Let's Talk Turkey (With a Small Update)
A debate arose in the comments on JtC's latest diary on moderation. The issue is: does moderation censor free expression? And if so, are we OK with it?
Let's talk turkey.
[Video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hpl0oGcx3o]
The establishment's favorite tactic right now is to take down an opposing argument by accusing people of racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, anti-semitism, etc. It's a form of conversation-stopper, with a side of character assassination. This tactic decimated the progressive folks on DKos. It was what made that site so toxic people could, in the end, do nothing but leave--after having watched person after person get bullied, harassed, Swiftboated, and gaslighted. Everything propaganda or a psy-op could do to progressives and populists was done, and accusing people of bigotry was the #1 weapon in the establishment arsenal. I've had people--purportedly POC--tell me I was racist for opposing Social Security cuts because, in the 30s, Social Security did not include black people. Never mind that Social Security has included black people since before I was born, and that women of color depend more on Social Security than anyone else in this country--so when you cut Social Security, you're really punching somebody's black grandma in the face. What's real *now* doesn't matter--the only thing that mattered was to say I was a racist for pushing a left-wing idea.
This is the new McCarthyism. The plutocracy has co-opted the language of social justice, in particular the language of the New Left (60s New Left, not New Dems of 90s) and the Civil Rights movement. If you oppose the plutocracy on the Net for long enough, you are likely to be accused of some form of horrible prejudice.
The left has, up to now, not come up with a good countermeasure for this attack. It's a very clever attack, stealing and using our own terms to commit character assassinations on white progressives in a way that we can't even object to without proving the point--if a black person accuses a white person of racism, even if it's for an idiotic reason like the Social Security thing I mentioned above, how can a white person credibly say "That black person is wrong, I'm not racist?" Doesn't that automatically make us racist, according to our own rules? All the establishment needed was to get a few black people and other POC to work for them, and then create massive numbers of sockpuppets who could be piloted by POC, white people, or aliens from outer space, for all I know. So far the only somewhat effective countermeasure I've seen is when progressives of color call the tactic out.
Any such countermeasures would have to allow for checking actual instances of racism, sexism, and other kinds of bigotry, which means distinguishing actual bigotry from unfounded charges of bigotry.
Obviously, devising such countermeasures is going to be one hard fucking task. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but even if we decide to do it, it will take a while before we are able to come up with something likely to work.
My bottom line: 1)It's overly simplistic to frame this as a simple question of censorship vs freedom. 2)I don't want the establishment's favorite new psy-op practiced all over this website the way it way on Daily Kos.
Thoughts?
SMALL UPDATE:
This hadn't occurred to me till this morning.
Does it complicate the notion of censorship when the origin of the dispute was that some people were telling other people You can't say that, you must stop speaking about that?
Is it OK for individual actors, or small groups of people, to tell others they can't say certain things, as long as they're not acting out of an official position? But somehow very wrong if anyone in an official position tells people a discussion must stop?
Comments
I understand where you were coming from a bit better now
after DK's take on the definition.
Since I have no idea about the posters overall history (other than noticing some similar, but less outrageous, comments in other threads recently) I was addressing their actions solely on the interaction in that thread and agree that I could have been a little "Loose" in using that descriptor even if it did achieve the clinical definition in that moment.
I will avoid using that word entirely in the future and instead just notify mods if/when such things occur.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Thanks...
we're cool, dude. I have no problem with a real troll being called a troll when they pop up, and they already have. And there will be more, no doubt of that. I expect a rash of them in the next few months, if you catch my drift.
Oh yeah, I would say Mid September?
Leading all the way up to and through the general they will really get ramped up.
And no offense at all was taken on my part, I just was seeking clarification and didn't really get your position until it was presented in a different perspective that I could grasp. (One of the things that make discussions on places like this so valuable, sometimes it takes a range of "explanations" in order to get something across properly.)
I have nothing but love and respect brother.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
I readily admit...
I may not explain myself well enough at times, that's why I keep myself behind the scenes for the most part. And this moderating stuff is one fucking hard job, let me tell you.
I readily feel your pain. I hosted a forum back in the day....
I hosted an "Underground" union blog for state workers in my state (A "Right to Work" state) where they could go and report safety infractions, misfeasance being conducted against workers by supervisors, suspected violations of labor laws, etc.)
Not only was it a constant battle to keep the trolls down, but we had to actively fear them infiltrating for much more dire reasons.
I was secretly notified by a sympathetic Warden that not only were they trying to find out who those were that were posting on the blogs, they were engaged in an active campaign using departmental I.G.'s to do so and were going to try to drive them out of the department either through harassment or termination on bogus charges.
It was very tough to try to get the word out on the forum without alerting them to the fact that we had an informant in their midst.
It was a trying time to say the least, lol!
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
I'd like to ask everybody to be patient with the site, and
with each other, and if you have a serious problem such as you described, take it to the mods. We are all under a lot of stress right now, between 1)the fact that we were just informed, in a sort of 6-month-long wrestling promo, that our elections are fraudulent puppet shows and we have no say in anything, and 2)that 49 people were just murdered for being gay, and 3)that while we have been listening to the 6-mo-long wrestling promo, we've been bombarded with some really ugly psy-ops because the Clinton campaign strategy was to send out endless surrogates to attack, not only Bernie & his campaign, but more emphatically, his supporters --something I've never seen done to that extent in an American election (wouldn't it be nice if we actually had a press so they could talk about things like that?)
Anyway, as one of the people that imagined the possibility of this site, I'd like to ask everybody to be as patient and kind as you can be, while we're in this stage.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I understand a lot of that
and kinda suspected that Jtc's reaction to that event may have been influenced by frustration after just having to deal with the preceding event as well, but I generally NEVER go to the mods as a first resort, I find it too, Icky? Hall Monitor'ish? I dunno.
My usual school of thought is I do things in threes. For instance, when dealing with children, pets or inmates I Follow this order, Ask them. Tell Them. Make them.
But on the internet with people I respect in a forum such as this I kinda try to go: 1.Explain why I think you are wrong civilly. 2. Let you know that you are being perceived as X (Insert Troll, Bully, whatever descriptor is appropriate.). 3. Letting the mods know.
I am always loath to do the latter simply because I know people get heated, and would much rather try to explain why I feel they are failing to DBAD then running and snitching on them immediately.
It has never been my style to rely on others to fight my battles for me, but at the same time I don't want it to degenerate into a shitfeast which is why I always go to 3 or just ignore it entirely if 1 and 2 don't work.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
I get you. What I really mean is--
let's be patient with each other, and try not to react in anger right now. Not b/c I have anything against anger-- like Dr. Banner, my secret is that I'm always angry--but because right now we're in a bit of a supercharged medium. I don't want the site to go boom. I think this place is important.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Agreed, thanks for your input.
I also love this place, it gives me a way to interact with the outside world since I can't get out of the house much anymore lately and would hate to see it go all "Code Orange" on us....
Hmmm. Code Orange... I may need to use that one in the future.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
You can call the contention what it is....
Hyperbole, over-the-top, lacking credibility, a ridiculous and outrageous claim that requires a link. - just don't call the person making it a name. Attack the message, not the messenger.
To me, a troll is someone who invades a site for the purpose of disrupting the users and and undermining the site. A troll is a dick, but a dick isn't necessarily a troll. Dickish behavior isn't allowed here even if you are being a dick to someone who was being a dick first. If you see a comment or user that you think is being a dick and out of control, send a note to the moderators.
Moderation isn't trying to stop conversations and disagreements by any means. We are just trying to stop the pie fights, name calling, people telling others what they can and can't do/say, and nasty personal arguments. We want the discourse to be free and the disagreements to be thoughtful, civil, and mature - not angry and mean. I think we all remember the overwhelming sense of relief at not have to keep our backs against the wall when we first came here from top. We want it to stay that way.
I enjoyed your live blogs. You had a lot of great guests, and you were a great host.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Thanks DK, this was exactly the answer I was looking for.
I can tend to be too much of a literalist in my thinking at times and your position makes perfect sense.
I will avoid using the troll word in the future and use that method instead.
Thanks again for taking the time to explain it and also for the kind words about my blogs, I always love seeing you guys there.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Don't know if this helps..
I have never owned a gun. I have been the victim of a violent crime so I know I have mixed feelings about gun use. But I will never forget that 'firearm fondler' discussion, it was so very hateful. Every time I see that poster's name here, I cringe and close the browser; I leave often.
'Firearm fondler' as pedophile is way more offensive than 'troll' IMHO.
damn... I always miss all the fun stuff!
lol.
My internet got knocked out for a while due to a huge thunderstorm just as Bernie's presser was supposed to start on the livestream so yeah. And Im not even gonna go back and investigate to see what I missed.
1. I agree 100% with CStS on this topic as spelled out in this essay
2. I trust JtC, and joe, and a few others here so...
carry on
Hey, Lady L
I think that one of the takeaways for me is that, if a convo is nipped in the bud, people can talk out what happened without 1)turning this place into a centrifuge of insults and screaming, or 2)marching off in a huff. And *that's* what I like about C99. And I hope others feel the same.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The Internet appears to be a place --
where people who agree with each other get together to discuss how they agree with each other.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
I've had a number of arguments here.
I've only seen one shut down.
What do you think about the issues I raised in my diary?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I'm completely against identity politics.
Those people are reactionaries parading as liberals. My main defense against them is communism.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
Yes, let's talk turkey.
Speaking as a moderator...
I keep saying speak to the message and not the messenger. I do not want to order anybody about because I don't want to be ordered about. I just find it really hard to believe that people on this site don't know when they've crossed the line and gotten into someone else's face. One of my dad's favorite retorts when someone got pushy or bossy with him was, "who died and left you in charge?" It is really simple. No one has the right to tell anyone else on this blog what to think, say, or do except the mods and admin. You do have the right to speak for yourself about yourself. "I think denying god is insulting to those who believe in him." If the response you get is "sorry, I don't agree", then discuss the merits of the disagreement or walk away. If you can't remain respectful and civil, it is a big clue you ought to be done.
How will you know my moderator voice?
I will tell you when I am speaking as a moderator, and when I am, I want you to cooperate with me in the thread. I do not want to have to get Johnny and a 2 x 4 to get your attention. If you think I'm wrong, send me an email or take it to moderation where you will have everyone's attention. When you send an email to moderator you will reach: me, Johnny, Joe, GulfGal, Lotlizard, Mollie, and Karma in a forum where we can all debate the merits of the situation. Only Johnny, maybe Joe, have admin rights and are able to shut off comments or ban users. The mods do have input 99% of the time, but 1% of the time, JtC feels a need to act immediately, does, and is free to.
Not speaking as a moderator....
I think the method is much more important than the content. If a civil, mutually respectful give and take conversation is taking place, I could care less how controversial the topic. Talking is one way people learn and broaden their horizon. I personally am sick and tired of PC and people internalizing other people's comments. I know, call the cops. I used a right wing meme.
If A support guns, B can't tell them they're in favor of shooting babies. If A says I am tired of (old or young) white males being the root of all evil, B can't call them a racist or an ageist. If A says I hate the pope, god or prayer, don't tell them they're attacking your religion when what they are really doing is attacking religion for them.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
this seems like a good place to vent
We have a city council member I truly dislike because he poses as a progressive liberal. He's in cahoots with the developers and I suspect he's getting kickbacks for every new building that goes up. His response to those who want to retain the character of the town is that they are climate change deniers! How does that even work? But he knows that climate change is important to us so he uses it as a shaming device. Plus it makes him look even more like a liberal.
As far as discussions here go, I was tempted to throw in a few Jew jokes (I'm Jewish thus it's allowed, according to contemporary standards). I have no problems with opposing views clashing mightily. If people disagree there are several possibilities. One is that one of them is wrong and that with plenty of discussion that person will be better informed. A second is that both sides are partially right. Again, talking it out with an open mind should lead to a larger perspective for each. And then, third, it could be that the situation is even more complex than either realizes.
In all cases, though, honest discussion (that's why we're here) should continue. And if it's not "honest" (whatever that means) then I can see the need for a referee.
Ah yes, that makes it legit, heh, ;-)
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
I read and watched that thread
and smelled the smoke of IP fire coming. I do not like having to avoid reading essays because someone here decides a notorious bankster's family name is off limits or a racist, sexist, or a religious dog whistle. Guns and religion are sure fire inflammable material. I see nothing wrong with naming the criminal 1% criminal class. I think that to be intimidated from doing so on the basis of the families, race, origin, gender or religion is a bad idea as it allows the oligarchy to remain faceless. They get to hide behind their anonymity. About those Borgias they were bad news even though they ran the freaking Catholic church. No intent here to disrespect or demonize any Catholics, Italians, Popes or professional poisoner families.
I'm glad of the moderation here and having the mods. step in and check me has helped my check myself. Not in content but in form and keeping my hot head cooled a little. I'm glad JtC is not only a good moderator but does not take a side when he see's the smoke. I do not however want this site to get to a point where I self censor to the great god of shaming under the guise of 'progressive' PC identity group think. That's a club that should not be swung. It's also a well known way to jack a thread and derail the topic at hand.
The other day someone said 'Have I wandered into a RW religious blog?' because another commenter was discussing violent video games and their effect on our society. RW talking points charges along with racist, sexist, and that old saw 'purist' have been leveled at me for 10 long years. One mans PC is often censorship to another, the same goes for CT. Such a fine line to tread for the mods. Hard enough for me as a poster to figure out what's self censorship or just common sense about not being rude, contentious and stifling others. I'm learning as I go. I will spill milk and have made some major messes here. Nipping buds really helps the plant and encourages new growth. Nip away JtC and mods as you guys are fostering new growth while keeping it growing in productive soil. lol. I sound like Chauncey Gardner here.
oh yeah, I'd forgotten that video games discussion
what a fine time to say that there is a large difference between rock n roll music and violent video games. Rock n roll encouraged kids to ride along in their calabooses and do the twist. There were no early rock n roll songs about increasing a kill count. There were no early rock n roll songs about blowing peoples' heads off...and being rewarded for it!
No, but I did shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQcgcmZvv28]
(Yes, I know I'm taking it completely out of context. Which isn't fair, and would be extremely irresponsible to extrapolate to country music at large.)
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
those Appalachian folk songs are really violent!
These nasty guys are so sad that they killed the women they loved just because the woman didn't love the guy back. A reasonable human would think "she doesn't love me and now I'm sad" is better than "she didn't love me, I killed her, and now I'm sad".
Country music is an extension of that so I thiink, in general, it's nastier than rock n roll. The only rnr songs I can think of, offhand, that were violent are Stagger Lee and Big Boy Pete. But the objections people had back then weren't to those songs because they had violence but because white kids might start liking black kids...which is something else, entirely.
I've written about this before.
The "murder ballad" is culturally problematic. There are a lot of old songs (typically british in origin, but i'm guessing that's just because most of our older culture is typically british in origin) in which a man kills a woman. The motivations (I deliberately avoid characterizing them as "reasons") are sometimes not very clear.
Looked at from our modern perspective these songs are pretty ugly. Cash caught a lot of hell for including "Delia's Gone" on one of his final albums. Yet, to expunge them from our folk canon is to expunge part of our history.
Neil Young's earliest experiments with "folk rock" included an electrified version of Tom Dooley, a murder ballad popularized by the Kingston Trio when Young was an adolescent. Later, while lying in bed burning up with a fever, he wrote three classic songs, including his updated take on Tom Dooley, Down by the River. The thing is ... this is one of my favorite songs, which means I need to rationalize for myself why it is okay to "like" it -- the main reason being, there is almost nothing sympathetic about the narrator. Tom Dooley is almost light-hearted -- guy kills a woman, apparently because she wouldn't have him, feels bad about it, and now he's going to hang for it -- and three guys sing pretty harmonies: "Poor boy, you're bound to die ...". The narrator of Down by the River is unbalanced; the song is dark from the opening riff to the closing refrain, and the narrator is clearly someone you wouldn't want to get to know. He complains about being all alone, but it's pretty easy to imagine why he's so alone (I mean, apart from the fact that he has shot the woman he desires ... the song is vague about time, so it's not really clear whether one or more of the verses reflect his state of mind before the murder, or after).
I don't know. I've given this whole thing quite a bit of thought, and I'm as lost as I was when I first starting thinking about it. My guess is, most women have a very, very different emotional response to such songs than do men.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
And the only tune that fiddle could play was "oh the
dreadful wind and the rain", and what the hell did billy joe mccalister toss off of that bridge?
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
a stillborn baby.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
bobbie gentry, the woman who wrote the song, has
never revealed what it was, and has made it clear that as far as she's concerned, it doesn't really matter.
i think there's definitely a bit of a rorschach element to whatever it is that any individual assumes (or guesses) it might be.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Yes, I have read lots of theories over the years,
And it comes down to, the artist wants to leave the possibilities open to us, to fill in the blanks the way it moves us. Neil Young is famous for doing that (and some of his fans famously have it all figured out, anyway.)
Anyway, that's how I have always filled that blank in the song...to me it just fit.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
I posted this the other day,
but it fits well here. I play many murder ballad songs, as instrumentals...one has just a beautiful tune, in waltz time, that falls in place on a banjo better than any waltz I know. I have always loved, but been uncomfortable with "Down By the River." Alynda Segarra has cleared it all up for me.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAVRvhGQteo]
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Bisbonian, I love your sig line
Agreed. But to get back to your point, which I snarkily ignored
I actually had a fascinating discussion with Raphael Van Lierop yesterday on twitter.
He used to work in AAA games and has many regrets for the product he put out in the past. However, he and I both came to the conclusion that his current works are much more nuanced and concentrate heavily on the consequences of violence rather than glorifying it. Indie game developers are putting out a incredibly interesting product nowadays, and it's a real shame that the modern media chooses to ignore their product in favor of garbage. Essentially, while violence can be a part of games, it is how those consequences are portrayed which needs much more thought by developers.
Essentially, AAA games are garbage put out by corporations who do not contemplate the violence they put into their product. It's one of the reasons I avoid AAA games for the most part, and stick to indies. (Add to the fact that modern consoles are FAR worse than modern computers, and you have a situation where you pay more for much less)
Sorry to have been a bit snarky, because you DO make a decent point, and those of us that love the medium of games need to contemplate our virtual actions as well as our real ones.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Sounds like he has something in common with Alan Moore
Moore was responsible for creating the very dark and disturbing graphic novel, The Watchmen, which, among many other things, critiqued the violent nature of superhero comics and the potential for vigilante justice, in the wrong hands, Going Horribly Wrong.
Unfortunately everyone else took all the wrong messages from it - totally ignoring the unconventional and innovative storytelling, and concluding that Dark and Ultra-Violent was The Way To Go.
It wasn't until sales reached catastrophically low levels, relatively recently, that the big shots and bean-counters at the Big Two comics companies began to realize that maybe they were doing something wrong....
Oh, and as to "murder ballads"? They're generally Border (as in English-Scottish border, in case anyone wondered). "Man kills the woman he loves" is the least of it, and has its mirror image. There's always somebody killing somebody else for really stupid reasons, or for no reason at all in the case of babymurder (yes there are songs about that too).
"Mack the Knife", in the other hand, is German, and a satire of the whole "murder ballad" phenomenon. (It's from a social satire called The Three-Penny Opera, which is loosely based on an 18th century social satire, The Beggars' Opera.) It's intended to be very, very black humor.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Speaking of Moore...
They're finally making a movie out of "The Killing Joke" and bringing back the entire cast from the animated Batman series for it. Including Kevin Conroy, and Mark Hamill. It should be very interesting, since even from the trailer it looks like they're playing against type and really concentrating on consequences and actions.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnTSqgJPVl8]
But once again, it's a matter of using the elements to tell a message, RATHER than merely concentrating on the elements themselves as the end all and be all. I think that's the telling moment between art and garbage. Whether or not there's more of a meaning than just what's on the surface. Of course, that's coming from a long time fan of both Genre's who talks to and admires a lot of voice actors, directors, and music people... so I freely admit my bias.
And your mention of the murder ballads reminds me of Tom Lehrer's Parody of those songs...
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_jjRNMOopA]
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
What I got from Watchmen
were the questions: when should you lie? when is it worth it to tell a Big Lie? Is it ever worth it? What if it's the only way to preserve life on earth?
Like a lot of truly excellent art, it asked questions that were hard enough that I couldn't answer them right away. Would I take Nightowl or Rorschach's way, in the end? My heart is with Rorschach at that point, but would I have the guts?
I know myself well enough to know I couldn't take Rorschach's way in the beginning. Phew!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
'I keep my pant's up with a peice of twine
Because your mine please pull the twine.'
I loved that Johnny Cash album when I was a kid. My 'gang' of kid friends re-wrote the lyrics for many country and rock songs. They were often sexist but all that went right over my 10-12 year old brain. Not to mention that I was the only girl on the cul de sac.
Among other things, you'll note that the narrator has regrets.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
One of my favorites
loved your comment shaz
I'm never sure which reply button to click so I'm not sure if this falls in the right place but I wanted to also say hillbilly music doesn't always have the fellow killin' his gal. Here it is two lovin' sisters. And one becomes a fiddle.
Sung by one of you left coasters.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxleZ6U8498]
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Child Ballad #10, "The Twa Sisters"
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/child/ch010.htm
The idea is even older and more widespread than that, being a classic example of the "Singing Bone" motif (if it's a stringed instrument, it's two sisters - if it's a flute or other woodwind, it's two brothers).
Other forms of "tattletale tales" include "the King/Emperor Has Goat's Ears", a secret never to be told, but of course the secret-keeper tells it to a hole in the ground - from which grow reeds that tell everyone. This one goes back at least as far as Ovid....
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
"Love Henry", "Henry Lee"
And variations on that title are another tattle-tale ballad. I can't remember which Child number it is, but it's a low numbered (early) one. The little bird promises to tell what he has seen.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Probably #68, "Young Hunting"
It has roots that go deeper than that, but they go to a very ugly and unpleasant place. Better to stick with it as a false lover who gets rather more than was coming to him.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
That's the one.
Good description.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
"doing whatever you want" is not freedom.
So, yes, some moderation will be needed to keep abuse in check.
It reminds of the arguments about consensus. People falsely believe that consensus means everyone has to agree 100%. And that perspective is grounded in the view that one can only agree if one gets what one wants.
In fact, consensus is about finding the action/solution that everybody can live with. This means that while it may not be anyone's perfect desire, they don't find the solution so objectionable as to feel that it violates their principles or the mission of the group making the decision.
I would venture a guess that no one here wants this place devolving into ad hominem attacks and bullying. So, even if our ideal would be a space where everyone can say whatever they want, we realize that, without a group decision to check abusive behaviors, the reality is that bullies actually silence people. So, we can live with moderating bullying behavior.
SDS operated by consensus. Hundreds do not ever agree 100%.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
The end of the day
we have resolved much, I think.
The one thing I didn't see anyone say was that the First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging "freedom of speech" of its citizens. The rest of us are on our own, so it seems to me that we need to make the best of it with the tools at our collective disposal. No one person or entity gets to decide for everybody else which subjects are "off limits", but the admins DO get to decide when a given discussion of any subject has gone the distance within their purview. And that's as it should be.
I don't want 100% agreement
that would be boring. I also don't want to have to self censor according to someones pet PC language and have to get in useless arguments regarding the terminology/language used that has inadvertently insulted someone who disagrees and takes it as a personal insult. Today I went into a essay about automatic assault guns and got freaked out because the gun owners all got tweaked and defensive about people saying 'gun nuts'. It devolved into a pissing match based on language.
Why should the people who think America is nuts about violence and guns have to check themselves and cater to gun owners and 2nd amendment lovers. Seriously people can we agree that we are not going to get all pissed off and insulted when addressing issues. Mental illness is not 'treated' or dealt with in this society we have people who are mentally ill all over the place. They are medicated to the gills one way or another to be able to function in a mentally ill society.
Humans are violent critters but the killing hate and fear I see in this culture will not be cured by treating the mentally ill by drugging them up or warehousing them in Bedlam. My point being which came first the chicken or the egg? Perhaps the violence that permeates this cruel culture causes mental illness.
According to many I'm mentally ill because I'm compulsive /obsessive and have a short attention span. Always have had. My autograph book form the 6th grade is full of references that say to the pencil chewing obsessive compulsive anti-social in the paper closet. What about the fact that American culture is mentally ill? How's about exploring the reasons for all the mentally ill people out there armed and dangerous? A chicken or egg dilemma if I ever saw one. So lets go easy on each other about the symptom's of the underlying sickness.
I have a neighbor and a friend whose a shrink, she works for the state of Oregon and deals with the homeless. I asked her how she helps these people and she said 'We medicate them'. Great you got an out of hand bi-polar teenager medicate her and get all tweaked when someone dares to ask why this teenager is fucked up. Same with violence your pump it in and then wonder why people think it's okay to kill be it LGBT people or Muslims or Mexicans or anyone who threatens your beliefs or paranoia.
When the state itself is mad how can we deal with the mentally ill we create?
Ya know what?
I don't even think I can tell you how I really feel about this because I'm pretty sure I'll be banned if I do.
And that makes me sad, because that's the kinda shit I thought I was getting away from on Dkos.
I miss Colorado.
Has anyone been banned?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I have no idea.
Maybe we should message and stuff.
I miss Colorado.
As far as I know, nobody has been banned--
I think the admins and mods, like me, prefer a site where banning is used very sparingly.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Three people that I can think of...
asked to have their accounts deleted and I obliged. A couple of other members were shown the door for over the top behavior, one of whom was the Nelson Muntz poster from the other day that was an obvious troll. And I do expect more.
Asking to have your account deleted doesn't seem to be
the same thing as banning. My understanding is that banning is involuntary.
So there have been a couple of folks that have been banned. Without knowing circs, can't say what my opinion of the bannings would be. I do think site admin should have the ability to ban, because trolls troll.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
AFAIK, there aren't even topics that have been banned--
much less people.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
OK, so update to this: no topics have been banned, but
a few people have. A few more have asked to have their accounts deleted, which IMO is not the same thing.
I seem to have missed a couple of the situations that resulted in the bannings. Can't say I'm sorry to have missed them, but it makes it difficult to have an opinion on them when I don't know the circs.
I do believe that site admin needs to, and should, have the ability to ban people, because trolls troll. Equally, my preference is for sparing use of that tool, but again, I don't believe in making sweeping judgments but in going case-by-case.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yes, correct...
no topics are banned nor will they be. Discussion in said topics may be closed if deemed necessary by the admins, that right will be reserved as will the right to delete any content deemed worthy of deletion, see the DBAA FAQ for more clarification.
Absolutely the management reserves the right to ban members and that will no doubt prove a valuable tool in the very near future. This site has been live for a year and a half with only two bannings, I believe that qualifies as being used sparingly.
Whenever a website proclaims itself to be an open, free thinking venue, you will always get some jokers that will come along with the intent purpose of testing the limitations of said proclamation. Been there, done it, have seen it, am ready for it.
This site has been live for a
This site has been live for a year and a half with only two bannings, I believe that qualifies as being used sparingly.
I believe it does.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
No, it isn't OK.
Only people in an official capacity can TELL. Whether or not you agree with it is one thing. Whether or not they have the authority to make demands of you is another.
Small groups and individuals can ask. They can express their feelings about it, but no one died and left them boss. This is why we left dailykos.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I hate you all, you trolls, all of you are trolls and I don't
know who is the real troll. So get outta here, ALL, NOW !!!
[video:https://youtu.be/XnJSFn4jbuc]
Fucking troll issues.
https://www.euronews.com/live
I love to troll mimi...
some of the biggest walleye and muskies I've ever caught were by trolling.
I am a little fish, please don't catch me .../nt
https://www.euronews.com/live
JTC you would probablly really like the trolling action down
here where I live.
This was less than 4 miles from where I am docked.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5Tfb_ichVs]
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Oh...
that was awesome!
You're down around Ft. Myers/Marco Island right? I had heard that big grouper and sea bass ect. were getting hard to come by, too much fishing pressure and red tide, right? I have a good buddy that use to winter on Marco and he told me many a story about how great the fishing was out on the wrecks, many years ago.
Yep, exact place I am at.
The biggest problem is the all the water coming out of lake Okeechobee via the river, it has really hammered the in shore fishing and the crabbing pretty badly but if you go to some of the wrecks 20 or 30 miles out there be dinosaurs.
If you ever get down this way let me know and we can soak some bait and catch a buzz if nothing else, lol!
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Hey man...
I may just take you up on that! I used to go to Clearwater regularly back in the early 70's, great beach and pier there, a real happening place back then! Took a couple of swings through the glades on the southern route and loved it down there. I haven't been back since but sure would like to see it again.
Just let me know, I got bait, boat & beer covered. :)
You may have to throw in towards gas though if we want to go out 30 or so miles and if it is a lean month...
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Pages