I've also seen other bloggers here handle these issues delicately, laboring to explain what makes the comment offensive without expressing hostility or condescension toward the person who made it. Not only does this approach cohere with the ToS, it's also a much more effective strategy for persuasion.

Because it's such a thin line, I don't have a hair trigger. I try to avoid moderating when there is ambiguity. In this case, however, there was no ambiguity. In three successive comments, you repeatedly accused a blogger of misogyny in quite personal terms. That goes well beyond expressing offense at what he wrote. It makes the blogger the topic rather than the material.

It's not just racism and sexism, btw. Whenever people start writing about who is an asshole or who is an idiot or who doesn't listen, we get into that space of arguing about bloggers rather than ideas. People start to side with those they like, gang up on those they don't, and retaliate when their buddies get trashed. This dispute between you and Lulu was mano-a-mano. At TPM, it would have been a gang fight, endlessly repeated in thread after thread. It took a lot of work to prevent that kind of factionalism from gaining a foothold at dag, and not everyone has been cool with it, but to me, it's one of dagblog's greatest attributes.

But of course that's not what

ocean-kat — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 23:17:28 +0000

In reply to Ocean-kat, you're right. I

But of course that's not what I was saying nor was it the point I wanted to make. I think my point is generally summed up in the post above, "Attempting to sort out the more subtle forms of offensive speech from on high is a time consuming fool's errand."

It's made to seem as though I'm unique in that I don't mind being called an islamophobe. Of course I do mind but hurt feelings are irrrelevant. And I'm not unique. 90% of the time 90% of the people react just as I do. As it should be. As it must be for honest civil discourse. There are numerous examples.

When people called out what some thought was a racist picture of West or Smiley (?) with a bone in his mouth there was a long discussion at times heated to sort it out. I was not a part of that discussion so it's not about me. Others here were saying what I believed better than I could. There was no tos warning.

When several called out the theory that Goodwin's law was created by the jews there was a long and heated discussion. I was only a bit player in that since again, others made the point better than I. No tos warning.

As it should be. As it must be. People will not let what they see as offensive speech pass by unchallenged and that's a welcome change form the past when people would laugh along to get along. Submitting every incident of subtle racism, sexism, etc. for adjudication on high is unworkable for both the participants and the moderators. Tell yourselves that's what you want or that's what you're doing if you need to. But the reality is the vast majority of the time it's argued about and sorted out in discussion. The only time the tos is invoked is if one party is not capable of controlling their temper and engaging in rational debate. Then both sides of the discussion are deemed a tos violation.

Ocean-kat, you're right. I

Ramona — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 22:34:50 +0000

In reply to You're giving me a tos

Ocean-kat, you're right. I should not have said what I said to Wattree. I let my fury get the best of me and I was wrong. It's doubly bad because I'm a moderator here at dag, so in the future I will try my best to rise above it all. I probably should have given myself a TOS, so consider this the response to the overlooked TOS.

Thanks.

Good timing - we were just

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:04:53 +0000

In reply to You are beginning to sound

Good timing - we were just discussing the lack of intelligent argument these days, and ooh,you show up with "Veal Pen" and "minions" and "hollow creature" and "little circus of horrors" (isn't that cutting into Roger Corman copyright?). Cut us, we bleed. Yet you forgot "sheeple" and "poutrage" - wasted opportunity, no?

When a critique of Hillary begins with the equivalent of space aliens or a long list of uncatalogued gripes strung together, it's pretty easy to just file them in the bank of other hater porn. "debate of facts and evidence" is a rather self-aggrandizing assessment of buckets of shit thrown up against a wall to see what might stick (though if you're bent that way from the beginning, everything sticks). Anyway, I'll leave Counterpunch to its cage fantasies - La Cage aux Folles is already well-established as the stage version of "ship of fools", so they'll have good company and sterling pedigree.

Ocean-kat, Ramona and I have

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 19:48:00 +0000

In reply to You're giving me a tos

Ocean-kat, Ramona and I have discussed the comment you quoted offline. I recognize that it's inconsistent with our policy.

To your critique of the policy, we're certainly not trying to reduce liberal sensitivity, and it is perfectly fine to call out someone who is not a blogger here. The goal of the policy is simply to avoid the grudge matches and flame wars that ruined TPM Cafe (imo). You're right that it's possible, in principle, to have a civil debate about whether someone's comment is racist or what-have-you, but it very rarely happens. No one likes to be called a bigot, they generally retaliate hard. Flame war ensues.

So we have a simple policy, no personal attacks. It's not a perfect policy, but it has helped dag avoid the interminable pillow fights that you see on other blogs. It also helps the moderators avoid internal disagreement and inconsistency, which used to be a bigger problem when Articleman was here, and I wasn't the only one actively moderating.

As for our enforcement of the policy, I don't ignore the violations. I simply don't see them. As I've written many times, I do not read every comment on this site. Like anyone, I follow the discussions that interest me, time permitting. As a result, comments that violate the policy get through without my even knowing. I usually only notice when a big fight breaks out, which invariably means that more than one person has violated the policy, so more than person gets a ToS warning.

Now if it doesn't bother you when someone calls you an islamophobe, and you are willing to respond civilly, go right ahead. It's not a huge deal to me if a violation goes unpunished if it doesn't cause animosity. But if it does bother you, please send me an email rather than hitting back. Then I will see the comment and can enforce the policy.

So in summary, the policy is not about any principle of justice or fairness. It is designed only to prevent dagblog from becoming a place where people sit around calling each other names and criticizing one another's bad behavior, and I enforce it to the extent that I am able.

You are beginning to sound

Peter — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:04:21 +0000

In reply to I actually do mean it. Much

You are beginning to sound like a lawyer trying to divert attention from your, guilty as sin, client HRC. Deflection and diversion are useful tools of distraction and turn a debate of facts and evidence into a little circus of horrors unrelated to the subject at hand.

HRC and her minions have used these tactics effectively so far because her fans are already in the Veal Pen but when she faces The Donald in the main event, cage-fight in front of a real mixed crowd they won't be very effective, See the imagined first debate at Counterpunch to learn how easily her weak facade can be dismantled exposing the hollow creature lurking beneath.

I actually do mean it. Much

ocean-kat — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 07:09:58 +0000

In reply to I would guess you don't quite

I actually do mean it. Much of what you talk about in your blog is what I call a convincing argument. A debate isn't just links, data, and proofs. It's also, sometimes only, making a good argument, as you said, "in a way that was lucid and compelling and convincing." We can't all be as good as MLK, or, one of my favorites, Sam Harris, But we can make convincing arguments. The link I criticized was 5 sentences, each asserted as if a truth, each I disagreed with in part or wholly, without a single argument to back them up.

I would guess you don't quite

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 06:35:00 +0000

In reply to Apparently someone else said

I would guess you don't quite mean that, and I think it's important to note -

once upon a time ... [turned this into a blog post instead]

My inclination was to ignore

ocean-kat — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 06:30:02 +0000

In reply to OK, I composed this before I

My inclination was to ignore this comment as I didn't want to relitigate this with you. But since you have made some concessions not to reply might have seemed as though I was holding a grudge. For me this squabble was already reigned in when I said, I'm done you can take the last word. Not just the squabble but at that moment for me, it was in the past. From your comment about not wanting to be "enemies" this whole thing seems to be more important to you than me. I don't think in those terms that way so I don't know how else to interpret it. I assure you I am not holding onto any emotional attachment over this fight.

Plus I think the TOS came out

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 06:15:27 +0000

In reply to Lulu, I appreciate what you

Plus I think the TOS came out as the interplay had become a barbed "did too"/"did not"/"did too"/"did not" and Michael had to break the boxers up & send them to their corners somehow, whether his reasoning is exact or historically consistent, yadda yadda - the record had a skip in it, he bounced the needle.