This is a diary in response to the banning rampage and the resulting "naughty behavior" restriction diaries. While this didn't directly effect me, it effects me simply b/c I am a member of this community, and I'm not sure if it's OK to ban someone b/c you think they go over the line by endorsing nonracsist conspiracy theory, especially when such postings can be easily countered and discredited. Regarding Hunter's
Community Standards diary, I feel that there is a huge gap between the first example and the second, third, and fourth examples. There really is no comparison between hysterical thinking and racist value judgements/comments. Racism, homophobia, sexism, and classist BS are intolerable.
Banning foolishness, on the other hand, seems to be a rather Draconian measure.
More under there!
Reasonable Speculation: The London bombings are consistent with al Qaeda methods and motives.
Unreasonable Speculation: The CIA copied al Qaeda practices and set bombs in London.
Grounds For Banning: Asserting that both theories are equally valid.
vs
Reasonable: "There are news reports suggesting Israeli intelligence had hints of the attacks and warned British officials." (This one's reasonable to suggest if you have evidence, e.g. an actual cite, but at this point has none I deem credible, by the way.)
Unreasonable: "Israeli intelligence warned Israeli citizens but not the UK." (This instantly presented one is a rehash of every jackass anti-Semitic 9/11 theory that still trolls through right-wing racist websites, just repackaged with the word "London" copy-and-pasted where "New York" was. Consider the source, before you post.)
Grounds for Banning: "Those sneaky Jews let the bombings happen." 'Nuff said.
While I share in the opinion that over the top conspiracy theories are usually nothing if not damaging to the credibility of reality based thought that shares the same forum, banning someone for getting hysterical doesn't sit well with me. These are difficult times, and it is common for many of us that have suddenly found ourselves impugned at best and maligned, marginalized, or even physically threatened at worst, to allow ourselves to project the level of darkness that we have personally encountered on to our world view, or to analyze hyper-critically, which can obviously be unproductive.
The good thing about places like dKos is that there will always be someone who is highly informed, articulate, and capable, and can bring a tinfoil hatter back down to earth. More so, allowing others to see cohesive posts/diaries presenting hard evidence and analysis which can sway their opinion seems a bit more fair than banning someone for thinking that seems to have left the reality fair grounds aboard a flying 4-H pig.
I've been coming here since about 1 year before the elctions in '04, and the thing that has impressed me the most is the fact that this space is really the sum of it's parts, and the potential impact of every member's voice upon eachother, or even the world at large.
Outside of this site, I have watched as people around me become disheartened by what is going on in this country, or become radicalized in their reactions to the relentless avalanche of shit that the Bush Crime Family have released upon us. I always seem to have the need to take pause and look at the state of the world around me, and it's scary. When I was growing up in the last century, everything was so positive, so stable. The American dream was back in full swing, and it seemed like my generation was destined for great things. In 5 short years, we have witnessed a destablization so pervasive, you can't thow a rock in your front yard without striking someone who has had their life negatively impacted by recent domestic and forgien policy.
We have seen pretty fantasical scenarios transpire since Shrub stole the WH in his SCOTUS endorsed coup. That in itself was something that seemed unbelievable, something that just couldn't happen here. Each day since the GOP took hold, we have seen our country deteriorate, on every level. Everything that Americans held dear is either altered, destroyed, restricted, or endangered. With a political climate like that, is it any wonder that many of us feel uneasy, even paranoid, or that some of us may allow our fears to run wild?
If some of us allow our fears to run wild and are endorsed by others who comisserate, and they do it within the forum that is dKos, is it right to eliminate them from the group? Is extreme paternalism in the form of banning nessecarry? Don't such measures change the exsisting (successful)group dynamic? Who gets to define the "reality" paradigm for dKos? Is it the creator, Markos, or is it the community, which in my opinion is the most important facet of this blog? Why is the person who gives equal credence to the ideas that London's bombing tragedy is consistent with Al Qaeda m.o. / The American CIA copied Al Qaeda m.o. and bombed our (only, at this point)major ally less reality based than the person who gives equal credence to the theory of evolution and creationism, b/c God created evolution? (the latter of each example are both rubbish IMO) Did the ratings and reccomendation systems fail? Are they not in place so we can monitor ourselves?
Using the principals of operant cpnditioning, which are:
Something Good can start or be presented;
Something Good can end or be taken away;
Something Bad can start or be presented;
Something Bad can end or be taken away.
the ratings system works.
If you are contributing in a valued way, you are given good ratings and reccomended diaries. You become a Trusted User. As such, you will continue to produce on a productive level. If you are producing negatively, you will be negatively rated, and loose TU status. If you continue contributing negatively, you will be banned. Is that not enough?
When one has been a productive community member who voices opinion on an issue found distasteful by Markos, and is suddenly banned, simply for expressing support of a ridiculous theory, it seems to be a violation of the agreement implicit between the member and the owner: the member behaves appropriately, the member continues unscathed.
When we start supporting the removal of others simply b/c they have a silly idea, and we deny them the fair treatment of judgement through mojo, it seems we are a lot closer in our values and behavior to those at RedState and Freeperville than we'd like to think.