El Progresso en El Camino

If you find ideas that I propose to be crap, you are free to say so. When I suggest that some that your ideas  are crap, you take great offense.

If you enter with a statement about what you would do if you were Black, how do you not expect some push back? You are taking the position that you know what is best for the Blacks. Am I just supposed to let your statement slide, because you feel that you are being called a racist? In a recent post, I took pains to specifcally state that I was not calling you a racist. I said we had a different worldview. What else do you need?

I have pointed out that in the rough and tumble days of the campaign between Obama and Clinton, there were a lot of hot and heavy charges about race. Hillary is now in Obama's cabinet.

To me, if someone has to use profanity, that means that they cannot use standard English to get their ideas across. That is my point of view. It has never stopped you from expressing yourself in the manner you feel appropriate.

I have never sent the administrators of dagblog anything that stated that you should be removed from the site. You don't feel the need to temper your words. We have clear cut differences about many things. You refer to people as confused or stupid without hesitation. When you face criticism, somehow, it is too harsh in your opinion. I simply do not understand.

Cho, I acknowledged seeing your mail as soon as it popped on my gmail screen (21 minutes ago).  I do remember contacting Genghis before we moderated a particular slave comment, about wiping it.  We let stand in a separate thread Des saying he had given someone the finger in response to that offending comment.  It's quite hard to even-Steven stuff that provocative, a point your mail seems to get.

I too am too busy to go look for the links.  It's very convoluted, because you're arguing about what I meant based on what I said about quinn's overextensive paraphrase of what we had done.  My best recollection is this:

1.  We moderated (wiped) the MLK plantation comment made against Des.

2.  We agree that no one should be said to favor owning black people as slaves.  I'm still waiting for the link to the first such comment.

3.  In a later thread, quinn announced that something else someone said that he disapproved of violated ToS, based upon undisputed facts 1. and 2.  This is a common style of argument for him, taking an example and overgeneralizing, to create an inconsistency where one doesn't exist.  Thus, any allegation that an argument or position is racist is equated with 1. and 2., and if we don't search out and moderate all comments someone subjectively doesn't like, they claim it's the Exact Same Thing as 1. and 2.  Which was not true.  

4.  As to this confusing bit about retraction, I made the comment that certain exchanges (you and I may or may not be referring to the same ones) did not violate the terms of service.  You think that's inconsistent with 1. and 2.  But I think you and I are apparently thinking of different exchanges, because you're referring to ones that have been removed, and I was not.  I think in the examples that are the crux of the supposed disagreement, we are talking past each other.

As to the offense-fest that were these needlessly provocative Civil War posts and threads, I stand by calling bullshit on the suggestion that letting slavery persist past 1865 can be described as a way of rooting out slavery.  Suggesting the potential utilitarian value of letting slavery persist for twenty years is to me inherently offensive.  That remains my view.  You seem in your mail to acknowledge the intentionally provocative nature of some things.  You were right.

Anyhow, does Hamsher never comment on FDL?  Is Marshall banned from commenting at TPM?  (Of course, they make livings off their sites, we only lose money, we don't make any, which is a reason we should be fuller, not less full, participants in our site.)  I comment here too.  I find a bit tedious, as someone who works over 50 hours a week and has a full personal life, the implication that I am supposed to have found and deleted comments about which nobody reported abuse, and of which I was unaware.  If you or others are offended at my offense at that other offensive comment, I guess that's what the Internet is all about.

I can see your point.

Just today, I was talking to a group and it dawned on me, that blogging may have a detrimental effect on our generation. .

We are  constantly beating on the gates, in order to let off steam, and when we tire of beating on the door, we find we are too tired to storm the Bastille.

Then when we see another violation of our trust, we run to the gate, beating our fists and screaming, we eventually tire and we go home to our couches.

We sure told them, didn't we.   

The thing that's so funny about you is how you see blogs as teams.  My guys.  Your guys.  My guys were posting that Assange should be killed.  Except they weren't.  Nobody who wants to murder over Wikileaks is my guys.  You have no basis to say that.  And you have no humanity to fail to see how one feels seeing even the joking suggestion that one should be murdered.  

I am not the owner of all content on dagblog, or all content by people you would lazily and sloppily impute to me to justify your brawling fetish.  

Again, your blog was let to run its full life cycle.  This is really petty whining.

Q. You know I think the world of you.  But I think you are investing a bit too much in this.  Its just a blog. They play rougher with you, because you can handle it. Deal. 

We yanked your blog, quinn. After an extended discussion. The reason it required any discussion at all was because it was about the moderators. Had it been about any other blogger, we would have yanked it immediately, but one of our policies is to cut stuff about us a little more slack in order to minimize the risk of bias as well as the appearance of bias.

As for the other posts, you may feel that a blog post about gendered language in the media or criticisms of progressives should be yanked. We don't. One reason that we don't is that it's very difficult to set clear standards. We can't have a moderation policy so strict that no one can say anything critical about progressives or Obama supporters, and there's no transparent way distinguish between a reference to progressives that is meant to refer to progressives out in the world versus specific progressive bloggers here at dagblog.

What we do moderate, generally and when we see them, are abusive accusations against specific bloggers. Sometimes we also moderate references to "unnamed bloggers" depending on how specific the references are.

That's the policy. It's no secret. It's not custom-designed for one faction or another. I don't think it's that hard to follow.

As I've said a million times, if you see a post or comment that you feel should be moderated, email me. I will either moderate it or explain to you specifically why I have decided not to.