Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  how sad (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    keestone, hind, maineiac, lunacat

    I have no position on the Kos Armstrong Brooks scenario. I stumbled  upon this diary from the Huffington Post. I must say that it saddens me to see so many leftists call out for the deletion of someone's sincere questions (no matter how ignorant that person may be). I wish I could find a non-hypocritical people somewhere on this planet. It seems leftists can't avoid being hypocritical either.

    We either let people speak their minds or we don't. There is no in between. I'm sure my post will get negative reactions like STFU or "oh here's another troll." What a weak response, calling someone a troll when they challenge your stated position.

    •  Are you having a nice conversation with yourself? (0+ / 0-)

      Really, please stop this internal argument, it's sad to witness.

    •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      redhatmandan, FelisRufus

      I'm astounded at the vitriol of the responses.  I'm more concerned about Kos's libertarian leanings than his email (non)story but for casual readers, or those who have been busy at work for the past week and are tuning back in after running across Brooks' hatchet job in the NYT, it would make sense to just link to previous diaries that lay out the narrative and explain the situation dispassionately.  If we disparage liberals who have not done their own research as lazy, what hope to do we have of reaching people who rely on the MSM (or even Fox) for their information?

    •  No, but I suggest you read (0+ / 0-)

      the TOS guidelines for posting a diary before reacting to it's calls for deletion and calling those requesting it hypocritical.

    •  From the Diary FAQ (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nightprowlkitty

      Diarists are strongly encouraged to back up all assertions with facts (and preferably links to supporting materials) whenever possible. Use reputable sources whenever possible. If you can't find a reputable source that supports your position, then perhaps reconsider writing your diary.

      The diarist has already admitted in her comments to having done incomplete research before posting and to have based her assumptions solely on David Brooks' charges rather than on the huge body of content that exists addressing this issue over the past 2 weeks. Furthermore links to this body of content have been provided to the diarist yet she refuses to acknowledge them or correct her mistakes.

      "Calling out" other site users by name in diary titles is prohibited. Diaries which "call out" another by name tend to needlessly inflame.

      Publicly accusing Kos of committing a crime in the title of her diary is not only inflamatory, it is potentially slanderous. Furthermore, Markos can be contacted by email, eliminating the need for this diary altogether.

      Diaries which are deliberately designed to inflame are prohibited.

      and finally:

      If you receive a reasonable request from a fellow Kossack to delete your diary (i.e., your diary is duplicative as per above), please do so.

      •  uh.... (0+ / 0-)

        Diaries which are deliberately designed to inflame are prohibited.

        uh, wouldn't that actually apply to every single diary excoriating Anne Coulter with foul language? Would that not include every single diary that trashes any Bush Administration official or any Republican? Shall I go over the list of diaries that do this?

        Please tell me which of these diaries adheres to this rule, to not be deliberately inflammatory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        take a look at the language in this one:

        On Wednesday,  June 21st, Republican bigots in the House of Representatives derailed the renewal of the National Voting Rights Act...you know, the one that guarantees the free and fair access for ALL Americans to one of our most basic rights, regardless of race, creed or color?  Well, apparently these cowardly vermin want a return to the dark days of Jim Crow...and it's looking more and more like they just may get their wish.  

        No, friends, that GOP "big tent" comes MUCH closer to being a big white sheet.  Complete with pointed hood.  From the earliest beginnings of Nixon's "Southern Strategy," some thirty years ago, Republicans have been America's Party of Hate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Shall I even show you the Anne Coulter examples? Every single one of these, written in the past several days, are inflammatory in nature, using hyperbole and vitriol to describe their political opponents, the Republicans. Where are you to denounce their use of inflammatory diaries, Mr. Spartakos?

        Instead of focusing on what the diarist is asking here on her diary, you instead hypocritically pull out the rarely enforced rules. How dare she call out the leader? How dare she challenge him? yet, DailyKos diarists have no problem seeing and writing inflammatory diaries about Republicans on a daily basis.

        If you cannot handle the heat, perhaps you should not play. Like I said, I have no position on the matter of the subject of the diary, but am extremely troubled by the hypocritical calls for censorship here on this site, a site which has as its vision and goals to represent on the Internet the views and membership of the entire Democratic party at some point.

        •  . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nightprowlkitty

          Requesting that a diarist remove or correct fallacies and inaccuracies once the diarist is aware of those fallacies and inaccuracies is not "censorship".

          I notice you chose to ignore the rest of the loooooong list of issues surrounding this diary that I highlighted above, just as the diarist repeatedly chose to ignore the facts once they were made known to her.

        •  Nice little slippery argument (0+ / 0-)

          you have going on here.  You must know that this is a liberal site, and the purpose of this site is partisan and makes no bones about it.  Do you honestly believe that the caution about not being inflammatory means that we should write nice respectful diaries about Bush and Rove and Coulter and etc.?  I don't think you do believe that, but your argument is trying as hard as it can to shift the subject onto something which doesn't apply.  I cry foul, redhatmandan.

          Second, how many times must it be said that we DID focus on what the diarist was asking on this diary?  Her diary asked if Kos had written an email.  Yes.  Kos wrote an email. How was her question not answered?  And how can you not understand the intention of the guidelines for this site and so misinterpret them the way you have just done in your post?

          If you cannot handle the heat, perhaps you should not play.

          You should take your own advice, I think.

          •  so in other words (0+ / 0-)

            it's okay to be inflammatory towards your political opponents, just as long as you are not inflammatory towards your own. In other words, I can say Bush sucks, but I can't say Feingold sucks, eh? yeah, pot and kettle meet again.

            and Spartakos, you are right. i focused more on those who simply posted vitriol against her, while I did not mention that some commentators did actually clarify and answer for the diarist. But it sure undermines the desire of this website to become mainstream when, upon the slightest of challenges, lurkers come out of the shadows to attack the messenger rather than refute the message.

            If we truly wish to succeed against the Republicans, this infighting must end. We must be able to withstand questions from within, without the censorship calls.

            •  Now you are really sliding around, aren't you? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TheSourcesAss

              Is it okay to be inflammatory towards your political opponents?  As in -- what?  Where do you draw the line between being justifiably outraged and angry and being inflammatory?  Are there calls for violence, perhaps?  I haven't read any.  To equate the angry and insulting language towards opponents on a partisan site with hypocrisy is, I believe, plain wrong.  Once again you are trying to shift the argument and it just isn't going to work.

              You call it "infighting."  I call it honest debate and yes, it sometimes gets pretty rough.  The diarist posted an inflammatory post, accusing the founder of the site of "crimes" that never took pace.  She did not do any research and when the flaws in her piece were pointed out to her, she simply shifted her arguments and continued to smear both Kos and this site.

              If we truly wish to succeed against the Republicans we have to oppose them.  You notion of people only posting "vitriol" against the diarist shows your own bias.  Has it ever occurred to you that there is real emotion about this issue, about being attacked and smeared?  As you noticed, there were many posters who tried in a very civil fashion to communicate with this diarist.  It didn't work.

              I really find offensive your notion that the honest response to this diarist was a call for "censorship."  Read the FAQs again.  This site is perfectly well able to withstand questions from within.  What it does not do, is suffer fools gladly.

              •  actually (0+ / 0-)

                As you noticed, there were many posters who tried in a very civil fashion to communicate with this diarist.  It didn't work.

                actually she seemed more responsive to those who were civil, surprise surprise.

                As to the rest, I think there is no more good coming from continuing this.

                •  Responsive? (0+ / 0-)

                  Both McJoan and Elise practically tore their hair out trying to give this diarist the benefit of the doubt.  In return ... nothing.  I don't know what you mean by responsive.  She continued to stick to her story no matter how people responded to her, even when the facts of what she said were debunked.

                  You can see by my posts that I am not a name caller, I don't use profanity, all that jazz.  I have no problem with being civil.  I think where we disagree is that I believe we need to fight back when attacked and not suffer fools.  I found this diarist's post to first be foolish and then, when she did not retract her obvious mistakes, to be an attack.  I don't know what it would take you see it that way or whether or not you agreed with the substance of what she said.

                  Civility has its place.  But so does fighting back, calling a spade a spade, and outright rejecting hypocritical, factually incorrect and divisive rhetoric.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site