Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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:

        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