« An FCC Win -- Probably | Main | Kudos to the FCC »

September 21, 2009

Comments

But what if CL used race in choosing these photographs, knowing that his readers were mostly white and hoping to play on their latent racism?

In the comments, he says at 1:08 that the photos were 'gleaned by someone else'. I don't mean to be school-marmish, but I think you should update the post with a correction, because if he had no role in choosing the photos (I don't know and really don't want to find out how one finds these pictures on the internet) the explanation sounds plausible.

Thanks, LJ. You don't sound schoolmarmish at all. I didn't read the comments to CL's post and I'll put in an update .... in the event that someone doesn't read your comment.

I'm not sure I'm on solid ground here but i have a hypothesis about the whiteness of the kids: this is a soccer mom gone mad phenomenon. The nnew Puritanism is one aspectof the McMasion subculture: the people (moslty white) who think their darling cild and their own overly entitled selves, should be able o eperiencelife without ever feeling any setbacks, frustration, or emotional pain. AA families are a lot more rrealistic about the foibles of youth. Also itis partr of AA culture to support each other, especially young men, who are seen as vulnerable to to demonization by society.

Of course I am speaking in braod generalities here. I justthink the hysterical shreiking about sex offenders is more likley to come from people who feel sae enough to get in a twit about boogey men than from people who have real problems to face.

Another thought: this sort of abuse underminesthe conceptof realex offenses and will result sooner or later in a society that can't tell thediffference and can't enforce any standards at all. Crying wolf, etrc.
Sorry about the typos. I'm typing in the dark.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the race question. Given that the pictures of white kids are there, it's possible that some (white) people might be unconsciously more concerned, but it's also possible that, were the pictures more mixed, some people might unconsciously feel that this concern seems overblown because how does the writer know that that black kid didn't do something worse than what he's saying. The first category of possible problem is less bad - and the point is concern about this happening to kids, any kids.

"I think yes. And I don't think that's a good thing."

Actually it's a good thing that you recognize the power of "the other" on your own emotions and reactions to how bad something is. Especially if you hadn't known you were susceptible to it before.

Thanks von. I actually went ahead and went here to the Idaho Registry. I went to the cities with over 15,000 population (Boise, Caldwell, Coeur d'Alene, Eagle City, Idaho Falls, Lewiston, Meridian, Moscow, Nampa, Pocatello, Post Falls, Rexburg, Twin Falls) and there were no African Americans listed and one female. Obviously, the other photos are from other sources, so this isn't to draw any conclusions, but quite interesting in regards to wonkie's comments.

Interesting blog with a set of opinions that are not what we normally get in one person. No love lost for Obama, nor for religion. A bracing mix of opinions.

Welll thewhitenessof the kids is easily explained since Idaho is virually anall white stae. It's the draconian laws that require explanation.

I know a littel bit about this through acquaintance with the nearby multi=racial, multi-class school district. In my district there are two phenomena which effect schol discipline incidents: fear that whites hae aof appearing racist and the determination of the mostly white overly entitlted people to always have everything their ownway. The results of these tow forces is a disinclination to discipline balck kids for serious offenses uless the target is one of the offspring of the overly etitled. There is also a tendency to to over react to everything tht might effect the overly entitled" a track meet coninncides with a school dance and Princess cn't go to both? OMG! Her high school life will be blighted! So there are all kinds of silly provisions put in lace to prevent the overly entitled from ever experiencing anything like real life.

Against this background i know of one youngerster, white, wh was labelled a sex offender for having concensual sexual relations when he was thirteen with annother thriteen yearold. I also know of a blak thriteen year old who recieved no discipline ata ll afgter receiving a blow job from a white girl in a bathroom stalll at school. She was transferred by her parents tgo a differt school . Of course anecdotes are not data.

I'd say you're pretty dead on in your instincts, von. Cleveland.com regularly includes photos in its crime reports, including weekly roundups of cases due in court each week, and the comments sections become cesspools of racist garbage due to the number of black faces seen in the photos. Makes it easy for white area residents to believe that crimes are only committed by, you know, "those people."

Nothing to disagree with in your post otherwise, too. Between this and the number of cases of children being tried as adults for crimes, America seems absolutely intent on destroying its 13-18 year old population.

Only 0.9% of Idaho's population is black, which probably is sufficent to explain why all the pictures shown are of white kids, without invoking any more elablorate explanations.

but i have a hypothesis about the whiteness of the kids: this is a soccer mom gone mad phenomenon

Oh, yes. Because everything bad that happens involving children must, somehow, be a mommy's fault, the stupid cows. (Hint: the "hysterical shrieking" was kind of a giveaway.)

That said, I am really bothered by the linked blog post. Absolutely, sex-offender registries should not be the default and should be limited to the worst offenders who have characteristics of those likely to be a threat. But there's a lot of handwaving and minimizing about how these kids are just naturally curious and healthy, and why are we getting so upset about the equivalent of playing doctor? As if it's impossible for anyone under 18 to commit rape, or as if the age of the victim doesn't matter as long as the rapist is a kid too.

I'll second Wonkie's comment.

I'll add that this off-the-rails puritanism saturates across the political and cultural spectrum and is as likely to be found at the Value Voters Forum as at the New-Age EXPO for Soccer Mom Macrame, Seance, and Anti-Masturbation Scientism.

The Soviet Union had the KGB.

Who needs them when we have each other to watch, report, and punish?


The boy in the photo was born in Montana and arrested in Idaho.

Idaho: 94.6% white, 0.9% black (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16000.html)

Montana: 90.5% white, 0.7% black (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16000.html)

If those states were the source of the other photos, the predominance of whites shouldn't be surprising.

As if it's impossible for anyone under 18 to commit rape, or as if the age of the victim doesn't matter as long as the rapist is a kid too.

Agreed, provided we're not blurring rape to include underage, consensual sex.

we would benefit from a registry of legislators who would pass such a law so that we can steer clear of the foolish and short-sighted.

Agree with this very much, although the pols are, as suggested above, probably at least partially responding to the fears of some - probably only a few - hysterical constituents.

It is interesting that the poster calls this 'big government'. I don't see what's so 'big' about it. American governments have enforced puritanical values on individuals for a very long time - well before the 'era of big government'. And 'Classical Liberals' (conservatives) tend to be rather idiosyncratic (to put it nicely) about what constitutes undue governmental intrusion and what doesn't.

I'd also note that it's possible that some of these kids actually did rape (not the 'statutory' kind) somebody, in which case there does need to be a serious legal response, albeit different from that to an adult instance. This registry is ill advised, IMO, because, as with the death penalty, you can't un-kill someone's reputation if there's been a mistake. But true rape is serious, of course.

But the bottom line is that there is nothing new about adults sacrificing children on the alter of the adults' pathetic sexual maladjustment - or other maladjustment, for that matter.

Look, this isn't going to change.

Can you imagine the howling Repubs if a Dem were to suggest the SOR be modified or eliminated? Conservative blogs have already accused those Congressfolks who voted not to end federal monies to ACORN of supporting child prostitution.

So long as you have low-information voters, you'll have a GOP. And as long as there's a GOP, you'll see this kind of wedge politics.

How do we know what these kids did? Are we sure they didn't commit some abusive act? I'm just asking. I visited the Idaho registry too and, while there are some angel-faced kids like the ones in the blog post, there are some disturbed-looking specimens too. Are we being swayed by looks of innocence? Do we know for a fact that these kids were involved in innocent, consensual teen sex? Or is it possible that kids are becoming more violent and acting out in ways that go beyond "exploration?" Again, just asking.

The possibility that some of these kids might actually be guilty of rape, as opposed to consensual sex with a kid their own age, simply confirms that the present system is wrongheaded. If you treat innocent kids like rapists, the rapists will look like innocent kids.

mythago--give away of what? If you are accusing me of sexism, please come right out and say so.

Hysterical shrieking, BTW, is a slap at Republicans, not women. The stereoptype of the hysterical female is so out of date that it didn't enter my female head.

"Do we know for a fact that these kids were involved in innocent, consensual teen sex? Or is it possible that kids are becoming more violent and acting out in ways that go beyond "exploration?" Again, just asking."

But isn't that the whole damned point?
We have this stigmatizing category that these kids are stamped with, but which we know includes at least some kids who haven't really done anything to deserve it.

And I think that John upthread is right that the hyterical puritanism runs right across America and has all kinds of constituents. Unfortunately the sort of legislation discussed in the post is likely to become as much of a sacred cow as our crazy drug laws are.

All under-18s are children and should be dealt with as children by the justice system, regardless of what crime they are accused of.

The system in Scotland (not used in England/Wales, which is a pity) is that all under-16s in trouble come before a "Children's Panel", not a court, which determines the problems in their lives and attempts to find a fix. The system works: Scotland has a lower rate of youth recividism compared to the rest of the UK. I think the age limit should be upped to 18, and that England and Wales should ignore the tabloid cries of horror at mollycoddling delinquents and take it on board. No child deserves to be treated like an adult criminal, no matter what they are accused of - or even if they are actually guilty of committing the crime. That applies to children accused of, or guilty of, theft; vandalism; trespass; murder or manslaughter; as well as rape and other sexual crimes.

Yes, of course teenage boys can be guilty of rape, sexual harassment, sexual molestation, or sexual assault. Teenage boys can be guilty of gang rape. It's ugly.

But the "solution" is not to put them on a sex offenders register: it's to find out what has gone wrong in a boy's life that he thinks the appropriate way to relate to a girl (or to a boy) is with violence or humiliation, and attempt to fix that problem.

That would require, of course, a major investment in the US's justice system and an end to the notion that justice is all about punishment and no funding can be found for reformation. It would also require, more insiduously, an end to the idea that it's normal for teenage boys to sexually bully and harass teenage girls - that this kind of harassment and assault is just a case of "the young are flooded with hormones that inspire lust and a need for release" rather than a disgusting kind of bullying indicating something wrong with a boy.

"But isn't that the whole damned point?
We have this stigmatizing category that these kids are stamped with, but which we know includes at least some kids who haven't really done anything to deserve it."

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be contrarian here. But how do we know these kids aren't guilty of violence toward other children? Maybe I missed some explicit documentation somewhere, I'd be glad to see it.

I agree that stigmatizing kids for underage consensual sex is a bad thing. I'm just asking where that part of the story is.

A lot of this grows out of zero tolerance CYAism by various authorities. You can't be faulted for your judgement in any particular case if you take zero tolerance approach to all cases.

"...'Classical Liberals' (conservatives)..."

To nitpick, libertarians are much closer to "Classical Liberals" than most any conservative you'll find.

To nitpick, libertarians are much closer to "Classical Liberals" than most any conservative you'll find.

You are right, CharlesWT, but there is clearly significant crossover. The modern GOP uses and has used the rhetoric and emotional appeal of libertarianism to a huge degree when it fits their purposes. Apologies to the tiny band of actual libertarians out there, but there are plenty of authoritarian-libertarians, despite how patently contradictory the term is, and they have long been an important part of the GOP coalition.

The madness does not end there. I just watched http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSbVm_NPpRw&feature=channel_page>this The Young Turks clip about parents who got their kids taken away because they took a photograph of them in the bathtub and the WalMart employee developing the pictures called the authorities (they got the kids back only after a month of fighting).
I am waiting for attempts to make parts of Leviticus the law (using the literal text 'uncover the nakedness' with death as punishment).

Repeat after me, children: white liberal guilt is a boondoggle and a distraction.

The problem that I have with this post is that I cannot believe that you have not been here before. Once more you catch yourself empathizing with white faces more automatically than you might with black faces. Feeling a sense of injustice when otherwise you might have lingered longer on suspicions and questions. Fine. Notice, and move on. Get over it.

If you're bothered by racist feelings, then try to pay more attention to the people around you. Notice them. Meet their eyes on the street. Exchange small talk. Take a bit of a risk. If you want, go live in a neighborhood where black teenage boys hang out at the corner store. That would be pro-active as all get out. But feeling guilty is not a useful response to racism.

If there's a problem with these boys being marked for life as sex offenders, then discussing how bad we felt the moment we realized that our outrage was bolstered by the images of healthy, photogenic pubescent white boys is not going to solve that problem. It's just like the way that only the abductions of photogenic white children are reported on cable news. It's an injustice, but it's a side order of injustice, and it's about you. Please do not forget to tackle the main course.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't examine your own racism, or that it's wrong to feel bad about it. But if you're going to do it, do it by itself. Put it in the spotlight. Talk about it with people. Don't bring up how guilty you are of being racist if it means changing the topic. Responding to an encounter with racism by focusing inwards on one's own venal culpability is a well known white liberal failure mode. It's a cop-out, and you're putting your head in the sand, and you need a friendly smack. So, <smack>.

I agree that stigmatizing kids for underage consensual sex is a bad thing. I'm just asking where that part of the story is.

Look at the reasons they are put on the list. Can you tell whether those reasons are clearly those of a threat to others?

Grover,

More from Classically Liberal's post:

Both registries are very vague as to the crimes that these boys allegedly committed. One at least allows you to click through to the legal definition of the offense. What is clear is that most these boys did not engage in violence or force against a "victim". Most these boys were within two or three years of age of the alleged victim. Of the cases I looked at some 25 involved boys 12 to 14 years of age.

So, why only boys?

"So, why only boys?"

Girls have been arrested and charged with creating and distributing child pornography for using their cell phones to send nude pictures of themselves to their boyfriends. Boyfriends have been arrested for possession of child pornography.

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that state legislatures shouldn't be allowed to handle sharp instruments, let alone make decisions affecting people's lives.

These legislators are too dumb to understand the difference between sex offenders and sexual predators. And they ruin the lives of basically harmless people on account of their ability to back their ignorance with the force of law.

Mr. Blah B. Blah sez: "If you want, go live in a neighborhood where black teenage boys hang out at the corner store."

Luv your name; can I shorten it to Blah Blah?

And yeah, I'm relocating to a neighborhood where teenage black boys hang out at the corner store... Originally I considered moving to Watts, but now I'm thinking Compton -- that way I can hang with both Black and Mexican gangstas, and duck the nightly drive-byes from two ethnic sources, not just one. My wife's a little edgy about the move, what with the skyrocketing murder rate in Compton (7 times the national average) and the rape rate (twice the national average). But I told her it's worth the extra 'risk' to reestablish our Liberal street creds.

So if you're not busy next weekend, drop bye our new digs and we'll go out to a drive bye, er, drive-in mall so we can stare eyeball to eyeball at whichever street gang is shaking down customers in the parking lot.

Don't be late!!!

My wife is 4 years older than me, we started dating when I was 14 and she was 18 (mid 1980s). It was controversial to say the least. In the school, I attended, there were quite a few young, underage men being sexually active with overage young women. Although, the school principle was involved and a few parents wanted to make a legal case out of it, nothing happened. Although I am mixed Black/Puerto Rican and my wife is Filipino, most of the other folks were some kind of white; it was a white-middle class magnet school. A rape charge would have ruined our lives, especially since a portion of us ended up marrying the young women. Down the street, in the working-class Black and Latino neighborhood (I was bused from these neighborhoods) there were many instances of 18-22 year olds being charged as sex offenders….but, the roles were reversed.

This thing is ripe with issues of class and racial privileges.

"I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that state legislatures shouldn't be allowed to handle sharp instruments, let alone make decisions affecting people's lives."

I think this is really a pendulum event.

For years we treated sex offenders equally by letting them go after some time and counseling. Then there was a backlash of outrage against heightened awareness of repeat sexual predators. So we still didn't define what was truly dangerous clearly, we just made sure we reacted appropriately by making them register, all of them.

I say WE because the public never thought it through enough to separate the varying sexual offenses into rational categories, and anyone who did was soft on those sex offenders and subject to some level of suspicion.

The next step in this should be a thoughtful one. What is a sexual crime? What is a crime of violence? Is consent a factor? For who? Is youth a mitigating factor in nonviolent sexual activity?

Most importantly, who has committed a violent crime or a crime where a lack of reasonable consent is definable? Then redo the registries to protect society from violent sexual offenders and actual pedophiles.

I think the state lawmakers, in this case, actually reflect the majority opinion on this issue over time. The pendulum needs to settle.


Moral Panic

Grover Gardner- We don't know that all these kids did was engage in consensual sex with someone their age.

Here's what we DO know:

The law allows children who engage in consensual sex with someone their age to be arrested, convicted, and placed on this sex offender registry. This occurs because the law presumes that people beneath a certain age cannot validly consent TO sex, but does not presume that people beneath a certain age cannot be culpable FOR sex. So if

The only thing stopping convictions for consensual mutually underage sex from occurring is prosecutorial discretion. This is a notably poor protection, particularly with regards to crimes involving sex.

So... no. We can't prove that these kids don't deserve to be on this list. But no one can prove that they DO deserve to be on the list either. And there seems to be a significant likelihood that some of them don't.

A lot of us view that as a problem. And we view the tendency to be complacent about it, to assume that anyone who's been punished by the legal system must somehow deserve it even if we can't say how or why, is a dangerous tendency.

I think the state lawmakers, in this case, actually reflect the majority opinion on this issue over time. The pendulum needs to settle.

I don't agree. State lawmakers' actions in this case reflect the incentives that are built into our political system. The reality is that no legislator can propose pulling some people off the registry because that action can be demagogued to death. Their opponents would blast the airwaves with technically true claims that candidate X worked hard to get sex offenders off of the sex offender registry. Because X loves sex offenders. Every legislator in the country knows that.

It doesn't matter how just any bill is that removes some people from the registry: if it removes even a single person, it can destroy candidacies. And even if a bill gets passed while the legislators who backed it get re-elected, the whole thing is a time bomb. Sooner or later, someone who was on the sex offender list but got their name taken off will rape or kill someone and when that happens, every politician who can be blamed will be in serious danger of losing their next election.

The next step in this should be a thoughtful one. What is a sexual crime? What is a crime of violence? Is consent a factor? For who? Is youth a mitigating factor in nonviolent sexual activity?

Go ahead, be thoughtful. Think lots of thoughts. But don't pretend like it will matter. No matter what is right or just or true, the salient fact remains: improving sex offender registries is extremely dangerous for politicians. People generally don't do extremely dangerous things.

Repeat after me, children:

Just FYI, I didn't read any further than this, as none of us posting here are children. Whatever value your comment may have had, I might suggest that this is the very opposite of a useful and constructive way to address people.

On other matters, I see that Jay Jerome has revealed himself, in addition to his usual bigotry, to be a coward. It's as if, when I referred to people who convince themselves that only "those people" commit crimes, I was predicting his arrival. Amazing.

Sooner or later, someone who was on the sex offender list but got their name taken off will rape or kill someone and when that happens, every politician who can be blamed will be in serious danger of losing their next election.

Looked at from the other side, being on the sex offender registry does, and will continue to do, absolutely nothing to prevent someone from raping, killing or committing any other crime; and a legislator who wants to avoid the pitfalls you raise while addressing the injustice of the registries may want to take that as a starting point, pushing for harsher penalties and/or longer prison stays for actually dangerous sexual predators, while keeping the other kinds of people we're talking about off any registry.

"We can't prove that these kids don't deserve to be on this list. But no one can prove that they DO deserve to be on the list either. And there seems to be a significant likelihood that some of them don't."

Aren't there court or police records that could be checked? Are they sealed in juvenile cases?

A more useful national registry, broadcast far and wide, would be of the faces of health insurance company CEOs and employees, Republican politicians, Republican operatives in the media, and the odd scaredy-cat Democrat who helped to murder Crystal Lee Sutton, the textile union activist played by Sally Field in "Norma Rae", who died of meningioma because her insurer would not pay for the needed medication soon enough to potentially stop the disease.

Gary Farber has a post up about her at his place.

In a rational world, textile unions would have been made illegal years ago, thus allowing textiles workers to work more efficiently for even lower wages and without any health insurance whatsoever and she could have prevented this misery by dying even sooner.

Well, we better apply the 1% Doctrine here.
Must we wait til they run for office before we are sure they are pervs?

I represented a kid while working in the public defender's office (as a 3L...this is the kind of legal support they get). He just turned 13, the girl was 12, they lived together in a foster home. The sex started when they were both 12. We had videos of the girl stating it was consensual. No one involved really wanted to register the kid: the prosecutor, the judge, certainly his case worker and legal workers. But there was no option for the judge(though I asked the prosecutors to simply drop the case, which is the only way to avoid listing...but they would not let the kid just go free). Factually he was guilty (12 and under can't give consent at that time in NJ).

He is registered as a sex offender.

Just FYI, I didn't read any further than this, as none of us posting here are children. Whatever value your comment may have had, I might suggest that this is the very opposite of a useful and constructive way to address people.

Well, that is a good point, Phil, and certainly something I'll take into consideration in the future. I realize that political discussions, more than anything, tend to bring people online whom are unused to the variety of discursive styles and relatively relaxed manners of the internet at large.

To summarize very briefly, I wished to point out a well known problem, that ruminating about the guilty realization that one has been unconsciously complicit in some form of racism or other can become somewhat of a flight into the self, away from the problem posed by otherness.

Mr Blah B Blah: I realize that political discussions, more than anything, tend to bring people online whom are unused to the variety of discursive styles and relatively relaxed manners of the internet at large.

No, sweetie. Phil was gently pointing out to you that this blog has standards, whatever bad habits you've got used to elsewhere. If you want to become a relatively respected member of the community here, you need to adopt this community's standards... or you won't be missed. Now, hon, what's it going to be?

this blog has standards that even the regular commenters can't seem to get the hang of.

No, sweetie.

Just FYI, I didn't read any further than this, because I'm not your sweetie. :D

Mr. Blah B. Blah: Just FYI, I didn't read any further than this

Try hard, and you'll be able to write comments that people will want to read! It's a bit of an effort when you're not used to it, but I'm sure you'll be able to, gumdrop.

Jesurgislac, more seriously, if Phil's concern was for people to address each other in a useful and constructive manner, what on earth is it that you think you are doing?

"I don't agree. State lawmakers' actions in this case reflect the incentives that are built into our political system. The reality is that no legislator can propose pulling some people off the registry because that action can be demagogued to death. "

I don't disagree that this won't happen tomorrow. However, a few good MSM stories about the injustices and some (hurts to say) good left leaning politicians raising it as an issue (for a change something Barney Frank could champion for me) and we could move some states. Then inertia could give the lawmakers cover.

Jesurgislac, more seriously, if Phil's concern was for people to address each other in a useful and constructive manner, what on earth is it that you think you are doing?

Oh, wait, Mr Blah B Blah? Have you come round to the idea that at September 21, 2009 at 03:25 PM, you did something pretty stupid (as Phil kindly pointed out to you) and then at September 22, 2009 at 12:18 AM, you did something even stupider - you tried to defend your previous stupid comment?

If so, excellent, and I can promise I'll never call you candy again. (But I suspect you're actually just one of those people that has no problem being patronizing but hates being patronized... in which case, get used to it, lollypop.)

Jesurgislac, I'm not sure what part of "that is a good point, Phil, and certainly something I'll take into consideration in the future" sounds like the defense of a stupid comment to you, but that's actually beside the point. You're not upholding the standards of a community here, you're trolling.

The point of fact is that I had something to say, and I said it. I'm sure it was disagreeable to some, and perhaps bruised some feelings, and it certainly wasn't very nice to von, who had the misfortune of being the one called to example. I did not intend to speak with any particular condescension or malice, but Phil conveyed to me, in a very polite way, that he found my manner of address offensive. In turn, he may have intended some snark in claiming to have not actually read anything that I had written, or he may not have. I don't know. My response acknowledged his point and undertook to be more diplomatic in the future. I also summarized the gist of my comment, which I figured would serve nicely as a riposte were snark intended, and apology were it not. And although I may be wrong, I suspect that the matter is at rest, between Phil and I.

Were either of us wiser, you and I, we would not be having this conversation. Let us cut to the gist. Mr. Blah B. Blah is a bad person, an outsider and an intruder, and he is very rude and no-one likes him. Ms. Jesurgislac, on the other hand, is a valued and well established member of the Obsidian Wings community. On these points we may happily make agreement.

I shall continue to make comment here whenever I have something that I wish to say. I look forward to and will consider earnestly any substantive responses that you should choose to make to such comments.

Were either of us wiser, you and I, we would not be having this conversation.

You're actually learning fairly quickly. What you haven't learned, yet, is that you're not going to have the last word.

Phily-willy sez: "I see that Jay Jerome has revealed himself, in addition to his usual bigotry, to be a coward."

Yawn. Snooze. ZZZZZZ

Mr. Blah B. Blah is a bad person, an outsider and an intruder, and he is very rude and no-one likes him. Ms. Jesurgislac, on the other hand, is a well established [very rude and no-one likes her] member of the Obsidian Wings community. On these points we may happily make agreement.

*grin* Fixed that for you.

I did start off politer, but that was about six years ago. We've all passed a lot of water since then.

I said all I had to say that was on topic on this thread at September 21, 2009 at 12:37 PM.

Jesurgislac said: "If you want to become a relatively respected member of the community here, you need to adopt this community's standards... or you won't be missed."

Dear Blah (I really really do like your blog name) Jesurgislac isn't kidding you, they're as protective of their 'community standards' as the right-wing conservative bloggers are of theirs, two sides of the same narrow-minded coin, dopplegangers of a country-club mentality that doesn't want to associate with the 'riff-raff' -- meaning the majority of Americans who don't agree with them.

In other words, they're as self-righteously censoriously annoying as the fuxs at FOX and the dweeby dopes at MSNBC, and as often as blindly hypocritical.

Originally Obsidian Wings had a 'mission statement' (which seems to have vanished from the site) to present and to encourage dialog on the blog between differing points of view, liberal and conservative. When I first started commenting here, in Jan 2007, when Publius closed up shop at Legal Fiction, there still was a modicum of respect paid to conservative posters and their ideas. But that quickly dissipated during the Bush debacle-years; and bent even more sharply to the left during the Democratic primaries, when a large percentage of the current Lefty-loos took over with their brand of knee-jerk nonsense. That's when the 'community standard' Jesurgislac is talking about, one of infuriating sanctimonious intellectual elitism, became prominent (they just hate the 'uniformed' -- meaning the population at large that generally doesn't agree with them). That mind-set became ever-present and venomous here, as expressed to Democrats and Moderates and Independents (like me)who supported Hillary Clinton, treating us with the same disregard as they did the Bushies.

So, bottom line, I wouldn't worry about being accepted into their 'community' -- and when they're acting true to form, just give 'em a kick in the intellectual ass, where they usually deserve it.

Of course if you do, they'll hypercritically high-horse you and call you a racist and a coward, and any other personal attacks on your character and intention they can get away with (practitioners of the double-standard, they have banning immunity from character assignation postings against non-Liberals, in violation of their own posting rules, applied ideologically it seems). And even if you are a Liberal, they still like to eat their own if they have the effrontery to express 'deviant' non-liberal opinions.

Shorter Jay Jerome:

I did spend a considerable amount of time going through registries for the age groups being discussed. Of the hundreds of photos I viewed only a handful were did not appear white. So while the original photos came from elsewhere I don't fault them. In the several hundred I went through I saw no females and maybe 3 or 4 who were black. As for Hispanic-- it isn't a race but a language group and one can be Hispanic, blond and blue-eyed. We shouldn't use to depict race. It is very imprecise.

Thanks, Classically Liberal. I appreciate the clarification. I agree with you regarding the imprecision of the word "Hispanic". We had a comment thread a while back in which I argued that and other related points pretty extensively.

Mr. Blah B. Blah, thanks for contributing. It's a little ironic that I'm one of the few remaining front-pagers who is routinely (tho' inaccurately*) called a conservative, but still. .

That said, you've made a number of assumptions regarding how I conduct myself, where I go (and where I live/have lived), who I hang out with, etc., in the course of providing "advice." Your assumptions and proposed "advice" are more revealing of your attitudes than mine.

Phil, I didn't see anything racist in Jay's original comment. I understood that he was being sarcastic. Stop.

Jay, if per chance you weren't being sarcastic, please just go away. And if you don't go away -- and I hope that you don't -- please don't call Phil names.

*I'm closer to a somewhat hawk-ier version of Classically Liberal than any kind of conservative.

I loved the type ad commenting system very clean and very efficient.

Love to read more from you on the topic above

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad