Skip to main content

View Diary: Kos: The cover-up is worse than the crime. (259 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The lying about how many diaries written (14+ / 0-)

    Demands an immediate explanation from the diarist.

    •  Interesting that all comments... (5+ / 0-)

      ...are since June 3, 2006, but there are no ratings since 2005?  Curious usage pattern for a "regular  reader and poster" with a user number of 18548.

      Teacher's Lounge opens each Saturday, sometime between 10am and 11am EST

      by rserven on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:52:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Archive. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mariva, Nightprowlkitty

        There are comments in the archive.  Including a couple in a 9/11 CT diary.

      •  Stop attacking the messenger (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hind, IreneNC, lunacat

        And respond to the message.

        And demand the same answers and accountability we demand from everyone else.

        Stop playing the administration's game of "if you criticize us, you are providing comfort to the enemy", and stop swift-boating anyone who dares voice dissent of the Kos party line.

        All you are doing is lending credibility to Brook's over the top characterizations. All you are doing is marching blindly in lock-step, ignoring history's lessons of how many would-be revolutionaries ended up reproducing the same abuses of power of those they sought to overthrow - because they did not hold themselves up to the same standards as "the enemy".

        This diarist is courageous. It is so easy to be popular here, but just lip-synching with everyone else. It takes courage and principle to stand up and say, "wait a minute, aren't we accountable too? Don't the same standards apply to us, too?"

        This is shameful, this moblike thuggishness.

        Answer the question. IS IT TRUE?

        •  Can you point out anything I said... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peraspera, Nightprowlkitty

          ...that was an attack on the messenger.  I read this diary.  To get a little background, I went to see who the diarist was and what they might have said elsewhere.  Then I made a comment, to one of the administrators, imagine that, that the usage pattern was curious.  Lacking any participation by the diarist to that point, I was worried that someone might have hacked this account.

          Where in all of that is there an attack on the diarist?

          As far as the question, I am not required to answer anything.  I have no investment in answering anything about this topic.  I don't give a damn about this topic...because I figure it's none of my damn business.

          Robyn

          Teacher's Lounge opens each Saturday, sometime between 10am and 11am EST

          by rserven on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 12:34:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You are wrong. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peraspera

          This is a community policing site -- which means that when trolls post diaries or comments which derail the discourse it is the responsibility of those who can troll rate to do so.  Asking questions about the comment or diary patterns of the posters is one way to find out whether or not their posts are written in good faith or are designed to degrade discourse.

          I am curious about your nonsensical demand to "answer the question."  If you read this site you would know the "question" has been answered over and over again.

          As far as anyone here marching in lockstep with Kos -- I find that characterization disingenuous and offensive on your part -- this is not a popularity contest and your disagreement is no cause for you to mischaracterize those of us who clearly see a problem with this diary and the resulting comments of the poster.

          •  lockstep (0+ / 0-)

            Dissent is squelshed not by some kind of official policy, but by mob rule - by a minority of self-appointed protectors of the faith who take it upon themselves to prevent anyone from questioning Kos or holding him to account on anything. Others join in implicitly by failing to object to such witch hunts.

            Remember, there wasn't any ringleader in Salem - the witchhunts just gained their own insane momentum, because no one stood up and said, "wait a minute".

            The facts are that:

            a)Kos show some personal leadership and could influence this trend, by, for example, making public posts condemning the witch hunts. He has never chosen to do so, instead he has always implicitly endorsed them - and even launched a few of his own against critics;

            b)Despite bold assertions that "this is not Kos's movement", the standard response to anyone criticizing him or this site is, "if you don't like it, go make your own site, this is Kos's and he is the boss". So there really is not an openness to dissent here.

            c) The simple fact is that this site could and should be an examplar of the kind of transparency, openness and accountability that Kos, and all of us, are constantly demanding from others - from politicians, from activists, from journalists, and from bloggers - but only if they are on the Right.

            This culture only seems novel to young people who refuse to study the history of dissent. To those of us who do, it is obvious that the pathology of group-think and hero-worship here is not a healthy thing - not for our goals of democratizing the process and empowering the people, not for systemic change that would prevent the same abuses from happening, just with new faces on the marquee.

            Kos' personal behavior and statements to date cast serious questions about his ethics and integrity and the sincerity of his call for reform.

            Reform starts at home. Kos could choose to practice what he preaches. Since he does not, that causes some of us to call for us here to take a moment and look in the mirror.

            Look - if an environmental activist, to use a random example, were to drive around in a Hummer while condemning waste, would that not be a legitimate thing to question?

            The way the culture is here, anyone who dared to raise such a question would immediately be targetted as a troll, would be attacked and hounded out of this place, and would be accused of giving comfort to the enemy.

            Come on folks, time to grow up and learn from history and past mistakes of well-meaning but ultimately ineffective attempts at reform.

            If you don't live what you promote, well, sooner or later the shit will hit the fan.

            But, by all means, continue to expend all your enemy at either shutting us up or driving us out of here, so that you can have an even more uniform unquestioning crowd, who delude themselves that they are "dissident" and "progressive" because they join a chorus that only attacks one way.

            There is nothing revolutionary about how to be popular here. To actually create reform takes courage, a courage that I see lacking both at the helm of this place and among its footsoldiers.

            Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This has happened so many times; many of us lived through it in the sixties. The answer to corruption is not to place blind trust in different people - it is to reform the system itself, starting with oneself.

            Just count the number of posts in this diary that attack the poster, without even addressing the substance or even acknowledging that some people might have legitimate concerns.

            Look at how folks are demonizing the messenger. That is unhealthy for reform. That is not democracy, that is thoughtless mob rule that just leads to new thugs replacing the old thugs.

            What a waste.

            •  The average age (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TheSourcesAss

              of liberal bloggers is 45.  Your notion that the people here are young wildeyed reactionaries is just plain wrong.  You are making criticisms of something you clearly do not understand.  I suggest you read the FAQ for this site to see why there are trusted users who are given the responsibility of troll rating those who would disrupt the site.  Your characterizations are just plain wrong.  It makes me wonder how much of this site you have read.

              The diarist here asked a question, if Kos had written an email.  He did write the email and explained his view prior to this diarist's diary.  When confronted by that fact, the diarist then changed her argument and continued to smear the site.  Quite frankly, very few of her comments were troll rated, which is why you are able to read this diary, so I don't get your accusation of censorship.  And if you read the thread you will see many instances where people bent over backward trying to explain to the diarist why her arguments were based on unfactual information.

              The rest of your rant is aimed towards something, but I can't see what.  Certainly not this site.  I've never seen any censorship.

              •  I think you are wasting your time (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Nightprowlkitty, TheSourcesAss

                rationalist has a UID over 80,000 but claims to have been here in various incarnations since the pre-scoop days.  So I am thinking he/she has had previous run-in(s) with Markos that led to a banning and resulted in hard feelings that you are not going to overcome no matter how many facts you present.

              •  Substance of critique missed completely (0+ / 0-)

                Your notion that the people here are young wildeyed reactionaries is just plain wrong.

                Straw man, or perhaps just careless reading. I did not make any assertion about the demographics of "liberal bloggers", as you claim.

                Your reference to trusted users is nonsensical, as I was not criticizing the moderation system here.

                Again, you erect a straw man of "censorship", which, in this case, cannot be excused as carelessness but must be deliberate misdirection. Not only did I not accuse Markos of censorship, I specifically said that the assaults on dissent are NOT part of some kind of official policy or act.

                It is interesting that you choose to ignore the entire substance of the call for accountability, transparency and powersharing, and zero in on "censorship".

                This is a convenient straw man whenever one's actions are questioned. The videogame industry, the music industry and the film industry use cries of "censorship" whenever the ethical choices its developers and publishers make are questioned, even when those challenges are made by those inside those communities, calling for higher voluntary standards. Anyone who calls for social responsibility in commercial art is equated to Lieberman.

                Similarly, anyone here who questions the lack of accountability, transparency and powersharing here, is immediately confronted with a straw man of "censorship", and accused of giving comfort to "the enemy".

                Or, the childish game of user ID rankism is played - yet another way of avoiding the substantive issues.

                And so, none of the substantial issues are ever discussed. Which is not a good thing for a reform movement that proports to want to change the system, not just the names of the people in charge.

                •  A witch hunt is not a form of censorship? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Nightprowlkitty

                  furthermore, your statement that "This culture only seems novel to young people who refuse to study the history of dissent." is pretty clearly implying that the readers of this blog who are allowing the "witch hunts" are too young and naive to know better.  

                  I think you should be more careful about what you write before you accuse others of "careless reading".

                  •  No, a witch hunt is a form of mob rule (0+ / 0-)

                    There was a clear implication that I was accusing Markos personally of censorship - at least that is how it sounded to me. If I misread your response, I apologize.

                    My point was that there is an marked intolerance of internal dissent in this community, by this community, or at least by a vocal dominant sub-group within it, without a comparable countervailing voice.

                    My point was, further, that, rather than addressing the substantive argument - that we should demand the same accountability, transparency, independence from commercial interests, strict avoidance and disclosure of even the appearance of conflict of interest and powersharing of everyone - including Markos.

                    When people respond to dissenting voices by saying, "this is Markos' business, if you don't like it, make your own site", that is not a healthy trend for this community. And, it is hypocritical when the same people argue that "this is not Markos' community, he doesn't own us, we dont' have to agree with him".

                    You can't have it both ways - or, rather, you can, but that weakens the movement toward fundamental reform.

                    You assume I am antagonistic to that movement and that I need to be attacked - you seek to cast doubt on my credibility and credentials - why? How does any of that address the substantive critique?

                    Whether my UID is 5 of 5 million, should not matter. Whether my age is 18 or 80 should not matter. Whether I post a million diaries or none should not matter - any more than the ad hominem attacks on Markos' more prominent critics matter.

                    Is it not legitimate and contstructive to suggest that we apply equal standards and equal expectations from all who would speak for us? And don't pretend Markos doesn't often presume to speak for all of us. He wouldn't be on TV or radio or in print if he didn't have this community on this site.

                    (and he won't even be honest about the numbers here, despite repeated polite requests. Those of us in the web dev business know how questionable "unique visitors" is as a stat of community reality. Markos has been asked to publish the numbers of people who actually have posted anything in the past 30, 60 or 90 days, and the number who have every posted a comment, and the number who have posted diaries, and the number who are active participants, according to and agreed upon metric - say, those who have posted more than a dozen comments a month for more than three months, or measured by diaries or something else.

                    Do you know why he resists so? Because his ad revenue depends on the number of readers he claims, and it is in his interest to inflate those numbers - and because, traditionally in the business world, such numbers are considered proprietary.

                    Does that not represent a clear conflict between his commercial interests and what is in the best interests of the reform movement? Would not a public sharing of such information, in the spirit of openness and transparency, in the interest of all of us grass-roots folks being empowered with real facts and information, would that not be the right thing to do?

                    There are many, many similar instances where Markos has had the opportunity to practice what he preaches and lead by example. Not only has he chosen not to, but the community jumps on anyone who asks him to be accountable and transparent.

                    The fact is, it is impossible to have intelligent, constructive conversations here about such things - even on the purely technical level, in terms of empowering more community-led decisionmaking and less top-down management and administration.

                    Giving people the ability to make diaries here is not sharing power. It just gives Markos the ability to represent himself as having this big community behind him, so he can get public attention and power himself. No one here has any real power on this site, and anyone can be banished at Markos' sole whim. There is no one holding him accountable, no one to whom he is answerable, and he doesn't even share publicly his administrative decisions.

                    Any time you have such a situation, it is rife for abuse.

                    That is the very reason we call for institutional reform, that is the raison d'etre of this movement.

                    Yet, time and time again, whenever we have been challenged to live the reform we preach, it always ends up being just about changing the faces on the marquee. We are asked to "just trust" markos that he would do things differently. Well, I'm looking at this site here, and he, infact, runs it very much like any other unaccountable business.)

                    •  dont have time or energy (3+ / 0-)

                      to read and respond to the whole thing right now.  It is just too late at night to do so.  But I want to clarify something about my UID comment.  The fact that you are user 81732 does not matter to me.  But the fact that you have that high a number and also have claimed to have been here in various incarnations is relevant.  My suppostion that you have had previous run-ins/issues with Markos helps to explain your position and your tone.  I just don't see it as an attack to mention these things to let Nightprowlkitty know that you are not likely to change your mind.  

                      •  Speaking of censorship, (0+ / 0-)

                        is not the rabid pressure to delete critical diaries an attempt to censor dissent?

                        I haven't heard a single one of you defenders of propriety condemn those who call for deletion of critical diaries, who joke about a "smite this diary" button.

                        Nor have I seen you condemn the vicious personal insults spewed at the diary writer.

                        THIS is exactly the culture that people observe from the outside, and which dissenters experience on the inside, which leads to charges of groupthink and mobrule.

                        Folks here would seem to have a lot more integrity if they devoted just a little time to criticizing those who attack the messenger and those who call for deletion of criticism.

                        Focusing your attacks on me or the diary writer while ignoring the viciousness of your peers does not speak well of your own credibility in this discussion.

    •  Sorry for underestimating my output (0+ / 0-)

      In a world where people routinely exaggerate their accomplishments, how stupid of me to say I had written two, when over the immense span of 3 years, I managed to grind out ten.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site