My Photo

« "How Can I Break His Reliance On God?" | Main | Frustrations With the Social Security Debate »

January 27, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e200d8343ada3f53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Pro-Toture Right.:

Comments

von: he's blocked your link. Everyone else: just go text">here (I'll see if that works once I post this. It certainly works to paste the url in and go.)

I don't hang out at LGF, and I just remembered why.

"I'm getting sick hearing about the so-called torture at Abu Ghraib.
Do you realize how much money some guys in Hollywood would pay to be led around by a chick in fatigues while wearing a collar?"

"he needs to pop it and get it over with."

"Actually, given the descriptions of the "torture" methods used by coalition jailers, it sounds indistinguishable to a night of the kind of clubbing Mr. Sullivan is inclined toward."

And so on, and so forth. The level of homoophobia is also pretty amazing.

Non- screwed-up (I hope) link:here.

von: he's blocked your link.

It's amazing how quickly Johnson blocks links from critical articles. Either it's automated, or he's obsessive about scanning the blogosphere for criticism. Pretty thin-skinned considering his content and commentariat.

I think I have to go give my computer a bath.

ain't they cute... blocking links like it will keep people from seeing them acting like idiots. "not doing nothing in here , mom. just leave me alone!"

IE users : right-click on the link, Copy Shortcut, paste it into your address bar.

It would be easy to block referrers from critical sites on the internets. Its also pretty pansy-ish for such a tough-talking crowd. Typical bullies.

Did he redirect that link from here to the IDF? Loonies.

Are LGF attacks still happening? I haven't seen any recently.

I think its easy enough to say that atleast he isn't pro-terrorist, pro-Hussein, pro-insurgency, or a Bush-hater.

I think its easy enough to say that atleast he isn't pro-terrorist, pro-Hussein, pro-insurgency, or a Bush-hater.

For a free pass to the real world, kids, answer the following question: which of the foregoing is not like the others?

I expect an immediate and unconditional retraction from smlook for implicitly lumping those who hate Bush in with murderers and criminals.

Speaking of Bush haters, I wonder how they will suffer throught the upcoming election. You know liberty on the march.

Catsy do you care to respond?

Speaking of Bush haters, I wonder how they will suffer throught the upcoming election. You know liberty on the march.

In case any of you are wondering what a Timmy attempt at derailing someone's point with an irrelevancy looks like, I offer Exhibit A.

You, like smlook, are somehow laboring under the misapprehension that opposing/loathing/hating/et al Bush is synonymous with opposing freedom for Iraqis.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not surprised. It's precisely this persistent lie--and it is a lie; enough people have set you and others straight about this that your persistence in spreading it can only be willful--which renders meaningful discussion of Iraq difficult. I'm just disappointed, mildly annoyed, and a little offended.

To the extent that I care to respond to you, I will "suffer" Sunday's elections with hope that as few people as possible will die, that as many Iraqis as possible will participate, and that the outcome will be regarded as legitimate by enough of the Iraqi people that a lasting peace can be achieved.

it's amusing to see exactly who comes over to try to deflect the topic away from criticism of LGF. one can wonder about the motives, but the tactics are right out there for all to see.

I second that, Catsy. However...

Reported today in a NYT article:

Starkly put, Baghdad is not under control, either by the Iraqi interim government or the American military.
...
"I would definitely say it's enemy territory," said Col. Stephen R. Lanza, the commander of the Fifth Brigade Combat Team, a unit of the First Cavalry Division that is responsible for patrolling a wide area of southern Baghdad with a population of 1.3 million people.
If conditions had been like this in the US during the Presidential elections, would anyone have minded postponing elections until the crisis was dealt with? Or is the hope that elections will put an end to the Iraq insurgency?

smlook: I think its easy enough to say that atleast he isn't pro-terrorist, pro-Hussein, pro-insurgency, or a Bush-hater.

Sorry, missed the point on that one. Are you implying that anyone here is any of those things? Or that any amount of bigotry and bile can be excused as long as they're pro-Bush and against terrorism? Clarify please.

Not that I'd piss on an LGFer if he was on fire, but isn't mocking LGF like making fun of a fat guy in a tutu?

hating/et al Bush is synonymous with opposing freedom for Iraqis

Spoton Catsy, simple as that.

atleast he isn't pro-terrorist, pro-Hussein, pro-insurgency, or a Bush-hater.

And that's enough, is it? so long as he is anti-terrorist, anti-Hussein, anti-insurgency, and pro-Bush, any other behavior is excusable, or at least, mitigated by these wonderful qualities?

Timmy: Spoton Catsy, simple as that.

Sounds kind of like the logic that if you voted for Bush, you support torture.

hating/et al Bush is synonymous with opposing freedom for Iraqis
Spoton Catsy, simple as that.

Wow. I don't even know how to respond to that. What must it look like, from your chair. I can't imagine how evil and self-obsessed we must all appear.

I can't imagine how evil and self-obsessed we must all appear

No you can't. You (plural) do remind me of a combination of Walter Duranty and Wallace.

I'm just wondering in your little world when Bush ever supported torture?

What on earth brought all this on? Please, make it stop.

Timmy: I'm just wondering in your little world when Bush ever supported torture?

Was that question directed at me? I was the only one to put Bush and torture in the same sentence, not st.

I get the Duranty thing, but why Wallace?

Specifically, make this stop: "You (plural) do remind me of a combination of Walter Duranty and Wallace."

You are comparing people here, and some as yet unclear bunch of other people, to apologists for the Soviet Union during the period in which it was killing millions. If you don't want to justify that, by explaining who exactly you think is defending someone who is responsible for the killing of millions (hundreds of thousands will do in a pinch), and, more importantly, why you say this about them, please retract it.

I'm sorry, hilzoy. I'm just baiting him to see how far he'll go, and that's not cool. I apologize, I retract the question about Wallace, and I'm going to bed before I say something in actual response to the comments above that will get you really upset.

Was that question directed at me?

Nope to all the "Bush Haters" on this site.

No, hilzoy I'm not, as Walt wasn't an apologist, he exalted Stalin, and failed to report what was going on in the Ukraine. Walt won a prize for that reporting if memory serves me right.

Did you know that they have started voting in Iraq, as the "Bush haters" continue to drum on.

Thanks, st, I appreciate it. We try, however ineffectually, to have a site where people with wildly differing views, like, oh, me and Charles Bird can just argue it out. If I hadn't gone off to, you know, have a life, I would have stopped this earlier.

For the record, it's not clear to me (this with respect to earlier comments) that if I say about someone (say, edward or von or Sebastian) that he is neither a serial killer, a pedophile, or a woman, I am necessarily equating being female with being a pedophile.

I think Timmy's saying that we're all apologists for Saddam Hussein. Is that it?

hilzoy,

I think futher comments made pretty clear what smlook and TWD thought it meant.

Nope to all the "Bush Haters" on this site.

I searched, and no one in this thread made the assertion that Bush supports torture.

Timmy: Merriam webster defines 'apologist' this way:

"one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something"

and that's how I was using it. (Similarly, attempts to defend Christianity, or to prove its truth to the unconverted, are called Christian apologetics.) Duranty did speak in defense of the Soviet Union while it was killing millions, which, as you note, he failed to report. Again, do you mean to say that Bush-haters are similar in this respect? If you meant in some other respect, like, oh, hat size, now would be a good time to clarify.

By the way, congrats to Timmy for obfuscating the topic at hand in a mere couple dozen posts. Well done sir.

I guess that criticism of the LGF trolls must hit a bit too close to home, eh?

While I have a problem with a great number of the policies of Gorge W. Bush, I can't classify myself as a Bush-hater. I've never met the man.

I have read, however, that in person he's quite personable and likeable. But so is my dentist, and I wouldn't want him in charge of the last superpower either. It's nothing personal.

Nope to all the "Bush Haters" on this site.

Quit evading and say what you mean. I hate Bush, for a variety of very well-grounded reasons which are meaningful to me. Are you therefore accusing me of supporting terrorism, likening me to Stalin and Saddam supporters, and accusing me of advocating for the insurgency in Iraq?

No more bullshit, Timmy. No more evasions. No more word games. If that's what you're saying, nut up and say it, and we will next discuss this in a libel suit. Otherwise you will retract what you said, you will apologize, and you will refrain from ever insinuating such a thing again.

Sorry, "George W. Bush", not "Gorge W. Bush." Good name for a canyon though.

Simply put, fascism in the Middle East has been ignored (similar to the plight of North Korean refugees), the situation in Iraq has been grossly misrepresented, the people of Iraq are going to the polls, risking their lives, and we get this drivel.

A historical moment is taking place. Accordingly, the
Wallace-Duaranty analogy is apt. Wallace didn't want to confront the situation whereas Duaranty misrepresented what was going on and both were embraced by the left at the time as heroes. And yes hilzoy my comments are designed to make you feel uneasy. BTW, I don't remember you getting involved when I was called a fascist, not that I'm complaining.

Timmy, you obviously feel strongly about the upcoming election, and that's fine. But the fact that you're making an attack on something completely different seems a little odd. And misplaced

And I just searched again, and I don't see where you were called a fascist.

Timmy: if I didn't get involved when someone called you a fascist, it might have been because I was away or something. Or I could have missed it, in which case I apologize.

But as to the present case: we all agree that the Iraqi elections are historic. That doesn't answer Catsy's question, though.

TtWD,

And your statement has what to do with the OP? Iraqis are heading to the polls. Nobody asserts this is false. What do you have to say about LGF being run by a hack? If it smacks of liberal masterbation to you, I'd pass on this thread. Or at least chide von for writing the OP instead of completely freaking out.

Dear Timmy,

::The following message left in writer's head for violating all posting rules, Robert's Rules of Order, the Rules of dating, and, mysteriously, the 3rd Amendment.::

Are you therefore accusing me of supporting terrorism, likening me to Stalin and Saddam supporters, and accusing me of advocating for the insurgency in Iraq?

Catsy, abosolutely not, rather than engage on what is going you focus on your hatred on man who is doing something about it. Duaranty, just as the MSM today, lied about the situation in the Ukraine (if you grew up with Ukrainians you would know something about this) missed the genocide which was going on and Wallace didn't want to face up to it. You know who Wallace was don't you?

This is the weirdest freaking thread that I've seen all week, including the big one a couple of days ago. Timmy, what the hell are you talking about? What do the Iraqi elections have to do with LGF and Charles Johnson? I'm having a great deal of trouble following your discussion.

[simpsons]

Grandpa Simpson: That doll is evil I tell ya! Eeeeeeeevvviiilll!

Lisa Simpson: Oh Grandpa, you say that about everything.

GS: I know. I just want attention...

[/simpsons]

You know, I think this blog (not to mention America and the world at large) would be better off if we could agree that there might, just might, be more than one position on Iraq that people of good faith took without it making them morally equivalent to Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Saddam/Bin-laden/evil-robot-Santa-Clause and/or their apologists.

Catsy, abosolutely not, rather than engage on what is going you focus on your hatred on man who is doing something about it.

You are misinformed. I, like most adult human beings, am capable of engaging on more than one issue. You do understand how that works, right? Or do you abdicate your ability to care about what's going on in Iraq in order to singlemindedly pursue your opposition to Democrats?

If that's your limitation, then by all means own it. But don't assume that it's one I share. And don't ever--ever--accuse me again of opposing freedom for Iraqis, or any other shade of terrorist sympathizing.

Timmy, thanks for clarifying that. If the point of the comparison was, Wallace and Duranty are ignoring something important, rather than: Wallace and Duranty are ignoring the murder of millions, and (in Duranty's case, I'm not sure about Wallace) actually speaking in favor of it, it's a pretty loaded comparison. Like comparing me to Stalin because there is something important that neither of us is ignoring (him: the Nazi invasion of Russia. Me: the election in Iraq.)

It's worth noting that I have no idea at all what anyone on this blog might or might not be doing off it. So I don't think I can accuse, say, Edward (picked as an example solely to avoid picking someone who's either in this thread now or on the other side from me politically) of not doing anything about problem X. I have no idea whether he is or he isn't.

One last time, I invite the gentle commenters here to scroll up and see the topic of this post. Timmy's comments are completely off-topic, having nothing to do with the odious LGF trolls and their support for torture. If he wants to push his "George Bush, fighter of facism" mishegoss, perhaps he can find a post where that's at least marginally on topic.

As well, I suspect that Timmy has crossed way over the line into posting rules territory.

Hmmm. Well over 57 million Americans would have preferred that George W. Bush no longer be President. Presumably, many of those 57 million felt strongly about it. Think of it. Not just one because:

You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them.
And if three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said
fifty people a day walking in singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may think it's a movement.
Everybody now.

one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something

Duranty, didn't report what was going on, which was Walt's real sin. You can't defend it, if you don't acknowledge what is going on, now can you? Instead Walt painted the Soviet experiment (sell the grain to raise foreign reserves in order to produce steel and starve the serfs in the process) as wonderous when it wasn't. Whereas Wallace attacked Truman (the Truman Doctrine as well as the Marshall Plan) and preached engagement.

hilzoy, you need not apologize, it didn't bother me, as the individual who used the term doesn't understand what it means.

Timmy,

Are you saying Catsy (and all other Bush-haters) are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers?

One last time, I invite the gentle commenters here to scroll up and see the topic of this post. Timmy's comments are completely off-topic, having nothing to do with the odious LGF trolls and their support for torture.

Moving back towards that topic, I admit I struggle with confusion whenever anyone puts up a post like this. Don't get me wrong, I think it's good to shine a light into the fringes every now and then and watch the cockroaches scurry, just to remind people they're there. But even so, it reeks of futility to me: who, precisely is going to be swayed by this further evidence of Charles Johnson's depravity? Those who comment on LGF (among whom may well be decent, regular people) are already aware of the things said on there. Those who don't, probably already know the score.

I guess my question for von is: who's the intended audience here?

Are you saying Catsy (and all other Bush-haters) are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers?

Nope!

dpu: And I just searched again, and I don't see where you were called a fascist.

I did it in the following thread: A Challenge to the Blogosphere. [FWIW, I also notified the ObWi staff immediately upon so doing on the grounds that they should hear it from me first.] Incidentally, Timmy, I find the passive-aggressive "I'm not complaining!" schtick amusing, your paltry attempts at condescension notwithstanding -- as was once remarked of Sir Geoffrey Howe, it's like being savaged by a dead sheep -- but maybe you should actually take this up with the mods instead of beating your chest about how you was done wrong? It'd be more productive and less, well, pathetic.

Catsy: To the extent that I care to respond to you, I will "suffer" Sunday's elections with hope that as few people as possible will die, that as many Iraqis as possible will participate, and that the outcome will be regarded as legitimate by enough of the Iraqi people that a lasting peace can be achieved.

Amen, brother. Here's to hoping.

As for the OP... yeah, LGF's a sinkhole and Charles Johnson is a coward. What of it?

Carpeicthus: as (I think) the only person other than me to bring up the third amendment on this blog, you might enjoy the skit from grade school, about the 3rd amendment, that I mention in one of my very first posts, here. (It has always stuck in my mind as an example of a particular kind of grade school inanity.)

OK, I see. You're response to Catsy's comment

You, like smlook, are somehow laboring under the misapprehension that opposing/loathing/hating/et al Bush is synonymous with opposing freedom for Iraqis.
which was
Spoton Catsy, simple as that.
was in no way meant to infer that you were saying Catsy (and all other Bush-haters) are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. Of course. How could we all have been so obtuse! My humblest apologies to you, sir.

JerryN: I am trying to get clear on who meant what by various things, and one reason I didn't bring that one up was that it occurred to me that it might have been sarcastic. Don't know whether it was or not, don't have any conclusions to draw; just saying.

wow, this has to be one of the most vile threads I've seen on ObWi ever. apparently smlook (9:45) and ttwd (10:13 and 10:50) want to start a fight.

well, i'm in.

the only apologists for torture and mass murder on this thread are smlook and ttwd, for their support of the current administration. we liberals have a clear conscience -- at least i know i do.

Unless they can point to their public opposition when Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hand, or when Bush I failed to destroy the remainder of the Iraqi army when it was destroying the Marsh Arabs and the other Saddam opposition WHICH ROSE UP AT BUSH I's INVITATION AND WAS BETRAYED, it is the conservatives, not the liberals, who bear the bloodstains of being apologists for a mass murderer.

go ahead, i've got all night. let's see contemporary evidence of your outrage.

as for Bush II hating, i don't have the energy, and he's too pathetic to deserve hatred. i've stopped at contempt.

pro-terrorist, pro-Hussein, pro-insurgency -- no, no, and that's complicated. George Washington was an insurgent. So was Jefferson Davis. sometimes thoughtfulness has to replace sloganeering.

March of freedom? Does the term "Quisling" mean anything to you two? how about "Vichy Government"? how many millions of iraqis are going to despise the government simply because it was formed under american occupation?

you two appear to think that i hope for failure. what kind of monsters are you? i get no pleasure by reading about casualties, either american or iraqi. the fact that you think otherwise is ... contemptible. [i'd say much more but for posting restrictions.]

catsy, at 10:36, pretty clearly stated my position. I would only add that recent Yugoslavian history shows that elections can expedite civil war. Everything the admin has done seems to be designed to aggravate that possibility.

The Kurds have the best troops around and appear to be spoiling for a fight. Are we going to betray them again? Are we going to try to muscle Turkey to stay out? Might we have to rely on the EU, god forbid, to muscle Turkey?

What are the Kurds to you two: insurgents / terrorists or freedom fighters?

feh.

it's like being savaged by a dead sheep

Obviously, you never been in a field where dead sheep were rippening, savaged is the appropriate verb (the smell is bad enough when they are all still bleating), although I don't believe that is what you had in mind. :)

was done wrong here moi, never. Just a reminder, while you all tilt at wimdmills, history is in the making, liberty on the march so to speak.

"apparently smlook (9:45) and ttwd (10:13 and 10:50) want to start a fight.

well, i'm in."

Please, no, just walk away, everybody.

Jerry, JFTR here is the actual exchange

hating/et al Bush is synonymous with opposing freedom for Iraqis

Spoton Catsy, simple as that.

the only apologists for torture and mass murder on this thread are smlook and ttwd, for their support of the current administration. we liberals have a clear conscience -- at least i know i do.

I have a clear conscience and when the vote is finished in Iraq and the country moves towards a constitutional republic, I'm sure the liberals come up with some rationale and I'm looking forward to it.


Please, no, just walk away, everybody.

You're right. Back to the topic: does anyone have a peg on what Sully's positions are? I'm having a hard time gauging his ideological stance nowadays.

Yep. I echo rilkefan's plea.

For the record: I have no idea whether either Catsy or Timmy or anyone else on this thread was protesting Irqa's actions. With one exception, namely me (I was. I was following that region fairly closely at the time, since I was involved with a Turkish Kurd.) When Donald Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand in (I think) 1984, and when the Reagan administration was feeding the Iraqi army our satelite data in (I think) 1986, for all I know either Timmy or Catsy or anyone else could have been firing off anguished letters to their representatives, or whatever, pleading with them to stop it. I have no idea, and neither does anyone who does not know them personally.

What I do know is that if anyone accuses anyone on this site of supporting terrorists, or Saddam, or Stalin, or Hitler or Pol Pot, or mass murder, or anything of the kind, without being able to provide clear evidence in support of their claim, then I will temporarily ban them and ask the others whether they think a permanent ban is in order. This is my last nice message on this score. (Nice messages on other topics are still an option ;) )

Well said, rilkefan.

I was out playing bridge, but if hilzoy had banned I would have seconded it.

Please, no, just walk away, everybody.

That's why Timmy still gets to post. He acts just inconsequentially enough that you don't want to bother wasting effort on him, but it never changes the fact that he tosses off the grossest insults and accusations blithely and carefree.

He did it routinely at Tacitus and he does it routinely here. I wouldn't miss him for a second were he gone. I'd miss Charles Bird, if only because he provides good argument (and cos we have the same last name, which freaks me out a little sometimes). But Timmy? Nah.

If you really think that Timmy doesn't provide anything just ignore him.

Catsy: I guess my question for von is: who's the intended audience here?

Beats me. I've never been banned from LGF because I've never commented there, because I've never managed to get more than a third of the way down a thread of comments without concluding that there's nothing at all I have to say to these people - nor would they listen if I did.

My feeling is that LGF is clearly the perfect place for the bigots and the nutters to roam and play and lick each other and wag their tails, and the rest of us should just let them crap in their own little dogpen.

Glad to see we aren't the only ones wading through the blog-muck that is LGF to show them up for the despicable little bigots they are.

Oh my god.

LGF watch? That's a horrific, thankless job if ever I heard one.

I suspect Charles blocked the link because I advised him of my critical comment. Notice and response are pretty important to me. His response was telling.

If you really think that [a given poster] doesn't provide anything just ignore him.

IMO, this piece of advice should be added to the posting rules.

Johnson fascinates me in the same way that say, David Icke fascinates me (they're both into lizards--what's up with that?), but I don't really care (or care to read) what he or his commenters say on his own site. Jesurgislac is OTM here.

At least Chas Johnson has come out against honor killings. I checked the Obwi search button, and found no results for "honor killing" or "honour killing". This does not mean in any way that Obwi is FOR honor killing, but it also is an indication that some people dont particularly care about it. I would guess that Obwi commenters would be close to 100% against honor killings. So why should it be up to the bad guys at LGF to point out that honor killing is bad?

unowhat - probably for the same reason that ObWi has not "come out against" child rape.

I don't think Obsidian Wings has come out against tapioca pudding, either, and it ought to. Immediately.

I object strenuously to your baseless smear against tapioca pudding, Jes. Just because it bears a strong resemblance to a certain male reproductive by-product is no reason not to give it a fair shake. You should be ashamed.

I think we need an open thread to discuss this important issue: What should Obsidian Wing collectively and pre-emptively declare itself to have Come Out Against, in case anyone should think that ObWing might support it?

I'd vote for tapioca pudding, sugared tea, and the laugh track on M*A*S*H.

WOne thing we in the U.S. could do about honor killings would be to allow persecution on account of gender to form the basis for an asylum claim. I wrote about that once, here. (The post was about a domestic violence case but the logic applies equally to honor killings--there have been women denied asylum because the judge considered the threat of an honor killing to be a "personal problem.")

Ashcroft's decision in the Alvarado case was better than expected: he punted to his successor. It will depend on the regulations that the Department of Homeland Security writes. I would guess that they find some way to allow Rodi Alvarado to stay, but that they will do so in a narrow way and not go as far as they ought--which is again, to say that persecution on the basis of gender is a legitimate grounds for asylum.

But wouldn't Anti-Honour-Killing Right be a more accurate label than Pro-Torture Right? I think that Pro-Secularized-Muslim-Civil-Society Right would be a more accurate label than Anti-Moslem.

Now if a right-winger came out against child sex slavery, would that be wrong? Of course everybody is against that, but it seems like mainly fundamentalist Christians want to do something about it. And of course, using the words "fundamentalist Christian" in a perjorative kind of way.

Oops I forgot to tip my hat to hilzoy, who already beat me to crediting fundy's for doing good in a previous post (actual post not a comment)

Unowhat: But wouldn't Anti-Honour-Killing Right be a more accurate label than Pro-Torture Right?

Not for this post, no, since it links to a LGF post which is pro-torture. No reference to honor-killing one way or another.

I think that Pro-Secularized-Muslim-Civil-Society Right would be a more accurate label than Anti-Moslem.

For LGF? Not that I've seen. Admittedly I don't read it very often, nor do I read it very much, but its posts and it commenters seem to be anti-Muslim, very definitely. If you would care to provide links to LGF posts which were Pro-Secularized-Civil-Society - with no biased focus on Muslims, ignoring the problem of fundy-Christians who don't like secularized civil society either - please do so.

Sorry von, I was totally out of line. I thought the categorization was "Pro-Torture Right" when it was actually "Pro-Toture Right", which is probably some legal jargon I am not familiar with. I think I had better crack my dictionary so I can understand nuanced things like "dictionary definitions" of Toture.

Just for the record, I oppose honor killings, rape, murder, tapioca pudding, burst pipes, child abuse and molestation, Madonna's entire musical career, Hummel figurines, domestic violence, most other kinds of violence, drunk driving, and all the other things I oppose. Since I have now declared that I oppose the things I oppose, no one gets to say that I have not come out publicly against something without knowing whether I actually oppose it. Hah: the joys of self-reference.

Sebastian,

Some things you can't just ignore. Timmy has the habit of insulting and accusing those that don't agree with him of being pro Saddam and anti-American. He has done it many times at tacitus, to me among others.

You have a good debate site here with different opinions. Trust me, it's a question of time before you will be forced to ban Timmy. He only knows how to insult.

"Madonna's entire musical career"

Madonna has a least a couple of great songs - "Drowned World / Substitute For Love" comes to mind.

If you really think that Timmy doesn't provide anything just ignore him.

Advising people to ignore him is useless. They won't. And it's your responsibility as a moderator to deal with the fact that they won't.

As Teresa Nielsen Hayden puts it, "There’s no more useless advice than to tell people to just ignore such things. We can’t. We automatically read what falls under our eyes."

Read the entire link. It should be required reading for anyone who wants to be a moderator of any online community.

Hilzoy, have you ever tried Thai tapioca puding? The kind in that comes in little banana leaves, made with coconut milk? They are to die for! Really!

In Timmy's case it's quite easy to ignore him by not translating his Timmyese into standard English. I hope this was just a bad thread for him though.

Sorry von, I was totally out of line. I thought the categorization was "Pro-Torture Right" when it was actually "Pro-Toture Right", which is probably some legal jargon I am not familiar with. I think I had better crack my dictionary so I can understand nuanced things like "dictionary definitions" of Toture.

I get the vague sense that you're trying to do a clever dig here; if so, however, my sole response is that, yes, you should crack a dictionary. The post is titled The Pro-Torture Right. Accordingly, the word "right" is not a verb. It's a noun. And Mr. Johnson does need to crack a dictionary before he says again that "[t]he English language is demeaned and degraded by using such a word [torture]" to describe what went on at Abu Ghraib. Contra Johnson, torture has a fairly well-established definition (which I provide by link) which unequivocally fits the known facts. Saying that its use in this situtation "demean[s]" or "degrade[s]" the English language, as Johnson does, reflects either idiocy or malice on his part -- and neither should be praised or silently accepted.

To the extent that you're not being snarky, though, my apologies.

Hilzoy, have you ever tried Thai tapioca puding? The kind in that comes in little banana leaves, made with coconut milk? They are to die for! Really!

Oh yeah, I love that stuff. Touch of almond powder in there? Maybe a few water chestnuts as well for textural contrast? To die for.

von: Our Mysterious Stranger is making fun of the fact that you misspelled "Torture" in the title of the post.

Hahaha… how did I miss that?

Advising people to ignore him is useless. They won't. And it's your responsibility as a moderator to deal with the fact that they won't.

Hang on folks. Suggestions on how to run the site are much appreciated, in the form of "suggestions." Please stop short of dictating what the moderators' "responsibilities" are.

Ignoring comments that offend you is a very practical constructive suggestion. Banning everyone that someone is offended by is not. Moe wanted to turn comments off altogether at a few points before he left because he got tired of trying to please everyone. It can't be done in this context.

After the last banning we made a concerted effort to improve things so that hopefully fewer bannings would be necessary moving forward.

It's getting boring spending all this time discussing who should or shouldn't be banned. Really...if everyone would own their part of keeping things civil (and yes, Timmy, that goes primarily to you here...your email doesn't work, btw), then we'd all be able to spend more time doing what he come here to do...debate the issues.

"Some things you can't just ignore. Timmy has the habit of insulting and accusing those that don't agree with him of being pro Saddam and anti-American. He has done it many times at tacitus, to me among others."

I agree that there are some things you can't ignore. But just for comparison, I regularly ignore--on this very board--suggestions that people who support Social Security reform want elderly people to starve on the streets, suggestions that conservatives support the War of Iraq because they want to steal oil from brown people, and that opposition to affirmative action equals hidden racism. And if they are not so brazen, the typical suggestion is that of course I am not actually racist, but I am one of the very very few conservatives who isn't--most of the rest of them oppose affirmative action because they are racist and I am providing them cover for their awful views.

I typically ignore such things because they are so common that if I bothered to respond to them all the time I would never get to talk about any substantive point. And if I bothered to ban everyone who did that, some of our most prolific commenters would be banned.

In my opinion TimmytheWonderDog is playing a game. He is seeing how much he can get away with without getting banned. I don't approve of the game at all. I think it is disruptive and unhelpful. But you are making it too easy for him. I suspect that if you ignore his provocations one of three things will happen.

1) He calms down and becomes a productive commentor. This is my most preferred outcome.

2) He escalates and I ban him.

3) He continues at a medium level and we eventually have to decide whether or not it is worth it to ban him for being a generally disruptive influence.

You should consider disemvowelling egregeriously offensive posts, on either side. Imho.

Where is that being done votermom? I've never seen it and can't imagine what it's effect is.

Actually, GT , IMO, Timmy's best trick is to ornament his simplistic political "insults" (e.g., in effect saying one's dislike for George W. Bush translates to direct support for "terrorism" or "fascism") with references to fairly obscure figures or events out of 1940's-50's political history (Walter Duranty? GMAB!) - typically with a slant towards tarring today's "liberals" (or some strawman variety thereof) with the sins of some long-gone Communist-apologist or pinko naïf - thus, "proving" his point (such as it may be).
FDR's failings at the Yalta Conference of 1944 seem to one of his favorites flails to thrash his oppponents with: I wonder how long it would have taken for him to toss that in if the thread hadn't veered off back on topic?

Suggestions on how to run the site are much appreciated, in the form of "suggestions." Please stop short of dictating what the moderators' "responsibilities" are.

Ack. I'm not trying to dictate how you run the site. I'm pointing out that suggesting that people ignore offensive comments is futile, and that eventually you're going to have to deal with the fact that it's futile. (That's the generic "you", there.) There are multiple ways of dealing with that fact, and banning is only one of them. (And please note that not only have I not suggested that anyone be banned, I've suggested alternative ways of dealing with the problem short of banning.)

Where is that being done votermom? I've never seen it and can't imagine what it's effect is.

Read the link in my first post on this thread, Edward. Disemvowelling is Teresa Nielsen Hayden's invention, and it works a treat.

FDR's failings at the Yalta Conference of 1944 seem to one of his favorites flails to thrash his oppponents with

Until he needs to appropriate his mantle and make GWB into an FDR manque, fighting fascism around the world and protecting the poor with a New New Deal!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast