I ... stumbled across these comments in Ann Althouse's blog, regarding my skepticism of Sarah Palin's pregnancy stories. I deserve criticism on this and have aired it on this blog ... not because my doubts have been put to rest, but because I know I'm out on a limb and I know that means you take your fair share of whacks. But look at these comments, which Althouse engages with and certainly doesn't remove. I have a thick skin but really...Go to the link to see what he selected from the comments to quote.
This comes with the territory. Some of it is even a little funny. I'm not complaining. But it does bear noting that on a widely read conservative blog, this stuff is routine. I think that's part of the GOP's problem. I also think that Althouse's engagement in the comments section and failure to remove any of these remarks is eloquent."Althouse engages"... "Althouse's engagement"... hey! That reminds me of the time he gratuitously mocked me for writing a blog post letting people know I'd gotten engaged. A peek into Andrew's psyche? Tied to his obsession with Palin's womb? Think about it.
Anyway, as many of you readers have seen time and time again, I have a very high tolerance for vigorous/rough/nasty speech in the comments here. (Some of it is very pro-male homosexuality!)
I rarely delete, and there is no way that my failure to delete indicates approval. I do sometimes participate in the comments, and I have one comment (accidentally double posted) near the beginning of the thread in question. That comment of mine is a response to a commenter (Loafing Oaf) who asks:
How come we often see Althouse commenting on Andrew Sullivan posts but we almost never see him posting replies? I like Andrew Sullivan, but I wish he'd engage in more back-and-forth between him and bloggers who disagree with him.(Guess that one got answered.)
Althouse tends to post replies when bloggers post criticism of her. In recent years, a lot of the bigshot political bloggers have decided to just ignore debating people who disagree with them.So I did engage with a commenter in that thread. I answered a specific question that was addressed to me, and that I happened to find interesting. What I don't do — and what Sullivan is wrong to infer — is monitor the hundreds of comments that come in every day. I don't systematically keep track of anything. Sometimes I read haphazardly, and I am a very busy person... a very busy person who is committed to free speech and to creating a place where people with different opinions can talk with/at each other.
Now, Sullivan is upset/annoyed that some homophobic things show up in the threads here, as if it says something about my blog. He doesn't have comments, but I'll bet if he did, he'd collect plenty of homophobic crap at his place too. Probably even more than shows up here. Maybe that's one reason he doesn't have comments. But I've chosen to open my place to comments, and I have a strong free speech policy.
And let me add that my writing on this blog has never included anything homophobic, that I have a long record of supporting gay rights, and that many of the commenters who hang out here here are gay men. There is no way that I am cuing readers to be homophobic, and I think people who care about free speech and vigorous debate should be careful not to impute such things to me.
ADDED: And check out the lame piling-on by the local blogger for the Isthmus, Kenneth Burns:
... Andrew Sullivan... quotes vile anti-gay comments on the blog of Ann Althouse, the Robert W. & Irma M. Arthur-Bascom Professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School. Althouse is teaching on the Madison campus this fall.Indeed, Althouse has been teaching on the Madison campus since 1984.
These slurs appear quite literally under Althouse's name. If her policy is not to delete comments, that's her prerogative. But what purpose is served by leaving them up, other than to humilate gays like Sullivan and me and further curdle an already dismal political discourse? Is this prominent Madisonian proud to have these people as readers?The purpose is free speech and vigorous debate.
AND: No one emailed me to point out offensive comments and request that I consider deleting them. I wasn't aware of any of them until I read Sullivan's post this morning. I did get email the other day asking me to delete some nonsense about Glenn Beck. (I didn't delete.) I might delete some truly vile things about gay people. I've deleted comments that contain the n-word. Try emailing me!
ALSO: Boy, a link from Sullivan — who has huge traffic — brings very few readers over here. I would like them to see what the real context is. Of course, a link from the Isthmus blog brings absolutely nothing. As expected.
পোস্টগুলি
২৯৯টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 299 এর 201 – থেকে 299Althouse has a point that until Sullivan opens up his blog to comments he hardly has any standing whatsoever to criticize someone else's comment section. I believe he is the only Atlantic blogger with comments turned off.
Glenn Reynolds has said repeatedly the reason he doesn't allow comments is he doesn't want to spend all his time moderating and at the same time doesn't want to be associated with other peoples' comments. I guess because of people like Sullivan. The Gleens likes to pull the same stunt as well.
Chickenlittle
Had no idea I had my own tag at Troopers joint. I'll have to get over there more often, he does have an eye for talent as I recall. I always thought the reason Althouse doesn't give me a tag because she wants to keep me here. I told her I would never leave in a huff like some other A Listers who have, but I might have to lay down some sort of ultimatum, what do you think?
Based on a quote from a later Sloanasaurus post in that thread, it looks like the amazing insight that Freder offered which was subsequently deleted as offensive was:
Man, I wish I could get some of the drugs you are on. A huge pile of steaming shit must look like a hot fudge sundae to you.
It's amazing how different reality is from Freder's initial claim on this thread that his comment was deleted because he called Althouse a "conservative."
Titus says: Oh and I am gay.
No way! I was so gonna fix you up with my sister.
It's amazing how different reality is from Freder's initial claim on this thread that his comment was deleted because he called Althouse a "conservative."
Oh my God! I'm shocked for the second time today.
[AS] Some of it is even a little funny.
[AA] Boy, a link from Sullivan — who has huge traffic
So we're funny, famous, and--dare I say?--FABULOUS!
WV: coutprit: "I'll admit to this crime. I was indeed the coutprit."
The fall fairs are approaching in New England and I am totally psyched.
I love the 4H Animals and Rides and Hay and Gords and Pumpkins and Candy Apples and Red Sweaters and Scarves.
It is such a festive time of the year.
And I will make my annual pilgrimmage to Salem.
Love it.
Titus,
I think you meant that last post for Facebook.
WOW! Very nice pic with your tag there, garage. Way to go!
Titus: There is a beer in Switzerland called "Feldschlösschen." It's pronounced "felch-lotion"
Just thought I'd pass that one along your way.
@garage:
Trooper's been trying to lure you over to the dark side for almost a year now. I can't believe you never saw or got the hints over here. :)
I can confirm that Titus has been deleted on several occasions. For example, in this thread Althouse deleted 10 Titus comments.
At time, Althouse said "Titus, you need to use better judgment about which posts to use for that sort of thing.".
In another thread, Titus was deleted at:
4/19/08 3:55 AM
4/19/08 4:02 AM
4/19/08 4:46 AM
Althouses comment on the occasion of these deletions was "And Titus, I had to delete some of your contributions. I appreciate the effort, but you have to step back from the most graphic depictions."
This week, I've been reading The Different Drum, a book on community, where the author, S. Peck defines community as "a group that has learned to transcend its individual differences."
"Transcend" does not mean "obliterate" or "demolish". It literally means "to climb over".
Thread hijack
@ Titus. Are you titusonthebeach5? Cool stuff if you are.
:-D
I am not perfect on name calling. One time I let DTL get the better of me and I called him a "self-absorbed whiney faggot". That was memorable because Althouse wrote a comment saying she did not like the word "faggot" and asked me to desist when calling out DTL. To use other language. So, I have honored her request...and only bring the word and incident (2 1/2 years ago) up as a reminder that Althouse does have a gay son, is sympathetic to certain gay causes, and in one instance, asked me directly not to use a phrase that needlessly and casually thrown out....hurt dialogue.
Freder rants - "On the other hand if you want to spread the most vile Aryan Nation Eugenicist nonsense, this is the place to come. Cedarford is a practically revered institution. I have never seen Ann offer the weakest criticism of his anti-Semitic, racist and homophobic nonsense. Yet she is perfectly willing to call me an asshole just because I disagree with her interpretation of a political ad."
Freder was one of the other people I did end up name calling. But rationally and deliberately, because no other term fit him. That was in the culmination of one of his terrorist rights diatribes where he said it was preferable that thousands, tens of thousands of Americans die rather than "give up a single one of a terrorists 'precious constitutional rights"" After blindly going on about his enemy rights love - even if that was created by a situation of the Islamoid trying to extinguish all civil rights of Americans the Islamoid was trying to kill.....I called Freder out as having the veiws of a traitor. The "traitor" charge really stung Freder and he never effectively rebutted it. Hence his anger at me. Similar to his lasting anger at all the people who mocked him brutally for his alternate universe thermodynamics and his raging name calling back at them.
WOW! Very nice pic with your tag there, garage. Way to go!.
I know I know. I'm beaming. I don't what to say.
WOW! Very nice pic with your tag there, garage. Way to go!
I know I know. I'm beaming. I don't know what to say.
In general, I try to ignore name calling at me and not respond in kind..Most of which comes from my taking a more globalist view of Jews and Israel...That just because they were persecuted...they are still an immensely powerful group that actively seeks societal and economic transformation on terms they prefer...and should not be immune from criticism for the many disasters in history, and in present USA and Israel, in which Jews played a key part.
It almost seems that - unlike in any other nation - believers in American exceptionalism feel one of their core beliefs is that any criticism of Jews for anything is unacceptable. (Even if Jews were peripheral for the 1st 2/3rds of American history, began their activism to transform America in the early 1900s and only achieved their great clout in the last 3 generations in the USA..)
Debates that happen daily in Ha'aretz and the Jerusalem Post about Israeli brutality, the role of Jews in Communist depredations, and the recent collapse of the US financial system --would be labeled "Anti-Semetic and Jooooo-hating" by the likes of Madawaskan.
I don't get much involved in debate about the respective worth of life. Namely that those lost in the Holocaust as worthier of remembering and discussing than others. Or the numbers - which to military historians DO remain an Open Topic - not "Holocaust Denial!!" Academics are again looking at this subject as laws and taboos against ever talking about it except blindly accepting what Jewish groups claim..Notably Russian historians and military scholars and those studying the Communist slaughters. Hardly "Joo-hating neo-nazis". Some academics looking at the Soviet documents say perhaps the numbers killed were 'only' 3.7 million by Nazis (with up to 700,000 killed by typhus, other disease, malnutrition in worker camps), and 0.6 million killed by Poles, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Romanians, Lithuanians as reprisal for the Red Terror, and another 1 million killed as consequence of starvation and disease caused by Soviet scorched earth tactics (along with 7 million non-Jews needlessly sacrificed by Stalin.)
IMO, the debate is sterile because it has too much become one of a few things getting inordinate attention in the WWI-Red Terror-WWII-Cold War time continuum. To the detriment of learning and understanding other major events, malignant people, the 'good guys' involvedm and "systems failures".
It is an overtaught, over-discussed topic. Much as MLK and Woodstock are.
I do know something is wrong when American students are pounded each year with '6 million Jews'!!! killed!! - while most cannot tell you how many AMERICANS were killed in WWII....(420,000)...or give answers of how much other nationalities or ethnicities suffered in WWII. Poles? Britons? Soviets? Italians?? The average American only knows how many Jews suffered. And in only one war. They know nothing about the mass slaughters and starvations the Japs did. (I study history and until recently had no idea of the mass deaths the Japs did in Java, or the 80,000 US subjects in the Philippines butchered..) Students can name Nazi concentration camps, but don't know the names of a single Soviet Gulag or what happened in some, or the courvee work camps the Japs operated in China. Or how many were killed in the Partition of India. How many Cambodians or Armenian-Chaldeans were killed in other 20th Century genocides? Few US citizens know the numbers. Or the numbers killed in the Communist Democides (1917-1989)initiated by Jewish Bolshevik creating the systems and principles of Red Terror and Transformation at the start...
And the only logical answer to the "why?" of that is Jews are a minority group of immense influence on America.
@garage
As for your question-I suggest you be a little fence-straddly. Try out Trooper's place sometime-it doesn't mean you have to leave here in a huff. What's wrong with a little blog-hopping on a Saturday night?
... the resident left wing commenters called?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOSZwEwl_1Q
Boy, with that video, this thread has come full circle.
"The Really Smart People.
(Sorry, that is the best I could come up with.)"
Yeah, that happens all the time to Really Smart People.
C4 is now into Holocaust denial. Wonders never cease. Well every blog comment community should have a resident anti-semite. Just for kicks.
"really t-shirt worthy though"
A couple of weak attempts:
"Alt.Althouse"
"I'm in the Althouse doghouse"
"Althouse Rural Appalachian Common Folk...But Smarter!"
Triangle Man said...
I can confirm that Titus has been deleted on several occasions. For example, in this thread Althouse deleted 10 Titus comments.
I am a Titus backer. He posts on a wide range of topics, some personal and very sweet, cultured, observant. And he has hit or miss humor that ranges from the very witty to the funny obscene to the simply unfunny gross.
When Titus posts "gross" and doesn't get a reaction, he shows a weakness in trolling...posting grosser and grosser stuff in an effort to get the attention he wants...
Althouse apparantly will edit him on some of his multiple-post "gross-out" forays if she has the time.
==================
Finally on the thread topic. As Sullivan has gotten more obsessional and desperate in recent years..he has himself launched into venomous name-calling attacks on people who support interrogating terrorists to save lives, and of course on all the murdering "Nazi Christianists", people who "want to string gays up on a Wyoming fence to die slowly" and Sully's other endearing terms for those opponents of gay marriage. Not to mention all his Palin sliming.
Essentially what you have is Sullivan professing shock! and outrage! that his tactics of demonizing US intelligence agents, Mormons, Carrie Prejean, Sarah Palin and others are being turned on HIM!!!!!!
Play with Alinsky fire, Sully...expect that in a divided America that more and more Americans are no longer content with the Left, progressive Jews, gays, feminists, ACORN workers, academics engaged in the demonizing being left to play the game "one-sided".
Now you have ACORN demonized, Dick Durbin hauled out on the Senate Floor and forced to make an apology for demonizing US troops as "no better than Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot).
A bewildered head of the DC Jewish community center trying to defend Sandra Bernhards call for blacks to gang-rape Sarah Palin and the Jewish audience laughing uproariously as "just comedy" - most of us deeply dislike Sarah palin and Bernhard was just playing to that...
I have noticed that like conservative blacks, conservative successful women are clear, open targets of gay, Lefty, progressive Jewish rage and demonization. I think it is deliberate because they see conservative women as "class traitors" who like blacks, are obligated to be Democrats and liberal or they are not "authentic women."
Think of the reaction to Rush and Bill Bennett or Buckley in his day....and compare it to how the media and various Lefty constituencies deal with Lucianne Goldberg, Peggy frikkin Noonan, Michelle Malkin, Carrie Prejean, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Liz Cheney.
Open hatred.
Now to me, Sarah Palin is an idiot unfit for the Presidency, Bachmann may be an idiot too....but you see nothing like the hatred progressive Jewish women, black race card players, media producers have for them - played out by the other side on a comparable assembly of celebrity Leftist idiots and politicians.
Just like the liberal black=good, conservative black=race traitor meme they push.
Palin is targeted because she is a woman. There is currently a deliberate, actively machinated campaign to intimidate other woman from having "incorrect thoughts" by demonizing prominent women who deviate from "correct thinking".
Althouse Hillbilly.
Comment like a pig.
cedarford's not denying the holocaust -- just saying that other groups suffered as well
Andrew is an ass--as he calls himself with the "raw muscle glutes" tag.
And some of the remarks he quotes have nothing to do with queerness or with homophobia.
He is just trying to play victim to cover over his weird obsession with Palin's body.
wv: pronis--a penis in a flaccid state
C4:
Or the numbers - which to military historians DO remain an Open Topic - not "Holocaust Denial!!
And then he proceeds to tally up the figures which "prove" that 6 million Jews were not murdered by the Nazis and their allies in the Baltics/Ukraine/Poland/Hungary/etc...
http://www.nizkor.org/ ===> debunking Holocaust denial!
Cool. I made the cut!
Now if he will just think about what I said, repent, and get his life in order or reject Christianity.
Trey
Alex said...
C4 is now into Holocaust denial. Wonders never cease. Well every blog comment community should have a resident anti-semite. Just for kicks.
Explain how my saying the Holocaust is overtaught while other major 20th century problems are ignored or that European historians are reviewing the numbers for accuracy constitutes "denial".
You can't.
You are just smearing.
An analogy may be someone who has read the Black Book of Communism concluding the numbers killed in the Ukraine Holomodor may only be 3 million, not 5 million some Ukrainian advocate groups claim. Only smearers would claim that constitutes "Holomodor Denial" and signals sympathy for the communist butchers.
Cedarford, It's not necessary to downgrade the suffering of the Jews in WWII to educate people about the other suffering that occurred. A more effective tactic would be to respond to mentions of the six million by saying "and don't forget the 6 million Christians who died in the camps, or the 420,000 Americans who died fighting that war, or the 20 million Russians who died in the war, or the..." etc.
Regardless of whether 3 million or 6 million or 60 million Jews died in the Holocaust, those others numbers are awful. If your issue is that people are ignorant of history, then you can educate them without belittling Jews. If, however, your real issue is that you are irritated by Jews and/or mentions of the 6 million, then you should just say so and not obfuscate the matter with a recitation of statistics.
If you claim that your real issue is the accuracy of Holocaust numbers, I can not believe you. The actual number itself isn't that important. 3.7 million, 6 million, both are incomprehensibly horrible.
The Germans were good record keepers -- maybe you should become a scholar and do your own count using original records rather than relying on second hand reports.
Titus:
We sort of caught on to the fact that you were gay.
And by the way......
Don't EVER change. Althouse would weep if you changed. So would the rest of us.
Speaking of Change We Can Believe In....
BTW, somewhere back in Cedarford's life was a painful experienced that involved someone of the Jewish faith. There you go.
C4 - the Holocaust is special because it was an attempt to exterminate and entire people. That hadn't happened since Rome destroyed Carthage 2000 years earlier. So yeah, it deserves special attention.
Also has a people such as the Jews ever been so reviled for so long? There's a 2000 year history of antisemitism going back to ancient Alexandria. Everyone knows about Martin Luther's virulent anti-Jewish publications, the medieval pogroms, the Russian Pale of Settlement and the Nazi Nuremberg laws that preceded the Holocaust. My god, there is so much evidence that it's beyond undeniable. It should be criminal!
Freder,
Why should Althouse waste her time criticizing C4 when so many of us are more than willing to take up the effort?
-Kirk (The originator, or at the very least an independent discoverer, of the Cedarford-is-a-moby meme.)
P.S. I don't think Althouse gets it right in her comment about C4's critics: at least for myself, it's not that I call him antisemitic as a way of avoiding having to address the substance of what he's saying, it's that I mean to object to him introducing Teh Jooos into the discussion when it's a complete irrelevancy.
"I would also ask him what the purpose is of relating your exact title at the law school. To invite people to email them and demand your resignation or public shaming? "
"Them" = the names in my named professorship, presumably.
He doesn't realize that the kind donors are deceased.
Best "debate" here came in the lead-up to the election last year with the appearance of a commenter who called himself "Harvard".
You deleted all his posts.
The idea that people come here for vigorous debate should be taken about as seriously as the idea that people watch cat-fights on Jerry Springer for the athleticism.
I'm sorry, but it's true. Or at least, that's my opinion. Whether it's the impression your blog intends to convey or not.
I looked up in my gmail to find why I'd deleted Jason. It was because he recommended murder of a particular kind of person. He was being satirical, but I thought that should be taken out.
You deserve credit for allowing dissenting views and even nasty comments to stand. But let's be honest... even if American discourse is prone to devolving into ad hominem, partisan bickering, solipsism and insults, do you really believe that should be the standard here? I mean, there's something to be said for free-wheeling and humorous "gotchas", but does all that really contribute to vigorous debate more than it detracts from it?
Personally, I think that stuff can be fun but is irrelevant to lucid, rational debate. I'm just not sure whether the community that follows you agrees. Do you?
I never realized that had occurred (recommendation of murder, if even in a satirical context).
Sorry for the oversight on my part.
I did several remember comments by someone who wasn't so new, that were definitely murderous, however. Again, apologies if I'm off the mark on this one.
Anywho, I guess the lesson is that there's no escaping subjectivity.
But still, I think people should encourage more discussion on how others come, objectively, to different perspectives. At least, as long as that's going to be the case they should do that.
If people aren't going to respect each others' perspectives and agree to disagree, I think the least they can do to further a good-faith discussion - or any productive interaction, for that matter - is to not cast aspersions on their motives.
MUL - do your lectures apply to Jeremy, AlphaLiberal, Michael, and LE Lee?
Never heard of Michael, or LE Lee. As for Jeremy, he seemed to have showed up at a time when I wasn't kicking around this place all that much. And Alpha Liberal, as far as I remember, never seemed to have a thing for wanting to get that personal. He might have expressed dismay over certain political dynamics, but no differently than Pogo does it, or DBQ (whom I oddly admire a bit more, in some strange ways) does it, or Simon did it, etc., etc., etc. And the difference was that several of these people were reached out to by Professor Althouse. Some were (and are) linked. Were any of these token liberal voices, most of which not anywhere near as confident as the conservatives who were taken under her wing, treated in a similar way?
Althouse is perfectly within her rights to prefer the jibber-jabber that emanates predominantly from a following that seems for the most part comfortably right-wing. That's fine. But we're talking about what contributes to debate. I guess that depends on what your idea of debate is, though.
I find it interesting that one or two loud or grating voices, from one side of the spectrum, in a sea of droning rabble-rousers from the other side, is what gets your attention. Either numbers matter in determining the problem of background noise or background noise is not really the problem. At least, if you want to discuss partisanship and fairness, that is.
I just figured out what it was that made me delete something Titus wrote. He referred to a sex partner with a shortened version of the n-word. Really, I must say, I have made a special case out of the n-word. I do delete it, even when I think it's being used affectionately.
I think Simon informed me of the n-word policy and I deleted my own use of it.
For the record, it was to say that real racists call people the n-word. I used the actual word to make a point.
Then I deleted myself in deference to Simon's point.
Trey
I find Burns's use of the words "curdled" and "milky loads" in his Isthmus article an affront to farmers in the Dairy State.
Wait a minute, isn't Sullivan being a troll feeder? At the very least he's being a bore.
Althouse: I looked up in my gmail to find why I'd deleted Jason. It was because he recommended murder of a particular kind of person.
I would just like to point out that I am not Jason!
He's never allowed comments, so he doesn't know what that's like - the balance between fiesty conversation and bland non-offensive. He's only used to going one-on-one for the most part. You can't go one-on-one with every commenter as the hostess.
It gives him a blind spot in the debate- much like his refusal to learn to drive.
nastiest
Sullivan chose to include my comment. I really don't think it was particularly nasty. I thought is was accurate.
"Let me get this straight."
- - -
Homophobe.
I'm not going to go through the whole thread, but how many of the really over-the-top comments re. Sullivan (fudge packed, etc) came from the regulars?
"Despite all your efforts at race-baiting, L.E. Lee, I don't think I've ever seen anyone here get "all lathered up" about anything you write."
Of course not. He's boring. It's hard to even tell that he's not a conservative mocking a ridiculously uncreative liberal.
Now that hate speech law has been extended to gays, I'm sure Andrew's attorney will be busy little bees!
the Holocaust is special because it was an attempt to exterminate and entire people.
If percentages count, then the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Roma is the most significant.
if you and palin had dicks you liked to stick in other men's assholes then sullivan would forgive you anything.
Well what is wrong with being against the "gay" lifestyle? I happen to have strong religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin. Our country is supposed to have freedom of religion but the homosexuals are against freedom of religion when it contradicts their sinful lifestyle. God is our creator - he has the right to declare what is right and what is wrong. If our natural inclinations lead us in a way contrary to what he says is right (they always do by the way) then we need to confess to ourselves that we are sinners against God. You can call me homophobe if you want - doesn't scare me in the least. I am going to believe God and let every man be a liar.
chickenl -- you mean you haven't told your wife she is not to waste one dime on The Atlantic?
wv = corses
What the Althouse Hillbillies took to get edjucated.
What is wrong with being against homosexuality? I happen to have strong religious beliefs regarding homosexuality. I believe what the bible says about homosexuality. Supposedly we live in a country where we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. However, the homosexual crowd has shown they do not believe in freedom of religion or freedom of speech when they try to destroy everyone who believes as I do.
God is our creator and has the right to tell us what is right and wrong. When our natural inclinations are to go against what He says is right (as they always are) we should simply admit to ourselves that we are sinners and pray to Him for grace to overcome our natural inclinations to sin. But today, we think we are our on god and the God of creation has no right to demand anything of us.
Well, call me homophobe if you want. Guess what? Doesn't scare me in the least. I will believe God and "let every man be a liar"
Why anyone reads Andrew Sullivan is beyond me. He once was quite promising, and an interesting blend of conservatism, liberalism and libertarianism. Now is shrill, egocentric and Obama-salivatory. Critical thinking has been replaced by group thought.
Anne, on the other hand, is refreshing. I think it is great and consistent to keep all but the most odious comments up. Keep it up!
Why anyone reads Andrew Sullivan is beyond me. He once was quite promising, and an interesting blend of conservatism, liberalism and libertarianism. Now is shrill, egocentric and Obama-salivatory. Critical thinking has been replaced by group thought.
Anne, on the other hand, is refreshing. I think it is great and consistent to keep all but the most odious comments up. Keep it up!
Posting Twice, is anybody suggesting that you can't continue to hold your beliefs?
Heck, it's a free country. Even Ted Haggard is allowed to believe that gay sex is evil.
Is a blogger who doesn't allow comments [i]really[/i] criticizing the quality of the comments of another blogger's readers? Ha ha! That's hilarious.
I wonder if Sullivan understands how unutterably foolish this makes him look.
Thread jack
(I am tired of reaading about liberals demanding other people shut up and / or do things the way they say, damn the First Amendment)
The blog thread that Titus was deleted from [it's midnight, we're at the beach and everyone else has gone to bed. So I am here, checking in] -- was coverage of Michelle Obama's "never been more proud" speech. There is this comment:
ricpic said...
"...Barak will never let you go back to your lives as usual!"
Oh boy, are we in trouble.
2/18/08 6:29 PM
You nailed that one ricpic.
Andrew is a professional "journalist" getting paid for his work. Us commenters get nothing for calling him a hack and a douchebag.
And he's engaging in the most shamelesss rumor mongering I've ever seen LONG past the expiration date.And I suppose he also thinks truthers are crazy people who take their hatred and paranoia too far.
Andrew deserves a "Sullivan" for his column and that's not really an award you like to win. And as for insults,if he can dish it out he should be able to take em. Especially if he's going to earn a paycheck for being a douchey fag.
Yes I said it.
Has anyone seen Charles Johnson Andrew Sullivan or PEREZ Hilton in the same room at the same time? Are we sure they're not the same persion? I honestly don't know which one is more annoying. Probably Perez, since when he draws dicks on peoples faces he at least isn't pretending he's some intellectual with something to say.
Sullivan implies; from his implication, Althouse infers.
Safire is gone, but that doesn't mean that we don't have to watch out for this stuff.
""No really t-shirt worthy though."
Ok,
The Really Smart People.
(Sorry, that is the best I could come up with.)"
Then obviously You're Really Not That Smart.
As a true hillbilly, I find that those who use the term in an attempt to insult are almost routinely not only narrowly parochial in their thought and lifestyle but defensive about their inability to grapple with true hillbillies on their intellectual turf.
It's kind of sad, really, to see those with so little connection to the natural world that surround hillbillies to make that weakness a point of pride.
JAL wrote:
chickenl -- you mean you haven't told your wife she is not to waste one dime on The Atlantic?
Nope! I prefer to slowly undermine her faith in that fishwrap, but she claims she gets incredible deals on renewal subscriptions. So maybe it's actually better if they're losing money on us. :)
Didn't Andrew Sullivan and Charles Johnson spend a weekend in Sao Paulo with Glenn Greenwald?
A better man, you are chickenlittle, than Victoria the Usurper.
I have to click over and see if he quoted me ripping on his quote, saying I've never felt the divine pounding my ass.
I realize I'm coming in on this a bit late, but I think the reason we are so fascinated by WWII and the Holocaust is because it happened in Europe. And not Eastern Europe, like the Russian deaths. Germany tried to take over Europe. They had control of France and were going for Britain. It's not at all surprising that we focus more on that than we do things that happened in Eastern Europe or Asia. It just hits closer to home.
Most of Sully's readers don't want to give you traffic even if there is a link. Your blog is just not that good.
And, as moost of your readers are stupid and/or racist, it makes one feel dirty to wade into your comments section.
Out on a limb? He can't even see the tree.
And, as moost of your readers are stupid
Delightful!
I have never seen a faggot so obsessed with a woman's vagina like Andrew Sullivan is with Sarah Palin's. The biggest irony is that he is a big liberal that would destroy the same American medical system that is saving is dying-from-AIDS ass every day.
You know what irks me about this sort of comment? Cedarford doesn't hurl epithets. He presents purported facts and puts together arguments. No one takes the trouble to refute his facts, they just gasp and point and call him an anti-Semite.
I guess "faggot" isn't an epithet. And of course this is simply untrue. In her disdain for me, Ann simply refuses to acknowledge that I regularly refute his "facts".
Of course, my point is that she never bothers to refute his facts.
As for Freder, I don't remember ever deleting him, so if I did, I don't know why. Boring repetitiousness? Trying to make himself the whole subject of the thread and thereby ruining it?
And there you have it folks, Cedarford produces purported facts in an amusing and interesting way. It doesn't matter if they are complete bullshit, racist, anti-Semitic nonsense, what matters is that they are well-presented. I, on the other hand, am "boring and repitious". It doesn't matter if the substance of my argument is correct, that alone warrants deletion.
Peter wrote: Even Ted Haggard is allowed to believe that gay sex is evil.
That is well and truly funny. Outstanding post.
Trey
The comments on this thread just prove Sullivan's point. Many of you are disgusting, stupid bigots. Oh, well. I guess you like the echo chamber.
Jesus. Even Michelle Malkin polices her comments and deletes vile ad hominems because she recognizes that the content of her blog -- even the stuff she doesn't write!! -- reflects back on her. Mind you, this is a woman who wrote a book defending internment camps. And she appears to have a higher standard for political discourse than you do.
Your name is on the masthead. Take a little resposnbility for your blog's content, would you?
lulz
Lets have a little experiment, Ann.
How about you out Reihan Salam as a muslim (he is) and see what your commentariat has to say about that?
You complain that you don't get traffic from Andrew Sullivan's site. Here's one first time visitor. I find his blog to be a great resource for connecting me to current conservative thought and pop culture. I have never heard of you or your blog but was motivated to read it for myself after his thoughtful, heartfelt and intellectually honest attempts to respond to the issues you raised about free speech & the responsibilities of bloggers. Above this space it says you delete according to whim. I would suggest you do as TaNehisa Coates does on his blog, and monitor(or have a work-study student monitor) comments and then COMMENT/RESPOND when you feel it's important.
Althouse's perfunctory gesture at a disavowal of the simian tone of her commenters is pretty much the definition of "cowardly." If she were able to work herself into a fraction of the froth she becomes at any perceived slight of herself, anywhere, at any time, in defense of Sullivan's basic dignity and that of gay people generally, she might run the risk of alienating some of the moral and intellectual giants who attracted Sully's notice in the first place.
Her clearly fragile ego probably couldn't bear the attendant decline in traffic, as her coterie of ogres goes elsewhere to vent more or less in peace.
Weak, weak tea.
OK, up front I admit I'm a Sullivan reader who came here to see what was going on for myself.
Sullivan isn't perfect by any stretch. He is obsessed with Palin, that's pretty clear. Letting himself get caught up in tit for tat exchanges like this one is another failing of his.
It's wonderful that we can all exercise our right to free speech so vigorously. But many of the comments on here are just plain juvenile crap and gaybashing for its own sake. And Althouse's attempts to distance herself from the worst of the bile seem half-hearted at best.
I have to confess I see Andrew's point.
Y'all can have your blog back now.
Glad you are consistently upholding your standards: "I will delete comments that offend my standards, and I will turn off comments on posts where the conversation is played out to the point where it is attracting too many deletable posts. You're welcome to practice your free speech on your own blogs. I intend to keep a civil dialogue on mine."
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/11/movie-and-new-policy.html
Real men and women enable comments, but since Sullivan is neither he wouldn't know about that.
At anyrate, it's Iowahawk on the job right now with:
iowahawk: Dial 'M' For Maternity -- Excerpts from the new Mike Loads gyno-mystery by Andrew Sullivan
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/10/dial-m-for-maternity.html
It's pretty moronic to blame the blog owner of a popular blog for the bigots and other assorted morons that comment on it, whether the blog in question is Althouse, Daily Kos, or Gateway Pundit.
People (whether owners or commenters) are responsible for the words that they themselves post, and I believe free speech includes the right (& perhaps obligation, even) to let bigots/morons expose themselves for all to see.
If Ann (or Markos, or the GP guy) READS a comment they find offensive, perhaps they should act--either by commenting on it or deleting it if they believe it has no place on their blog, exposure-value notwithstanding--but it isn't their job to police every comment they receive, or--God forbid, moderate for content. (Either allow comments or don't... Vetting each one before allowing them to appear is indicative of someone afraid of confrontation.)
After that, it's up to the readership to blast the offensive and the stupid.
Blaming the blogger, or worse. everyone who reads the blog, for the words of the most bigoted, stupid, or otherwise offensive commenter(s) at a given blog is straight-up moronic. (I've been saying the same to one dang fool (who shall remain nameless, but who, coincidently, tweeted the link here, oblivious to the irony of praising this post for decrying what he himself so often does to the whole DailyKos owner & readership--along with other liberal blogs)--for the last several years.)
And yes, it's even worse to be criticized for one's blog commentary by someone who doesn't allow comments on his own blog. While I agree with Sully more often than not--Palin pregnancy obsession aside--he's barkin' up the wrong tree here...
Sullivan was an exceptional writer and thinker just six short years ago. Now he's a raving lunatic, and an embarrassment to the Atlantic. Sad.
I've learned that people will forget what you said,
people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. See the link
below for more info.
#said
www.mocsbar.com
I've learned that people will forget what you said,
people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. See the link
below for more info.
#said
www.mocsbar.com
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন