Banning Bloggers -- I've Heard Enough Singing From the NetRoots
I'm the first to admit I am hard-headed.
and the readers laugh
I make a decision on something, and I get passionate about it. As if I'm leading a cult, I whip a frenzy of followers into getting passionate too and we march into battle.
Then somewhere along the lines, usually while marching, I realize I am probably being a wee bit extreme about the whole thing and maybe, just maybe, there is a more sensible way to approach this whole 'battle.' Which may or may not have really been a battle in the first place.
I'd like to think the difference between myself, and (for example) the community over at Daily Kos, is somewhere along the lines I catch myself and adjust.
I calm down.
I think.
I listen.
I do this, usually, while continuing to stand up for what I believe, adjusting my fight, and making sure I do all of the above in a manner that won't SCREW my candidate.
I was willing to give my passionate friends over at Kos a hat tip and nod after the FISA uproar. I was willing to let the NetRoots be fringe, or bleeding edge-as the kid's say.
Then they went and banned my friend (and Huffington Post blogger)Lee Stranahan.
Daily Kos. Banning.
No, no...really.
The liberal, 'censorship sucks, we hate those who won't listen to our point of view' blog of the NetRoots, Daily Kos.
Now I'm convinced they are extremists who are no better than the Neo-Con, censoring, fundies.
Can I just remind you, oh holier than thou NetRoots...the Democratic candidate is a man who brings everyone to the table. He hears everyone out. He strives to make everyone work together- regardless of extremism.
I may not LIKE or support the idea of offshore drilling, but I do understand that we can't just shut out one point of view. I may not LIKE the compromise on FISA, but I sure as hell understand that we need to take small steps in order to take giant ones. I may not LIKE that a liberal blogger is talking about the alleged Edwards affair, but I sure as HELL need to listen and be AWARE.
You can keep sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalalalalalalalalalalala. It's one of my own favorite go-to moves. But trust me, in the end I catch myself. Because I just spent 8 years with an administration that sang a lot and didn't listen. With a nation of conservatives hell bent on refusing to hear why I didn't want prayer in my schools and why I wanted to control my own reproduction.
They didn't want to listen. And once in power, they felt they didn't have to listen.
Flash forward to 2008 and the power of the blogosphere.
You may not want to listen. Hell, I don't want to listen.
But you have to listen.
Hold candidates accountable, reasonably march into battle....
...just take your fingers out of your damn ears and make room at the table for everyone.
*editor's note: Lee Stranahan is tonight's guest on Sunday Inquisition. Let's hear it right from him....
Erin Kotecki Vest is usually over at Queen of Spain Blog causing trouble. Or behaving. Depending.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I am a lifelong liberal and have always had respect for the Daily Kos. No longer.
While I have my disagreements with dKos, particularly over community AutoBan (in my opinion all bans should be administrative), this was a fair cop.
Let me quote the Wikipedia definition of 'Troll'- "An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion
Lee Stranahan was a repeated Troll who showed no sign (nor does he now by having a surrogate tattle on another blog) of regret or intent to change his behavior. Had this come to my attention I would have urged his administrative banishment myself.
He should be ashamed of himself.
See Lee Stranahan's Profile
Nothing I posted - not one thing - was 'irrelevant or off-topic'.
My stated intent was to put the Edwards situation in the context of DKos's stated purpose - to gert Democrats elected.
In fact, the people who are the trolls on Kos were the people trying to disrupt my diaries with antics like posting recipes or pictures.
Seriously - are you incapable of disagreeing with something without making it 'off topic'?
Why should I feel ANY regret for posting on-topic?
You are emphasizing the wrong words.
"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversia and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion
As well as Diary Rules 12, 14, and 16
http://www
12. Diarists are strongly encouraged to back up all assertions with facts (and preferably links to supporting materials) whenever possible. Use reputable sources whenever possible. If you can't find a reputable source that supports your position, then perhaps reconsider writing your diary.
14. Diaries which engage in wild speculation without any proof are strongly discouraged. Repeatedly posting diaries consisting largely or entirely of wild speculation is an abuse of site policy. Bear in mind that that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
16. Diaries which are deliberately designed to inflame are prohibited.
But you were also in violation of the dKos specific 'Conspiracy Theory' rule-
Controversial Diary Topics
"Diaries on certain topics are likely to generate angry responses. Most of these topics fall under the general heading of "conspiracy theories", e.g., "JFK was killed by Martians". The rule for posting such diaries is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The more extreme the claim, the higher the burden of proof that commenters will demand. If you can't provide evidence to back up your claim, it is best not to post the diary. This guideline also applies to recommending extraordin
Addendum
Some people have been confused by the above discussion. Let me make it perfectly plain. Diaries advancing 'Conspiracy Theories' are subject to ridicule and derision from the community at the very least. Repeat offenders can and will be banned. Yes, this does include 'controlled demolition' of WTC 7. "
"But, what about Freedom of Speech?
Doesn't the First Amendment give me the right to talk about whatever I want here?
No. Daily Kos is owned by kos. The servers are his. He pays the bandwidth charges. He makes the rules; we are here as his guests. If he decides tomorrow that anyone not posting in iambic pentameter will be banned, your options are either to brush up on your poetry skills or find/start another forum. "
I see that you have chosen to sign up for an account at DocuDharma, a blog I moderate.
You are perfectly welcome to do so and our rules on 'Conspiracy Theories' are not nearly as strict as the ones at dKos.
We do have a low tolerance for inflamatory behavior however and if you wish to keep your account you'll be mindful of that and our NO tolerance policy for kos bashing, I/P, and outing.
The definition of "troll" is often "anyone that isn't a mirror image of me".
Have a diff opinion? You're a troll.
It's used by purists that think everyone has to be the same.
I think you'll find quite a range of opinion at dKos and we have frequent and heated disagreements.
Still, if it's not to your taste you can post someplace else.
I'd say you should be ashamed of yourself, for being no different from those you supposedly despise. It was not a fair cop. The guy was saying something you don't want to hear - he may be right, or wrong, but your Kos banned him. That's disgraceful. You're just a Cheney in a different suit.
Erin writes: "Daily Kos. Banning."
===
Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss.
Being a conservative, I think that Kos is a buffoon. But the thing that REALLY is disturbing is the ability if the other members to make your posts unreadable. I fully understand that that site is Kos's house and he has the right to throw out anyone he wants. I dont expect free speech there. But the "hive mind" mentallity and the ability for any "trusted" member to shut you up is frightening. I could onyl imagine what would happen at a town hall meeting with these people if they had any real power. Gulag anyone?
You or the editor closed comments on your earlier thread but I wanted to pass on this link to another technology story in NYT Sunday Styles about Ignite NYC: Night Life Reprogrammed http://tin
This post just cracks me up.
The internet can be used for free speech, Kos' site has rules, as this site does. He decides the structure of his site and the topics than can, and some that cannot be broached.
Start your own political site. If you want it to have any legitimacy, soon you too will have to have some structure (rules) and not have it be a free for all. There are some wacky ideas out there.
I don't read Kos anymore, but it seemed like people were always given ample warning to stop what they were doing before people got banned. Most likely what happened here is that when told to stop, he pushed the limits and kept posting anyway.
But aren't you a little frightened that the leading progressive blog (after Huffington) has a community that burns heretics at the stake?
Forget the hypocrisy of treating Edwards differently than it would treat a similarly situated Republican. But what about the justifiable anger of Edwards supporters that their time and money was wasted on a narcissistic, lying buffoon? Just a few weeks ago, Edwards was considered a possible VP choice. His selfishness and deception would have torpedoed both of their campaigns.
The "Hive Mind" is supposed to learn from experience. But Kos' people don't want to learn. They want to be free to fall in love with the next fraud who blows in their ears and tells them the world is exactly what they think it is.
Next time you hear the term "reality-based community," keep this episode in mind.
See Erin Kotecki Vest's Profile
Isn't the larger point here on who's voice is welcome and who's isn't? Would 2 post have been ok, but 4 was too much? What about 3? And frankly this was the straw with that fringe that broke the camel's back with me.... I don't want extremism from either side dictating. I want all voices heard.
He had his say 4 times and it was the 4th that broke the Kos´s back.
Then Kos has a pretty weak backbone.
Ms. Kotecki Vest's points are well taken. Democracy in action is inherently uncomfortable most of the time. It's always alive, always shifting, rethinking, revising. While working with local self-described progressives over the past few years, I've discovered a type of thinking well represented among them that's best categorized as fascist. They have no tolerance for disagreement--in fact, one grassroots group I left mandates unanimous votes on issues. Mandates, as in "we have to have 100% consensus.
It's an ugly side of left-leaning politics, self-righteous and self-justifying, that its proponents seem to feel is legitimized by the endless madness of current conservatism. Unfortunately, it's a real Achilles heel in the "progressive" community. It raises fair questions about whether the leaders actually embrace the difficult challenge of democratic governance--even whether they understand the concept. The trouble is, they're just not willing to listen, much less ask themselves the same questions. It's a bloody shame and simply disgraceful, and very difficult to get on the table, so props to Ms. Kotecki Vest for making an issue of an expression of this wrongheaded thinking.
You can't take the DailyKos insider clique seriously. They will kiss politicians asses when it is convenient.
The real substance of DailyKos is provided by bloggers like OPOL and Mike Stark. They never kiss politicians asses. But these guys are outsiders who get treated without much respect or appreciation by the DailyKos insider clique.
I have a question which may be banned but will try anyway. In his first diary on this subject, Stranahan said he "googled" the stories. I googled "Lee Stranahan" to see who he was and found a person with the same name who is/was a "fine art pornographer". At Kos, I asked Stranahan if he was the same person but he never answered (this was in diary #3, while Stranahan could have, but did not reply). So as his friend, Erin, you might perhaps answer the question or Stranahan himself could answer, here at HuffPo? When I found that, I thought that might explain Stranahan´s obsession with this unconfirmed story, so I´d like to know.
P.S: If you or Stranahan says he is not that person, I´ll accept that and not call for a DNA test as to whether the 2 Lee Stranahans are the same or not.
You consider this a valid argument for censoring someone? That they are a pornographer? Or are you just trying to blackmail someone to shut up because you think you've found something you consider embarrassing about them?
Any site, of course, can censor whoever they want. I, of course, can then choose not to visit.
No, and if you had read my comments, you´d obviously have the answer to both of your questions.
See Lee Stranahan's Profile
Of course I'm the same person. Every biography I have online says I'm a photographer. I've never hidden behind a pseudonym. Erin knows I'm a photographer because as one of my friends on Twitter, I'm sure she's seen the regular, public posts where I link to my photography.
That's why the people calling me a 'prude' clearly haven't even read what I wrote. I've said repeatedly - the Edwards story isn't about sex. It isn't about 'his personal life'. Please, go back and read my actual words.
I didn't see your question in comments - there were hundreds of them, sorry. If I had, I'd have answered, not hidden in the bathroom or ducked out a side door.
Actually, I did not find that every bio you have online, mentions or links to your art pornography. I never saw anyone accusing you of being a prude, to the contrary, a number found you inexpilcably obssessed with this non story. As to reading your actual words, I have read them, and I have read all the comments. As to the latter, you have not, and perhaps you should have. If you had, you would have noted that the Kos readers did not find this a viable story, with the present lack of any kind of confirmation. What you insisted was factual, others didn´t.fin
Point one to remember: Obama did not 'shift positions' (the phrase used by the AP to report Obama's remarks) on offshore drilling; he said he would be willing to give a little on that to get Republicans on board a comprehensive energy package; what he's saying is, 'let's talk.'
Point two: sometimes it is necessary to push an extreme i order to work towards a middle. It is also sometimes necessary to push the middle in order to move in a different direction. Absolutes are only reletively useful.
Point three: Real politics bottom line: there is no accountability if you can't get elected; Democrats have lost sight of this since '68; you would think 40 years and a new generation would learn us this lesson.
This was the fourth diary by Stranahan, claiming the allegations, to be factual. As a wise blogger said at Alternet, if a story has to be reported as "maybe being true", it is not a story fit for print.
Here´s the link: http://med
Appears he was right, doesn't it?
Apologies forthcoming?
I read Stranahan's diaries at dKos and I considered him a troll.
He was obsessed with Edwards' personal life. It did not seem like a healthy fixation.
He was very much a tabloid types of diarist, something that is not looked upon to kindly there.
This couldn't be further from the truth. I read everything Lee wrote about Edwards and there was nothing obsessive or prurient about it. He has said repeatedly, and clearly, that he simply believes that the evidence is fairly compelling (it is) and that it will ultimately be a big story if not handled honestly and carefully (it will). For this he gets banned? For this he's accused of being unhealthy? Sure, the Kos can do whatever it wants; what it can't do is claim to reflect progressive values (clearly, it doesn't).
Regardless, Lee wasn't "tabloid" or sensationalist in any way, he was simply warning those with willful blinders on that this could end up blindsiding them if they aren't willing to confront it squarely.
DailyKos has shown itself to be an intolerant embarrassment. Well within its rights, to be sure, but boy did it just lose an enormous amount of progressive credibility - and my eyeballs.
As someone who was raised by "open-minded" people, who were just as rigid as those they railed against, I really appreciate your post. I suppose in order to have a spectrum of opinion, we must have those who are political fundamentalists on both "sides," but it sure does slow the whole process down. I am not pleased with Senator Obama's recent stands on FISA and offshore drilling, but I am still absolutely certain that I'm backing the right candidate. Our country is in such ridiculously bad shape that we have lost the luxury of being political purists. We are going to have to find a way to mobilize EVERYONE, even (gasp!) Republicans. We must move towards solutions more quickly than is actually possible, and that means imperfect fixes. We have to scotch-tape the hem of our wedding dress, or risk not making it to the altar at all. Personally, I'm not interested in seeing another table, with another set of like-minded people around it, even if I agree with them. Homogeneous thought does not lend itself to the kind of creative leaps that we need. The sad thing is that our insistence, on both sides, that our candidates be "pure" is what's creating a false sense of polarization in our country. I have met very few actual people who are truly on the far edges of politics, but they are always easy to spot, because they think the least, and yell the loudest.
"We have to scotch-tape the hem of our wedding dress, or risk not making it to the altar at all."
I agree with everything you said, and share the same feelings, but the line above summed it all up. Just beautiful.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
