Skip to main content

View Diary: Chris Hedges channels Hassan Sabbah (134 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not sorry, (6+ / 2-)

    Edger abused the privacy of someone who personally gave him money in a time of need, fuck Edger.

    •  Compassion (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      frandor55, RiaD, Uberbah, willibro

      Everyone deserves compassion. That's why I don't believe in capital punishment.

      People make mistakes. I don't condone what Edger did, but feel free to willfully misinterpret. Get me banned, I'll wear it as a badge of honor.

      Go ahead, call your posse. Send this to admin. Assemble your mob.

      But the fact is Edger has contributed good work here. And I am sorry he is banned.

      Oh my, call your thought police.

      •  You know nothing about me (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        edwardssl, Geekesque, Sybil Liberty

        I have no posse, I have no mob. Edger violated the trust of someone who helped him once in his time of need to make some dumb ass point, and I hope he is banned for it.

        •  Yes, I understand your emotion (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          willibro, Avila

          I also understand that, most likely, there is a lot more to the story than you or I know. People have moments when circumstances affect judgement.

          I'm certain you have experienced moments when emotions got the better of you. When that happened to you, I hope someone with compassion was at hand to help you through.

          •  Help me through what (5+ / 0-)

            using info I had from someone helping me to out them? Oh, Im sorry, poor edger. That comment was just too much, best to post most of the email addy to show em.
            Whatever, judgement, circumstances, fuck that, there is no fucking excuse, stop pretending there is.

            •  Excuses have nothing to do with it (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              willibro, Agathena, RiaD

              But there can be circumstances when the best among us have moments when not at their best.

              So often people are completely dichotomous in judgement of others, as if there isn't context that helps to explain things people do, as if people are either wholly good or wholly evil, with nothing in between.

              I reject that overly simplistic way of viewing another human being. I see some people have arrived to give me the same mob-rush-to-judgement, a kind of shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach.

              I'm proud of one thing here: I try to never get bogged down in group-think.

              •  Your commentary: (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Drewid, Avila, Sybil Liberty

                Regarding Edger:

                ew] I'm sorry, Edger (4+ / 1-)
                Recommended by:Agathena, frandor55, RiaD, Uberbah
                Hidden by:Drewid
                that you were banned. You've contributed good things here. Maybe you're better off. Too many here don't see what you see.

                 Towards the decent people of this community:
                But the fact is Edger has contributed good work here. And I am sorry he is banned.
                I don't condone what Edger did, but feel free to willfully misinterpret. Get me banned, I'll wear it as a badge of honor.

                Go ahead, call your posse. Send this to admin. Assemble your mob. .  . . Oh my, call your thought police.

                You clearly paint those outraged (undisputably rightly) as being hyperemotional oppressors, and you are 'sorry' that Edger suffered consequences for his disgusting behavior.

                Your rhetorical tricks do not conceal your naked partisanship here.  

                Edger deserves sympathy, because he shares your ideology.   He should not have been banned, because you like him.  

                I am truly sorry that your overt apologism for disgusting, immoral, unethical, sleazy behavior is not welcomed.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 09:22:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  well: (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Drewid, Avila
                I'm proud of one thing here: I try to never get bogged down in group-think.

                Pride, as they say, goeth before a fall. Truth is, there are few people on this blog more a-muck in the bog of group-think, than you.

                •  Sweet (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TheMomCat, Agathena, RiaD

                  Your empty name calling helps. So many things to say, and you come up with that. And you, of all people, who I've never seen vary from the opinions of your cohorts, aren't exactly in a position to criticize. You're one of the most divisive of persons here.

                  And you're another person who never concedes a point, never finds a way to make peace, never offers an understanding crumb of common decency to anyone whom you've put into your crosshairs, that I have seen. You're a "go for the jugular" kind of guy. Get's old.

                  How did you end up in this dead thread? Did the bat-sign go out? Out carousing for someone to pummel?

                  And to trip over the word "proud" in such a predictable retort says much about your tactics. I thought about editing that word out of my comment, but I thought people here were intelligent and scrupulous enough to not willfully exploit my candid explanation, and to take the word in the sense that it was used: Proud in the sense of feeling okay and comfortable with my responses.

                  •  wow (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blueness, poco

                    don't give up your day job.  this has got to be one of the most erroneous characterizations i have ever read.

                    i know this individual very well. not just in the online sense of the word.  fairness and consideration are two of the qualities i most admire in him.  i don't know the history between you two, but i hope you will reconsider your mischaracterization.

                    •  People perceive others (5+ / 0-)

                      according to where they stand when the shit begins to fly.

                      And common to most people is the tendency to assume that their particular experiential vantage point should be accepted to be the basis of reality for others, even when those others are having a far different experience.

                      My summary of Blueness isn't meant to be exhaustive of all aspects of his range of expression, it is the view that comes from my having witnessed him in his battles here.

                      No doubt you've seen a side that I haven't. I would welcome that side of him to surface here in this instance.

                      Nice of you to join the conversation, which began with me showing empathy to a person I respect who just got banned, a person who also has facets to his personality which people may experience differently depending on where they stand.

                      I made one comment to him which sparked this discussion. Step back and look at this ridiculous thread in which I have been attacked for that one expression of personal empathy.

                      Hmm. Is this tolerant? Is this kind? Is this necessary?

                      •  maybe you do (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        blueness, poco, RiaD
                        People perceive others

                        according to where they stand when the shit begins to fly.

                        i knew Edger slightly, a couple of years ago. what he did yesterday was shocking to me (and many others). it was a flat-out betrayal of trust -- and very uncharacteristic of the Edger i thought i knew.  i'm not going to criticize you for empathy, but this is a fresh wound, and your timing (and perhaps venue) are working against you.  my empathy is with the person who extended kindness and generosity, only to be distressed and vulnerable for her graciousness.

                        if you "hate the sin, but love the sinner" (not the best analogy but i'm late), i can understand the way you feel.  i truly wish this had never happened at all, but no one consulted me or you before an irrevocable harm was done.

                        peace.  

                         

                        •  Thank you (5+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Avila, gooderservice, TheMomCat, Agathena, RiaD

                          I like the tone here far better.

                          I've already answered upthread in detail the points you raise, which were brought up by others. Have you read them? Including the back and forth that occurred? Why repeat them here?

                          Does it help to draw this out? I made one comment in the middle of the night. Imagine what would have occurred if people just ignored it.

                          I've seen others who were banned treated well by people who liked them. The sight managers were demonized for banning them, people wrote defensive diaries on their behalf, and the response in the comments was all out warfare.

                          I'm sure you can think of a few that fit this description.

                          I'm just one person who wanted to offer a kind remark to a person who was banned. I don't defend the action, as I've already abundantly made more than clear. And yet here we are, in a long thread, hashing this out.

                          I stand by everything I've said about this in my posts here.

                    •  By the way... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      TheMomCat, Agathena, RiaD

                      Is this that wonderful person you know so well?

                      But then, you seem very much to be in a primitive, larval stage of development, and so there is much of which you are unaware.

                      Read his post in answer to mine, to get a good example of exactly what I had been referring to in my comment to him. He rather inadvertently revealed himself in his haste to smite me. I guess he doesn't take criticism well, despite his tendency to dish it out rather reliably.

                      Yes, he's a saint. The halo is so bright you must have been blinded by it.

                      •  yes, the very same (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        blueness

                        if his halo slipped, and i haven't read this entire thread so i'm not saying it did or didn't, all i can tell you is that he's picked mine up and dusted it off for years, especially when i resisted it.  i know you are troubled right now, as i am.  but you seem a decent and reasonable person at heart.  i hope you will re-evaluate after a little time to adjust to something i don't think either of us expected.

                        •  If his halo slipped? (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          TheMomCat, RiaD

                          You have certainly seen his post. Do you think the "larval stage" comment is something that is acceptable? Or is this yet another example of the double standard that is becoming so common around here?

                          My comment above is hide ratable, his is not?

                          This is why these discussions never get anywhere.

                          And I am not "troubled right now." I made a remark not because I was "troubled," but out of personal empathy to a fellow human being, and the way this has been attacked tells me loads about some of the personal standards of behavior present in the community. That I do find disturbing.

                          And I don't like being bullied. I'm quite sick of it, frankly.

                  •  oh, (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Avila, Drewid, poco

                    I "vary from the opinions of [my] cohorts" all the time. All the time. If you were as aware as you flatter yourself to be, you would know that. But then, you seem very much to be in a primitive, larval stage of development, and so there is much of which you are unaware. It is for this reason that you amusingly feel "proud" to be above the bog of group-think, when in fact you are a chief organ-grinder of it. I think particularly of your extraordinarily authoritarian and atavistic disinterment of McCarthyism in foaming that the "tendency to attack dissent from the left is anti-American." I mean: really. You even still believe in things like "American" and "anti-American"? How quaint. And I am not guided by "bat-signs." Again, if you were aware, you would know that I am instead the target of them.

                    •  Thanks for that (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      TheMomCat, RiaD

                      Your reply is a wonderful, rather perfect example of exactly what I was referring to about your behavior. I couldn't have received any better confirmation than by your own unwitting hand.

                      As to the diary you criticized, it seems not all here share your view. Here's a list of those who rec'd it:

                         

                      Meteor Blades, jbou, reef the dog, Mark Sumner, fly, claude, Anthony Segredo, Tookish, Lupin, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, paradox, Ed in Montana, Angie in WA State, maryb2004, renska, boydog, jec, MediaFreeze, northsylvania, From the choir, raboof, LeislerNYC, PrahaPartizan, itsbenj, MadRuth, hester, grollen, debcoop, Jackson L Haveck, dalemac, deben, Marie, roonie, Liberal Thinking, GreenSooner, badger, msl, mattman, emal, pelican, wytcld, sacrelicious, tnichlsn, sphealey, Shockwave, byteb, Fishgrease, Emocrat, Pescadero Bill, Wintermute, CleverNickName, CupaJoe, liz, meg, LEP, Aspe4, baracon, GayHillbilly, KateG, TX Unmuzzled, xynz, terhuxtim, StevenJoseph, RodE, autoegocrat, Rachael7, MpeachW, Mumon, delver rootnose, RFK Lives, FyodorFish, object16, floridagal, Jerome a Paris, expatjourno, mysticl, hubcap, niemann, ssgbryan, Dumbo, checkmate, opinionated, TheMomCat, bronte17, biryanifan, conchita, TracieLynn, elveta, Euroliberal, whenwego, djMikulec, Agathena, JFKinSoDak, sayitaintso, Geonomist, fishwars, cosmic debris, gayntom, chechecule, LeftofArizona, taonow, JuliaAnn, CanisMaximus, oceanspray, bincbom, ctsteve, enough already, splashy, Beelzebud, nalakop, Wamsutta, revsue, tomephil, tidalwave1, pat7724, caseynm, Eric Blair, psnyder, hangingchad, Lynwaz, Dallasdoc, mrkvica, Quentin, businessdem, 2laneIA, StuartZ, gmb, Viola Lee, crackpot, rflowers, Ender, JimWilson, astronautagogo, churchylafemme, wilbur, baldwip, hoplite9, penguins4peace, The Walrus, puffin6092, deantv, alizard, clarknyc, Pohjola, inclusiveheart, cevad, dkmich, green917, jen, Deward Hastings, Marianne Benz, ScienceMom, jcrit, Virginia Liberal, vacantlook, xxdr zombiexx, J Orygun, greeseyparrot, tea in the harbor, Big Tex, nehark, Fabian, Massman, kbman, mediaprisoner, ms in la, cantwait08, Bluesee, marina, 3goldens, NoMoreLies, CTPatriot, disrael, democracy inaction, Erik the Red, corvo, Philoguy, Flint, run around, truong son traveler, drewfromct, Brooke In Seattle, chidmf, Dobber, trinityfly, Laurence Lewis, Kevskos, FutureNow, boofdah, MarekNYC, eru, bleeding blue, mateosf, geonerd, jimreyn, McMeier, Burned, Barcelona, Kayakbiker, cassidy3, ddock, Eric K, LucyandByron, Tunk, mikolo, ebgill, wigwam, neroden, kerplunk, Lisa Lockwood, deepsouthdoug, bunsk, Cory Bantic, Rogneid, bookwoman, Detroit Mark, Lindy, huttotex, mightymouse, dancewater, Blue Bronc, Snud, Land of Enchantment, RainyDay, Jim R, splashoil, Jim P, Mehitabel9, SoulCatcher, Denny in Seattle, martini, mattinla, Nance, Numinous, Keone Michaels, cas2, Kingsmeg, vigilant meerkat, ej25, pdh, Mr Bojangles, BlueInARedState, quotemstr, HoundDog, slashworth, liberalconservative, Catesby, veus, rhetoricus, Magnifico, Son of a Cat, puredesighee, raincrow, jwhitmill, kck, hideinplainsight, Lefty Coaster, ginja, blueoasis, Blue Wind, people for truth, DarkestHour, triv33, eglantine, Tanya, mikeatuva, nonnie9999, gooderservice, Bob Sackamento, thegood thebad thedumb, Stagarite, mithra, Derfel, JVolvo, NearlyNormal, Preston S, Potus2020, AndyS In Colorado, Unitary Moonbat, buckinfuzzard, James Kroeger, blue in NC, 5x5, dirkster42, profh, rsie, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Cassiodorus, Dreaming of Better Days, shaharazade, PhilW, crystal eyes, pkbarbiedoll, bstotts, Picot verde, Temmoku, The House, andrewj54, Aaa T Tudeattack, Unrepentant Liberal, BentLiberal, seabos84, pale cold, Evil Betty, bigchin, One Pissed Off Liberal, pgm 01, timewarp, out of left field, bluicebank, fabucat, Buckeye Hamburger, Duke S, Haningchadus14, california keefer, Debs2, army193, ColoTim, DAO, terryhallinan, yoduuuh do or do not, jds1978, Sydserious, Duccio, CTDemoFarmer, yowsta, tbirchard, jeanette0605, Cofcos, noofsh, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, dclawyer06, Unbozo, aliasalias, newpioneer, bnasley, rantsposition, artisan, Kentucky Kid, HCKAD, Midwesterners, Aunt Martha, chelle in mo, crose, Uberbah, bobswern, jnhobbs, pioneer111, Brahman Colorado, cordobes, ImpeachKingBushII, keikekaze, cloudbustingkid, Don midwest, Vinnie Vegas, Terra Mystica, cville townie, rmonroe, msblucow, Michael91, rogerdaddy, Corporate Dog, edg, gendjinn, wave of change, Shahryar, NotGeorgeWill, MikePhoenix, zerone, poligirl, geez53, dave1042, blueman1, lexington50, elwior, Cat Servant, wade norris, billvb, ajr111240, rssrai, tofumagoo, Ministerbruce, davekro, MrJayTee, demoKatz, Wek, geomoo, icebergslim, pickandshovel, Missys Brother, rubine, Thought Crime, Seamus D, temptxan, the new, Sameer Dossani, petulans, LaEscapee, Parthenia, DixieDishrag, HarpboyAK, priceman, Quilldriver, Robobagpiper, Mike Taylor, revelwoodie, dirtdawg, Celtic Merlin, JGBfan, cameoanne, Rhysling, Florene, cybrestrike, world dancer, George Hier, DeepLooker, aufklaerer, two roads, divineorder, BigAlinWashSt, The Dead Man, socalmonk, output, bsmechanic, banjolele, stolen water, Field of Dreams, Nebraskablue, Norm in Chicago, Methinks They Lie, rem123, tweedy54, Partisan Progressive, Nailbanger, Patch Adam, mkor7, CamillesDad1, JesseCW, Fixed Point Theorem, Daily Activist, dRefractor, RageKage, zaka1, obiterdictum, ThinkerT, SnowItch, Knarfc, edtastic, ohmyheck, schnecke21, angel d, Leftcandid, ratmach, ruscle, parallaxblue, YellerDog, Razorblade, angry liberaltarian, awcomeon, spunout, pyegar, FogCityJohn, David PA, flitedocnm, roadbear, veracityus, PZinOR, jethrock, ATFILLINOIS, Eddie L, Nurse Jeckell, gulfgal98, Lady Libertine, peacearena, Perfektion, albrt, melfunction, JRandomPoster, ffour, Muggsy, Johnny Q, itswhatson, Pay It Forward, Betty Pinson, roystah, Murchadha, Nada Lemming, Vik in FL, DirkFunk, wabird, rasfrome, tgrshark13, bicycle Hussein paladin, al ajnabee, renbear, Colorado is the Shiznit, angstall, targetdemographic, Bluefin, heart of a quince, allenjo, opticnerver, ozsea1, darkmatter, Oldowan, vahana, Cintimcmomma, VoteBlue, poorbuster, Susipsych, m00finsan, jididly, BlackQueen40, Situational Lefty, California06, just one victory, Aranfell, Kcox, Jasonhouse, Element 61, evangeline135, tfs1150, LSmith, Vtdblue, shevas01, peregrine kate, EsperanzaCambia, chira2, Tyto Alba, Druggy Bear, randomfacts, earljellicoe, waiting for lefty, Ur Regular, Atilla the Honey Bunny, Hayate Yagami, daveusf, Oilwellian, Miggles, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, Willa Rogers, No one gets out alive, Nancy on Lake Michigan, SycamoreRich, sciphile, rtcfrtc, BlueDragon, O112358, CalliopeIrjaPearl, Tentwenty, ridemybike, WaryLiberal, gnostradamus, timlee, HamptonRoadsProgressive, Flying Goat, mohawkvalleywanderer, APA Guy, damfino, Williston Barrett, IndieGuy, James Renruojos, Eric Nelson, pineapple head joe, elshizzo, Zurvan, Ginger1, Mr Robert, cedar park, peachcreek, plasmon, Free Jazz at High Noon, geraldlaslo, Dont Call It, Frank33, Succulent Filth

                    •  That's well within the standards of a hide ratable (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      TheMomCat, RiaD

                      comment. Larval stage?

                      Wow, indeed. And your friends love you for this?

                      •  how (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Drewid, poco

                        funny you are. "Larval stage" is "well within the standards of a hide ratable comment" . . . says he who damns those who are not him as "anti-American."

                        As someone who so very recently presented himself as a veritable oracle on all things "hippie," surely you are aware of the nature and meaning of "larval stage" within Leary world, and therefore know it to be a term not "hide-ratable" in the least.

                        And few things are more pitiful than someone who deploys recs on a blog as a measure of his worth (and to reproduce all the names!). Didn't you just tell us that "I'm proud of one thing here: I try to never get bogged down in group-think." Why then would you care what that group thinks?

                        •  Several Strawman (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          RiaD

                          1) Anti-american was used in an ironic sense, as you would know if you had read the comments. It was a play on those who think dissent is disloyal.

                          2) I don't consider myself an expert on "hippiedom" but I do have a point of view about that, which I've expressed. Sue me.

                          3) What a hilarious defense of your "larval" comment: You were actually giving me a compliment, and you use Leary to support your case. Obviously your intent was to insult. But that you would use such a defense, even if pure snark, indicates a glib, superficial mentality.

                          4) I don't use support on a blog as a measure of worth. In fact, worth is not something I knew was being discussed. Are you asserting I have low worth?

                          More of that jugular vein attack mode, I see. You're a credit to the site.

                          I will give you one thing, so that at least one of us can concede a point, like people do in civil discourse (heh), and that is the number of recs truly is not an argument in a debate over ideas. But we aren't exactly debating ideas here: You've made this into just another cyber dual of quips at this point; a contest of ad hominens and insult. I concede you've won. And since personal worth (you wrote "your worth," indicating my personal value as a human being, which you brought into this discussion) is subjective, thankfully there are some in the community who disagree with you.

      •  You reserve your compassion for the lowlife (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Drewid

        who violated the victim.

        Because of ideological kinship.

        Situational ethics, indeed.

        You don't condone what he did, but you clearly think he's the victim in this.

        You people are pathological in your need to play the victim,

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 08:22:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Strawman (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          willibro

          No, I don't think he's the vicitim. I just think there are things we may not know that has made him do what he did.

          Read all that I wrote, above. For example:

          But there can be circumstances when the best among us have moments when not at their best.

          So often people are completely dichotomous in judgement of others, as if there isn't context that helps to explain things people do, as if people are either wholly good or wholly evil, with nothing in between.

          I reject that overly simplistic way of viewing another human being.

          •  You have no such sympathy for the victim. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Drewid

            Only the perpetrator.

            You aren't 'sorry' that ghaucer2 had her privacy and trust violated in such an atrocious matter.

            You are only sorry that your buddy is facing consequences for his own behavior.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 09:33:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Here you go agian: (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              willibro, RiaD

              Making spurious accusations. Prove them, or stop doing this. You're acting like a bully. I've explained my view more than adequately, and here you are, trying to browbeat me into submission.

              I don't support anyone being outed.

              But this is bizarre: No one can offer condolences to long time members for being banned?

              •  You reserved your sympathy for the perp. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Drewid

                For the victim, you got nothing,  Because the victim is not part of your tribe.

                Not saying you supported outing, just that you are not offended by it when it's one of your own doing it.

                If you feel Edger did something ethically wrong, you have kept it a secret.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 09:40:58 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, not true (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  willibro, RiaD

                  I've answer this. You're repeating your argument.

                  •  Would you have banned Edger if you are the (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Drewid

                    site admin?

                    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                    by Geekesque on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 09:45:49 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Read my other post (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      willibro, RiaD

                      You're answering me on multiple sub-threads with the same queries and attacks.

                      Got to go.

                      •  I must've missed where you answered that question (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Drewid

                        Would you have banned Edger?

                        "I will fight for my country, but I will not lie for her. " -- Zora Neale Hurston

                        by blueintheface on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 10:08:56 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I would have used some form of punishment (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          willibro, RiaD

                          that fits the offense. Were I a moderator, if banning were necessary due to the recalcitrance of the person, I would do so. Or I would temporarily suspend for an interval of time. It would depend on the explanation made to me, in private.

                          Edger doesn't strike me as a person who would normally do what he did. Thus, depending on his explanation, and his willingness and assurances to refrain from such behavior in the future, I would take appropriate action to deter such violations of personal privacy, including permanent banning if necessary. I would certainly take appropriate actions to curtail revealing of personal information.

                          It's interesting to note that I once accidentally outed myself years ago on this forum. I asked management to remove the post. They never did. They never even responded to my two attempts to resolve the issue. Makes me wonder why they chose to ignore my request, but "justice" around here sometimes seems selective. It's not a perfect world, I know. And that experience doesn't change the circumstances here. But if management can blow off my accidental outing, it seems as if privacy issues are selectively dealt with. Seems so much moral relativism occurs on the site. Many people have done outrageous things on the site for which they were not banned, when perhaps they should have been.

                          However, none of these issues are offered by me to suggest Edger should not have been banned. I've no idea what was discussed behind the scenes, so I will accept the decision of management.

                          Life goes on. Dkos is a small, tiny, and increasingly less significant slice of the world.

                          •  And before you attack (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            willibro, RiaD

                            go read the entire thread, including my final reply to geek.

                          •  As gchaucher2 already said, reaching out to (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            willibro

                            admins can be hit and miss. With the amount of work that goes into this site, I can understand why, but I can understand why it would be frustrating to not get an answer, particularly when it comes to revealing more info than you wanted to.

                            I think the difference between your issue and Edger's is that his outing, or the threat that he would, was intentional. For that, DKos has always had a zero tolerance policy against intentional outings since I've been here. And one that I, personally, believe should have no exceptions.

                            I agree that we often make things personal here and the amount of emotion that exchange between gchaucher and Edger certainly has people even more fired up than usual. But while privately wishing that you had more info about why Edger did what he did, it may not be helpful to publicly ruminate on it.

                            You make good points that we are all people on this site. But those points are buried by the speculation that there must be some reason why Edger acted out.

                            "I will fight for my country, but I will not lie for her. " -- Zora Neale Hurston

                            by blueintheface on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 11:40:18 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I strongly disagree (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            willibro, Lady Libertine, RiaD

                            that I should not have publicly offered my words to Edger, or that I should not have publicly expressed a desire to know more about motivations and circumstances that would help me understand better another human being.

                            And I did so knowing there would be people who would object. I did this in part to stand up to group-think, to show to myself I have the temerity to be strong in the face of pressure to conform, which is a growing problem on this site.

                            The whole world might condemn me (which has not occurred), but that doesn't mean I'm wrong to not join the mob in condemning the humanity of another person. People haven't merely condemned his action, but his person. I won't do that. Check my history: I don't do much in the way of deeply personal character assassination.

                            And I think my behavior reflects the way I want to be known as a person.

                          •  Here you go (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            willibro, RiaD

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            I did your homework for you.

    •  And please try to control your emotions (1+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      willibro
      Hidden by:
      Geekesque

      Thank god hide rates aren't at all lethal.

      •  Could you be any more of a condescending (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Drewid

        prick in defense of your asshole buddy?

        Your buddy committed a real-world moral/ethical transgression--an act of spite, hate, dishonesty, and extreme ingratitude.

        And you're here attacking on his behalf.

        Seriously, just shut the fuck up.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 08:24:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not attacking (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          willibro

          I expressed to him that I'm sorry he has been banned, that he does good work, and I made this remark so that he would depart knowing there are people who have appreciated him. I never said I condone his action, which I don't. I don't like outing people, and have never done so.

          Someone read that comment and hide rated it, thus attacking me. You have things backwards here.

          And i don't think using the word scumbag helps. We don't know what sort of stress any one individual may be under. We don't know all there is to know about what led him to do what he did. He has been a member of the community for a long time.

          I'm not the sort to join mobs in bandwagon rushes to wholly condemn another human being.

          Check my record: I rarely call for banning anyone.

          •  You are sorry that he got exactly (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Drewid

            what he deserved in this instance.

            You are sorry that he suffered the logical consequences for engaging in disgusting, sleazy, objectively immoral conduct that violated the most basic of site norms and human decency.

            You are not willing to judge Edger for his foul act, but you are willing to smear as "thought police" and "mobs" those who express outrage at his behavior.

            Because you do not share their outrage, becaues Edger was one of yours and thus deserved special treatment.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 09:24:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Notice how you're pushing (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              willibro, RiaD

              your own interpretation on my words, in a rather forceful, bullying manner?

              I'm sorry he was banned because he won't be around to write some of the good diaries he's written.

              Nice try at putting words in my mouth.

              •  Did he deserve the punishment of banning? eom (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Drewid

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 09:34:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  He deserved punishment (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Geekesque, willibro, RiaD

                  Punishment that acts as a strong deterrent to send a message to him and anyone else to not out people. Banning certainly accomplishes that.

                  I've been outed before in other forums, to my great detriment in personal life. I don't support what Edger did. But I certainly don't have to join in some sort of sweeping, extreme condemnation of Edger AS A PERSON, as if he is permanently deemed so flawed as a human being that he has become untouchable. His act I condemn. Him, I don't. He isn't a criminal.

                  I'm not Christian, but there are a few sayings attributed to Jesus Cristo that I truly love, and live by:

                  One is this: He who is without sin, throw the first stone.

                  You must be impeccable in your history, because you're throwing boulders.

      •  I should not have made the remark (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        willibro, Geekesque, RiaD

        to "control emotions." I stand by my point, but there were better ways of phrasing it. It was very late when I made these remarks.

        I don't think the hide rate is justified, but frankly, it's not that big of an issue. It's the first I've received in a long while. I'll take it as part of life for having a point of view on DKos.

        Now, if some of the other actors in this drama regarding my words to Edger would reciprocate, that would be welcome, but I doubt such will be forthcoming.

      •  Uprated (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ZhenRen, RiaD

        There is nothing offensive at all about this comment.

    •  Uprated to counter HR by Edger's flunky (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Drewid

      frandor55.

      Who can also go fuck himself.

      No ethics in that one either.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 08:22:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Cowardly HR by Ubertroll. eom (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueness, Drewid

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 09:15:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You should remove your hide rate (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      willibro, RiaD

      There is nothing wrong with offering a kind word to a person who is leaving the site. Edger isn't a subhuman untouchable not deserving of validation of his humanity and contributions, despite his lapse of judgement in this case.

      Given the stubbornness and animosity on this site, no doubt you will refuse, but for the record, I stand by my remark to Edger. There was nothing at all hide ratable in my post.

      Everyone deserves a friend in difficult times.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site