It seems that I found the limits of free speech toleration practiced by the management of the Dailykos when I posted a comment in a thread which called into question the assumption that going off to fight in the Iraq war equals bravery.
I suggested that there are also other forms of bravery, including the variety which includes refusing to fight in that war. In my post, which was one of dozens or scores of others, buried in a long thread, I even alerted the sensitive reader with a cautionary: "this is where those of you with your minds already made up...should stop reading..."
That was at least a week ago.
Try finding that post of mine now. I do not think you'll be able to. Apparently, it was deleted, without comment, without notice or explanation. I can only assume that some readers ignored my caution and went on to read, went on to become offended that anyone would dare to suggest the idea--as I did--
and, here, again, if you already have your mind made up and hold as unquestionable the bravery of all of "our troops" then perhaps you, too, should not read further and should not ignore this notice--
suggested that there are even those who simply follow orders and report to the call up for deployment, not necessarily out of bravery but just as much or more out of fear of the repercussions to them, their family, their job, if they refused.
That, apparently went beyond what Dailykos could tolerate in unconventional views and so, it seems, they censored it.
Nothing could better illustrate the power of words, of unpopular ideas than to see one's views censored as unacceptable. I recommend that those of you who think that in our society all opinions are open to debate and discussion re-examine that assumption --yes, "even" in a so-called liberal, open-minded forum such as the Dailykos is supposed to be. On mentioning on a thread ( in another public forum) that I'd been banned from the New York Times reader fora, I was asked by one regular there why I was banned. The answer is always simple and always the same: something was written, expressed, which those in authority refused to allow to remain for others to see, to consider.
Since the Dailykos censored my post, I'm obviously through practicing "free speech" there; I'm also through contributing any other opinions of mine to their fora.
For me, they just made a mockery of the principles they are supposed to stand for and they certainly joined President Bush in making a mockery of the very principles for which our nation's combat troops are supposedly risking, and many losing, their lives.
To those who object to seeing their automatic assumptions concerning the bravery on the part of our nation's soldiers, all those who answer President Bush's war orders, put into question, I have only this to say:
Speech is the first freedom. To cavalierly suppress it in the idea that doing so protects the honor of the fallen or to place ahead of free speech, a concern for the potential injury to the feelings of the loved ones of those soldiers killed is to reduce freedom of speech to a matter of momentary convenience.
I used to have respect for the Dailykos. I now have none nor any further use for this site.
UPDATE:
I've read the first 31 comments below; that is to say, ALL of the comments as of this update, the good, the bad and the ugly. I particularly appreciate those who informed me that I was surely mistaken in supposing that the site management had something to do with the disappearance of my post. I also appreciate "bink" recommendation-thank you! [ ;^) ] and the posts by ormondotvos and saul2006.
It's true that in the relatively brief time I've been here, I had not learned that it was possible for diarists to delete not only their own diaries but all of the comments appended to them as well, and this with a few clicks of the mouse. I very much object to that practice--and agree fully with those below who expressed their objections to it.
To suggest that this objection is due to my immaturity is an assertion I have no more respect for than I do for those who would treat so disrespectfully the time and thought others contribute in commenting on others' diaries. It ought to be the case here that diarists understand as a given that posting a diary implies acceptance of comment in reply--ALL COMMENT. One need not respect or reply to every posted comment but those comment should not be subject to removal by the original diarist. That they are is a fault which, ultimately, has to be addressed to the site's authorities. To attempt to excuse such a thing as "Gee, you know, we can't help it, we just run the place is more of the sort of bizarre thinking that has so enabled Bush and Cheney. It seems that many progressives have, in the course of becoming terribly "yeah, whatever," have also lost the capacity to hold those in authority responsible.
Among the many remedies available are these:
The site's management could instruct all those who register that, while they may issue corrections and retractions to their posted diaries, they may not delete them as this violates the rights and interests of those who take the trouble to read and comment on them. I do not excuse the failure of the Dailykos to have taken at least that minimum measure, since they are responisble for formulating and applying the standards in use at this site.
If this site has been in operation for a year or more, it's hardly conceivable that the matter is new or that it has not been considered; I can only conclude from that that they have preferred to leave in the hands of diarists the capacity to delete all commentary with impugnity.
Or, the software could be amended to prohibit the erasure of diaries. Again, people should be responsible for their writing and, if they write something and later regret it, they should be limited to posting those regrets in a retraction or revision which leaves the original and its commentary in tact. This should have the salutary effect of encouraging people to consider more carefully before they hit the "submit" key.
At least one of the above is possible and should be a great improvement over the current situation.
For obvious reasons, though I was clearly at fault in precipitously blaming the management for the deletion of my post, I certainly won't be removing this diary and all its comments. I may have posted the diary but I didn't post the commentaries and they are not mine to remove for any reason.
Almost every day offers me fresh examples of how shoddy reasoning on the part of supposed progressives contributes to their political principles being easily put through the wringer by Neo-cons and Bush-league conservatives.
You despise the war but are _proud_ of those officers and enlisted men and women whose cooperation makes that which you despise possible? Yes, whether you recognize it or not, whether you like it or not, that manner of reasoning is absolutely indistinguishable from the blind obedience--given grudgingly or whole-heartedly by the German people of the 1930s and 1940s to Chancellor Hitler. They, too, considered themselves as patriots, and though they may have disapproved of the Hitler's war, they didn't disapprove enough to hinder it in any significant way.
It seems that for some people, as long as they don't see swastikas on the flag and their Fuhrer sporting a little cropped moustache, then they remain at attention and ready to salute the flag. Such people deserve what befalls them.
(note: the blockquote formatting did respect the paragraphing as I drafted it in this update.)