Skip to main content

View Diary: TEAM SHALOM FRY'D DAZE - I/P OPEN THREAD (48 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's been a very strange week for I/P here (8+ / 0-)

    First of all, people have been oddly quiet in the face of the Shalit release exchange.  This was some of the biggest I/P news in months - Netanyahu makes a deal with Hamas, the 5 year Shalit saga is over, and 1000 Palestinian prisoners are released, including some cold blooded killaz.  I was expecting a flood of content, since we usually get ~3 I/P diaries per day, but we got basically nothing.  Odd...

    Then there is the continuing, quite strange (to say the least) defense of MondoFront and ability to use it as a source.  Those in favor seem to now be extremely concerned that hate sites are not called out one-by-one by name in the DKos FAQ.  This is quite an odd objection, since there are 1000 hate sites on the internet.  The whole thing is so strange, it is the equivalent to complaining that every single crime is not precisely defined in fine print on the side of every police car.

    •  If you are talking about me this is a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lefty Coaster

      misrepresentation of my point, fizziks. I stipulated for the sake of dicussion that I accept that MondoWeiss is an antisemitic source.

      I was surprised that you and others HR a diary that had no other antisemitic content, or intent, but merely for the link.

      You represented that this is current Daily Kos policy, which I accepted but asked you to consider the posiblity that it might be wiser if we voluntarily restrained ourselve from getting into the business of policing the acceptablity of global sites, with regard to hate speech and bigotry.

      We see no apparent disagreement about MondoWeiss.

      My question is what will be our policy, criteria, and process when we have disagrement over these other 1000, or more sites, on every dimension of hate speech?  How will we settle diagreements when they occur.

      IMO we need more work on the who, what, when, where and hows, to make such a policy work.

      The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

      by HoundDog on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 04:23:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It works (6+ / 0-)

        such a policy - where we say no linking to hate sites and no hateful content, but don't specifically list every one of the 1000s of internet hate sites by name in the FAQ - has worked pretty well all this time, all these years, except for Mondoweiss.

        For some reason, there was disagreement over whether Mondoweiss was a hate site worthy of being banned as a reference.  So we had a long, public debate about it with several diaries, each of which attracted many comments for and against*.  After that long public debate where anyone was free to comment, a normally very lenient administrator Metor Blades agreed it was a hate site that had no business being cited here.

        There is no slippery slope toward anything.

        So you ask how we deicde which sites are forbidden.  Easy.  The same way we always have.  If people think a hate site has been referenced, they HR the offending comment or diary, and if it is a new case, provide evidence of the maliciousness of the site.  If others disagree, they uprate, and make their own case.  In some cases, it might take an administrative ruling.

        *the against comments weren't generally too persuasive, mostly being along the lines of 'b-b-b-but the Jews do control the government'

        •  Don't feed the troll. n/t (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fizziks, JayinPortland, Mets102
        •  The "banned site list" is sorta bullshit (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HoundDog

          I really disagree with that on principle. Little Green Footballs used to be on that "banned site" list and remained there even after the owner broke with Republicans and conservatism. Personally I think people should be able to decide the veracity of information gleaned from a site on their own.

          "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

          by Shane Hensinger on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 05:51:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No Shane (4+ / 0-)

            This is a private blog. It is not unreasonable for the administrators to ban a well-documented antisemitic hate site.

            •  It's the principle (0+ / 0-)

              not the particular I have an issue with. I think most users are smart enough to know that something gleaned from "Stormfront" is racist and antisemitic. And the user citing it should be confronted, warned and banned. I just generally have a problem with "prohibited" sites in any context.

              "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

              by Shane Hensinger on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 06:02:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't agree at all, and will leave it at that. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fizziks, Mets102
              •  The user was banned actually (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fizziks, Mets102

                and the problem that I'm having is that this poster is carrying the torch for a just bojo'd poster who WAS pushing up some antisemitic horse shit. I don't care that the site was linked to. I care that the message implicit to that site was problematic. This poster's been WELL spoken to today about it. I spent HOURS reasonably trying to talk this through.

                And I'm not ON any side in the I/P wars although I am certainly in a pretty Progressive Leftist position on the matter. So it's not like my view is slanted. I have defended Muslims on this site too many times. But I cannot abide bigotry in any form and find it to be completely counter to the aims of a Leftist site's goals. And antisemitism is plain as day, especially when I offered the poster a clear breakdown of a definition of it from other, more authoritative places. However, this poster has not stopped beating a drum which makes no sense to me at all. They keep talking in circles and trying to defend a banned user who was pushing antisemitic rhetoric here. Why?

                "This movement is not about the destruction of law, it is about the construction of law." - Julian Assange

                by mahakali overdrive on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 06:09:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't understand what you're saying (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mahakali overdrive, Mets102

                  Who's "talking in circles and trying to defend a banned user?" I don't get involved in the minutiae of I/P fights here so I really don't know what you're talking about.

                  "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

                  by Shane Hensinger on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 06:12:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't either (4+ / 0-)

                    Have you ever seen me in an I/P diary!! Ha, no! I stay out of them.

                    Eh. Just look at the user's comment history and you can see that I have been speaking with him for hours in another diary where this first came up. I was civil. In fact, we were friends prior to this. But he just kept going in circles and some of what he said was offensive to me (and I'm not part of the I/P wars at all).

                    What I am saying is that I don't understand what this poster is even concerned about. At all. He was arguing for so many things that I couldn't follow it all and kept trying to clarify, and finally the other diarist -- who he seemed to be arguing for, I think, who was pushing antisemitic crap, was banned -- and then suddenly this poster's argument shifted to something else and got even more entangled.

                    If you're confused, it's partially because this poster has been going in circles for hours. I literally still have no idea what his main complaint is. Something about how Jews are unfairly using their privilege to decide what is offensive to Jews. And also something about Buddhists that I can't follow at all. And so I gave up trying to follow it at all.

                    "This movement is not about the destruction of law, it is about the construction of law." - Julian Assange

                    by mahakali overdrive on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 06:19:47 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Here is an example of what I'm talking about (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Shane Hensinger, fizziks, Mets102

                    "This movement is not about the destruction of law, it is about the construction of law." - Julian Assange

                    by mahakali overdrive on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 06:21:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Weird (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mahakali overdrive, fizziks, Mets102

                      You really need to be an expert in argument mapping or fact patterns to follow some of these threads.

                      "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

                      by Shane Hensinger on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 06:27:01 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Totally, and if I hadn't been trying to deal with (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Shane Hensinger, fizziks, Mets102

                        it all morning, there's not way I could probably understand it either. I saw the tip jar HR'd, read the post, thought, "That is a weird diary," started reading the comments and was surprised to see this even being debated. I tried to objectively point some things out but wound up being just taken in circles.

                        I feel like I'm about as fair as they come, which is why I interjected. And also, like I said, the poster was someone whose work on nuclear power I'd often supported. However, this was... as you say... weird.

                        "This movement is not about the destruction of law, it is about the construction of law." - Julian Assange

                        by mahakali overdrive on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 06:31:45 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  mahakali, I read none of the original posters (0+ / 0-)

                  comments as the only issue important to me was the wiseness, and viability of the policy and concern that it would set a precident, for future claims that I predicted would become problematic.

                  But, as fizziks assures us it has successfully been in place for a long time with no  such problems I've admitted that my expectations were wrong.

                  I have not been defending the banned user, but arguing that we should not get into the business of arguing about which sources are acceptable or not.  A point of view not accepted by this group, but not because I did not give it adequate try.  If you check carefully, my comments were all about the policy, process, and issues, of implementation of such.

                  I saw no antisemitism in the original post, but based on fizziks representation of the site policy I withdrew my  rec, for what I interpreted as a progressive lamentation of discrimation, long ago yesterday some time I do not remember.  I believe I may have been the first reader. Fizziks to you not mind confirming this?

                  Who are "they" you refer to?  I've seen no other questions about the policy but my own,  in reaction to the people here.  I did not find the post sufficiently interesting to read any other comments in it.

                  Why? Are you talking to me?  If so, this is how, I have been trained to do policy analysis and engineering test to design better ones, more "robust" against expectable scenarios of the future.  But scenario planning, as well, as systemic policy design.  Its what I do.

                  Robustness, is a different mathematical objective that optimization and mean rather than to pursue the optimal design for a predicted future, when the system is too complicated to make accurate predictions, we instead try to design the system and policies in such as way as they are "robust" and can serve adequately well, any any conceivable future.

                  Which is why I offerred so many "extreme conditions" tests or scenarios, to see how the policy would hold up.  

                  It did not in my discussions with you and others, but empirical results trump theories, so if fizziks represents this policy is holding up well, I have no reason to try to be helpful.  Especially, against such a frosty reception.

                  My belief is that we should aggressively test policies, in same way an engineer tests a designs a bridge, and for similar reasons - to improve it.

                  And, engineer who did not have the courage and committment to continue such test, whether even if others are not interested would not be worth his or her salt.  I do not do in some bizairre, counter-intuitive desire to be popular, but to make sure we are being as intelligent, and wise as possible and getting best return on our collective intellecutual investment.

                  I've heard many complainst about our I/P discussion, and wish to make a contribution to improve them as I believe this is an vital area of US, ME, and global national security.

                  But, I need to note that this is Volleyboy1's diary of the topics he chose for todays, discussion, and respect his desire and right to focus group attention on his selected topics so I will make no further  comment on this here, unless asked by him.

                   

                  The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

                  by HoundDog on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 07:02:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  This was my position, and I thought also a clever (0+ / 0-)

            way to avoid controversy about having to argue in advance over abstract general charactorization of a whole site.

            I personally, do not like any kind of censorship, or intimidation, however, if the community has spoken and behind this system, and it is working I have no new opinions that this group here has not heard and rejected.

            To me our HR system, along with comment has proven sufficient to deal with hate speech, I do not see that adding sources seems worth the downside risks.  But, if they do not occur, then it not a point worth pursuing for me.

            The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

            by HoundDog on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 06:35:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  well, this is good to year. Let's see if it (0+ / 0-)

          continues to work.  If this is not new then there is no apparrent reason to be concerned then that we will see a flood of new claims for additional sites to be added to our list, without us having a capacity to deal with, which was one of my primary, concern and expectation.  I stand corrected, then.

          This is the first time I've seen this system described so explicitly, which feel should be conspicuously available someplace.  

          Is it described with such detail anywhere in the FAQ or site rules  in such detail?  I was not able to find it.

          Another, of the criteria I believe is an important foundation for law is that they be published so people can know what they are, and also be confident that they are being enforced consistently.

          I recommend you write this up, in a post, including your representation that this is the current system, and it has been approved of by MB and Kos, and it be archived or referenced by the FAQ.  

          And, or can be quickly reference if anyone other than myself asks about it.

          It seems like a minor process failure that Livosh1 would make such a nasty charactorization of my efforts to determine what the system is. This kind of gratuitous insult is not helpful or appropriate in this case, IMO, and I notice no one here who knows me stands up to refute it.  So be it. Everyone is free to express their opinion and chose their  own level of personal grace and diplomacy.

          I admit I'm surprised that this system works, as well as you say for all the reason I listed before an will not repeat here.

          So you are saying that now other groups have asked that other sources be added to this list here at Daily Kos?

          Because, in the case I described to you that I read about in the Boston Globe describes one, or more of a group of a 30 or so Jewish Group due to one group threatening to resign, if the J-Street group was not forbidden from using a community function room routinely open to all members fo the wider community.

          And, such viewpoints appear more commonly expressed, in the Israeli press.

          I found myelf agreeing with most of the J-Street position, so was surprised and disappointed to hear this news.

           

          The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

          by HoundDog on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 06:28:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are not making sense (1+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            fizziks
            Hidden by:
            Lefty Coaster

            I can't follow what you're saying.  What system? Why do you keep bringing up J-Street out of the blue?

            I'm sorry, HoundDog, but my best recommendation at this point is to put less LSD in your Wheaties. No offense. But you need to go and write your OWN diary about your concerns, I feel. I think you would feel better if you did that. Then other people could also respond to you. You might even find some solidarity for your views.

            "This movement is not about the destruction of law, it is about the construction of law." - Julian Assange

            by mahakali overdrive on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 06:37:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You charactorization of my position is hurtful and (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lefty Coaster

              surprising mahakali, but now is not the time and place for it.  This is volleyboy1 post, and he has selected topics, for comment to focus on.

              I'm happy to respond to any of your questions through email, or elsewhere if you have any further interest, which seems doubtful.

              What I was attempting was a systemic - scenario planning style approach to testing and designing our moderation policy, but will be the first to agree it was not successful and appears to have added no perceivable value to people here.

              Nothing ventured nothing gained.

              The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

              by HoundDog on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 07:09:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Adding "No offense" doesn't make it less offensive (0+ / 0-)

              Gasoline made from the tar sands gives a Toyota Prius the same impact on climate as a Hummer using gasoline made from oil. ~ Al Gore

              by Lefty Coaster on Sat Oct 22, 2011 at 09:30:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I'm going to ask you to cut it out (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fizziks, Mets102

        People have gone around and around with you on this. I have NO IDEA what you are arguing for still. Other than that you are now saying that the diary wasn't antisemitic. Except that the diarist was BANNED. Presumably for his or her content. And in another place, you are saying that your concern is about equally applied criterion. But you also made a borderline antisemitic remark yourself about "Jews being privileged" to make special determinations about antisemitism, which I've already responded to.

        The diarist was banned.

        You caught that part, right?

        And bigotry of all types should not be tolerated on that site.

        There's nothing else to understand. There are two ways that this can be tackled. By a moderator (which apparently it was) or by TU's. That's it. A moderator or TU's decide what's acceptable. Hopefully based off of the basic fact that people who have felt oppressed get to say what makes them feel oppressed.

        Whatever type of oppression they have historically felt.

        For some, it's racism. For others, sexism. Others, religious bigotry. Others, homophobia. It is always the people who have been hurt by language who get to say which language hurts them. And it is our job to pay attention to those complaints.

        And not use that language anymore. Period. The end. This is tedious and absurd.

        "This movement is not about the destruction of law, it is about the construction of law." - Julian Assange

        by mahakali overdrive on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 06:01:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A fair request which I already announced was my (0+ / 0-)

          intention.  But, please represent the comment accurately which I immediatly apologized for when I saw how you interpreted it. In response to your suggestion of a "people know" criteria, I suggested the test case, what if a Chinese group proposed to ban the Tibetan Buddhist, on the basis of their claim that they knew.  My question to you was how could we reject their request, without appears to give preferential treatment to another group, to who we established precident on that criteria.

          But, I will say no more about it here.

          The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

          by HoundDog on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 07:14:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site