Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Atticus Censored?

By

What rule did Atticus break? I agree that his post was offensive, but so wasn’t his “jew” remark from last week. So what are the rules?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • Seems many of you have a short term memory bank when it comes to the famous SNL Weekend Update line which Dan Aykroyd use on co-anchor Jane Curtin:

      Dan Aykroyd: Jane, you ignorant slut.

      <

      p>That was the context in which I framed Katie Couric’s ‘Slutty’ fall into tabloid news in the A Section of the CBS Evening News. Giving the Tiger Woods news conference which has happened yet more coverage than a Teabagger Type crashing his plane into an IRS building in Austin deserves all the condemnation and more that I gave it.

      <

      p>As to the alleged “Jew” remark. If you have listened to Todd Feinburg over any length of time you have heard him bristles and express anger if anyone believes or states that he is of the Jewish faith.
      Todd Feinberg’s exact quote is “I am not a Jew”  which he utters with complete sounding condemnation of a great faith and religion. There would be no Christians without the Jewish foundation. Hope I do not startle anyone but Jesus was a practicing and faithful Jew.

      <

      p>So, my sincere apology if I in my continued exuberance for the written word offended I any reader. My goal was only to offend Katie Couric and earlier Todd Feinberg.

      • but the Word Police are active and very PC.
        Wonder if you had called Brian Williams a Whore Monger or something equivalent too “Slut” whether the PC Word Police would have noticed.

        <

        p>Women apparently are beyond criticism if they are perceived liberals…ie Katie Couric, but Sarah Palin is free game.

        <

        p>BMG should be ashamed of itself for banning Atticus.
        Looked forward to his/her posting.

        <

        p>No wonder the liberal are in such bad shape. They have no backbone.

        • It’s not unreasonable to insist on civil discourse.  If your vocabulary is so limited, and your ideas so narrow that the best you can do during a debate is to depersonalize and reduce through invective then you’re coming to the game sadly ill equipped.  Don’t blame BMG for your lack of skill.  

      • Inconsistency is sort of a necessity if one is trying to establish a standard.  No one can claim that the bizarre application of the Rules of the Road on this site is anything but predictably inconsistent.

        <

        p>Here’s an example:  I was told in an email from one of the editors (obviously I complained) that while this EB3 diary title and content calling a police office a pussy is coarse, the diary is acceptable and does not violate the Rules of the Road.  If this diary title and content can pass anyone’s understanding of the meaning of the words “civility and constructive debate,”  then just about anything else is splitting hairs.  Claiming that name-calling between participants upholds a meaningful standard of civility is utterly preposterous when someone can call another person a pussy 22 times in a diary simply because he doesn’t post here.  

        <

        p>And I’m not even going to attempt to explicate the underlying misogyny of the content itself because anyone with a brain can read that diary for what it is.  Calling people fags and pussies is okay on BMG as long as we don’t call each other fags and pussies.  Got it.  

        <

        p>Standards of civility and constructive debate?   Hardly.

        • A question: Is the model of BMG as private dinner party is correct now that BMG is becoming the bestest, biggest, awesomest blog in Massachusetts? By the dinner party model, we make all the snarky comments we want about Senator Scott Brown*. We can even make unfair accusations or accusations with negative political appeal because it doesn’t matter, it’s private, it’s just between us.

          <

          p>However, if this is not a private dinner party, if it’s more public than that, it would seem that a different standard is called for — and EB3’s title is truly inappropriate as is referring to our junior Senator as “Cosmo Boy”.

          * Note that snarky comments about Senator Sherrod Brown are strictly forbidden!

          • Clearly the Rules as currently articulated are inadequate.  

            <

            p>Personally, I’d prefer to see name-calling go as the behavior is never contributory.   There is always another way to say what one has to say, and when forced to avoid sophomoric behavior, the quality of most people’s thinking and writing tends to increase.    That, however, would also mean that some of our contributors would have very little to say that would pass muster.  Not necessarily a bad thing.  

            • I’ve tried to get a coherent explanation of the policy out of the editors.  There isn’t one. I’ve even had one of them explain that calling someone “faggy” isn’t offensive.  Fortunately, the other two disagreed.

              • I suspect if more of us (or, indeed, virtually everyone) started using the words “fag,” “faggy,” and “pussy” around here more frequently, we would see a shift in what’s acceptable rather quickly.  Consider this:  how quickly things would change if every diary title contained one of those three words?  You can be sure that things would change pretty damned fast around here because the site’s credibility would go down the toilet in short order.  

                <

                p>So what does that tell us?  Well, several things:  

                <

                p>1.  That the rules and their application are mutable to the point of window dressing.
                2.  That the “civility and constructive debate” standard has theoretical but no practical meaning here.  
                3.  That, in effect, the entire system of rules application hinges on the arguably flawed sensibilities of a single editor at any given time.  

                <

                p>Nowhere on the planet does a diary (and title) calling an individual a “pussy” 22 times–and all that such terminology implies–pass any criteria for civil or constructive debate.  

                <

                p>And, worse, there is much to be inferred from the argument asserted by an editor that the post was acceptable as written.   I’ll leave that to others.  

                • We don’t make it through the day without someone dropping a vulgarity on BMG (me). Go search on fuck here and see how many hits (some are mine). Should we ban these words?

                  <

                  p>OR… using your words.

                  <

                  p>

                  I suspect if more of us (or, indeed, virtually everyone) started using the words “fag,” “faggy,” and “pussy” FUCK around here more frequently, we would see a shift in what’s acceptable rather quickly.  Consider this:  how quickly things would change if every diary title contained the word FUCK?  You can be sure that things would change pretty damned fast around here because the site’s credibility would go down the toilet in short order.  

                  <

                  p>So is the test you propose that an “edgy” word can’t be used if that word would bring protests by being included in every title on BMG?

                  <

                  p>How’s this too…

                  <

                  p>

                  Standards of civility and constructive debate?   Hardly.

                  <

                  p>Starting immediately I think we should ban the term “teabagger” from BMG. I am a tortured soul and everytime I hear the word “teabagger” , a small tear forms in the corner of my eye. Those are hurtful words and words can hurt.

                  <

                  p>STOP USING THIS PHRASE UNLESS YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO MAKE ME FEEL BAD!

                  <

                  p>Get my point?

                • …is just another in a long list of bad behaviors.  I’ve no idea how it relates to lightiris’ point.

                  <

                  p>Oh wait, you’re just taunting.  Never mind.

                • I forgot about obsessively downrating people you disagree with:

                  <

                  p>

                  Your inability to post without swearing… [3.00], by huh, Rated: 3
                  Post at Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 15:32:29 PM EST
                  Wait, let me get this “straight” [5.33], by OBroadhurst, Rated: 8
                  Post at Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:29:07 AM EST
                  Everything is equivalent in JohnD-world [4.50], by KBusch, Rated: 8
                  Post at Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:24:28 AM EST
                  welcome to post-neo-con thinking [5.00], by huh, Rated: 3
                  Post at Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:29:44 PM EST
                  Rules of the Road and our right-wing friends [5.60], by Kathy, Rated: 8
                  Post at Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 10:16:15 AM EST
                  just to be sure I understand the RoTR [5.40], by huh, Rated: 3
                  Post at Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 08:35:11 AM EST
                  A sign of Democratic failure [5.70], by KBusch, Rated: 8
                  Post at Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 23:44:52 PM EST
                  you can’t win here? [4.50], by huh, Rated: 3
                  Post at Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 15:58:48 PM EST
                  Agreed [6.00], by David Whelan, Rated: 6
                  Post at Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 21:04:26 PM EST
                  Could someone please delete this diary? [5.40], by KBusch, Rated: 8
                  Post at Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 19:25:21 PM EST

                • is that the words are pejoratives that use one group of people as a bigoted insult.   The word “fag” refers to gay men and, by rather hateful extension, men perceived as weak or effeminate.   In this case, gay men are exploited as an insult.  The word “pussy” does the same thing by synecdochically using a pejorative word for vagina to represents weak men.  In this case, women are exploited by the vulgar use of their anatomy as an insult.  

                  <

                  p>The same, however, cannot be said for the vulgarity “fuck.”  

                  <

                  p>”Fuck” is rarely (if ever?) perceived as possessing hateful and  bigoted qualities in its own regard, whereas the use of both “fag” and “pussy” as insults do.    

        • With all due respect and affection to all … this site is run by three people. We don’t all read the same things, and we don’t have time (or, frankly, the will) to police every single last corner of the comments.

          <

          p>And then, we often don’t agree amongst ourselves on the application of the rules. Because we’re three opinionated MF’ers.

          <

          p>We do the best we can without driving ourselves crazy. We three do agree that members of this community spend too much time worrying about the rules and their application, rather than dreaming up and producing more awesome, soul-enriching content (of which I myself produce a rather paltry amount myself these days. Guilty.).

          <

          p>The rules of this blog are best supplemented by a healthy dose of ordinary common sense, which is Do Not Feed The Trolls.

          • …why are the trolls still here?  

            <

            p>To take one example, billxi has more user deleted posts than just about anyone.  His contributions range between insulting and deranged.  And yet, he continues to be allowed to post crap like this:

            <

            p>

            *[new] COME AND GET ME ASSHOLE! (0.00 / 0)
            If somebody’s gonna die, you got a 50-50 shot. Of course that means I have a 50-50 chance too. I like my chances. I hate democratic stereotypes. Assholes come in all denominations, but you’re the biggest one yet!  
            by: billxi @ Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 12:38:05 PM EST

            <

            p>On a similar note, I wonder what the blog liability is if lasthorseman follows up on his not so subtle hints he may follow in Joe Stack’s footsteps:

            <

            p>

            No THE ESTABLISHMENT will always advance “terror” (0.00 / 0)
            Which was clearly evident in 2006 when Pelosi sent me a thank you and an outline of the agenda.  This included HR 1, a bogus terrorism bill.  Bogus because “we” did 911.  “We” then invaded two totally irrelevant countries.  “We” then embarked upon the unrelenting path toward third world dictatorship.
            Watch for far more Joe Stacks just like Ed and Elaine Brown before Joe.
            by: Lasthorseman @ Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 07:42:34 AM EST

            <

            p>and

            <

            p>

            Well he is right (0.00 / 0)
            Think of the millions on unemployment right how come April 15. Thousands of potential Joe Stacks.
            Change?  Choice?  Between neo-con destruction of America in favor of the globalist elite or neo-lib destruction of America in favor of the globalist elite?
            Ya, it’s broken well beyond repair.
            by: Lasthorseman @ Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 11:20:40 AM EST

            • or watch Fox News. While occasionally entertaining at their own expense, the trolls here really don’t add anything constructive to the discussion, as you mentioned above, huh. It’s taunting, tinfoil, and flames, then tears and pouting. Oy.

            • It’s easy enough to tell who the no-value commenters and trolls are.  The editors could play whack-a-mole and ban them, but I suspect they’d just be back the next day under a new screen name.  At least we know who to ignore under the current policy.

            • I scroll past them. Lasthorseman is plainly loony and I suppose we keep him around for color, variety, and yuks. Re: Billxi, you’re right about the signal-to-noise ratio … but once in a while we need a poke in the eye.

              <

              p>You know … I mean, I really don’t see it as that big a deal. I just don’t think we’ve reached a crisis point here. Sorry.

              • I suppose, if I were a straight white male, I might not be bothered by a progressive blog whose editors are comfortable with a little sexism and homophobia and racism in the name of “diversity” (pretty much anything except anti-semitsim, really).  I don’t have that luxury.

                <

                p>Do you ever wonder where the regular posters keep disappearing to?

              • …between, say, Lasthorseman and, say, John Howard?  At least, I assume the latter was banned, as it seems unlikely he’d have stopped commenting on his own.

                <

                p>JohnD, in my experience – though I’ve certainly not cataloged all his comments – rants at length without producing coherent arguments, but he’s not generally vicious and hateful.  Billxi is virtually never anything but vicious and hateful.  His signal-to-noise ratio isn’t just low, it’s zero; in fact, it’s arguably negative, because he draws threads offtopic responding to his nastiness.  That’s not “a poke in the eye,” and it’s not a remotely valuable contribution to the conversation.  There are several moderate and conservative commenters here who are quite capable of providing “pokes in the eye” on substance, challenging our positions and thinking, without resorting (and again, billxi doesn’t just sometimes do this, he does it all the time) to misogyny, homophobia, violent language, personal attacks and/or threats.

                <

                p>I think huh makes a good point below: to you, and to me, some of the language that gets thrown around by our differently-winged friends may not seem like that big a deal, because as white, hetero, cisgender, currently non-disabled men, we haven’t spent our whole lives being its target.  But “it doesn’t bother me, personally, very much” is not a compelling argument that something is not a problem – at least, not to a liberal!

                <

                p>Why does it need to be a “crisis” to warrant action?  Warning commenters, deleting posts, and ultimately banning if necessary, are not emergency, last-ditch actions, they’re just part of the regular, day-to-day work of keeping a blog community functional.

                • “Warning commenters, deleting posts, and ultimately banning if necessary, are not emergency, last-ditch actions, they’re just part of the regular, day-to-day work of keeping a blog community functional.”

                  <

                  p>And right now, dysfunctional is how I would characterize any diary where billxi, dcsurfer, Topper, demolisher, etc insert insults and try to take the thread off-topic. It happens more often than not.  

                • But LightIris is right in her post below.
                  As for LastHorseman, if this guy were into actions instead of words, his posts here would become evidence for a capital federal trial.  He’s implicitly and explicitly supported murder of people (government workers) for a long time here.  If he adds “color”, it’s blood-red.

            • For Billxi, the rules don’t apply, you see, because he’s differently winged, as it were, so what he posts is valuable.  His comments prevent us from becoming an echo chamber.   He keeps us on our toes.     Clearly you were absent the day we went over the intrinsic value of bigotry, anger, and homophobia in civil discourse.

              <

              p>So, just to recap: all those homophobic, sexist, and bigoted comments liberally peppered with images of violence and hatred posted by the most extreme differently winged are actually good for us and are what we need on this site to keep us centered and thinking straight.  Think of his comments (and those of similar branding) as a sort of rhetorical g-force that keeps the liberals here from floating off into the cosmos.   We need them.

              <

              p>The Rules, to get back to the topic, apply in some other time/space continuum in which the frequent contributors need to get slapped around a bit by the editors when they step out of line.  I speak from experience.  I once referred to Peter Porcupine as an “ass” after s/he claimed I disliked or didn’t value veterans.  As a veteran myself, I took exception, hence the “you are an ass” comment.  Bam!  An editor stepped right up and put me on the straight and narrow.  Right from the good book.  A little tweaking of my orange clockwork and I was good as new again.  

              <

              p>So, don’t despair.  My participation on these topics is more vestigial reflex than anything else.  

              <

              p> So, with that, buck up!  Don’t be such a pussy!  See?  Value added, that.  

                • The self-proclaimed 4th editor just weighed in.  His contribution?  Several downratings, a few personal attacks on the folks raising issues, and a post reducing the argument to insulting George Bush.

                  <

                  p>No wonder the editors see him and billxi as so valuable to the discussion.  You cant get this sort of interaction anyplace but a bar or talk radio or Fox News or the Free Republic.

                  <

                  p>Who wouldn’t want it on a progressive blog?

              • We all need a poke in the eye.  Or a death threat!

                <

                p>I feel sorry for anyone who’s contributed to the BMG PAC.  

          • By contrast, lightiris who is not particularly prolific, made 137 comments this month. stomv made 204 comments. Bob spends fairly little time commenting. In other words, these complaints are coming from folks who comment at least ten times as often as you do.

            <

            p>Possibly we have have a different perspective because our experience of the blog is different from yours.

            • With the possible exception of eb3, it’s rare to see people attack the editors or hijack their diaries.  

              <

              p>Even JohnD, who’s threatened kbusch and me, ordered multiple denizens to “shut up”, and is constantly downrating progressive posts, makes a habit of telling the editors how brilliant they are.

              • JohnD has made 281 comments this month. Can we trade those in for more comments from sabutai and stomv?

                • 1 or 2? And the rest probably consisted of flames, personal attacks, insults, tears, and puting. Sounds a lot like my 3-year old nephew when he needs a nap.

                • Bad things said about me from “adversaries” is not bothersome to me. Maybe you should spend more time on constructive things instead of your petty whining. “JohnD said this and that… ” Kathy don’t you have a job to do, go sell something.

                • KBusch, would you calibrate total rating/comments for a “point per comment” rubric that would help us quantify everyone’s value as a contributor.

                • Much like giving ‘0s’, when a poster resorted to personal attacks, flamebait, homophobic/sexist/racist language, or RW talking points, they would receive a negative rating. Not everyone is as erudite as a sabutai or stomv, but contribute to the discussion. I think a punitive approach to childish or prejudiced comments and behavior is the way to go.  

                • Obvious jokes about “exchanging” one poster’s comments for another’s aside, KBusch’s original point as I understood it had nothing to do with “quantify[ing] everyone’s value.”  It was simply that, if we make the fairly reasonable assumption that commenting frequency is a more or less reliable proxy for general level of activity/involvement/engagement in comment-thread discussions (yes, they could be reading everything but not commenting much, but I think that’s unlikely, and that scenario presents another problem, which I’ll get to), then Charley, who doesn’t comment very much, might not have as an accurate a view of the extent of the problem as people who are more involved.

                  <

                  p>If the editors are reading everything (or almost everything, or anyway about as much as, say, lightiris and stomv) but just not jumping in, that’s probably even worse, because that means that they’re deliberately not enforcing the rules.

                  <

                  p>From the RotR post:

                  Insults, personal  attacks, rudeness, and blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse, interfere with our basic objective, and are not permitted.
                  …
                  Penalties
                  Users who consistently violate our policies will receive a warning.  Users who fail to heed our warning may be banned from the site.

                  There are quite a few users (most but not all conservative, though as I’ve consistently said, there are also several conservative commenters who participate productively; this isn’t a partisan or ideological issue at all) who do, in fact, consistently violate that policy, and they have not been subject to the penalties laid out in the rules.  (Note that the rules also don’t say anything about there needing to be a “crisis” for the rules to be enforced.)

                  <

                  p>If the editors aren’t willing to enforce the rules as written, they need to either change the rules to ones they will enforce, or shut down the site.  If they’re willing to enforce the rules but haven’t got the time/resources – managing a busy blog is hard, complicated work, and could easily make up a full-time job – they need to bring on additional people to help moderate.

    • Insults, personal  attacks, rudeness, and blanket unsupported statements reduce the level of discourse, interfere with our basic objective, and are not permitted.

      <

      p>As a violator of this rule early on in my BMG days, I have wondered how this rule applies to public figures. Obviously we cannot call each other idiots (no matter how right that would feel), but can we call public figures like Scott Brown, George Bush, President Obama, Katie Couric… derogatory names? George Bush comes to mind when I think of some “name calling” here b BMGers! I think this is important as it appears to me that the rule is easy for attacks on BMGers but a little grey when “Couric” may be defended but it’s open season on George Bush.

      <

      p>Should we play tattle-tale if a BMGer is “name calling”? “David, xyz just called Scott Brown stupid.”

      <

      p>

      if you write a post, or leave a comment, about a candidate (or someone who is running against a candidate) with whom you have either a financial or a personal relationship, please disclose it.  

      If you support a candidate by donating money to their campaign, is that a “financial” interest?

  3. I welcome discourse with conservatives who can make their point honestly and without invective. We do have some here who can do that, without resorting to attacks on women and gays. When these discussions devolve into prejudice, they cease to be constructive dialogue.

    <

    p>Honestly, most people are less offended by swearing than overtly racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks. The admins should consider how it looks to the outside world and fellow progressives when these kind of remarks are tolerated on a progressive blog. When posters who have a history of anti-gay, anti-woman posts are allowed to remain and are not chastised, then the discusssion devolves.

    <

    p>It’s one thing to want to avoid a liberal echo chamber; it’s something else if in the efforts to do so that seriously offensive posts demeaning gays and women are allowed to stand.    

    • What is the selection criteria for groups we CAN attack and ones we CAN’T?

      <

      p>Don’t say anything about women but skewer men anytime you want…

      <

      p>Reminds me of the unwritten Hollywood rules where men are slapped, kicked, punched in the groin but it a rare to see a women treated the same way. Picture a romantic comedy where the leading actor thinks his wife/fiance is cheating on him and when she opens the front door he punches her in the mouth. Not funny? Works when women punch their men!

      <

      p>Same true here, if people want to make remarks about Tea Party protestors, conservative Republicans, white men… then expect a few jabs coming back the other way. you can’t have it both ways! Want to tell some jokes on here about Sarah Palin’s family then let the jokes be funny and when a joke comes back the other way don’t try to portray them as racist, sexist, or homophobic.

      <

      p>Watching any “stand up” comic on cable should make you understand that today’s humor is full of racist, sexist, or homophobic… as well as every other group being picked on.

      • *hic*

        <

        p>

        Reminds me of the unwritten Hollywood rules where men are slapped, kicked, punched in the groin but it a rare to see a women treated the same way.

        <

        p>Cary Grant socked Katherine Hepburn in “Philadelphia Story”… right at the front door, too. She broke his golf club, so it was justified.

        <

        p>Jimmy Cagney shoved a grapefruit in Mae CLarke’s face in “The Public Enemy” in  1931.

        <

        p>More recently, Uma Thurman has been thoroughly abused by Quentin Tarantino, but kicked some ass in return.  Patricia Arquette gave and got pretty well in “True Romance” and “Beyond Rangoon”

        <

        p>So it’s probably an unwritten rule more honored in the breach than the observance…

        • the few examples you gave pale compared to the “standard” MO of Hollywood. But maybe this is an indication of your thought process. People have extrapolated that Scott Brown’s single vote indicates his “lockstep” voting path so why wouldn’t you assume a few scant Hollywood scenes reflect a “more honored in the breach than the observance”?

          <

          p>PS My opinion of the Hollywood double standard has more to do with comedies (Home Alone…) and generally “acceptable” social behavior as opposed to a more serious dramatic movies of violence against women or violence in general which you allude to.

      • If we point out that the Tea Party movement is drenched in homophobic and white supremacist demagoguery, then we should anticipate….   homophobic and white supremacist demagoguery?

        • The goal is to play victim as often as possible.  It doesn’t have to make sense or be true.

          <

          p>Here’s a challenge: find one comment on here making fun of Sarah Palin’s family which wasn’t immediately condemned.  Can’t find one?  Shocking!  

  4. Have you cleansed yourselves of some negative energy. Focus on the conversations and not the silencing of those whom you dislike or disagree with.

    <

    p>Good!

    <

    p>BMG editors, don’t change anything. Let the BMG blog be close to our system of free speech within the limits of the RoTR. We should limit personal attacks to flicking of noses and allow poaching remarks at public figures (Katie Couric included) on a non-discriminating basis. My only request would be to ask for consistency. Anything said about George Bush should be fair game for President Obama… you get the point.

  5. a single comment does not make the person.

    <

    p>How have you made it this far in life being so sensitive?

Archives