Poll: Should Kossacks advertise on hate sites?

Suppose a Kossack knowingly accepts free front-page advertising on a hate site -- one bearing not only her own posts but also those of, say, David Irving, Ernst Zündel, Lyndon LaRouche, Edgar Steele (google them if you're unfamiliar with them). Is that good or bad for DailyKos?

One could argue, on one hand, that because she isn't responsible for what's posted on the hate site, and because no money is changing hands, she has no moral culpability, and that therefore she's not tainted, and therefore her advertising on hate sites doesn't taint DailyKos.

On the other hand, one could argue that not even Candide's wild-eyed Dr. Pangloss could believe that any possible good could come from advertising on a hate site, no matter how pure (read "naïve") the advertiser's intentions are.

•  They're a worthless waste of DNA

  That's what I think.

  I suppose you're speaking about a specific person?  Doesn't matter who, but I definitely know some who support hate speech.

  by Plutonium Page on Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:33:42 AM PDT

  •  yes, I'm thinking of someone specific

    and am trying to break through her naïvete barrier.

    Failing that, I'm going to suggest she be removed from DailyKos.

    by zemblan on Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:38:47 AM PDT

    •  Let me ask you ...

      Who exactly are you to "suggest" that anyone be removed from this site?  And for what?  Is she breaking rules of the site that define bannable offenses?  Sure doesn't sound like it to me.

      by bustacap on Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:46:55 AM PDT

      •  Someone who doesn't find racism "progressive." nt

        by zemblan on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:11:20 PM PDT

      •  Here's the problem:

        This is the I/P wars for you. They see her as guilty by association because she posts on People's Voice, a site that posts a lot of left-wing voices, but that also posts some known holocaust deniers and hatemongers as well. The question is, how far do we want to go in tolerating that sort of thing? I don't want to see her banned at this point, but I think that she is hurting herself through this.

        by Eternal Hope on Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:24:16 PM PDT

    •  Okay, now I'm curious

      Who are we talking about, and on what site is she advertising?

      by dtj on Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:53:58 AM PDT

    •  You do know Anncoulter advertizes

      here via google ads?

      by mattes on Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:56:26 AM PDT

      •  Are you claiming DailyKos is a hate site, mattes?

        n/t

        by zemblan on Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:58:47 AM PDT

        •  No. But anncouter is. Are you going to abandon

          dk now?

          by mattes on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:01:25 AM PDT

          •  Ann C. thinks DKos is a hate site?

            by Pumpkinlove on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:04:51 AM PDT

            •  ? No. You are not making sense.

              by mattes on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:05:27 AM PDT

            •  I'm sure she does

              but I think that you are pretending to miss mattes' point, for some reason.

              by dtj on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:07:33 AM PDT

          •  Apples and oranges

            When you go for Google ads, you don't get to control the choices Google makes for those ads.

            Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that DKos decided to accept Google advertising specifically so that Ann Coulter could advertise here, or that DKos has some way of keeping Ann Coulter Google ads off that it hasn't exercised.

            by zemblan on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:15:48 AM PDT

            •  This is inappropriate, zemblan

              Although I do not agree with some of your opinions on I/P, I think you are a genuine and positive contributor.  This diary does not reflect that.  I ask that you consider confronting this diarist either on her own diaries, or on whichever outside sites that you find objectionable.  It is a very poor idea to begin discrediting I/P contributors based on their activities elsewhere.  This approaches accusations of "GIYUS" trolling.

              by GN1927 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:32:51 AM PDT

              •  I appreciate your concern

                And it took me a week to decide whether or not to do this diary, knowing that I would get some negativ comments.

                But it really comes down to this. It's simply impossible, simply impossible, to take an anti-Israel poster seriously knowing that she willingly affiliates herself with an overtly antisemitic site. I am hoping that, given a strong enough statement of that by the DKos community, she will see that she's losing far, far, far more than she gains by that ad, and that I think the ad also jeopardizes her account here.

                Do we really want this to be a site where it's okay to hang with David Irving and the Holocaust-is-a-myth set? Is our definition of "progressive" so flexible that it can stretch to hanging with the International-Jewish-Conspiracy set? This is not simply a matter of political differences, and it's wrong to treat it as such. It's a matter of racism, raw overt racism, racism she is fully aware of but still sees no need to disassociate herself from.

                What I'm hoping is that a clear signal from DKos readers will open her eyes to the damage she's doing to both herself and this site.

                by zemblan on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:48:46 AM PDT

                •  But all we have is your word for it.

                  That is not what we are about either as a country or as a community. I'm not going to hang her out to dry unless there is clear and convincing evidence that she is doing what you say she is. And regarding the site in question, there are a whole number of people who hang out at that site and post articles there like this place. Just because she posts there does not mean that she supports Irving or LaRouche. And I could not find any articles by those people or their supporters anyway.

                  by Eternal Hope on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:25:07 AM PDT

                  •  .

                    recent post by LaRouche

                    recent anti-Hillary war porn pic

                    recent anti-Semitic rant

                    recent Eileen diary - CROSSPOSTED ON DKOS

                    recent anti-Semitic rant

                    by Pumpkinlove on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:47:12 AM PDT

                    •  I personally love the Nobel Prize one

                      because I know Prof. Aumann.  Say what you will about his support for the settler movement, but I just love the idea that an old mathematician isn't deserving of the Nobel Prize for Mathematics, but Arafat is deserving of the Nobel Prize for Peace.

                      by dfb1968 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:52:40 AM PDT

                    •  Thanks for the info.

                      I addressed it in her diary. I think that she has to make a choice between us and them at some point, because people are not going to let this drop. I don't think that she shares those views, but she tolerates others who have and promote them. She's hurting herself by associating with these people. If we really want to achieve the peace and love that she says that she is for, then she should have to reconcile her tolerance of these people with her own philosophy of peace and love. And we have to show zero tolerance for the kind of people that you mention.

                      by Eternal Hope on Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:20:38 PM PDT

                  •  My word for what?

                    That she posts to a hate site?

                    Or that the site she posts to is a hate site?

                    Do you just not know who David Irving and Ernst Zündel and Edgar Steele are?

                    by zemblan on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:57:32 AM PDT

                •  ok but my concern

                  is that rather than adressing these issues in one of her diaries or the website you find objectionable, you are bringing that baggage here, in what EH correctly noted is a call-out diary.  What precedence does this set?  And how does this help matters in the context of I/P discussions which have already drawn administrative wrath because of the venom and attacks?

                  So you go after one person in this diary; okay, so a bunch of people are, mark my words, now as we speak, scouring the internet in attempt to find fringe websites or evidence of "GIYUS" participation on the part of those on the other ideological "side" (in quotes, because I'm not sure that there are clear-cut sides) of the I/P debate.

                  Do you see how this compromises the ability of this issue to be discussed here?

                  I just cannot agree with this diary, although I do understand, were I to find some anti-affirmative action poster has an account on stormfront, how I would feel about that.  But this is the wrong, wrong way to go about dealing with those concerns.  I cannot support you calling out a diarist in this fashion.

                  by GN1927 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:44:12 PM PDT

                  •  Fine. Let them look.

                    As far as I can tell, the only conspiracy to control the discussion on DKos is coming from the P side of the debate.

                    by Pumpkinlove on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:55:26 PM PDT

                    •  No, not fine

                      part of the problem.  Guess what?  I'm not entertaining conspiracy theories on either side of the I/P aisle.  I will assume that anyone here is here because they have a belief or opinion, and are sharing it here.  If there is an issue at another site or blog, take it to that other site, or confront that particular commenter/diarist when they comment.  This site has more than enough baggage as it is, and I/P discussions are already viewed as a shrill mess.  The point is to tone it down, not ratchet it up.

                      by GN1927 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:12:32 PM PDT

                      •  the converse

                        The point is to tone it down, not ratchet it up.

                        But not if the price of toning it down is to lay down a rule saying "you must act as if you don't know that a certain poster advertises on a site that says shit like

                        Wake up and smell the Knishes, my friends, Judaism has been at war with us for over 2,000 years

                        because it would be tacky to bring it up," sorry, I'm not on board.

                        by zemblan on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:04:34 AM PDT

                  •  precedent

                    What precedence does this set?

                    If the precedent that's set is what I intend -- "Don't advertise on overtly racist sites or you'll be called out," I can absolutely live with that, and judging from the poll, so could the vast majority of Kossacks.

                    Once again, this is not about I/P. That's why I didn't put "Israel" or "Palestine" in my tags. It's about hate speech; that's why I put "hate speech" in my tags. It's about a hate site and a self-proclaimed progressive Kossack who advertises on it.

                    I have been very, very careful all through this adventure to make that clear.

                    by zemblan on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:59:10 AM PDT

    •  I looked back at the comments

      And I know who you are referring to.  The person in question has made statements in the past which reflect very poorly on them and this site.  That said, I'm not sure we should ban someone because of their own editorial choices.  Choosing to associate with Lyndon LaRouche and David Irving is condemnable (and I certainly do), but ultimately only affects the person in question and their reputability.  Given their past behavior with regards to DailyKos, I can't understand why the person is still around this site, but with regards to their own personal sites I don't think a person should be banned because of that alone.

      by DH from MD on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:04:51 AM PDT

    •  I would suggest that you remove this diary

      It being in violation of the faq guidelines against callout diaries.

      Flagrant violation as a tactic doesn't really help position you on the moral highground you might want to occupy when you go whining to the administrators and suggest another poster's removal.

      by greenskeeper on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:32:30 AM PDT

  •  This is a callout diary.

    He's calling out Eileen Fleming for supposedly supporting hatemongers. My question is, is there a rule against that kind of association from users, and if not, is it appropriate to repeatedly question a user in their diaries about those associations?

    by Eternal Hope on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:29:06 AM PDT

    •  I did not mention her name

      You did.

      by zemblan on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:31:38 AM PDT

      •  thats crap

        n/t

        by howardx on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:33:41 AM PDT

      •  It's still a callout diary under the rules.

        That was your very clear intent, to call out another user.

        by Eternal Hope on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:36:32 AM PDT

      •  You Parse

        As closely and convincingly as Richard M. Nixon.

        by greenskeeper on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:45:19 AM PDT

•  Kossacks can do whatever they want

  As far as I'm concerned anyway. Doesn't affect the larger community much if at all.

  by Mullibok on Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:51:08 AM PDT

•  Should hate sites advertize on DK?

  by mattes on Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:55:33 AM PDT

  •  My take on this

    is that it's okay for "hate sites" to advertise on Daily Kos as long as 1.) it's 100% clear to any reasonably informed observer that Daily Kos does not share the site's ideology, and 2.) the site is merely advertising itself rather than disseminating any false information.  

    Regarding #1, I think that nobody would assume that AnnCoulter.com has anything in common with Daily Kos.  Any observer who is remotely familiar with both Coulter and Daily Kos would know that Coulter is just throwing her money away.  On the other hand, if a radical left-wing group (well outside the liberal/progressive mainstream) advertised here, I think people might be confused into believing that Daily Kos endorsed it.  

    Regarding #2, I would object to any advertisement that actually conveyed a substantive message in the ad, especially misinformation.  For example, if Coulter's ad included something like "did you know that Barack Obama is a radical Muslim," I would not want to see it on this site.  

    by dtj on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:05:32 AM PDT

•  Please Delete - This is not a diary

  This is:
  too short to be a diary;
  a veiled attack on another Kos contributor;

  Please consider deleting this.

  by Justus on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:05:46 AM PDT

  •  Seconded

    This is a hit piece.  Agree or disagree as you will with commenters on other sites, but please do not drag it here.

    by GN1927 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:24:51 AM PDT

•  This is a callout diary.

  Callout diaries are against the rules here. If you have a problem with Eileen Flemming's associations, then you should document it and report it to management. Like I said elsewhere, I have no idea what you are talking about.

  by Eternal Hope on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:27:06 AM PDT

  •  Call out?

    You are the first person to mention her name.

    by zemblan on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:31:04 AM PDT

    •  Disingenuous

      Anyone who participates in/reads I/P diaries here knows that you are referring to a specific commenter.  This diary is not a good follow-up to your "How not to be a schmuck" diary.

      by GN1927 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:35:07 AM PDT

      •  I should mention

        that this post isn't aimed at the usual I/P crowd, which is a small subsection of DKos, because I don't want it to turn into an I/P discussion. What I want instead is what I'm getting in the poll: a clear indication that general DKos readers agree by a very wide margin that accepting a free ad from a hate site is unacceptable.

        by zemblan on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:01:28 AM PDT

        •  Okay, so you've opened

          pandora's box, and so now we can be treated with diaries showing "evidence" that this or that poster is part of an organized pro-Israel effort, and so on so forth.

          I'll say, I am in the middle of a debate on affirmative action.  (Although I am in no way implying that this is the case, because it's not) what if I found that one of the commenters who took an anti-affirmative action stance also posts on davidduke.com?  What to do with this information?  Use it to discredit that poster?  Post a call-out diary?  Or focus on what is said here, how it is said here, and let my arguments stand or fall as they will.

          I do not want this site to serve as any sort of repository for baggage from other sites (just a few days ago, someone posted an anti-DU piece which I also slammed).

          Let dkos be about dkos.  Argue what is said here, zemblan.

          by GN1927 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:50:19 PM PDT

          •  The Wrong Box

            It's important to understand that this is not about about I/P. People's Voice isn't a hate site because it's anti-Israel; it's a hate site because it's fully of racism and Holocaust denial and International Jewish Conspiracy crap. I'm not attacking Eileen because she's anti-Israel, I'm attacking her -- as I believe any decent person should -- for advertising on a hate site, and then acting as if there were absolutely no moral culpability involved.

            by zemblan on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:53:45 AM PDT

  •  EH this is just to add a thing or 2

    I noticed yesterday a comment from the diarist in question mentioning the support for Hamas among the Palestinian people. That clicked a memory so I did a little googling.

    I dont know about the site I will link and not sure if they have a rep. but it verifies what I thought I remembered.

    There was no overwhelming support for Hamas. If the election had been held under different rules Hamas and Fatah would have had almost equal representation. By the voting the population was split and Hamas won a small plurality not a majority of the vote. Ck. the link and let me know if I'm wrong.

    http://www.fairvote.org/...

    by buddabelly on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:44:26 AM PDT

    •  here is a link to the pdf analysis by Fairvote

      http://www.fairvote.org/...

      warning PDF file

      Two results stand out as glaring spoiler cases, with Hamas winning at least half of seats without even
      obtaining a plurality of votes. In Tulkarem, Hamas ran two candidates and won two of three seats with
      27.4% of the total vote. Fatah ran three and won no seats, despite winning a total of 34.4%, more than any
      other party. In Bethlehem, Hamas ran two candidates and won two seats with 20.5% support. Fatah won
      only two seats with 28% because it ran four candidates.

      • In Nablus, Hamas ran five candidates, and Fatah ran six. Hamas won five of six seats with 38.2%.
      Fatah won only one, despite polling 36.5% - only 2% less than the opponent.
      • The outcome in Ramallah was similar. Hamas ran four candidates where Fatah ran five. Hamas
      polled 38.4%, and Fatah polled 32.6%. Yet Hamas won four of five seats, and Fatah won only
      one

      The analysis is interesting and I think refutes the idea that the Palestinian people overwhelmingly chose Hamas to represent them.

      by buddabelly on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:17:06 AM PDT

•  You know, zemblan

  I agree with everything you've said recently to her about the subject, but honestly, the more she writes, the more I just think she's batshit crazy.

  by dfb1968 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:45:50 AM PDT

  •  It's hard not to agree

    To knowingly advertise on a hate site, to knowingly post on a hate site, and call it "grace" to be able to do so?

    by zemblan on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:53:42 AM PDT

    •  I'm actually a little worried

      She says she's coming here soon, and I'm afraid she's going to end up like that whacked-out Australian guy who got "Jerusalem Syndrome" and tried to burn down the Temple Mount back in the 60's.

      by dfb1968 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:03:23 AM PDT

    •  what about a diary protest?

      if she posts a diary, we leave a single comment.

      Dear *******,

      You sell your books, advertise and actively participate on a hate site which you have equated with Grace.   I will not engage with you in any way.

      No insults.. no TRs.. no other comments... no uprates of anyone in that diary who posts anything but an I will not engage message... no replies to replies.

      by Pumpkinlove on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:24:15 AM PDT

      •  Is that even necessary?

        Do a search of her diaries.  They average about 3-5 rec's and 60-75 comments, most of which are from us, telling her she's batshit crazy.  I think this is pretty much a self-limiting problem.

        by dfb1968 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:48:00 AM PDT

        •  true

          and it is funny.

          by Pumpkinlove on Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:15:47 PM PDT

    •  The problem is:

      You have not proved that the site in question is a hate site -- being strongly pro-Palestinian does not make it a hate site at all.

      by Eternal Hope on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:26:48 AM PDT

      •  Umm, EH

        you and I have agreed on a lot lately, but this time, you need to reassess.  This lovely piece (I personally love all references to "Jew bankers") took me about 6 seconds to find.

        by dfb1968 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:31:29 AM PDT

        •  Talk about batshit insane, Wow

          by buddabelly on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:41:39 AM PDT

        •  I addressed this on her diary.

          She's hurting herself. If she thinks that she can change people like that, she has another think coming. I think that she has this naive view that if she advertises her message of peace and love on such a place, that it will change people. That's like a battered wife who stays because she thinks that she can change her husband.

          I didn't want her to be convicted without evidence. I had trouble finding the links at first, but I found them later.

          by Eternal Hope on Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:28:15 PM PDT

      •  some of the people's voice

        link

        Hence, the question that confronts or ought to confront the conscience of the world is "should humanity wait until Israel does to the Palestinians what the Third Reich did to the Jews?"

        by Pumpkinlove on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:51:46 AM PDT

      •  look closer

        Ernst Zundel, world's best-known Holocaust denier, posted on the site ***** advertises on.

        David Irving, loser of the famous 2000 Holocaust denial trial Irving v. Lipstadt, posted on the site ***** advertises on.

        Let me be real freaking clear: I do not cry wolf.

        by zemblan on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:03:18 PM PDT

        •  She doesn't just advertise.

          She crossposts stuff from her blog there as well.  So stuff we see on DKos is on there now.

          by Pumpkinlove on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:23:23 PM PDT

        •  Dear lord...

          ...you're right, she is advertising on that site.

          by MBNYC on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:33:24 PM PDT

          •  She's posting on that site

            by Pumpkinlove on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:51:47 PM PDT

            •  Ugh.

              But I'm sure it's just sincere disagreement with Israeli policy.

              by MBNYC on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:06:41 PM PDT

    •  Wait, I think I found her true motivation

      It's this.

      by dfb1968 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:56:59 AM PDT

      •  There is that evangelical undertone

        to her comments and diaries.

        by Pumpkinlove on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:58:32 AM PDT

        •  I'm just upset

          that the Pope is a Zionist Double Agent, and I'm not gettin' anything from it yet.

          by dfb1968 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:03:57 PM PDT

          •  There is a pecking order.

            by mattes on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:01:49 PM PDT

            •  If there is

              ...I'm pretty sure the assets to be distributed don't include the Apostolic Palace and the Throne of Saint Peter :-)

              by MBNYC on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:25:14 PM PDT

      •  The Vatican is under Zionist control?

        That would explain why the breviaries all read from right to left.

        by zemblan on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:10:51 PM PDT

        •  I don't even know what breviaries are

          but it sounds funny.

          by dfb1968 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:15:33 PM PDT

          •  entry written before Zionists took over Vatican

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            by zemblan on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:29:12 PM PDT

            •  Hey, I saw Godfather III

              The Vatican is loaded.  If the Pope was a Zionist Double Agent, wouldn't we all be seeing some of that cash by now?

              by dfb1968 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:33:21 PM PDT

              •  "We"? You mean, you're not?

                Now pardon me while I go polish my Rolls.

                by zemblan on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:58:55 PM PDT

      •  Snort.

        From that link, about Benedict XVI:

        But still, most Catholics are not ready to accept the reality that the man who is supposed to represent Christian morality to the world is actually a Zionist tool. He is eithier [sic] a Jew himself, or a Freemason, or he has compromised himself in some such way that he is being blackmailed. Either way, it does not matter. He is not working for the Catholic people. He is working for the Zionists.

        Dudes, he started out in the frigging Hitler Youth. Where - where?! - do they find these people?

        by MBNYC on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:23:26 PM PDT

    •  Ya know

      ...I've left a comment in almost every single one of this person's diaries, basically pointing out that her theology is obscene. It's straining credulity to treat the concept of grace as she does, even if the various churches argue incessantly about what grace actually means.

      by MBNYC on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:29:34 PM PDT