Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Can We Say “Fascist” in Headline?

By

What gives guys?

First they came for Ernie Boch III and I…..

(did I just say that?)

Please restore my faith in the exchange of ideas this blog allows.

I know Charley takes this a little too seriously, but David? Bob? What the F? I hope you can laugh at yourself.

And you should appreciate the attitude anonymity allows others and me. In the real world I would be polite and not condescending. That is not fun, and it makes a lousy read.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Calling us, or anyone else, “fascists” does not constitute constructive dialogue.  It’s not clever, it’s not funny, it doesn’t advance any argument.  It’s just a personal attack, and as everyone should know by now, personal attacks violate the rules of this site.  The notion that we’re just trying to suppress dissent is ludicrous.  We WANT vigorous debate on this site, and there’s plenty of it – just read practically any thread in which any candidate for Governor or Lt. Governor is a topic of discussion for evidence of that.  But we insist that the debate remain civil, and calling someone a fascist is not civil (unless that person is actually advocating a fascist form of government – needless to say, that hasn’t happened around here). 

    <

    p>
    We, like many of our readers, have recently become concerned about a deterioration in the tone of debate around here.  We are determined not to allow this site to turn into the FreeRepublic of Massachusetts Democratic politics.  All three of us have occasionally deleted comments we found offensive, and we will continue to do so.  Got an opinion that differs from what one of the three of us, or some other author, thinks?  Great – write it up and debate it in an intelligent and constructive way.  That’s what this site is for.  But if you call people fascists, or evil, or any other stupid thing, we will simply delete the comment without notice.  That’s what we did in this instance.

    <

    p>
    And yes, in case you’re wondering, “The Editors” is a new account that speaks for David, Charley, and Bob, who run this site.

    • the anonymity issue has nothing to do with this.  Regardless of what name you posted your comment under, “Ernie,” we would have deleted it.

  2. You’re veering close to another personal attack:

    <

    p>
    I know Charley takes this a little too seriously, but David? Bob? What the F? I hope you can laugh at yourself.

    <

    p>
    If you have some specific suggestion for Charley, please make it. Cite the comments or tone that you find objectionable, explain what you don’t like about it, and in general be constructive. Don’t just lash out: that’s fine on many sites, but not here.

    • The Charley thing. I find Charley very flippant and dismissive of me. If I told him today was Thursday he would deny it.  Case in point is his comments towards my mentioning that the legislative rules allow them to go into formal session at any time. (If i knew how to link to it here I would) His attitude was one of disbelief that I questioned it and also stated because of this the legislator could have over-turned Romney’s vetoes “if they wanted to”

      <

      p>
      For some reason I struck a nerve . More on him below.

      <

      p>
      But getting back to the Facist thing.

      <

      p>
      Are you saying I can’t make a point by portraying something as fascist like? Aren’t you guys being a tad too touchy and self victimizing? My point in the comment was that the need to have identities, if not resumes, for the purpose of evaluating one’s comments sounds very much against  the open and safe dialogue that goes on here. Does anyone see how that is a technique used by totalitarian regimes? Are you guys so sensitive that if something has a hint of being fascist like, it may not be pointed out? What? You guys could never never ever have a fascist like thought and for someone to suggest that is just blasphemy? Or a good idea that could be used for fascist purposes by others who are not “good” like you guys? For The Love of God Men, Are We Not Americans? (cue music)

      <

      p>
      As the Big O says “Ya makin’ my point!” (sports radio reference) 

      <

      p>
      Specific suggestions for Charley, Since You Asked.

      <

      p>
      Charley my friend, I tease you like a 13 yr old boy teases his 9 yr ole sister. Why? Because you take it so seriously. You are too easy. Come back at me with more than I suck. Make it challenging.

      <

      p>
      I will ease up though. But I would rather see some good banter back rather than the usual “Mommy, he is saying mean things to me.”

      <

      p>
      Which is really the difference between the far left dems and the other dems. Sometimes you have to stand up for yourself and fight for what you want. Survival of the fittest. Other people have their own problems. But far left want to stop the world when their friends’ feelings are hurt. But if it is someone in the dem party who doesn’t agree with them on the Kool-Aid drinking issues they are ostracized and the same hurt feelings rules don’t apply. In fact no rules apply when demonizing opponents. Far right does it too. I think Charley is there. I don’t think that about David. Why do I feel this way about them? Because I read their stuff.  They could call themselves pseudonyms. I wouldn’t care.

      <

      p>  P.S. Charley you are so wrong on the legislature’s ability to have formal sessions. If you have the votes you can do what you want. In this case, if both branches agree they can hold a formal session at any time. You can’t deny that? The government doesn’t shut down if a catastrophe requires legislation, kinds that require roll call votes. What? “No, sorry, you have to wait to after January to fix this emergency. The rules are the rules.”
      Charley, real life does not work that way.

    • I know Charley takes this a little too seriously . . .  Not even close to a perosnal attack.  That’s some pretty benign stuff, especially for a political blog.

      <

      p>
      And the facism comment SHOULD be posted.  Don’t get me wrong.  It’s your blog.  You guys do the heavy lifting, and you make the rules.  Ernie’s comments about censorship are tough, but totally relevant to assessing the credibility of the BLOG.

      <

      p>
      I was similarly surprised by your handling of the supposed attack on Deval Patrick by the Reilly poster.  I saw that post as a pointed attack on Patrick’s assocation with Ameriquest – crudely stated, but a valid position to hold.

      <

      p>
      Also, my inclination was to be opposed to ananymous posts, but I have changed my tune.  I can evaluate content without knowing wrote wrote the content, though I cannot assess the character or motives of the anonymous poster.  To keep the debate candid and lively, I am happy to forego making that judgment (which is not a very useful pursuit in any case).

  3. Granted EB III’s post was not directed at me, but I did not read it as a personal attack at first reading. I thought he was trying to be provocative and humorous (I’m not sure if the humor was intentional though?).

    <

    p>
    I do question whether he would have used the same language under his real name? Either way I was surprised to see it removed and think it should be put back up.

    <

    p>
    I do think the handling of the Reilly poster was legit.

    • I forget my exact words (I don’t keep copies – I just type away.
      “Ya kiddin’ me , ernie”

      <

      p>
      My tone would be different and more polite without anonymity, but also I probably would not participate. Who cares what I think. The voice of Ernie is what makes it fun, and these guys have to lighten up.

      <

      p>
      Plus too much effort involved if my name was on it. If I had that time I would put it towartds an Ernie Boch III blog. And make my postings crisp, proper grammar, spelling, and correct word choice.
      Most important is the time spent towards documenting and fact checking. That is where the effort would be.

    • Yes!  I saw the title of this post and thought it would be all about some public censure of Ernie by Blue Mass Group, which I hadn’t seen, and was confused.  In a way, the two words are opposite.

  5. so far we have left this post up because it is an important issue and has generated a worthwhile discussion.  But we have altered your recently-revised title.  We WILL NOT allow inflammatory terms like “fascist” to be thrown around on this site, either at us or at anyone else.  It’s a personal attack, and it is simply not permitted.  If you think that’s “fascist,” that’s your problem.  (You’re wrong about that, by the way, since among other things we are not the government.)

    • We WILL NOT allow inflammatory terms like “fascist” to be thrown around on this site, either at us or at anyone else.

      <

      p>  (You’re wrong about that, by the way, since among other things we are not the government.) 

      <

      p>
      Touch touchy.
      1. Basically, my point was and still is, the idea of knowing who commentators are can also serve purposes that fascists use in promoting their regimes. Period. No one has examined the content, just the hurt feelings.

      <

      p>
      Show Us The Content!

      <

      p>
      2. I have never said you must print my comment. You have a right to do to your blog as you see fit. You do not need to point this out.  However, it is not a defense when the issue is this blog and is it being consistent with what this blog tries to be.

      <

      p>
      I say you are hurting yourselves by choosing to suppress my comment. Your choice.  Congratulations. A blog has a right to choose. But did you choose correctly?

      • is gone.  Once a comment deleted, it’s deleted, and it can’t be recovered as far as I know.  So let’s move on from that issue.

        <

        p>
        As for your broader point, my view (obviously) is that we are being entirely consistent with what we want this blog to be: an enjoyable place where people can engage in respectful, civil debate on important issues.  We are not, and have never pretended to be, a “total free speech, anything goes” zone.

        <

        p>
        Did we choose correctly?  Dunno, though I think so.  See my post on “Civility” for further thoughts.  The point is, we’re trying.  I hope you will too.

    • How can Irespond to that?

      <

      p>
      What ther hell is that?

      <

      p>
      Bob? What the hell are you talking about.

      <

      p>
      I gotta an idea. Print my comment that you suppressed and let the readers decide.

        • A reading of your’s and the editors response show a blatant reluctance to debate the real issue. Simply demonize without backiong up ypour argument.
          I at lewast demonize and back up my argument at the same time.

          <

          p>
          You won’t because you know if you printed the comment most people would see how over reactive you guys are.

          <

          p>
          Serioulsy,

  7. After reading EB3’s:

    <

    p>
    * Continuous ranting and defense of his use of the word Fascist – which I thought was a poor attempt at humor. I stand corrected.

    <

    p>
    * Move to obvious personal attacks.

    <

    p>
    *  Stating it doesn’t matter what you guys do, while following up with yet another plea for un-deletion

    <

    p>
    I was wondering if you could delete my “I’m not down with Ernie, but” comment.

    <

    p>
    BTW – EB3 can only be one person – Sean Hannity. Let’s stop playing Colmes.

    • do you really want me to?  You could also post a reply to it saying that you’ve reconsidered, as set forth below.  Up to you.

      • That is part of being accountable for what you say – even if you change your mind later.

  8. What Would Alan Derowitz Do?  I bet he’d argue to that the Fascist statement stays and he’d argue that it is the obligation of the community to properly condemn the statement.

    <

    p>
    Frankly, I think The Editors (I’ll still refer to you guys as BCD) should have extended Godwin’s Law to include the word facist and declare immediate victory.  In hindsight it would have been a whole lot simpler.

Archives