Althouse: Decisive troll ruling issued.

July 26, 2019

Decisive troll ruling issued.

Here.

301 comments:

1 – 200 of 301 Newer› Newest»

Jeff Brokaw said...: Works for me.; 7/26/19, 11:12 AM
cbuds said...: don't feed the trolls [with an entire post dedicated to one in particular]; 7/26/19, 11:13 AM
Fen said...: I conclude that Inga is a troll and that is binding for my purposes here.

What does that mean? Banhammer?; 7/26/19, 11:13 AM
Fen said...: don't feed the trolls

I've never seen that work. It came close once: some 30 people all maintained discipline for about 2 weeks, then New Guy strolled in and fed the troll and all hell broke lose again.; 7/26/19, 11:15 AM
Dave D said...: is it possible that "troll" and "liberal poster" are synonymous? Emotion and feelings rule their psyche and posting style from my experience. Part of the problem, really.; 7/26/19, 11:15 AM
Birkel said...: Nadler is going all-in for impeachment.
Press conference right now.; 7/26/19, 11:18 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: Boooo! I always liked having Inga around for the same reason I enjoy shopping at Wal-Mart. It makes me feel good-looking and smart.
More seriously, it's your party and you can cry if you want to, but I feel the hysterical Lefties add gravitas to the blog and it's commenters by providing an instructive counterpoint for those casual, and perhaps politically uncommitted, readers who are not habitual commenters.
Things have to be seen to be understood. For this blog, the Ritmo's and Inga's are the Golden Shower Left Visible. And that's a not inconsiderable part of the population.; 7/26/19, 11:19 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: AA: "I wish there were more liberal commenters. A lot more."

I totally agree. In my experience, the best way to understand stuff is to hash it out in good faith with people who differ. Heck, sometimes you change their mind, and sometimes they change yours! It's like steel forged by steel -- or something like that.

By the way, where is our friend, Chuck? I sent him a big-ass bottle of gin in exchange for his making 50 straight comments without reference to "Trump" or "Althouse." Last time I saw his comments, he was at #9 or so.; 7/26/19, 11:21 AM
stevew said...: Makes sense. She was occasionally entertaining in her ineptitude, but clearly not interested in a discussion of the relevant facts and points of view.

Adios.; 7/26/19, 11:25 AM
purplepenquin said...: Just to be clear - what was the "insulting" part? Calling people "stupid lazy thinkers" or not agreeing with the Althouse-crew about what the statement meant?; 7/26/19, 11:30 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: Cruel neutrality doesn't exist in a vacuum. To be credible, it has to let the slobs and mobs run amok a bit.; 7/26/19, 11:31 AM
tim maguire said...: She won't be missed.

I got tired of the perfectly decent threads melting down into mud fights, with Inga always taking the low road (often not alone, but still, always part of the problem, never the solution).

I tried a few times to engage her honestly and never once got a respectful reply (most of the time, I got no reply).; 7/26/19, 11:31 AM
Ice Nine said...: Inga is just another Trump-deranged lefty babbling that crap exactly as we have come to expect from that ilk. My views are the total opposite of hers and I'm not naturally inclined to defend her but, jesus, what you landed on her for is not a bit different than the shit that is stacked on her and Chuck all the time. What triggered you on this quotidian infraction?; 7/26/19, 11:32 AM
rehajm said...: After review, the ruling on the field is confirmed. First down. Time out.; 7/26/19, 11:34 AM
Francisco D said...: I enjoy people who strongly challenge others' views with reasonably thought out arguments and reasonably clear evidence. That is a benefit to all of us. Unfortunately, many on the Left seem to demand we think in lockstep with the Mainstream Media.

Sometimes there is a lot of anger over views being challenged. J.Farmer seems to have that effect on some, but he is clearly conversant in his opinions. The usual trolls are just trying to distract rather than expand and enhance the discussion.; 7/26/19, 11:35 AM
Sebastian said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/26/19, 11:35 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: I enjoy reading Inga's comments!; 7/26/19, 11:36 AM
whitney said...: Will she just adopt another moniker and come back?; 7/26/19, 11:36 AM
Sebastian said...: "I wish there were more liberal commenters. A lot more."

I do too. Honest.

But let's think about why there aren't more. Theory 1: trolling and flame wars is all they got. They never need to make an argument, so they can't. Theory 2: they think us deplorables are deplorable. It's contempt all the way down. Theory 3: they are scared--progs need bubbles. They seek control; here's one place they won't have it. Theory 4: they hate Althouse--apostate and heretic, petty bourgeois traitor. She's the worst: should be on the right side, but tolerates deplorables. Not mutually exclusive.

Apart from Cook and occasionally Freder F, and of course Althouse herself, engaging the "liberals" here feels too much like punching down.

But I am still somewhat sorry to see "liberal" trolls banned: they are useful indicators of the insanity that grips the left, of the obsessions that cloud their vision.; 7/26/19, 11:36 AM
Lyssa said...: AA: "I wish there were more liberal commenters. A lot more.

Me too. We used to have a good mix, it was a good bit of what originally attracted me here. I had hoped that the moderation scheme a while back would encourage some more, but I guess that was ultimately unworkable. It’s a shame; I usually just skim through to see if Althoude is participating in the comments now. I do usually enjoy hearing from Robert Cook.; 7/26/19, 11:36 AM
rehajm said...: Try playing If You Had To Argue... for the current liberal positions. Now try it without ad hominem. I couldn’t do it...; 7/26/19, 11:39 AM
Birkel said...: We'll always have her reasonable comments about diet/nutrition.; 7/26/19, 11:40 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: "The usual trolls are just trying to distract rather than expand and enhance the discussion."

Manifestly. Which means the people that engage them are idiots. That's what's so goddamn annoying.; 7/26/19, 11:40 AM
Fen said...: By the way, where is our friend, Chuck?

Nursing his wounds I would guess, based on my own personal experience with the Clinton Impeachment. We were told Starr was playing 3D chess and "any day now" Clinton would be forced from office. When all that fell apart, I spent a few weeks in hibernation on friendly blogs.

And yah, I was impressed with the way Chuck maintained discipline. Don't think I could have kept my mouth shut :); 7/26/19, 11:41 AM
langford peel said...: Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!

You’re funny!; 7/26/19, 11:42 AM
tim in vermont said...: “not agreeing with the Althouse-crew about what the statement meant?”

I asked you before if you wouldn’t mind putting what you think it means into your own language, because I can’t see how Inga got what she got out of it, but maybe you can help me, since now you own up to a different opinion on it.; 7/26/19, 11:42 AM
Fen said...: Which means the people that engage them are idiots. That's what's so goddamn annoying.

I've never understood that sentiment: cautioning people to please ignore the annoying trolls because the counter-trolling is annoying to you.

Take your own advice?; 7/26/19, 11:43 AM
rhhardin said...: Trolls are harmless. The weird thing is people responding. Oh no there's something wrong on the internet. Give people credit for observing that and moving on without response.

Not only harmless but supplying the leftist talking point of the day. An amusement item.; 7/26/19, 11:44 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: We really do need a functioning two party system and an independent, watchdog press.

Unfortunately, we don’t have either.; 7/26/19, 11:44 AM
purplepenquin said...: try it without ad hominem. I couldn’t do it

I'll give it a whirl. Name the stance and even if I don't agree with it I'll argue for it without making personal attacks.; 7/26/19, 11:44 AM
tim in vermont said...: I asked purplepenquin here: https://althouse.blogspot.com/2019/07/at-last-drop-cafe.html?showComment=1564067169562#c6578101985163097582

As a starting point for a reasonable discussion.; 7/26/19, 11:45 AM
Sebastian said...: "Try playing If You Had To Argue"

Maybe we should try!; 7/26/19, 11:45 AM
langford peel said...: Inga is your id.

She expresses what you really think as a whacko feminazi but can’t say because you don’t want to alienate your audience of conservative fanboys.

Inga is you Althouse. She always has been. That is why you protected and coddled her these many years.; 7/26/19, 11:50 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: "I've never understood that sentiment: cautioning people to please ignore the annoying trolls because the counter-trolling is annoying to you."

I'm cautioning no one. People can do as they please. But poking retards with a stick makes no one William F. Buckley.; 7/26/19, 11:51 AM
purplepenquin said...: I asked you before if you wouldn’t mind putting what you think it means into your own language, because I can’t see how Inga got what she got out of it, but maybe you can help me, since now you own up to a different opinion on it

Actually you asked me to "Show Althouse how partisan she is being" and explain why she shouldn't be exasperated with Inga. However, I was/am extremely wary to go into details about the possible motivations & reasons our hostess may choose to throw the ban-hammer at one person while ignoring others behaving the same and/or worse, and thus am refraining from addressing your request.; 7/26/19, 11:54 AM
Gahrie said...: We really do need a functioning two party system and an independent, watchdog press.

Which is why I keep hoping that someone (perhaps Kasich?) would enter the Democratic presidential race with the purpose of being a protest vote against the insanity of the Left. The message would be:

"The United States needs a sane and loyal opposition. The Democratic Party no longer represents that. Vote for me to send a message to the leaders of the Democratic Party that you reject all of the current candidates and the leftward lurch of the party. I am in effect the candidate of none of the above."; 7/26/19, 11:54 AM
Bill, Republic of Texas said...: I wish there were more liberal commenters. A lot more.

I think there are lots of liberals here. I am one:

Pro-choice with reasonable restrictions;
Anti-discrimination/colorblind;
Due process and presumption of innocence;
Equal protection of law;
Free speech;
Pro private union;
Government accountability;
Sceptical of foreign wars;
Pro democracy;
Free Enterprise;

That's just off the top of my head. Almost all of those positions are now called racist or conservative.

There are no liberals anymore. Just leftists and progressives.

Yesterday I learned the socialist Democrats magazine is called "The Jacobin." Really?!? That tells you everything you need to know about their plans for the future.; 7/26/19, 11:54 AM
readering said...: There are few liberal commenters because the great mass of commenters here heap insults on them, but it's not considered trolling because they are in agreement with one another. To put up with them one has to imagine it could all just be dogs on the internet.; 7/26/19, 11:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Inga wasn’t a troll. She was a true believer, a Primitive snakeholder rolling around on the floor. A lightbending black hole of childlike faith who instantiated what Lacan called the point-de-capiton.

She was also a subnormal who came on Ann Althouse’s blog and called her stupid and lazy. That kind of thing works great at Harvard or Columbia if you have an approved target. This isn’t Harvard or Columbia, so Inga can go jump in Lake Mendota even if I enjoyed making her a figure of fun. And I did.

I don’t feel the same way at all about Howard, readering, wwww, Cook, etc.; 7/26/19, 11:56 AM
tim in vermont said...: OK

"“You believe that he committed — you could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?” “Yes,” Mueller said again”

The above sentence is NOT Buck halting, and then changing his question, but a continuation of one complete thought and the em dash really means “and”

So the above ACTUALLY should read, and this is how Mueller understood it to read:

"You believe that he [Trump] committed [obstruction of justice], AND you could charge POTUS with obsturction of justice after he left office”

Remember that Buck had no say in the transcript and he didn’t do any of the punctuation.

And remember that in our “If You Had to Argue” game, we have to address the fact that Mueller also said this under oath that day:

“I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said, and I quote, ‘you didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion,’” Mueller said in his correction.

“That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

So that makes it even harder to argue that for Inga’s interpretation.; 7/26/19, 11:56 AM
Gahrie said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/26/19, 11:58 AM
Fen said...: But poking retards with a stick makes no one William F. Buckley.

But that's exactly the point: counter-trolling over the years has taught me how to handle the left's debate tricks, thickened my skin, perceive false debaters.

In a head to head match up with a random liberal, would you prefer Buckley or Trump?

NRO or Ace of Spades?

Breitbart's best insight was that politics is downstream from culture. Likewise, I believe we can muster the civil reasoned arguments of Buckley et al and STILL lose. Because the stream is about more than just that.

You got to learn to be a street fighter.; 7/26/19, 11:58 AM
Gahrie said...: AA: "I wish there were more liberal commenters. A lot more.

Me too. We used to have a good mix, it was a good bit of what originally attracted me here.

Leftwingers are uncomfortable in an environment in which actual debate of ideas takes place, mainly because they are so shitty at it. Their idea of a strong argument is : "shut up you racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic fuck".; 7/26/19, 11:58 AM
doctrev said...: Ahhh, the post Inga era. Whatever will we do? If you guys like I can just lazily go to Media Matters and post whatever hot take they have for the day, but I'd rather choke on my own blood. Thanks to Althouse for finally figuring it out.; 7/26/19, 11:58 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: No, Althouse bears no resemblance to Inga.

Althouse may be a whacko feminist, but she’s no Inga.

I’ve decided to let go of confronting her on the whacko feminism and the gay worship. We’ve all got our weird sexual kinks. Everybody’s kinks seem difficult to comprehend to those who don’t share them.

If you ignore that shit, she’s very interesting to read.; 7/26/19, 12:00 PM
Anonymous said...: And I never claimed to be William F Buckley.; 7/26/19, 12:00 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Trump Derangement Syndrome and the Russia collusion hoax have made liberals insufferable and stupid.

They’ve got to find something else.; 7/26/19, 12:01 PM
tim in vermont said...: “Actually you asked me to "Show Althouse how partisan she is being”"

By clearly explaining Inga’s position in plain language. I won’t waste my time by asking you to read it again, this time slowly, because I did the job for you above. Inga’s interpretation, and apparently yours, makes no sense.; 7/26/19, 12:01 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: "There are few liberal commenters because the great mass of commenters here heap insults on them, but it's not considered trolling because they are in agreement with one another."

Bollocks. You're out of your goddamn tiny mind. Fuck off.

Just kidding. There are few liberal commenters here because, as Lone Star Bill observed, there are few liberals, period. However if Proggies want to offer reasoned debate here, I don't think there's anyone who'd object. Yet, curiously, it's been a very long time since I've seen a Prog try.; 7/26/19, 12:02 PM
Fernandinande said...: For guidance in troubled times like these, we can turn to philosophers like Nikki Sixx for comfort and understanding -

"There's no difference if you're a supermodel or if you've lost both your legs. What are you doing that's beautiful or ugly on the inside?"

Like the one-legged supermodel, I'm digesting breakfast on the inside, and that feels beautiful but probably looks pretty ugly.

Name the stance and even if I don't agree with it I'll argue for it without making personal attacks.

Be it resolved: people should argue by making personal attacks.; 7/26/19, 12:03 PM
Fen said...: There are few liberal commenters because the great mass of commenters here heap insults on them, but it's not considered trolling because they are in agreement with one another.

Nah. You come in here and say "socialism just hasn't been applied properly" and you are going to get dogpiled. That's the problem - the Left brings along their echo-chamber philosophies that don't fare well in a venue that allows for direct feedback.

That's why liberal Althouse gets attacked from the Left to begin with: she allows people to question the narrative, something that would get you unpersoned on liberal sites.

Hell, go on Facebook and say a transwoman can't get pregnant. See what happens to you.; 7/26/19, 12:03 PM
rcocean said...: Liberal sites never wish there were more Conservatives. But Lonely heart Conservatives always wish there are more liberals to play "Crossfire" with.

Its because Liberal/Left see themselves as part of a group operating in the real world to change society. Conservatives are usually just random people -who aren't liberal- and think of politics as a pastime or game.; 7/26/19, 12:05 PM
tim in vermont said...: Personally, I try my hardest to be reasonable with every commenter, I really do. You do learn from them, even though you often have to infer their positions, since liberals are loathe to directly express their true designs for this country.; 7/26/19, 12:05 PM
langford peel said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/26/19, 12:05 PM
tim in vermont said...: “There are few liberal commenters because the great mass of commenters here heap insults on them”

I agree, insults and name calling just closes people’s minds.; 7/26/19, 12:07 PM
tim in vermont said...: When a liberal goes hard to insults name calling against me, especially when I have done everything to be reasonable, I always chalk that up as a debate win, why wouldn’t liberals feel the same?

To take a recent example, calling readering a “pig fucker,” as was done yesterday, just lets her off the hook to continue a discussion. It hardens her in her position.; 7/26/19, 12:10 PM
gilbar said...: the worst thing ( the absolute WORST thing) about Igna, was that she was BORING
good riddance to old garabge; 7/26/19, 12:11 PM
Original Mike said...: "By the way, where is our friend, Chuck? I sent him a big-ass bottle of gin in exchange for his making 50 straight comments without reference to "Trump" or "Althouse." Last time I saw his comments, he was at #9 or so."

He couldn't do it ("it" meaning not commenting on Trump or Althouse). I'm not surprised; it's the only reason he came here.; 7/26/19, 12:12 PM
langford peel said...: Sorry but Inga serves as Althouse's mouthpiece to spew her real views that she conceals . Whenever she lets the mask slip there’s is an explosion as happened in the splooge stooge incident. If Althouse stayed her real views her can boys would shit a brick.

Inga is the very definition of a useful idiot; 7/26/19, 12:12 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: "But that's exactly the point: counter-trolling over the years has taught me how to handle the left's debate tricks, thickened my skin, perceive false debaters."

I understand that and I'm very happy to see conservatives (if not Republicans) waking to the need. But how often do you have to kick the palooka you've just laid out on the mat? It annoys the ref.; 7/26/19, 12:12 PM
purplepenquin said...: By clearly explaining Inga’s position in plain language.

I know we all look alike to some of ya'll, but I ain't Inga. She can speak for herself.

(Well, at least she could. Now; not-so-much); 7/26/19, 12:12 PM
GatorNavy said...: About time we did something about the Trolls!!! Now, about those filthy dwarfs...; 7/26/19, 12:13 PM
Qwinn said...: It would be interesting to see people try it. Used to be you could find liberals making arguments... BAD arguments, completely false arguments, logically flawed and internally inconsistent arguments, and almost NEVER made in good faith... but they were at least arguments, of a sort. It's been months though since I've heard *any* argument on *any* topic that is more sophisticated than "Racist! Sexist! Homophobe! ORANGE MAN BAD!"; 7/26/19, 12:14 PM
Ann Althouse said...: If you go upthread over there, you'll see where I made it very clear: "Inga, Mueller explicitly withdrew that statement. Why are you hyena-laughing? You must just want people to waste their time schooling you and calling your name. I am about to decide that you are a troll and begin deleting you all the time. Your intentions strike me as malign. You can — here, now — try to talk me out of this decision. Otherwise, you're done here."

Then you can see the response I got. I had to delete one of the things she said, which was actually even more insulting, so it makes my point more strongly, but I had to delete it because it committed an offense for which I always delete and I didn't want to make an exception.

The definitive decision to mark someone as a troll means that I delete this person now all the time, regardless of how reasonable or helpful her comment is because I believe this person's is trying to damage this forum. I like strong speech, but some people are trying to drag others down a rathole. In this case, the person would make arguments combined with irritating taunts and over-the-top personal remarks, just calling particular individuals stupid. This would often lead to back and forth in which she'd be called by name and it would turn the thread into a mess. I have demanded an end to this many times, and I now regard that approach as pointless.; 7/26/19, 12:14 PM
Ann Althouse said...: My decision has NOTHING to do with point of view.; 7/26/19, 12:15 PM
Ann Althouse said...: It's about deliberate and sustained aggravating speech intended to hurt the forum.; 7/26/19, 12:16 PM
Ann Althouse said...: ... deliberate and sustained aggravating speech intended to hurt the forum and to make the discussion be ABOUT her, not about the substance.

I would think that someone who used this forum for many years would have more respect for it and for my efforts here. When confronted, she should have expressed respect for me and for this opportunity to engage with people. To react with insults aimed directly at me is just an open confession to trolldom.; 7/26/19, 12:18 PM
Hagar said...: Liberals have pretty much gone to ground these days. Or perhaps have their own blogs?

Progressives are something else. They are totalitarian; not liberal.
The Chucks and Ingas must somehow gain some profit from posting here. Otherwise it is hard to understand all that fruitless effort.

Then there are the real trolls who only want to disrupt the threads for their own pleasure in throwing feces.; 7/26/19, 12:19 PM
tim in vermont said...: “I know we all look alike to some of ya'll, but I ain't Inga. She can speak for herself. “

So what’s your beef then. You seem to be saying that Althouse was wrong to conclude that Inga was just trolling by taking an absurd position.

Here is what you said just now:

"Just to be clear - what was the "insulting" part? Calling people "stupid lazy thinkers" or not agreeing with the Althouse-crew about what the statement meant?”

Have you ever heard of insulting someone’s intelligence by expecting them to believe something transparently stupid? Or are you saying that her position was not transparently stupid. If that’s the case, then you should be able to explain her position.

This is funny too:

"I'll give it a whirl. Name the stance and even if I don't agree with it I'll argue for it without making personal attacks."; 7/26/19, 12:20 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: Inga has written many good comments!

She is a valuable contributor to your blog!!; 7/26/19, 12:23 PM
Rick said...: There are few liberal commenters because the great mass of commenters here heap insults on them

Commenters here heap insults on left wingers (none of the left commenters are liberals) because the left wing commenters contribute nothing but insults. There are no liberal commenters here (Althouse is not a commenter but the blogger) because there are few liberals.; 7/26/19, 12:26 PM
Dave Begley said...: Judge Ann Althouse has ruled and there is NO right to appeal.

Amen.; 7/26/19, 12:27 PM
Dave Begley said...: Liberals can't handle a reasoned and vigorous intellectual debate on the merits.; 7/26/19, 12:28 PM
purplepenquin said...: Be it resolved: people should argue by making personal attacks.

Ha! Well-played Sir! But it can be done...

~~~

As a wise man once said, "Some men you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it; well, he gets it. I don’t like it any more than you men." If someone is arguing with personal attacks, then the only way to respond is in kind. "Eye for an eye" is the only true way to go through life - turning the other cheek only results in getting your face slapped twice instead of once.

Also, oftentimes an opinion is so right and so correct that there is no need to explain it, so why waste time with facts/stats/logic? When someone else disagrees with what is basically common sense, the only response should be ad hominems. Obviously anyone who doesn't see things in the same manner must be trolling, so why even bother trying to be polite? Just start right in with the name-calling and jump right into the mud from the get-go...it's where you're gonna end up anyways.

(Disclaimer: this is not my actual personal opinion, rather an exercise in "If You Had to Argue"); 7/26/19, 12:28 PM
Original Mike said...: I'm going to miss her, because she provided me access to current lefty talking points.

But she'll be back under another name.; 7/26/19, 12:29 PM
Qwinn said...: The problem in arguing with liberals is that every single position they hold now has hardcore identity politics at its core. Every. Single. Issue. Just *try* to think of any issue where the basic thrust of the liberal argument doesn't rely on race/sex tribalism of one sort or another.

The only forms of tribalism that conservatives believe in are religious, familial and national - as in God, Family, Country. We find race/sex tribalism to be idiotic and abhorrent. Liberals find devotion to religion/traditional family/nationalism to be abhorrent.

There can be no fruitful conversation between people who have diametrically opposed first principles.; 7/26/19, 12:30 PM
readering said...: Insulting people is the modus operandi of political commenters here. I enjoyed the brief period when all comments were vetted but that ended and folks went back as before. I enjoy the AA posts and the insults to me are water off a ducks back but inga and others are not as thick skinned.; 7/26/19, 12:31 PM
Fen said...: But how often do you have to kick the palooka you've just laid out on the mat? It annoys the ref.

Haha. Fair enough.

And I'll admit in the past I would often come here solely to beat up on Lefties.

Kept the police from having to talk me down from the Univ of Texas tower.

Years of being slimed as a "racist sexist homophobe" creates a rage that must be released.; 7/26/19, 12:31 PM
purplepenquin said...: You seem to be saying that Althouse was wrong to conclude that Inga was just trolling

That is what I am saying - but with the caveat that it isn't "wrong" for the admin of a blog to ban anyone, for any reason.; 7/26/19, 12:35 PM
Fen said...: readering: Insulting people is the modus operandi of political commenters here

Just yesterday you were arguing for "guilty until proven innocent"

Insults have their place.

I remember a Facebooker deleted an entire comment thread because someone had used the c-word for Hillary Clinton. The perps response was priceless: "If you can't use cunt to describe Hillary, what is the point of it?"; 7/26/19, 12:36 PM
readering said...: I'm an old white straight male but folks here are so determined to ascribe identity politics to liberals that I am addressed as she here. (Don't recall when anyone assumed my race or orientation.) Being in the vast majority here makes lazy thinking so easy.; 7/26/19, 12:36 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Regarding insults, I think it is important to insult people in power. It keeps them from being mythologized.

Trump takes a lotta insults, but he also dishes it out. So, it seems balanced.

Elected officials like AOC, and Tlaib and Omar like to "hit and run." Call someone a fascist or racist, and then run away, claiming victim status, don't hit me back! Sorry, No.

So, I will insult most elected officials or Hollywood starlets or tenured professors -- in my view, that's the price for having power. And, yes, that includes sacred cows, such as Obama, Michelle, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Larry Tribe, Whoopi Goldberg, Liz Warren, etc, etc.

Insulting commentators? Much less important or necessary for me.

Insulting our Hostess? Heck no, she is a national treasure.; 7/26/19, 12:37 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Also, I think's a good thing to insult Leftists, Communists, Nazis, KKK and racial hoaxers, because they cause a lotta problems in this world.; 7/26/19, 12:38 PM
readering said...: What does that even mean, Fen? This is not a court and I don't treat it as one.; 7/26/19, 12:38 PM
Rick said...: .. deliberate and sustained aggravating speech intended to hurt the forum and to make the discussion be ABOUT her, not about the substance.

Making it about her was a tactic. She admitted her goal was disruption during the comment holiday when she cheered Althouse ended commenting. She opposed the existence of any conversation not dominated by left wingers which offended her sense of the Way It Ought To Be.; 7/26/19, 12:39 PM
Fen said...: Then there are the real trolls who only want to disrupt the threads for their own pleasure in throwing feces.

Also understand that there are a few commenters who are angry at Althouse about some ruling she made many years ago and now camp out solely to ruin the blog as some kind of revenge.

We recently had one confess they were here to separate Althouse from her readers.

So not everyone is who they seem. I still smell a few socks too btw, but whatever. Not my blog, not my place to complain.; 7/26/19, 12:41 PM
readering said...: Inga thought the comments here could be Dominated by left wingers? Hah!; 7/26/19, 12:41 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: If Mueller were just an old man, losing it, I would be very sympathetic. We all face that potential.

But -- he was head of the FBI, he is rich, and he allowed himself to lead as figurehead, a soft coup against the President.

So, fuck him.; 7/26/19, 12:45 PM
Qwinn said...: readering - I honestly thought you were female because other posters referred to you that way, and until now I never saw you correct it. I could've sworn there WAS a basis for it, something you said at one time, but for the life of me I can't recall what it was. At any rate, thank you for letting us know that isn't the case.; 7/26/19, 12:46 PM
Fen said...: What does that even mean, Fen? This is not a court and I don't treat it as one.

Yesterday you were saying Trump was not exonerated by the Special Counsel report, therefore he was not innocent of the charges.

That's not the way America works. We are innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof is on them to prove our guilt, not on us to prove our innocence.

To say nothing of the fact that it's impossible for the Special Counsel to "exonerate" anyone, they simply do not have that power. All they can do is report that laws were either broken or not broken. And they reported none were broken. Exoneration is an impossible standard to meet.; 7/26/19, 12:47 PM
Qwinn said...: (But, for the record, my assumption that you were female didn't have an impact on any of my rebuttals to you. It had nothing to do with "ascribing identity politics to liberals". The only thing that does that is, well, every liberal argument, including yours.); 7/26/19, 12:49 PM
Jeff Brokaw said...: Qwinn @ 12:30 -- 100% agreement.

Identity politics renders actual debate on the merits impossible. It’s a Marxist world view that leaves no room for a civilized exchange of opinions. Everyone is either a victim or an oppressor. What an exhausting way to look at the world.

Also, most lefties don’t even understand the counter-arguments to their positions, never mind preparing defenses against them; 7/26/19, 12:49 PM
walter said...: Oh no. Did Inga call Althouse a "dumb bitch" again?; 7/26/19, 12:50 PM
readering said...: I never wrote that. You are projecting. I did write that Trump was acting like a loon over the Mueller hearings and I stand by that.; 7/26/19, 12:51 PM
Fen said...: but folks here are so determined to ascribe identity politics to liberals that I am addressed as she here.

No, like Qwinn upthread, I thought you were female. Because of something you posted long ago (and now forgotten) that implied you were a woman. That may be why people are confused about you.

It was something trivial, like referring to your spouse as husband or somesuch.

No offense was intended.; 7/26/19, 12:51 PM
Francisco D said...: I would think that someone who used this forum for many years would have more respect for it and for my efforts here. When confronted, she should have expressed respect for me and for this opportunity to engage with people. To react with insults aimed directly at me is just an open confession to trolldom.

That makes a lot of sense, Althouse.

I find it annoying when people try to insult you because your arguments tend to be well reasoned. There have been times when I vociferously disagreed with your assumptions, but you were capably expressing reasoned (perhaps not reasonable) thoughts.

That said, I would like to ask Chuck and Shouting Thomas to tone it down on the Althouse bashing. She is a good hostess and it behooves civilized people to be kind to the hostess.; 7/26/19, 12:51 PM
purplepenquin said...: Did Inga call Althouse a "dumb bitch" again?

Worse than that. Inga laughed.

And not just a regular laugh either - was done in the style of a hyena.; 7/26/19, 12:52 PM
cf said...: 1. the end of Inga: This is big! historic, and good for you, Althouse. I have been coming here a long time, & learned early to pass over her diversions. that was one thing, she always had an icon, so I could easily avoid her. to me she always behaved like an ever-ready paid shill.

My real annoyance was when she would hijack a worthy, even important post, and sewer it by filling the discussion up with her fussy-butt frittering.

2. the Lie of "Liberal". I am One with Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I think there are lots of liberals here. I am one:
Pro-choice with reasonable restrictions;
Anti-discrimination/colorblind;
Due process and presumption of innocence;
Equal protection of law;
Free speech;
Pro private union;
Government accountability;
Sceptical of foreign wars;
Pro democracy;
Free Enterprise

the hijackers of the label "liberal", like Inga are more correctly tagged:
Alt-Liberal
and/or
Ctrl-Left; 7/26/19, 12:52 PM
Fen said...: "I never wrote that. You are projecting. "

You did, I responded "sad to see that even readering believes we are guilty until proven innocent". Yesterday. I'll go back and try to find your exact quote.

Maybe you were misunderstood?

And I how can I project something I don't agree with? Makes no sense.; 7/26/19, 12:53 PM
Mr. D said...: I appreciate intellectual consistency and good-faith arguments. It’s difficult to find these things.; 7/26/19, 12:53 PM
purplepenquin said...: No, like Qwinn upthread, I thought you were female. Because of something you posted long ago (and now forgotten) that implied you were a woman.

You've also referred to me as a "she" (NTTAWWT). Do you recall what it was I said that made you think as such?; 7/26/19, 12:54 PM
Fen said...: Purple: Worse than that. Inga laughed. And not just a regular laugh either - was done in the style of a hyena.

Careful. Remember, sockpuppets don't necessarily share the same memory of recent events.; 7/26/19, 12:55 PM
langford peel said...: “I would think that someone who used this forum for many years would have more respect for it and for my efforts here. When confronted, she should have expressed respect for me and for this opportunity to engage with people. To react with insults aimed directly at me is just an open confession to trolldom”

DON’T YOU KNOW WHO I AM!!!!!!!!!!!!!; 7/26/19, 12:55 PM
Michael K said...: I'm going to miss her, because she provided me access to current lefty talking points.

But she'll be back under another name.

Oh yes. She has been "Unknown" in the past and probably another sock puppet name. Ditto for Ritmo and Peanut Butter and Jelly.; 7/26/19, 12:56 PM
Rick said...: my assumption that you were female didn't have an impact on any of my rebuttals to you.

I think it was confusion between reader and readering. Naturally he ascribes it to a psychological character flaw for The Other instead of a misunderstanding. Revealingly seeing this as an intended insult is misogynist.; 7/26/19, 12:56 PM
Fen said...: You've also referred to me as a "she"

No, I've never done that. Are we back to that game where you just make up shit about me?

That was fun. Can I be the CEO of ACME this time around?

Meep! Meep!; 7/26/19, 12:57 PM
readering said...: I generally leave my identity out of things, except that it should be clear I've lived through a lot. But I made it clear during the kavanaugh hearings that I identify with him based on sex, age, ethnicity, religion, education at every level and profession.; 7/26/19, 12:57 PM
Churchy LaFemme: said...: About time we did something about the Trolls!!! Now, about those filthy dwarfs...

I've got the pliers..; 7/26/19, 1:00 PM
readering said...: It's not all about you Fen. But sure find the quote. But if you read that I specifically said you called me she then I suggest you not bother searching.; 7/26/19, 1:00 PM
Rick said...: Inga thought the comments here could be Dominated by left wingers? Hah!

Revealingly this is not a logical conclusion from my comment.; 7/26/19, 1:00 PM
Jeff Brokaw said...: Kind of a tangent: folks on the Right have two built-in advantages with arguing policy: a preference for practical, proven solutions, and a decent understanding of what the Left wants, and why, and how they plan to achieve it (from decades of hearing it in the news media).

Most on the Left have no clue how much of a bubble they live in. As a result they are unprepared to argue effectively and can only “preach to the choir”.

These are obviously huge generalizations with specific exceptions.; 7/26/19, 1:01 PM
readering said...: I didn't view being called she an insult!; 7/26/19, 1:02 PM
purplepenquin said...: No, I've never done that.

You SURE about that? As sure as you are about everything else? I mean, there's no chance at all you ever did it even accidentally, eh?

*shrug*

Ok. If you say so. Must have you confused with someone else, and no offense intended.

Are we back to that game where you just make up shit about me?

Not only is that not a game I play - but it looks like you're too busy playing the "Assume the worse about others" game instead.; 7/26/19, 1:03 PM
readering said...: By the way, who is ritmo? I never see comments under that name. Must have missed when that moniker was handed out.; 7/26/19, 1:04 PM
Yancey Ward said...: PurplePenguin,

I know I am wasting my time, but here goes:

Inga was arguing that Mueller suggesting that Trump could be charged after leaving office was the same thing as Mueller suggesting that Trump should be charged with obstruction after he leaves office. In the second round of Wednesday's hearings, Mueller opened by explicitly denying exactly that argument by pointing out that he and his team made no determination at all as to whether Trump committed obstruction.

When called out on that by Althouse, Inga doubled down. Now, Inga was either too stupid to understand Mueller's correction, too ignorant to have known Mueller did that, or just dishonest in ignoring it. Althouse chose option #3. Having dealt with Inga for many years, I lean towards a combination of #s 1 and 2.; 7/26/19, 1:05 PM
Hagar said...: I assume that indicting a sitting President for a common crime means something like ordering the President to order agents to go to the White House, arrest him, and bring him before a judge to be charged, which obviously makes no sense.

However, I do not see that this in any way would bar the Special Counsel from declaring that a crime had occurred. Setting the legal machinery in motion would just have to wait until the offending President left office - if the crime was serious enough that anyone cared by that time.

For a political "crime," there is the process of impeachment.

For a some common crimes - say such as shooting someone in Times Square at noon - I guess one could conclude that such a President had lost his mind, and the 25th Amendment would come into play.; 7/26/19, 1:07 PM
Yancey Ward said...: "By the way, who is ritmo? I never see comments under that name. Must have missed when that moniker was handed out."

He is constantly changing his moniker. I don't even remember where "Ritmo" came from, but I always recognize the comments when I see them. The last I remember the moniker was something like "International Trump Crime Syndicate" or some sort.; 7/26/19, 1:07 PM
William said...: I've grown more conservative with the passage of time. Maybe some people talked me out of my liberal views or maybe it's just what happens with age. There's a saying that you can't talk people out of positions that they weren't talked into in the first place.....History shows that it's easier to talk a conservative into legalizing gay marriage than it is to talk a liberal into thinking collective farms were a bad idea.....I don't think Inga and her opponents ever tried to convince each other of the wisdom of their respective positions. It was more a Punch and Judy show.... Before you ban Inga, you should think what devastation she will visit on the rest of the world when she goes elsewhere. This site offers her a safe outlet. There are no sharp objects or children here.; 7/26/19, 1:08 PM
Fen said...: Purple: but it looks like you're too busy playing the "Assume the worse about others" game instead.

Hang on...

"Honey, have you seen my Hitler mustache?... thanks!"

Okay I'm ready... Das war ein Befehl! Der Angriff Steiner war Befehl!Wer sind Sie, dass Sie es wagen,sich meinenBefehlen zu widersetzen? So weit ist es also gekommen...Das Militär hat mich belogen!; 7/26/19, 1:09 PM
Fernandinande said...: deliberate and sustained aggravating speech intended to hurt the forum and to make the discussion be ABOUT her, not about the substance.

I appreciate your allegiance to free speech and your high tolerance to its abuse - I got kicked off one liberal/TDS forum for expressing "LOL" at the idea that the US suffers from "facisum" as per this video: Facisum. Know the signs.; 7/26/19, 1:11 PM
readering said...: YW, as I have written elsewhere I didn't read inga's afternoon postings that way on the substance of the hearings. But no denying she was crazy insulting in her posts, like she was daring to be banned.; 7/26/19, 1:13 PM
steve uhr said...: Sebastian -- How about theory 5 -- Any comment even slightly contrary to the POV of the vast majority of the commenters on this blog is met immediately with many nasty personnel insults. When I leave what I sincerely believe to be a thoughtful comment/dissent, I rarely bother to read the responses these days. Just makes me want to take a shower.

As for the comment of Inga that resulted in her forever banning, really??; 7/26/19, 1:13 PM
purplepenquin said...: PurplePenguin,

I know I am wasting my time, but here goes:

Inga was arguing...

Sorry to cut ya off right there, but why is this addressed to me? It's AAT who is wanting someone to explain Inga's Final Words On This Blog, not I.; 7/26/19, 1:13 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Readering you are reading the wrong thread. Althouse linked to the right one, though maybe the comments were deleted by this afternoon. They were still there when I checked yesterday evening.; 7/26/19, 1:14 PM
Rick said...: I didn't view being called she an insult!

So it's not an insult but somehow it supports the conclusion that others are "lazy":

Being in the vast majority here makes lazy thinking so easy.

I guess the point is there is no prerequisite necessary to trigger an insult to The Out Group. That makes your criticism of others for insulting left wing commenters even more amusing.; 7/26/19, 1:15 PM
Yancey Ward said...: However, on the main Mueller hearing thread, Inga did, indeed, make the argument I outlined above, and I think with the very first comment she made (and the only one she made that day before I mentioned her in the thread). She isn't alone- Democrats are still making that argument that Mueller thinks Trump should be indicted after he leaves office, Inga was just sticking to the talking points.; 7/26/19, 1:16 PM
Anne in Rockwall, TX said...: I haven't read the rest of the comments, but when Althouse said she was trying to make the thread all about her I had to stop and say YES. That's what was driving me crazy about her comments. Feel the same about Chuck.; 7/26/19, 1:16 PM
Jim at said...: I wish there were more liberal commenters. A lot more.

Indeed.

There are some liberal commentators here who - while I disagree with them - can make consistent arguments supporting his or her positions.; 7/26/19, 1:17 PM
Rick said...: I've grown more conservative with the passage of time. Maybe some people talked me out of my liberal views or maybe it's just what happens with age.

Most likely the principles you thought made you a liberal are now considered conservative.; 7/26/19, 1:19 PM
steve uhr said...: WHy not ban all commentators who say that the report was "total exoneration" on obstruction, given that the report expressly says the opposite? How is that different from Inga's great sin?; 7/26/19, 1:21 PM
Yancey Ward said...: PurplePenguin, I was responding to this:

"Just to be clear - what was the "insulting" part? Calling people "stupid lazy thinkers" or not agreeing with the Althouse-crew about what the statement meant?"

I can see, perhaps, that you really were only interested in the "insult". However, I am explaining to you why she was banned- it had nothing to do with insulting Althouse other than the doubling down she did afterwards, but even then I don't think it was taken as an insult, but proof that Inga wasn't interested in discussing any facts. There isn't really any disagreement about what statements meant because Mueller himself went out of his way to clarify what he meant. When Inga disagrees with that, it is the same as disagreeing about the color of the sky being blue.; 7/26/19, 1:22 PM
Tommy Duncan said...: I have learned something from almost every regular commenter on the Althouse blog. Inga was an exception to that general rule. Calling people "stupid" destroys useful interchange.; 7/26/19, 1:23 PM
tcrosse said...: What Althouse admonished Inge for is not what she said, but her persistence in saying it. That and her annoying laugh. She'll be back.; 7/26/19, 1:26 PM
Jim at said...: There are few liberal commenters because the great mass of commenters here heap insults on them, - readering

Stop whining and make a point.

At one time, you were an opposing view I'd read. Then you started descending more and more into Inga Territory simply offering snark and nothing else.

Go back to the way you were and see what happens.; 7/26/19, 1:28 PM
Fen said...: How is that different

In 9th grade I cut class weekly to go ride horses at Las Colinas. I cheated on my Chem final. I smoked weed before class. I started a fight in the auditorium during the principal's speech.

Then one day I strolled into class 15 minutes late, like many others did. I was suspended.

I was 14 and even then I knew better than to ask "how is this different?"

Please...; 7/26/19, 1:29 PM
Yancey Ward said...: "WHy not ban all commentators who say that the report was "total exoneration" on obstruction, given that the report expressly says the opposite? How is that different from Inga's great sin?"

Because we can't agree what is meant by "exoneration". Exoneration can mean acquittal, Steve. No American jury ever "exonerates" a defendant- it is always "Not Guilty", but the definition is still there in any dictionary- we can point out that Mueller is trying to misuse the term by denying the word that one definition, but he doesn't own it like he owns his opinion.; 7/26/19, 1:29 PM
purplepenquin said...: There isn't really any disagreement about what statements meant

Others say otherwise, but I reckon they won't be saying it here...eh?

Like I said before, Althouse can ban anyone for any reason and I ain't saying otherwise.

Her house - Her rules; 7/26/19, 1:30 PM
Leland said...: I suspect the decision wasn't easy. I used to think it ought to be. Another place I visit had a regular troll. I suspect they were actually paid to visit conservative website to drop propaganda. About a week after Hillary lost, the troll wrote a sort of goodbye comment and left. Comment traffic dropped. It wasn't so much an echo chamber left as a vacuum chamber. Lots of people posted only to counter the nonsense of the troll. The comments were easier to read, but not as much there to read.

I intend no debate or strong opinion of the above. It is mostly just an observation and explanation as to why, as much as I thought Inga a troll long ago; am not gleeful about the decision.; 7/26/19, 1:31 PM
Fen said...: Why not ban all commentators who say that -

"And what about ______ who did ______ almost ___ months ago? Why didn't you ban him?"

Sigh...; 7/26/19, 1:32 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Purple Penguin,

You can't argue that Mueller didn't say and mean that he made no determination as to whether Trump committed the crime of obstruction since he used exactly that language, and in response to the idea that he had made such a determination. At best, Inga could only argue with any good faith at all that Mueller doesn't get to do "backsies".; 7/26/19, 1:40 PM
Merny11 said...: I rarely comment, but I want to remark that I’m glad Inga is gone. She routinely ruined good discussions and I’d find myself annoyed to the point that I’d give up on the thread.; 7/26/19, 1:42 PM
Yancey Ward said...: I personally think banning Inga is a mistake- there are actually worse commenters by a long stretch that I never read any longer that would probably be better to ban- mostly because they are almost completely incoherent, or one note commenters. Inga, at least, isn't either of those, and debate does need opponents.

I used to comment on extreme lefty blogs, and no more confrontational than I do here, but I kept getting banned anyway. I just quit reading and commenting. I think, if you want more progressive commenters (I refuse to cede control of the word "liberal"), you probably have to tolerate commenters like Inga- you are shooting yourself in the foot if you don't.; 7/26/19, 1:48 PM
purplepenquin said...: You can't argue that Mueller didn't say and mean that he made no determination as to whether Trump committed the crime of obstruction

Well, ya can't argue that on this blog...thatsforsure!

Or maybe you can't argue against it? Triple negatives tend to confuse me & I ain't quite sure what is being said there.; 7/26/19, 1:53 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: "WHy not ban all commentators who say that the report was "total exoneration" on obstruction,"

Dude, Mueller's charge wasn't to produce a long, tedious book report. He was a prosecutor. His job was to prosecute or decline to prosecute.

He prosecuted George Papadopoulos (process crime).

He prosecuted 13 Russian trolls (who won't ever appear in a US courtroom).

He did not prosecute Trump, Trump, Jr., Kushner, or ANYONE from the Trump campaign for conspiring with Russians.

How hard is that to grasp?; 7/26/19, 1:54 PM
steve uhr said...: BAG — doj policy precluded trump from being indicted. How does that fit into your analysis I can only the uproar from the right if mueller said he concluded that trump did obstruct justice. “How unfair to accuse someone of a crime who can’t defend himself in court. Blah blah”; 7/26/19, 2:03 PM
readering said...: SD can call folks pig fuckers but it's inga who is beyond the pale!! Matthew 7:5; 7/26/19, 2:05 PM
Sebastian said...: @steve uhr:

"How about theory 5 -- Any comment even slightly contrary to the POV of the vast majority of the commenters on this blog is met immediately with many nasty personnel insults"

I can't speak to your personal experience, but as a general statement this is false. On the left, Cook opposes the pov of the majority and has, to my knowledge, never received personal insults. We respect him. On the paleo right, Farmer also deviates from the standard POV--he gets some insults (smug etc.) but has a thick skin and pushes back effectively. We respect him, for the most part, though some commenters don't like him--not that he cares. Both have a coherent point of view, make arguments, and have shown themselves to be serious. Of course, left-of-center Althouse herself differs from majority opinion--she gets some insults (Marxist! feminazi!) but mostly polite challenges. We respect her.; 7/26/19, 2:11 PM
readering said...: Mueller made no determination on obstruction, but he submitted a long report that allows others to do their own analysis and draw their own conclusions. How hard is that to understand? But yet Inga is a troll for ham-handedly trying to tease that point out of the hearings.; 7/26/19, 2:11 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: BAG — doj policy precluded trump from being indicted.

True. But:

(1) If Mueller couldn't indict him or recommend indicting him, he shouldn't have been investigating him.

(2) He should have held a press conference at the beginning of the investigation telling us no to expect an indictment or recommendation of indictment.

(3) OLC opinions did not prevent Mueller from indicting Trump campaign officials from conspiring with the Russians.

Bottom line: There was no crime. It was the biggest snipehunt in history. Mueller was inept, and should be ashamed.; 7/26/19, 2:11 PM
Fen said...: Inga defended herself when she was personally attacked. You didn't like that she would not kiss your ring, so you "deleted her".

That's simply not true. I have gone several rounds with Althouse many times, some warranted some not, and she has never suspended or banned me. And she wouldn't even need to go that far - if Althouse asked me to leave and never return, I would gracefully go away.

And guys, remember upthread when I said there are some people camping out at Althouse to get "revenge" on her for some petty grievance? Mary is one of them.

Adjust accordingly.; 7/26/19, 2:12 PM
Yancey Ward said...: "BAG — doj policy precluded trump from being indicted. How does that fit into your analysis I can only the uproar from the right if mueller said he concluded that trump did obstruct justice. “How unfair to accuse someone of a crime who can’t defend himself in court. Blah blah”

We don't need to deal with the hypothetical, Steve- Mueller actually answered the question because Bill Barr asked him directly months ago. The OLC advice wasn't why Mueller made no determination- Mueller said so. However, Mueller reasons don't make much sense anyway, but that isn't my problem- the result is an exoneration as far as the term applies, and I haven't even pointed out that Barr and Rosenstein did make a determination.; 7/26/19, 2:14 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Sorry, PurplePenguin- I don't think it wasn't my intention to not confuse you.; 7/26/19, 2:16 PM
Fen said...: uhr: doj policy precluded trump from being indicted.

No, you guys are defining broadly and applying narrowly. I think the deception is deliberate.

Both things can be true:
1) DOJ policy precludes a sitting President from being indicted AND
2) Trump was not indicted because he didn't do anything wrong (per Mueller's correction)

What the Left is trying to do is conflate the two, implying that Trump is guilty of obstruction and would have been indicted but for DOJ policy.

That's dishonest.; 7/26/19, 2:17 PM
purplepenquin said...: oh, no need to be passive-aggressive here penguin. Go ahead and make your argument.

Ain't nothing at all passive about my aggressiveness, and I've already been making the argument & points I wish to make.

But thank you for your permission to continue doing so.; 7/26/19, 2:19 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Weissman and these other anonymous asshole prosecutors were digging everywhere to find anything embarrassing about Trump to either: (a) force him to quit or (b) give the House enough ammo to impeach.

Total disgrace, total waste of time.; 7/26/19, 2:19 PM
Yancey Ward said...: readering wrote:

"But yet Inga is a troll for ham-handedly trying to tease that point out of the hearings."

This isn't what she did. She claimed Mueller said Trump should be indicted and wasn't because sitting presidents can't indicted. Mueller directly contradicted that argument because the media were doing the exact same thing during the lunch recess between hearings. Althouse pointed that out, and Inga doubled down. Inga could have easily just acknowledged Mueller's statement and then opined that she thought the report had enough evidence of obstruction to indict after Trump leaves office. But that isn't what Inga did.; 7/26/19, 2:20 PM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: Well played, Althouse. Should drop the traffic count here by 20-35 percent, unfortunate if that is a metric that brings you any value, but should double the reading enjoyment overall.

Yes would be nice some well reasoned arguments from the left. Could be there just are none.

So true: 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'; 7/26/19, 2:21 PM
steve uhr said...: Fen - where did I say that but for the DOJ policy trump would have been indicted? Nowhere. You’re the one being dishonest.; 7/26/19, 2:21 PM
Fen said...: uhr: How about theory 5 -- Any comment even slightly contrary to the POV of the vast majority of the commenters on this blog is met immediately with many nasty personnel insults

Aside from such a ridiculous assertion, I have to ask why you are still here if you feel that way? Seems rather pointless. You could be painting or bird watching.

"I hate this place, they won't let me complain!"

(scooby-do head shake); 7/26/19, 2:26 PM
purplepenquin said...: "Sorry, PurplePenguin- I don't think it wasn't my intention to not confuse you"

Ha! Well played

FWIW - I wasn't trying to confuse you either and it wasn't my intention to give the impression that I agreed with what Inga was saying in that statement. Rather I was wondering if the Professor had kicked her out 'cause of the personal insults or the point-of-view being expressed. Our hostess has since cleared it up.; 7/26/19, 2:27 PM
daskol said...: I think the distinction between the initial interpretation of Mueller's comment re post-presidential indictment vs. the post-Mueller walkback was likely too nuanced a point for Inga to understand easily. She exhibited no capacity for, in Bloom's taxonomy, could be called higher order learning. Pure single loop thinking: never question the mental model or adjust assumptions or objectives. Whether it was incapacity or not, it was occasionally tiresome and almost always left me feeling sad for her comments alongside the bulk of commentary which is usually perceptive and/or humorous and occasionally brilliant.; 7/26/19, 2:28 PM
langford peel said...: What makes you think that Inga and her imaginary daughters are going away?

She will keep posting here as she has always done before. Althouse is too lazy to delete her all the time.

This is all bullshit.; 7/26/19, 2:31 PM
Fen said...: uhr: Fen - where did I say that but for the DOJ policy trump would have been indicted? Nowhere. You’re the one being dishonest.

Just under 90 mins ago when you said: "doj policy precluded trump from being indicted" (2:03pm)

DOJ policy did not preclude Trump from being indicted, but DOJ policy *can* preclude a sitting President from being indicted.

DOJ policy is not relevant in this case, and I've learned from experience that Leftists rarely make honest mistakes.

If you want to revise and extend your remarks, I'm all ears...; 7/26/19, 2:31 PM
readering said...: YW, I think Inga's afternoon hearing quotes said what we both said, but she was too proud to explicitly walk back her point when using them. In any event it was all too in-the-weeds to be the reason for AA to pick this as the time to accuse someone of being a troll and issue an ultimatum. Like I have indicated, the insults between commenters here fly fast and furious. As as designated pig-fucker/pearl-clutcher I notice these things maybe more than others.; 7/26/19, 2:33 PM
steve uhr said...: You have a good point Fen. I do enjoy bird watching. Be kind everyone. And don’t forget to smile at strangers even though the odds are they dislike the president.; 7/26/19, 2:35 PM
JPS said...: I'm kind of sorry to see this. Not that I disagree with our host's decision, just sorry it came to this. I was still capable of being disappointed in Inga at her worst (unlike some, who are just always that way), and of being surprised by Inga at her best.

Sebastian, 2:11:

"On the left, Cook opposes the pov of the majority and has, to my knowledge, never received personal insults."

I've seen Cook insulted here quite a few times. What I've never seen is him taking the bait. I have never seen a commenter on any side ignore personal insult so steadfastly to stick to the substance of an argument. (Farmer is roughly as determined in sticking to his point.) As a result, I think he gets fewer insults than he would if he were as thin-skinned as Chuck, whom I half-expect to respond now in outrage at my bringing him up and calling him thin-skinned.; 7/26/19, 2:35 PM
Hagar said...: If Trump "colluded" with foreigners to publicize the information about Hillary!'s server and the DNC emails during the campaign, i.e. before he became President, Mueller would first have to show that to be a crime and quote the relevant statutes.

If Trump used his position as President to obstruct Mueller's investigation into the campaign's alleged activities related to this charge, that would be misconduct in office, i.e. "high crimes and misdemeanors," and grounds for impeachment, but Mueller has specifically stated that his office has not met with any such obstruction.

Trump yelling in public that he is innocent as a newborn babe, etc., does not count. There would have to be some action to prevent the lawyers and agents from doing their jobs.; 7/26/19, 2:35 PM
langford peel said...: It is of course interesting that there is a post devoted to smacking down Inga.

I am sure she is flattered. She creams her Depends when she gets noticed.

There will be over 200 comments over nothing.

Well played.; 7/26/19, 2:37 PM
daskol said...: I thought Barr had effectively dealt in his own testimony with the question of whether Mueller's decision not to seek an indictment on obstruction was a result of DOJ policy or the OLC memo: Barr claimed that he directly asked Mueller that question after receiving Mueller's snitty letter, and Mueller confirmed that was not the reason he chose not to indict on obstruction. That was public sworn testimony, and Mueller did not contest it at the time, nor has he contested it since. In fairness to poor Inga, the Democrats are doing their absolute best to obfuscate this issue, and I've talked to multiple intelligent people who just aren't paying that much attention who think Mueller failed to indict because it was pointless either due to DOJ policy or the OLC memo. In that respect, and a few people have mentioned this, Inga was useful: you got the talking points straight and emphatic. Of course, where I live, I don't need that help.; 7/26/19, 2:37 PM
Inga...Allie Oop said...: Althouse got from me the respect she deserved, which was none. She routinely insults her commenters, yet demands that they apologize to her when they retaliate. It is a point of view deletion and banning and she was insulted that I didn’t accept her vast knowledge on the subject. She IS a lazy thinker, I’ve seen it many times over the years. What she deleted was me telling her that as a law professor she should know better and be embarrassed. I also called her a stupid woman, which is not unwarranted.

I think that the law students she “taught” via text book lesson plans should demand a refund from UW. As for Althouse treating women commenters differently than the male commenters, indeed yes she does. I’ve seen it happen numerous times over the years of commenting here. Demanding respect from commenters for providing a forum in which to express one’s opinions does not warrant abuse from the blog owner. Commenting here isn’t worth the abuse, from Trump Cultists and from the clueless blog owner. There have been numerous liberals/ leftists whatever floats your boat that have left and haven’t returned. This blog has always been Althouse’s little shrine to herself. Her narcissism is sometimes revealed itself as it did yesterday. Not commenting here is NO loss to me.; 7/26/19, 2:42 PM
readering said...: Sure.; 7/26/19, 2:43 PM
Michael K said...: Not commenting here is NO loss to me.

I guess that's why you commented, eh ?; 7/26/19, 2:44 PM
readering said...: Sure to SD. Don't know what to say to IAO.; 7/26/19, 2:44 PM
JackWayne said...: “I agree, insults and name calling just closes people’s minds.”. The irony is strong in AAT.; 7/26/19, 2:55 PM
Fen said...: readering: But if you read that I specifically said you called me she -

No, I didn't read it that way. You were talking about someone else. I only chimed in to say that I too have been operating under the impression you were a woman, so maybe there is something that has caused an honest misunderstanding.; 7/26/19, 2:59 PM
iowan2 said...: Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime,

So cut and paste from the Democrat operative . Clearly states that this report does not Conclude that the President committed a crime.
All the stuff about exoneration? Bullshit. 'and Mueller a lawyer' applies here. Prosecution or declination.
From the header of volume 2 we have this shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special
Counsel] reached.”

President Trump was innocent upon the appointment of the Special Counsel. No charges = still innocent. That's the law.; 7/26/19, 3:01 PM
Francisco D said...: Inga just made her point at 2:42.

As usual, she personally attacks someone for having a well thought out opinion that conflicts with the talking points she got at The Daily Kos.

Watching her slowly decompensate after we found out what Mueller knew is sad, but not very interesting.; 7/26/19, 3:02 PM
Qwinn said...: "If Trump used his position as President to obstruct Mueller's investigation into the campaign's alleged activities related to this charge, that would be misconduct in office, i.e. "high crimes and misdemeanors," and grounds for impeachment."

Now do Obama. Who actually did obstruct investigations into multiple scandals, including firing IG's, and several involving foreign countries. He was even actually caught on live audio "colluding" with the Russians. Yet no one cares. Why the double standard?; 7/26/19, 3:03 PM
Achilles said...: Not a fan of banning. Truth thrives in the light and the truth of Inga's motivations and thoughts come through in every post she makes.

But it is AA's house. Her goals are different than mine.

I wish there were more liberal commenters. A lot more.

Inga is not a liberal.

I am a liberal. Liberals believe in freedom.

Inga is a progressive which at this point is synonymous with fascist.

Even readering makes it clear the left is not interested in due process, justice, or any of that. They just want power over others and that comes through loud and clear when they post.; 7/26/19, 3:05 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Random thoughts and summary of what I have gleaned from this thread and episode.

Inga is a troll and always has been on several other blogs where she was also booted.
Will come back again in yet another alias
Who cares. Just ignore the troll

I do wish we had more liberal commentators to have good discussions with. There are several still here.

Purplepenguin makes a good point that we should try to argue the opposing point of view, without ad hominem etc.

That is actually called Debating.
1. Pick a topic. Example. Vaccinations should be mandatory Yes. No. Something inbetween?
2. State what your view is on that topic.
3. Then be assigned to argue the opposite from your view.
4. Do your best. Come up with the most logical and persuasive points.
5. Be CIVIL to each other.

It would be fun!; 7/26/19, 3:08 PM
Fen said...: Althouse was more than fair, she gave Inga a chance to explain herself:

Your intentions strike me as malign. You can — here, now — try to talk me out of this decision. Otherwise, you're done here.

Inga chose to spit in her face with Because Your Stupid.; 7/26/19, 3:09 PM
readering said...: Achilles. Like the kids say, Whatever.; 7/26/19, 3:11 PM
Fen said...: Watching her slowly decompensate after we found out what Mueller knew is sad, but not very interesting.

I found it interesting and useful. I'm in the People's Republic of Maryland and have to deal with many "Ingas" on a daily basis. Watching how Patient Zero imploded post-Mueller gave me good insight on how to approach and deal with these people.; 7/26/19, 3:12 PM
Jim at said...: It appears someone's got a shovel and isn't quite done digging yet.; 7/26/19, 3:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Inga got the boot because she's a 90-IQ parasite who has never built a thing in her worthless life and her entire existence is based on resentment of people who have, Althouse being one. Imagine being SO OBSESSED with what other people are saying about you that you comment after you've been banned, and on top of that your comment is "I don't need you!" Fucking pathetic, granny!

Tough shit if you don't like these hard truths Inga. Start your own blog! I promise not to read it!; 7/26/19, 3:20 PM
Achilles said...: readering said...
YW, as I have written elsewhere I didn't read inga's afternoon postings that way on the substance of the hearings. But no denying she was crazy insulting in her posts, like she was daring to be banned.

Insulting Ann wasn't the problem.

I disagree with Ann and call her out. I don't think insulting has the proper connotations for what I do. But I say unflattering things about everyone. Especially myself if you know how to read. Ann doesn't mind being treated like everyone else.

The problem deep down is that Ann is a liberal/leftist politically. She is going to be harder on people of the left because they reflect on Ann more than people on the right do.

Inga is blatantly dishonest. She is full of hate. She doesn't know how to keep that from showing through. Inga makes it clear that if the left gets the power it wants they will kill off millions of people in this country just like they do everywhere they take power.

Ann knows that this reflects on her.; 7/26/19, 3:21 PM
wwww said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/26/19, 3:22 PM
Fen said...: It's too bad that things have gotten too contentious here

They haven't.

And I'm getting tired of attempts to turn this into A Statement On The Victimization Of The Left from lefties who mostly troll here in bad faith.

A troll who was a nuisance for many years has finally been put out. That's all.; 7/26/19, 3:27 PM
langford peel said...: No she hasn’t. Inga is vital to the health of this blog.

She says the things that Althouse thinks but is afraid to say.

Inga isn’t going anywhere.; 7/26/19, 3:33 PM
Francisco D said...: I've been called a cunt,

And I am on record as castigating those who have used such language, regardless of their political position.

The vast majority of libertarian/conservative commenters here do not respond that way and you know it.; 7/26/19, 3:34 PM
Browndog said...: After reviewing the comments on this thread, I admit-I'm disappointed.

This blog post by Althouse had me hearken back to the day I first opened a browser; Feb. 2006. Until then I only used the computer for work.

A magical world of ideas, information, and community opened up in front of my eyes. This "blog" thing I'd been hearing about for years, a concept of which I thought was the dumbest thing I ever hear of.

Who wants to read what some anonymous person thinks about random stuff?

I discovered PJ Media (called something different then), but more importantly, a thing called a "blog roll". The Huffington Post allowed for the opportunity to write. I was good. I cared. Whether it be humor, Poetic, or philosophical, I made sure when people read a comment by Browndog, it was with reading.

Then, Obama announce he was running for President, everything turned political, comments started being moderated, sometimes then most times not published at all, leading to the Huffpo you have today.

Leading to the entire internet you have today.

The internet is Walmart.

Destroyer of the diverse market of information, ideas, expression, and community.

Here's your one cheap plastic thing made in China.

Why is everyone so angry?; 7/26/19, 3:36 PM
Michael K said...: You are a BIG part of the problem if you don't see your own role in breaking the commenting policy rules.

Please avoid addressing comments to me as I consider you as much a troll as Inga.; 7/26/19, 3:41 PM
readering said...: SD boo hoo; 7/26/19, 3:45 PM
Seeing Red said...: Steve U does the same with the climate debate.

No matter what info is posted, it doesn’t matter.

Inga’s beliefs were consistently refuted by evidence, but it didn’t matter. Benghazi.....Mueller was the latest and she dug in.; 7/26/19, 3:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Wow, 200+ all about Inga comments. She must be gratified at all the attention.

But speaking of self-absorption, it's remarkable how much some people just love the opportunity to indulge in their little self-pity-parties over having been *OMG insulted* on a forum where everybody gets insulted all the time.

Please ban me if I you ever catch me whingeing about the stuff I've been called here. (None of which I remember because it was [sniff sniff sniff] hurtful.)

Also, ffs people, learn the difference between an insult and an ad hominem argument. "You're wrong because you're a stupid cunt" is an ad hominem. "Look, you stupid cunt" is just an insult, which may or may not accompany a sound argument or point worthy of address.; 7/26/19, 3:52 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: "Now in addition to proving I'm not a robot, I may have to prove I'm not a troll?"

The Turing-Althouse Test.; 7/26/19, 3:53 PM
Wince said...: "l am smack-dab in the middle of a good old-fashioned catfight."

Yeah, yeah, catfight.; 7/26/19, 3:55 PM
Seeing Red said...: It’s The Purge....Lolol; 7/26/19, 3:59 PM
Browndog said...: Yea, and if this "I'm not a robot" thing continues as is, I won't comment again.

Click on one box, the upper box checks. I tried to copy my comment once I say things were going haywire, and I was blueing in the comment instruction above the comment box. I haven't seen this since my last computer virus which was years ago.; 7/26/19, 4:09 PM
langford peel said...: “Wow, 200+ all about Inga comments. She must be gratified at all the attention.”

Are you kidding me.

She is masterbating with an aborted fetus even as speak.; 7/26/19, 4:10 PM