Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (45)
  • Elections (37)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (34)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (28)
  • Barack Obama (27)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Culture (23)
  • Economy (20)
  • Labor (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Senate (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site