Skip to main content

"I/P".  Israel/Palestine.  There is seemingly no issue here that inflames passions as strong.  Unfortunately, those inflamed passions are interfering with this site's stated and necessary goal of electing more and better Democrats and advancing progressivism in America.

It's time to ban tangential I/P discussions, for the good of this website and its mission.  No more endless fighting about what's going on, and has been going on for years, in Israel and Palestine.  No more accusations and implications that have nothing to do with electing Democrats.  An exception could possibly be made for diaries directly having to do with current American policy or current political campaigns, but that's it.

Permit me to make the case.

(this diary is intended to be moderated and non-dickish, in the new DKos parlance)

Hate and hyperbole
Most site members long ago decided never to engage in I/P discussions at this website.  They know that the environment is too poisoned, too hurtful, and too hyperbolic, with no hope of any agreement or common ground.  It is, to put it simply, only a forum for sowing negativity and discord among the left.

For those who have been ignoring I/P for years, I will provide some brief examples of the sort of hyperbole and hate that characterizes the discussions:  In Daily Kos I/P, people actually deny the Darfur genocide, and get uprated for it.  They say that Hezbollah and Iran should be given nuclear weapons, with massive uprates for both of those, of course.  And they actually channel Rush Limbaugh's misogyny in calling a prominent Democratic female politician a "shrill pantsuit".  

And that's just when the gloves are on.  When the gloves come off?  Oh my.  In I/P, people say that Israel is "far worse" than mutilation and stoning, that it is worse than fascism, that Palestinians practice mass child marriage, that Hitler wanted peace and WW2 was Churchill's fault, that the US government's sole function is to oppress Palestinians, that Zionists collaborated in the Holocaust,  that notorious Holocaust deniers are acceptable experts, that Jewish people (and DNA evidence, apparently) constantly lie about their heritage, that Helen Thomas was right in saying that Jews have no place in the Middle East, that American politicians are slaves to "Jew gold", and so on.  These examples are only the very tip of the iceberg, and are provided for context only.

If you are now tempted to object that I have highlighted the hate and hyperbole from one side in the I/P wars more than from the other, and would like to assert that a similar litany exists from the other side, that would only further prove my point.  These discussions sow hatred, discord, and insane extremism, do not result in progress, and have been so for years.  One might also be tempted to argue that the authors of some of the comments I highlighted are banned and no longer with us.  However that would be incorrect, as I/P is the land of perpetual zombies. Nobody can actually be made to go away, and almost all previously banned authors are still with us in some form, some on their third or fourth incarnation, uprated by their side until they step over the line one too many times, only to be banned and return again.

I/P remains the only subject where, as far as I am aware, Meteor Blades demanded a public apology, or where a user created a new fake profile to impersonate and slander another user, or where people deny the existence of the Jewish people entirely, or for that matter the existence of the Palestinian people.  

There is no agreement, no accommodation, and no progress.  There is only hurt, hate, discord, and extremism.  This issue is too divisive, too tangential to the goal of electing more and better Democrats, and even too counter to the goal of building a cohesive progressive coalition to be allowed to fester here.

That is big "D" Democratic - as in the Democratic Party.  There is no escaping the fact that one entire side of the I/P wars on this website is constantly advocating a position – opposition to the two state solution – that runs contrary to the positions of Democratic Party platform, president Obama, and every single major Democratic elected official in the country.

There is simply no other issue where such deviation from basic Democratic orthodoxy is tolerated here.  The site administration has wisely decided that this isn't the forum where people can debate whether gay marriage should be allowed or whether abortion should be banned, as these positions are so far out of the mainstream of the Democratic base.  There are hundreds of other websites where one can advocate for a one state solution, or the end of Israel by some other means.  Why should this site - where the mission is to elect and support more and better Democrats, and said position is at odds with the Democratic Party Platform, the President, and essentially every single major Democratic elected official - be one of them?  

Furthermore, many of the I/P participants are not American voters, which is in of itself not a bad thing, but many are quite up front about their lack of interest in Democratic Party electoral success.  A review of some of the major participants reveals that they write and comment almost exclusively on I/P, and use this website solely for that purpose.  They do not betray interest in the success of the Democratic party at large.

Can it be saved?
The question may be raised whether I/P participants could be forced under some scheme to behave differently, to shelve the hate and hyperbole, and to table the more extreme anti-Democratic Party viewpoints.  All indicators are that this is not possible.  Over the course of years, under the combination of light moderation by the administration and community policing such a thing in no way happened.  I/P is not amenable to any form of community moderation, because the two sides are too firmly entrenched and there is too much historical baggage.  It is difficult, for instance, to extend courtesy or the benefit of the doubt to someone who has previously advocated for Hezbollah to have nuclear weapons, or who denied the existence of the Jewish people.  Will the forthcoming new moderation scheme improve matters?  On the contrary, the new moderation scheme will be a disaster as far as I/P goes, with participants voting in blocks and non-participants making ill informed judgments without knowledge of the histories of various posters.  

Unless Kos invests in paying a full time moderator just for I/P, which he should not be expected to do and has no intention of doing, there is no realistic prospect for a change.  It hasn't happened in seven years, and it won't happen in another seven.  

Lately Markos has banned a number of I/P users.  I can guarantee that this will not change the nature of I/P here.  These users will simply return.  In the interest of this site's mission to elect more and better Democrats and build an effective progressive coalition in America, I/P needs to go.  It is time to ban the topic.  There are hundreds of other websites where people can hash that issue to their hearts' content - and just like there are hundreds of other websites where people can debate what happened on 9/11, this website doesn't need to be one of them.


The two most common objections that will greet this proposal are as predictable as they are banal.  So allow me to quickly dispose of them.

1) There will be cries that a such a ban is "censorship" or "stifling discussion".  As always, these objections fail to understand the role of a private website with a specific mission.  Daily Kos already does not allow a wide array of topics and positions, and rightly so.  It is against the rules to advocate for Republican talking points or 9/11 conspiracies.  It is rightly against the rules to advocate against evolution or for voting Green Party.  All of these things are gloriously protected by the First Amendment, and such protections just as gloriously do not apply to a private website with a specific mission.

Kos and the other admins have rightly decided that advocating against evolution, or for voting for the Green party, are not consistent with the mission of this site, and wisely banned them.  One would even be HRd and eventually banned for arguing against abortion rights or gay marriage, positions held by nearly half of Americans.  There are reasons to oppose an I/P ban, but those who would oppose an I/P ban on "censorship" grounds must then also be ready to allow these and any other discussions as well.  I hope I have shown above that the I/P wars are not manifesting as consistent with the site's mission.

2) There will also be cries of hypocrisy, on the grounds that your humble author is in fact a vociferous participant in the I/P wars.  These objections are also banal and transparently silly.  Of course I participate in the I/P wars - as long as they exist, I feel I have to fight against content and memes which I think are wrong, biased, based on falsehoods, and even genocidal (see examples above).  I would be just as vociferous a participant in the 'evolution wars' or the 'gay marriage wars', if they were allowed here.  Fortunately, those wars are not allowed, because the site administration has banned them.  I am advocating for the site administration to free myself and others from the distraction of countering what we consider to be incorrect or even dangerous memes, in the name of being able to focus on this site's intended purpose.


I hope to persuade the community that I/P should be banned for the sake of avoiding terribly divisive rhetoric in the name of advancing the progressive agenda rather than driving people from it.  But I also hope to persuade the person who built this website.  

I know that Markos has contemplated banning I/P in the past.  It is now time to pull that trigger.  The I/P discussions have continuously gotten worse over the years, and banning and sanctioning individual users, even in groups, has never made any difference.  It is time to excise the topic, rather than individuals.  Such discussions are sowing discord,  distraction, and extremism, achieving nothing of value, and detracting from the site's mission of electing more and better Democrats and forging an effective progressive coalition.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I wish I didn't have to agree (17+ / 0-)

    The facts are that Israel is a volatile subject - passions get inflamed.  But this site is supposed to be about electing Democrats - that's supposed to be what brings us all together.  

    When the opposition can use stuff posted here to tag our reps, that's a real problem.

  •  I would really press the point... (13+ / 0-)

    that so much of both the antisemitic and anti-Arab bigotry originates in I/P.  Get rid of it, and you get rid of 95% of both those bigotries in one fell swoop.

    What I also found amazing is how many on the other side (I'm pro-I and I don't hide that fact in the least) believe that we have no place here.  They seem to forget that this is a DEMOCRATIC website and what those of us that support Israel and advocate for a two-state solution based upon the idea of two states for two peoples are doing is simply advocating for the Democratic Party's position at a Democratic website.  That shouldn't be that controversial, should it?

    Please read our community letter and support our efforts to clean up this site.

    by Mets102 on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:08:27 PM PDT

  •  Tipped (10+ / 0-)

    for all your effort to propose this and write that much argument to support it.

    But I dunno...I've waded into I/P "debates" here before.  Yes, it goes round and round and nothing ever gets resolved, abuot like the international efforts to resolve the conflict.

    Nowadays, I only venture into I/P "discussions" here when i feel like I have the energy to maintain while reading and/or participating.  Otherwise, I just steer clear.

    Hey, we're all allegedly adults here, right?  (Even the minors who are so mature they count here as adults. ;)  So we can just make our own individual choices whether or not to engage in the I/P debate, subject to Kos' civility rules here.

    I don't know that banning the issue is the right tack to take.  I just feel uneasy at the precedent.  

  •  Sorry, I have to disagree. (36+ / 0-)

    Israel is a major U.S. foreign policy entity for the United States, and an issue all Democrats must contend with politically. This included the I/P conflict. (By the way, in recent weeks, since Kos' new house rules in diaries, I/P discussions have largely been amazing and dynamic.)

    I think you'll recognize this comment, which argues for why Israel is so important to foreign policy discussions on a political blog such as Daily Kos from An Affirming Flame. (It's a comment that was in response to your accusing those of focusing on Israel here at Daily Kos -- such as myself -- as suffering from "Israel Derangement Syndrome."

    Stop pretending like Israel is some little backwater that has nothing to do with the United States or its people and so Americans who are concerned with that country and its relations with Palestinians are just "deranged."

    The United States gives billions to Israel in military aid.  It protects the Israeli government's actions with its veto power in the UN Security Council.  9/10ths or more of both houses of our Congress fall all over each other, racing to outdo their colleagues in praising any and every internationally controversial action Israel takes (i.e. the Flotilla massacre, Cast Lead, etc.).

    In short, our government has enormous influence over Israel and ties itself up in its actions.  We see this and so does the rest of the world.  Which, I don't know if you've heard, has caused us some rather large, shall we say, "public relations problems" with huge portions of the Muslim world that care deeply about the Palestinian struggle for liberation and see the US blocking that at every turn with its gigantic, uncritical backing of Israel.

    Beyond that, Israel and our country both at least claim to be democracies.  That means they are subject, at least theoretically, to the will of their citizens.  Directed campaigns by outraged people here in the US just might change things for the better.  Maybe reduce the uncritical nature of Israel-support from the US government; cause some rethinking in Israel; lift the burden of occupation on the Palestinians a little; reduce the persuasiveness of jihadist calls for attacks against Americans because of Israel a bit.

    Iran's government is anti-American as a matter of ideology.  It is run fairly autocratically.  The US government does not unconditionally shower billions in military aid on it.  It does not protect Iran in the UNSC and there is no overwhelming support for the Iranian government in our Congress; quite the opposite in fact.

    So, we Americans could gather together in the millions and scream all we want about how terrible Iran is and it will not change a god damned thing.  Our government is already hostile to it (actually, far too militarily hostile for most on the left's comfort) and the Iranian government would actually welcome that, as it would reinforce their claim that America is the primary enemy and use that to shore up its power over its people.  It would be an exercise in futility and may even be counter-productive.

    To sum up:

    (1) Yes, we know Iran and other countries out there are run by terrible people who violently offend our values.  There's just not that much we can fucking do about it, so we tend not to go off about them so much.  We just hope the Iranian/other oppressed people can someday shuck off their overlords.  We cheer quite loudly if/when that happens.

    (2) Israel, on the other hand, leaves us with hope of having some positive influence on the situation.  If we can raise enough hell, we just might be able to reduce suffering and increase some real freedom in this world.  So we give a shit about what happens there and raise hell about it.

    Nothing deranged about that.

    I'm "THE" Troubadour," and not "Troubadour" without the article. We're different people here at DK :)

    by David Harris Gershon on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:10:00 PM PDT

    •  You didn't address (8+ / 0-)

      the fact that this can hurt Democrats in the upcoming election.  You're speaking long term and it's fine to want to discuss and advocate.  

      What I'm talking about is that hannity/rush/beck/etc can pull any comment from this board, tag a Democrat who has posted here (and there have been many, including the President) and say "This is what Democrats believe, look what's posted on such an influencial progressive site".  This election is going to be tough enough without us making it tougher.

      •  Ok - let's ban discussion of Wall street too (16+ / 0-)

        after all, Rush, Beck etc will do the same re those topics

        You just want the topic banned because you want to maintain the status-quo

        •  that doesn't make any sense (8+ / 0-)

          Wall Street is a topic where progressives are clearly united, and that aligns perfectly with this site's mission.

          I/P is the opposite.

          •  Depends on your def'n of progressive (0+ / 0-)

            Is Schneiderman progressive ? Is Obama?

            reason I ask is that they're on opposite sides of the mortgage forclosre sttlement debate / argument
            There have been people on this site for / against each side of that debate

            If you claim that all progressives are united on the subject of  Wall street, you'd be implying that a hell of a lot of people on this forum are not progressives

            You see Wall street is a "catch all term" - there are numerous sub-areas / sub-topics within it with arguments for against either side.....

            Guess the same argument culd be made the the PPACA - there's arguements for / against it on this forum with possibly people on one side re PPAC on opposite sides of the Wall street deal debate

            I would strongly disagree that pprogressives are TOTALLY united on any subject - except maybe evolution [which is maybe why Kos felt safe in banning (if he did) discussion of evolution - cos allowing it would make sweet fa difference..there would be no discussion on it]

          •  The areas where progressives are least united (4+ / 0-)

            May be the areas most in need of (rational and civil) debate.

        •  That couldn't be more false (6+ / 0-)

          I'm quite happy to continue to advocate for something I feel strongly about.  

          I have no idea why you think the wall street thing is comparable.  The polls all show that the majority of Americans are just as angry at Wall Street as the demonstrators are.  The same polls show that Americans - by wide margins - support Israel - both parties and it's reflected in our Congress.  Who cares what rush is going to say about wall street?

          •  Why ? Go read the arguement re the 50 AG (6+ / 0-)

            foreclosure settlement agreement

            That's all part of the W street debate. There were people on both sides of that delightful debate.....passionate on both sides.

            As for polls showing that Americanssupport Israel.....there was supposedly a poll on the BBC that showed a majority of americans supporting the US recognising Palestine.......well that is part of the I/P debate...which suggests that views in the US are maybe a bit more nuanced than you suggest

            Similarly a majority of americans supported the Iraq war / believed that there were thousands of tonnes of WMD there in March 2003......based on your arguement Kos should have BANNED all discussion of the Iraq war; banned all discussion of the possibility (as we now know FACT) that the US Admin was LYING on that subject.

            The majority of people in the US were opposed to gay marriage just 5 years or so ago - maybe Kos should have banned discussion of that ?

            Discussion / arguement is how people's views are influenced / seem to support banning discussion because you want to maintain the status quo

            •  Your entire wordy post (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mets102, JayinPortland

              doesn't address the fact that this can hurt Democrats.  I'm starting to suspect, with all your deflecting, that you simply don't care about that and that makes you useless to me as a life long Democrat - let the others deal with your nonsense.

              •  i'm not understanding what you mean. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Celtic Merlin, splintersawry

                when you say "hurts democrats".

                are you saying that a person running for office posts something here that could be castigated by the right is the reason we should ban the topic?

                Because really, if a person is running for office, I already know what they're going to say with respect to I/P, #1. And #2 if there's any doubt about their position on Israel at all, they WILL be asked about it in the MSM and it WILL be on record, #2. And #3, if a politician can't or won't talk the tightrope that is I/P effectively, they won't get elected. So has it been and so shall it ever be. None of those reasons are a reason to ban the discussion on a democratic blog, IMO.

                I've become re-radicalized. Thanks a lot you bunch of oligarchical fascist sons-of-bitches. But once again, I have no choice. Bring it the fuck on.

                by mdmslle on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 03:55:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Can it hurt Democrats? (7+ / 0-)

                Perhaps.  Will it hurt Democrats?  That strikes me as a matter of opinion, not fact.  This site's professed goal of "more and better Democrats" doesn't mean that there can't be debate over what leads to more Democrats and what policy positions lead to better Democrats and which should be preferred if you can do one but not both.

                This is not the only diary where I have seen commenters pull out the claim that a given opinion is "bad" for Democrats and thus shouldn't be allowed.  I don't think that is a valid argument for limiting debate.

                •  Sigh (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mets102, fizziks, JayinPortland, RedPencil

                  I explained it upthread but one more time.  I watched the Democrats get tagged with a ad that was merely submitted to moveon - not one they accepted or chose.  That kind of shit hurts us with moderates (the right are lost causes and I have no interest in pandering to them).  

                  The anti-Israel position of many posters here is the complete opposite of the large majority of this country - if you don't think the right is salivating for proof the left hates Israel, you're living in a dream world.

                  •  It may be a bad idea (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Terra Mystica

                    I think whether it is a bad idea is a legitimate topic for debate.  I think that people should be free to value being right, even if it costs votes.  That doesn't mean they are right, just that I think they have a position that is reasonably debatable.

                    I tend to think the right isn't scouring Daily Kos looking for diaries and comments they can use.  Some people in this thread insist that I/P has been a cesspool filled with antisemitism for several years, yet I don't recall it being cited before.  I also believe the right will happily manufacture proof and will find a way to attack, whether justified or not.

        •  Let me take that in another direction, though (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fizziks, DaveinBremerton

          I oppose the status quo and its underlying assumptions.  But I know I can't win--not in this lifetime, in this party.  For me, I/P diaries are more frequently opportunities for partisans of the status quo to further impose their hegemony and whomp deviationists like me.  I think fizziks is being gracious in offering to walk away from  future opportunities to do that, and I'm more than happy to take that offer.

          But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

          by Rich in PA on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:56:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  My bigger issue is that it's useless (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fizziks, Wee Mama, allergywoman, mdmslle

        I have no problem hurting Democrats (politically!) if I thought I was advancing the right and humane position on some incredibly important issue.  But there's no chance of anyone moving the real-world issue here, so there's no up-side, just down-side.

        But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

        by Rich in PA on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:52:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No. This argument could've been made in the Obama (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Celtic Merlin, Friendlystranger

        wars too. Rush: Look! Democrats who hate Obama.
        This argument could have (and would are did) been made by the "publicly support the president" brigade.

        It was silly in that instance too. That our opposition could come here and pluck out a comment and try to extrapolate it into a major rift in the party (largely to no effect, mind you. I mean, we disagree about something. So what?) is not a reason to ban a discussion.

        I've become re-radicalized. Thanks a lot you bunch of oligarchical fascist sons-of-bitches. But once again, I have no choice. Bring it the fuck on.

        by mdmslle on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 03:41:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Anyone, anywhere can pull comments from anything (0+ / 0-)

        and say whatever they want on the internet.

        It works both ways, why be so fearful?

    •  leaving aside the derangement question (8+ / 0-)

      I think the real question for purposes of this diary should be: does all of the endless focus on this one very small country on the other side of the world have a lot to do with advancing progressive politics in the US or electing Democrats.  I don't think it does.

      There are several diaries per day about Israel here.  There are not several diaries per day about Canada, Mexico, the UK, Germany, China, or even Greece.  This is a specialized topic that is taking over, and doesn't need to be, and is the source of a large amount of the bigotry here.  All previous efforts to "clean it up" have failed.

      •  I think it can (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        That much of it doesn't here doesn't mean it can't.

      •  So how exactly does discussion on Greece or China (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        or Japan or Syria or Libya  promote "advancing progressive politics" in the US ?

        Just wondering as you only suggested banning I/P as opposed to banning ALL FOREIGN POLICY discussion.

        In reality dicussing most topics thoroughly could be regarded as specialized.....I/P is not special in that regard

        •  I'm not saying the necessarily do (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mets102, JayinPortland, Plubius

          but I was pointing out that the over-the-top fixation on Israel certainly does not help to advance progressive politics in America.

          •  Exactly. (6+ / 0-)

            How does an endless parade of diaries about "The Israel Outrage of the Day" help elect Democrats?

            Wait, I can answer that.

            It doesn't.

            "Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls, it's more democratic." - Crash Davis

            by JayinPortland on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:40:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How does an endless series of diaries on: (6+ / 0-)

              OWS  OR  Wall Street OR Tar Sands help elect Democrats ?

              One could argue that none do that....I've seen no evidence that discussions on any of those subjects has helped get a single democrat elected

              So should diaries on those subjects be banned ?

              •  again the standard is not (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mets102, JayinPortland, Plubius

                "does this help to elect Democrats" but rather "Does this hurt the cause of electing Democrats"

                It is that I/P answers the second question in the affirmative that is the problem.  

                •  As I have said below (have to look some way dow (0+ / 0-)


                  Different issues represent a flashpoint subject for Dems in certain states (in some areas of the country those issues are more of a flashpoint than I/P)

                  So should be ban discussion of ALL subjects that may represent a risk to Dems ? If we don't we're implying that certain Dems are more important than others.....I'd venture to guess there'd be disagreement on this site on that subject

                  If that's the route....about the only subjects open to discussion may well be:
                  Baseball (uh uh in NY or Chicago due to Mets / Yankees OR Sox / Cubs)
                  Football (no no in NY again - Giants / Jets)

              •  Perhaps... (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mets102, fizziks, Plubius, allergywoman, MBNYC

                ...because those diaries are immediately relevant to the United States of America?  What with Wall Street being New York (a state, last time I checked) and the tar sands being part of our continent and the pipeline running through our country and etc etc...

                And what fizziks said.

                Also, I'm still waiting for you to come clean on who you used to be before you were banned (the last time), and how many times you were banned...

                "Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls, it's more democratic." - Crash Davis

                by JayinPortland on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 06:19:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  One person's "over the top" is another's (0+ / 0-)

            "just the right amount" or "way too little"

            You have one view others have a different view
            If you don't want to spend as much time as maybe you feel you do on this or any other subject then feel free to move onto discussing/arguing your PoVs on other's your choice

            I'd bet there's people who' like to spend more time on "a topic" but choose to spread their time on a number is upto them, same as what you do with your free time is upto you

      •  there are not violent conflicts going on in.... (5+ / 0-)

        ...Canada, Mexico, the UK, Germany, China, or even Greece.

        And when the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq make the news, there are several diaries per day about them.

        Wars and conflicts attract attention and inflame passions and define periods of history.  Same as it ever was.  

        "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 08:18:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, the past few weeks... (13+ / 0-)

      many Jewish posters supportive of Israel have decided that the environment created is simply too much to handle anymore.  We don't want to be called right-wingers for simply advocating for the Democratic platform at a Democratic website.  We don't want to be called bigots simply because we believe that our people should have the same rights to national self-determination in our homeland as anyone else.  We're sick of the antisemitism that is pervasive.  We're sick of the snarky mocking that comes from some when we face down hurricanes.  We're sick of the borderline trutherism.  We're sick of people using Georgia's murdering Troy Davis for their own political ends.  We're sick of the defense of antisemites.

      No, I/P discussions are not dynamic.  They're the same toxic sewer they've always been.  It's just that one side of the discussion has finally decided enough is enough.  If the other side wants the sewer to itself, and wants to scare people away from the Democratic Party while advocating for a position completely opposed to the position our party has held for decades, then that is their prerogative.  However, we believe this has no place at a Democratic website.  Further, as fizziks stated, Markos should not be expected to pay for a full-time moderator for a subject that attracts few people and is not critical to the mission of this site, the election of Democrats and advocacy for the Democratic Party.

      Please read our community letter and support our efforts to clean up this site.

      by Mets102 on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:19:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's the key concept: "not dynamic" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fizziks, allergywoman

        My views on I/P have changed over the four years I've been here, and I am sure that there's someone whose views have changed in precisely the opposite direction over that time, but it hasn't been from reading and reflecting on I/P diaries here!  

        But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

        by Rich in PA on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 06:05:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree with this. (11+ / 0-)
      since Kos' new house rules in diaries, I/P discussions have largely been amazing and dynamic.

      I did not find, por ejemplo,  Tuesday's 'discussion' as to how fitting it is to compare Israel's current government to Nazis, 'amazing' or 'dynamic' in any way.

      Rather, I found it hurtful and unbelievably insulting.

      "Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls, it's more democratic." - Crash Davis

      by JayinPortland on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:22:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Notice also that his tip jar is TS-rich. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poco, angry marmot, supercereal

      Perhaps this has been the goal all along - to shut down I/P on DKos?

      The right-wing Israeli government would likely appreciate it alot if nobody here on DKos was allowed to expose their misdeeds to the scrutiny of the Progressive Community.

      The right-wing talibangicals would like that alot, too.

      The right-wing Congresscritters would prefer it.

      People who give a damn about Human Rights - not so much.  People who give a damn about ending oppression - not so much.

      Celtic Merlin

      Struggle with dignity against injustice. IS there anything more honorable that a person can do?

      by Celtic Merlin on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 09:46:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  hmmm (26+ / 0-)

    You call out a good number of your detractors as bad actors without providing an equal number of examples of some of the gems on "your side', and then you preempt the arguments against your diary that you already know you are vulnerable to, and then corral everyone into a single option choice - to agree with you.


    I have an alternative suggestion - As I/P is an integral part of American politics, it would ridiculous to ban its discussion. Rather, Markos should continue to do what he's doing - banning those who can't control themselves, and leave the adults in the room to discuss the issue.

    •  I stated right in the diary (5+ / 0-)

      that there may be an equal litany of extremely offensive and derisive comments from the other side.

      I encourage you to go collect and exhibit them if you'd like.  That is the point here - that this issue is poisonous to the site's mission.

      And as for preempting the arguments, I have stated why I believe these arguments are invalid.  If you would like to debate those reasons, you may.

      •  Yes you did point it out (13+ / 0-)

        You seem to show no shame in admitting as much. But really, what was the point? It seems to me that the real point of your diary is to shine the light on the "Worst of P", on the I/P side of the "war", with an oblique acknowledgement that it exists on your side.

        Albeit rarely, I do find good discussions on the topic. While I consider myself informed, I always learn something new - I call it finding gems in the mud. I don't think the topic should be banned simply because some can't control their emotions in these discussions.

        I encourage you to go collect and exhibit them if you'd like.

        To what end? Sure, I could point out that some people get so out of control they resort to threats of violence. And when called on it, they double down. And they get uprated!! You know exactly what I'm talking about.

        I've been here for 8 years. I don't think I've ever written a diary or made a comment on I/P that got HR'd to oblivion or that I'm embarrassed by. I know its a volatile subject. I approach it as such. You should too.

        •  I'm sorry but you are incorrect about my (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mets102, VClib, psychodrew, zemblan


          I want to see these toxic discussions banned, and the comments and diaries that I have a record of are those that have pissed me off so much that I write them down, which tend to be on the extreme anti-Israel and/or antisemitic side.

          As for the supposed 'threat of violence', I am not going to hide that I engaged in strong language against those (not on this blog but in person) who deny Jewish peoplehood.  The fact that I should even encounter people who denied Jewish peoplehood here - on a supposedly progressive and Democratic website - says just about all that needs to be said, really.  This issue is toxic and divisive in the extreme.  Maybe not for you, certainly not because of you, but it is what it is.

      •  this reasoning would have caused a banning (6+ / 0-)

        of all "anti-obama" sentiments. In fact, I think the "pro-obama" camp used that same rationale: we need to support the president because "hatin" on Obama destroys party morale and could decrease turnout. In fact, after 2010 there were those who actually accused "the left" of suppressing turnout with their "hatin'" (which thankfully has been proven false time and again).

        I think if you're going to make the argument that I/P discussions could harm the party itself, you'll need to explain why for the better part of 2 years there was no call for banning "bots vs. haters" diaries. It was toxic. And the pro-side repeatedly tried to make the case that it would hurt the party.

        And finally, in another perspective, as an RKBA gal I just have to say I understand your frustration at being called a right winger but really, you have to get over it. The Party platform on Israel is not going to change much (at least probably not for a good 5-10 years) just as you'll not see any trouncing of 2A rights in the party platform. it's political suicide no matter what. But that doesn't mean that there aren't people who can advocate for a different position. And EVEN IF I DISAGREE with them (as often happened in RKBA) and even when there is much nuance (and there's a ton of it as relates to guns and gun ownership and regulation in America) I would NEVER advocate for a ban of I/P issues EVEN THOUGH it's a FACT that democrats can and have been effected electorally based on their position on the issue (and their geographics).

        Needless to say I do not favor a ban on the issue even though I'm not a regular in the diaries. I have a strong opinion but I'm not deeply invested. Shutting down a conversation, debate, argument is not the way to go though.

        I've become re-radicalized. Thanks a lot you bunch of oligarchical fascist sons-of-bitches. But once again, I have no choice. Bring it the fuck on.

        by mdmslle on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 04:15:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  correction (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ohmyheck, Celtic Merlin

          I would NEVER advocate for a ban of I/P RKBA issues EVEN THOUGH it's a FACT that democrats can and have been effected electorally based on their position on the issue (and their geographics).

          I've become re-radicalized. Thanks a lot you bunch of oligarchical fascist sons-of-bitches. But once again, I have no choice. Bring it the fuck on.

          by mdmslle on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 04:26:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  COMPLETELY agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MadRuth, Dont Call It

      wonder if fizziks and his supporters don't like Kos being willing to ban those "who can't control themselves" that an indication of fizziks and his supporters implying their doubts as to their willingness to control themselves ?

      •  I think this is bordering on 'dickish' (6+ / 0-)

        I am not opposed to Kos banning people who can't control themselves.  In fact, I am all for it.

        But I can assure you, as argued in the diary, that all of the bannings in the world will not clean up I/P at this site.  

        •  Hardly dickish (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Just following on fvca's point that Kos and (fvca apparently) believe that  banning those who can't "control themselves" will solve the problem

          you disagree - and that's FINE....but why is your belief oh so believable and those of Kos not ?

          You've presented NO facts to support your view

      •  I wonder... (5+ / 0-)

        ...if you have any evidence to back up your assertions here, or if you are just trolling yourself, 'new user' #321009?

        "Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls, it's more democratic." - Crash Davis

        by JayinPortland on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:46:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And Obama registered as a member of the Democratic (0+ / 0-)

          Party sometime after Robert Byrd

          Presumably therefore Byrd's views on any subject should have been final ? Maybe the 2008 primaries should have been scratched and Byrd selected  as Dem nominee or if he didn't want the job, the next longest 'serving' member of the Democratic Party who did fancy having the job.

          I would venture to guess that Kos' UID is far lower than yours - presumably therfore he could pull the UID line to dismiss all your claims ? Ergo could one argue that the subject of this diary is VERBOTEN seeing as Kos seems to have decided banning discussion of I/P is not something he's doing at least now and his UID is likely lower than yours or mine or fizziks or plubius' or anyones on this diary so far ??

    •  Yes, he did that. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      And I give him props for it.  

      Kin my book, that is called good arguing.  That is to say, when being an advocate,  there is nothing wrong with bias.

      It is unfair bias that gets you into trouble.  ;)

      •  No its not (6+ / 0-)

        I have a different name for it. Its the same problem that afflicts the gun discussions, and in previous years, the Obama vs Hillary discussions, and nowadays the pro-Obama, Obama-is-a-right-wing-Republican discussions, and much of the discussions on racism.

        Its not about discussion, debate, learning, expanding our brains. Its about fighting, control, bullying and POV enforcement; all unacceptable.

        •  Well, first off (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          there is nothing wrong with fighting those with whom you find yourself it complete disagreeement.  For fighting for control.

          That is what politics is all about.

          Bully is wrong.

          I see no bullying here.

          I see fizziks advocating.  And doing a good job of it.

        •  BTW (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          You made a comment the other day about the messed up converstation between me and somewhatshishame

          I wanted to rec it, because I found it very messed up as well.  But I couldn't tell from your comment if you thought I was to blame for the messed up nature for the interchange.

          Since I respect your opinion, I was wondering if you could address that.

          •  Ya, I remember (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            No. It wasn't about you at all. It was about some of the admissions whats-his-name was making that, to describe as creepy, was mild and then what appeared to be him stalking you in unrelated threads. Creepy beyond belief. And you got HR'd for pointing people to the real problem.

            I see a lot of compassion on this site for people suffering from all sorts of mental illnesses. And, I know that some believe lusting after children is a mental illness, but I can't deal with it. Call me intolerant and lacking in compassion.

            I apologize to Fizziks for going off topic. But, Plubius deserved an answer.

    •  Precisely! (6+ / 0-)

      And those who don't like I/P discussion any more since crappy behavior is now being addressed aggressively - those folks can simply choose to not participate.  This is fizzy's answer to the removal of one of his friends over their nasty, against-the-rules behavior.

      Now, who exactly was it that called the very popular diarist "The Troubadour" an MF-er and a propagandist?  I should do a little research on that . . .

      Celtic Merlin

      Struggle with dignity against injustice. IS there anything more honorable that a person can do?

      by Celtic Merlin on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 10:00:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  so in spite of all of the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        calls for nuclear arms in the hands of terrorists, and all of the blatant Stormfront level antisemitism, and all of the genocide dential that I've shown infects this place, the only thing that gives you a sad is that I called someone the M-F word??  (and I mean literally, the "M-F" word, I didn't even spell it out)

        Yet another example of why this whole subject needs to go.

        •  Despite all of the OLD ugliness you dredged up, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Diane Gee, elliott, Friendlystranger

          . . . despite all of the filth I've seen you post - YOU are still here on DKos.  Why shouldn't I/P remain also?

          The answer is that it should remain because Markos' new rules and new policies are working.  The discussions are becoming much more civil despite what you and VB tried in Assaf's diary about the mob attack upon the peaceful Palestinian protesters in which Israeli police were recorded as participants in that attack.

          I/P is improving and you know it.  I believe that you don't like the improvements and that's why you want the whole thing banned.  Benny Netanyahoo and the rest of the right-wing government of Israel would certainly appreciate it.

          Progressives - not so much.

          C M

          Struggle with dignity against injustice. IS there anything more honorable that a person can do?

          by Celtic Merlin on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:08:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I see that now (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Volleyboy1 - BOJO

  •  Concur. (7+ / 0-)

    As a participant in these diaries myself (and admittedly, an unabashedly "pro-I" one, at that), I agree with all you've said here.

    We're here to elect Democrats.  That's our goal.  Let's focus on that.  I'm far beyond sick and tired of arguing about other stuff here...

    "Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls, it's more democratic." - Crash Davis

    by JayinPortland on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:17:21 PM PDT

  •  TOTALLY disagree (9+ / 0-)

    I/P and the associated area is one of the critical issues in the should be open to discussion

    If you feel unable to find the time to make valid arguements for you PoV (which seems to be the thrust of your penultimate para) then don't spend the time.......why should others be prevented

    As for one view being "anti-Democratic" I recall, desegregation was contrary to the Democratic platform at one point, as was abolition of slavery.........maybe discussion of such should have been banned so defending slavery would have remained part of the Democratic Party platform ?
    The whole point of the discussion is to PUSH FOR A CHANGE IN THE PLATFORM look the platform to such YOUR position is akin to trying to stop evolution of the platform which in itself is anti-Democratic

    •  It Isn't Open to Discussion, Rational Discussion (3+ / 0-)

      is impossible because it's the policy of some forces that it not be permitted to be discussable.

      It's just not physically possible for you to do what you want to do.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:21:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Critical? (0+ / 0-)

      How is is critical for the world? For even the region?

      If Israel where to dissolve tommorrow, how would that change the region at all for the better.

      •  Not arguing one way or other that Israel is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Plubius, Terra Mystica

        critical to the region

        More that the area in question as represented by the term I/P is critical, in that it is a potential flashpoint area....same as (eg) Kashmir or china/Taiwan

        One can argue all waysto sunset on whether these and numerous others are / aren't flashpoint areas or which ones are more "flashpointy" (sorry couldn't thing of the appropriate word)...but that's what should be open - DISCUSSION

        Sorry I wan't more clear first time

    •  Exactly (4+ / 0-)

      You say EVOLVE, I say PROGRESS, same thing. Gee, Progressivism, what an unacceptable philosophy on a blog like this.

      Since I first started here way back when, my views of I/P were fairly naive and simplistic. They've evolved, become more circumspect and informed.

      I remain a Zionist by the strictest definition of the term, while being very sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians.

  •  There is one more common objection (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That this is a community.  That this is a Progresive blog,  That members of this Progressive community can form their own groups.

    That when More and Better Dems conflicts with Progressive, it is better err on the side of Progressive.

    I have a rebuttal to this line of argument, but would like to hear yours first.

    As for the diary itself. I agree and do not agree.  

    I agree that I/P is a no-go as far as helping to elect better Democrats. But then again, since most people ignore it, it really doesn't hurt either.

  •  I tipped the diary but I disagree (8+ / 0-)

    Almost as old as the site itself is the endless I/P debate and what to do about it. The best option is to do nothing - the sunlight of exposure is the best antiseptic to the poisonous ideas some people want to spread about the conflict and Israel. Shutting it down will just make the martyrs feel that they've won.

    "The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony." Susan Sontag

    by Shane Hensinger on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:19:43 PM PDT

  •  Two things. Using the rationale that this is a (7+ / 0-)

    democratic blog for electing democrats doesn't seem appropriate to me unless it's a consistent approach.  The percentage of diaries on here that actually speak to electing democrats isn't very high.  Secondly, a democrat doesn't have to agree to all aspects of the democratic platform and should be able to disagree.  I'm not saying anything about a one state solution, just that disagreeing or offering alternatives to the platform shouldn't be banned.  

    S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:28:12 PM PDT

    •  To me, the standard is not "does this elect dems" (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leftynyc, Mets102, Rich in PA, zemblan

      but rather "does this actively harm the chances of electing dems"

      If the answer to that second question is yes, then we have the problem.

      •  I suppose you need to prove that to Marcos. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

        by BigAlinWashSt on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:38:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Pooties don't divide the party (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fizziks, allergywoman

        Now, candidacies tend to divide the party, i.e. primary wars, but some divisions are inherent to intraparty politics and we accept them, even embrace them.  I/P just isn't an issue like that.

        But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

        by Rich in PA on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:42:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sweet - so we should stop discussing women's (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MadRuth, Terra Mystica

        rights / choice (re abortion) ?
        after all such discussions may damage the chances of some Dems being elected in some Red States

        Same could be argued with gay rights in certain states (just look at the role gay marriage supposedly played in the NY election a few weeks back)

        Or off-shore drilling in the Gulf states

        OR Fracking in southern / midwestern states

        OR coalmining in KY / WV area

        Seems to me that different issues represent a tinderbox in different places.....which Dems are more important than others - that would be the question as we'd have to ban some topics and allow others because they might make it difficult for Dems to get elected

        •  Actually (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I'm pretty sure someone would get banned for advocating a ban on abortion, or against gay marriage.

          So thanks for making my point perfectly.  Some topics have been judged to be off limits, for good reason.  

          •  Funny that because earlier in the the serial of (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MadRuth, Terra Mystica

            comments you sated that advocating aganst abortion would be VERBOTEN - which suggests immediate banning

            however take that subject in more detail.......banning the morning after pill is not tchnically arguing against abortion but banning is popular in some we should stop discussions as discussing might be damaging to Dems in those states ??

            What abou all these parental consent laws - apparently popular in some discussion banned on that (Ihaven't see anything from Kos on that) - maybe it should be as it could be damaging to dems in those states

            What about all that crap about making women look at all these pictures etc (Totally opposed to it myself) BUT it seems popular in some states.....again is discussion banned / if not should it be

            And you certainly haven't addressed the issue of fracking or oil / gas exploration or Wall street etc

          •  it's not the TOPICS but the POSITIONS that have (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            basquebob, angry marmot

            ..... been declared off-limits.

            People talk about abortion, marriage equality, 9/11, etc. etc. all the time around here.  

            It's just that certain positions on those topics have been considered bannable.  

            What you're actually looking for isn't to ban any/all IP discussions, only certain positions or memes, for example any that involve hate speech, bigotry, etc.  

            So how'bout a ban on hate speech altogether?  

            "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 08:27:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  theoretically one is in place (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              but it has proven ineffective, for the kind of hate speech that follows I/P.

              So what I am saying is the options are:

              1) Hire a full time moderator to police all I/P
              2) Accept I/P related hate speech and hyperbole and the accompanying consequences
              3) Get rid of the divisive topic

              To me, #3 is the most acceptable.

              •  actually what we need is the complete revision.... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                .... of the disciplinary and management system around here.

                When this place had the population of a small to medium town, a "personalistic" style of discipline and management was reasonable.  But now that this place is the size of a large city, it's not working.  

                There comes a time when a business grows too big for its owner to be managing everything.  That time was probably reached when we had 150,000 users, and now we're at over twice that size.  

                The result right now is that Markos is stuck with a task he does not like, and he is not doing it well.  That situation leads to a combination of arbitrary & capricious punishments of some, and undetected outrageous behaviors by others.  This is all highly evident and producing an overall impression of logical inconsistency and inconsistency with stated principles, and an impression of flailing and decline.

                That is extremely typical of businesses that grow beyond the capacity of the original owner to manage everything.

                And the necessary solution is to put in place an explicit management structure with explicit lines of authority, rules, procedures, and so on.  

                Since it's not reasonable to assume that Markos should have to pay people to do this, the way forward is to do it by appointed and elected volunteers who will have delegated authority, and will have a range of flexible tools to apply to various situations.

                With that in hand, we can deal with hate speech and other issues, without having to ban entire topics.  

                Banning entire topics is merely another symptom of failure of the present system, and continues down that road.  

                Setting up structures to deal with e.g. hate speech and other transgressions across the spectrum, and to reward good behaviors as well as punish bad ones, will produce successful outcomes.

                "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                by G2geek on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 10:21:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I tipped what you said (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  because it is true.

                  However, I think Kos could get rid of 65% of the most poisonous and embarrassing discourse on this website simply by banning I/P.

                  •  this is like science-based medicine: (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm proposing to start with the less-extreme interventions and move up to the more-extreme ones, just as with science-based medicine.

                    We both agree that a new management and disciplinary structure is needed.  

                    Once something like that is in place, then comes the question of how they will handle the proliferation of garbage notably in the I/P diaries.

                    My solution is less extreme: start by applying progressive discipilne to the offenders.  For example first a warning, next a selective block that prevents them posting in diaries marked with an I/P tag, next something else, up to a complete ban if they're sufficiently egregious.  

                    All along the way, give them the opportunity to take their case to a volunteer moderation board whose members are chosen for judicial temperament and willingness to suspend judgement until they have heard from both the "prosecution" and the "defense."  

                    Those proceedings should of course be open to public view, though not to public input: for example run in the manner of another diary but with comments allowed only from the parties to the dispute, and others they choose to invite to post comments.  In other words, similar to a trial.    

                    This is the complete embodiment of progressive values in the disciplinary system, and unlike the present model, it a) does not commit the Manichean error of parsing everything as black and white, b) makes the procedures explicit and public, c) obligates people to defend their statements in order to avoid an adverse outcome equivalent to "skipping out of court," d) provides the means for "innocent" verdicts where they are due, and reduces the risk of indiscriminately punishing everyone present at the scene, e) provides a history of "case law" for the guidance of the rest of the community, etc. etc.

                    Further, there needs to be a way for posters to edit their posts.   This will enable those who are warned, or penalized at one level or another, to clean up their act rather than having it remain indelible.  

                    However, one thing I do not want to see in the system, are "mandatory apologies."  Few things are as offensive to all progressive values, than stuffing words into someone's mouth and compelling them to regurgitate.  

                    Now if my system works, it will clean up the shitty language and remove the offenders via a fair and transparent process.  

                    If my system works, it will surgically excise the specific problems without having to use the meat-axe of amputating an entire topic.  

                    If my system does not work, then we can go to your system and ban the topic entirely.  

                    Start with the less extreme form of intervention, and if it doesn't work, move to a more extreme form of intervention.

                    Just like science-based medicine.  Use lifestyle interventions first (e.g. diet and exercise), then move to pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. take heart pills), and if those things don't work, then move to surgical interventions (e.g. roto-rooter the arteries and so on).  

                    If we truly believe in progressive and rational values, then we will seek to embody them in the structure and process in this place.  Nothing is as revolutionary as a working example.   On the other hand, the continuation of almost Republican-inspired disciplinary methods, only gives our enemies an opportunity to whack us with our own inconsistencies.  

                    "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                    by G2geek on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 11:29:56 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  disagree but I hear you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Plubius, Celtic Merlin, basquebob

    it's such a key aspect of our foreign policy, and needs debating..all these issues are, yet they should be framed as 'how does this help us elect dems' which can sound simplistic yet need to be the number 1 focus, not whatever weedy detail is being ground to powder.

    So many times the discussion everywhere here gets pulled into the weeds by people who simply seem to want to wrangle and parse.

    And that's not a bug, it's a feature...we have to be able to handle all the stupid variations on these arguments IRL, this is politics: war by another name, and I/we/you need to be prepared.

    It's IRL where all this endless bullshit can pay off.

    I'm agin it.


    ..squinting all the while in the glare of a culture that radiates ultraviolet consumerism and infrared celebrity...Russell Brand

    by KenBee on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:28:42 PM PDT

  •  I generally don't like (11+ / 0-)

    the idea of having subjects be off limits. But there is a precedent in the ban extant here on 9/11 Twoof. That was enacted to maintain the reputation of the site.

    It doesn't take a neurosurgeon to see that most of what's published here under the banner of 'discussion' on this subject is outright propaganda and sometimes degenerates into hate speech in the comments. There's certainly very little that could be said to address the issue as it should be: that Israel is a smallish country in the Middle East, generally not too popular there and not too important here, on this site.

    Granted, most of the worst stuff gets hidden, but when we seriously have someone discussing giving nukes to a terrorist org, and a bunch of people nodding their heads in agreement and hitting that rec button, I'd say there's a problem.

    Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

    by MBNYC on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:40:21 PM PDT

  •  Sounds good to me, with a proviso. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fizziks, Plubius

    It's just a crappy dynamic: I don't agree with the near-consensus view (two-state solution, peoplehood as primordial, etc.), but obviously I'm not going to move that near-consensus.  So it's futile for me and it's equally futile for you: the issue may not be settled out there in Middle East, but it's settled enough among Democrats in the US so what's to be gained by talking about it more on a Democratic site?  To win over people like me?  We're voting Democratic anyway, so why bother?

    Having said all that, I wouldn't ban it.  I would just gently suggest in the FAQ that people not diary about it unless they have some genuinely new and constructive point to raise.  

    But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

    by Rich in PA on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 05:41:36 PM PDT

    •  I think you hit the nail on the head there (0+ / 0-)

      With the futility of arguing against Israeli nationalism.

      It doesn't matter if you support it or not. It doesn't matter if I support it or not.

      In the end, it doesn't matter if the US suupports it or not.

      Israel is a nation, it wants to be that way, and it has shown time and again it will fight (i.e. kill people) to maintain itself such.

      That is the thing that the Pro Palestine Support Group just will not accept.

      And that is why they are impossible to talk with.

  •  If they accomplished anything I might disagree (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fizziks, Mets102, allergywoman

    Personally, I wouldn't touch an I/P diary with a ten-foot pole.  I have opinions but I know they're not worth expressing, just for people who agree to go "yay!" and people who disagree to call me a dumbass or worse.   No one's opinion will be budged in the slightest, nor is it ever.   Not worth getting dirty for that.

    As Fizziks says, too toxic.

    What I really dislike is when I/P enemies drag their issues into completely unrelated diaries and comments.

  •  How about better, calmer I/P diaries? (0+ / 0-)

    Instead of banning them, how about suggestions on making them less vitriolic?

    I have a few suggestions:
    1. No more hide rating, or uprating in these diaries. This is not a popularity contest. Say your piece and let the argument stand or fall on its own merit.

    2. No more dredging up comments from other diaries to stalk posters. If you have a disagreement do it in the diary where the disagreement occured. Don't carry that disagreement over to other diaries. Stick to the topic being discussed.

    •  you are one of the worst offenders (8+ / 0-)

      so no, I certainly can't take any of your suggestions seriously.

      You are one of the only users who has pushed the Khazar hoax and not been banned for it.  And you are one of the only users who has tried to redefine antisemitism and has not been banned for it.

      If you want to know why I/P discussions are toxic, please consult a mirror.

      •  This! (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mets102, fizziks, MBNYC, Mortifyd, livosh1, leftynyc


        "Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls, it's more democratic." - Crash Davis

        by JayinPortland on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 06:00:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      • your own admission (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        truong son traveler

        you're an offender yourself

        Who is worse than another is a matter of opinion so I won't go down the route of who is worse than who.

        Far be it for me to speak for "imc", but given that you've admitted to being an offender on this subject area, he/she could well say he /she can't take your suggestions maybe could others

        Just pointing out that your views aren't the law on this site, neither are mine, neither are "icm's" .....Kos's word / actions are the law on this site.

        He's left it for us to discuss subjects ( dare I say influence him / his views one way or another)...but that's the whole point if we're supposed to be free to influence him (as you're trying to do to get him to ban I/P) why should we not be free to influence others by DISCUSSING I/P

        •  I didn't admit to being an offender (4+ / 0-)

          so there goes your premise.

          •  Depends.... (0+ / 0-)

            You've said you

            "I feel I have to fight against content and memes which I think are wrong, biased, based on falsehoods"

            Now what you consider fighting others may consider being offensive (ie being an offender)......same way that you considered that icm's points were offensive - whereas he may consider his actions to be fighting "against content and memes which I think are wrong, biased, based on falsehoods"

            All depends on where you stand on the matter

            My point is that your PoV on most subjects is NOT right NOR wrong...because there is no right / wrong on most subjects - just different points of view.

            Citing the Democratic platform does not make your view right (or wrong) - as I mentioned earlier......the democratic platform was once pro slavery, was pro changed and discussion on those issues caused the change

      •  The very same person who is calling for an end (0+ / 0-)

        to I/P diaries... insists on getting in his last digs.

    •  #2 might be worth exploring (4+ / 0-)

      Meteor Blades once said he was leaning towards the idea of there being no ratings in I/P diaries.  I think it is worth debating as an alternative to banning I/P diaries or the status quo.

      •  Whenever kos and his IT crew get around (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        to implementing the new moderation system I think we'll see further improvements in the quality of moderation in I/P diaries and commentary. Some of the team-oriented gamesmanship characteristic of I/P is already abating since the purge and under the norms of post-purge moderation, and that's definitely a move in the right direction. Things are getting better: dickishness is being called-out more frequently, as are off-topic comments intended to stoke flame-wars and divert from substantive discussion.

        It will take some time, and it may perhaps take the removal (voluntary or otherwise) of some of the worst offenders, but progress is being made toward more respectful, less disruptive and less offensive I/P discourse. Again, this demonstrates to me that it's the behavior of some Kossacks rather than the nature of I/P discourse that is the problem. Well done, kos...

        Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

        by angry marmot on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 09:13:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Wow, the news coming out of that region (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lib Dem FoP

    these days must really have an anti-Israel bias.  It sucks to be on the wrong side of history.

  •  Um, I have a simpler solution for you. (24+ / 0-)

    Don't enjoy I/P discussions here? Stop participating in them. Voila! Problem solved.

    You're welcome.

    •  I think I speak for not only myself... (6+ / 0-)

      but the diarist and many others when I say I wish it was that simple.  The problem is how are we supposed to stand aside when there is rampant antisemitism, and other bigotry, that originates out of there, and, in fact, is the primary source of antisemitism and anti-Arab bigotry site-wide?

      It is unfair to ask Markos to hire a full-time moderator for I/P.  It is a tremendous waste of resources, although, since it his site, it is his prerogative to use his resources as he sees fit.  However, that is what is necessary if one wants to adequately moderate I/P.

      Now, let me ask the following:  In what other part of the site would advocating for terrorist nuclear weapons, under any circumstances, not lead to a summary banning?  In what other part of the site would saying that the US government existed only to facilitate another nation's actions be tolerated for weeks on end before a warning was issued and get uprates in the interim?  In what other part of the site would mocking someone living directly in the path of Irene and worried about evacuating be tolerated?  In what other part of the site would defending a banned antisemite be tolerated?  In what other part of the site would borderline trutherism be tolerated?  In what other part of the site would using Georgia's murder of Troy Davis for one's own political ends be tolerated?  All that has happened in I/P.

      Please read our community letter and support our efforts to clean up this site.

      by Mets102 on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 06:15:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you don't like the "rampant bigotry etc" (0+ / 0-)

        then get on the diaries and  argue your POV OR ignore the diaries....if you don't feel you have the time - that's YOUR CHOICE.

        Thereare a lot of subjects discussed on this site....I'd bet people may like to stop discussion on some of those because they don't have the time to spend on them and are unhappy with what's said against their PoV.

        As for hiring a F/T moderator for I/P - you're correct that it's his prerogative to decide whether to hire one BUT it's ALSO his prerogative to decide if one is needed to "properly moderate" said discussion. At this point he feels that his warnings and (shown willingness) to "ZAP" people off the site is sufficient to moderate's for him to decide and for you to influence him one way and others to influence him otherwise.

        If you don't feel that's enough you have the option to leave the diaries, leave the site.......numerous people have left this site because they were unhappy with the tack taken on certin subjects - their choice and ours to do the same

    •  Would be a nice solution... (6+ / 0-)

      ...if this were a fantasy book, where offensive trolls are zapped or otherwise quickly disposed of, but unfortunately it isn't, and many people here are made to feel uncomfortable by those who hang around and make this an unwelcoming place for those of us who would like to focus on electing Democrats if only we weren't made to feel unwanted along the way.

      Would you like to propose a realistic solution for those of us who refuse to ignore hate speech here?

      "Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls, it's more democratic." - Crash Davis

      by JayinPortland on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 06:29:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  it's not that simple (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JayinPortland, Mets102, Plubius, Pozzo

      I can't ignore comments that say Hamas should have nuclear weapons anymore than I could ignore comments that say vaccines cause Autism.

      "Don't participate" is not realistic unless I had a heart of stone.

      •  So you need a ban ... (7+ / 0-)

        because you're incapable of stopping yourself from clicking the links?

        •  No. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mets102, fizziks, Plubius

          We need a ban because we're tired of dealing with the hate speech that you should be moderating.

          "Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls, it's more democratic." - Crash Davis

          by JayinPortland on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 06:51:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So stop dealing with it. (8+ / 0-)

            Seriously, people, I just don't get it. If it's so upsetting, don't read this shit. Don't click, don't read, don't comment. Find a new hobby. Really, it will preserve your mental health. I promise.

            •  So then your proposed solution... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              fizziks, JayinPortland, allergywoman

              is that we do nothing about the antisemitism?  That we do nothing about the calls for terrorist nuclear weapons?  We should do nothing about things that have no place at a liberal/progressive Democratic site?

              I'll reiterate what I wrote above in response to you and ask if you believe we should nothing about any of the following, all of which have happened in the toxic sewer known as Daily Kos I/P:

              In what other part of the site would advocating for terrorist nuclear weapons, under any circumstances, not lead to a summary banning?  In what other part of the site would saying that the US government existed only to facilitate another nation's actions be tolerated for weeks on end before a warning was issued and get uprates in the interim?  In what other part of the site would mocking someone living directly in the path of Irene and worried about evacuating be tolerated?  In what other part of the site would defending a banned antisemite be tolerated?  In what other part of the site would borderline trutherism be tolerated?  In what other part of the site would using Georgia's murder of Troy Davis for one's own political ends be tolerated?

              Please read our community letter and support our efforts to clean up this site.

              by Mets102 on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 06:58:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  My proposed solution ... (8+ / 0-)

                is that you stop participating in I/P diaries. If you don't like them, don't participate in them. It's pretty simple, actually.

                •  You actually don't answer the questions... (5+ / 0-)

                  Do you agree or disagree about whether those things belong on this site?  Do you believe that the site's admin should take action against those who engage in the specified behaviors?  Do you believe that we should simply do nothing while our people are maligned?  How is any of this consistent with a site that prohibits bigotry and has as a rule "Don't be a dick"?

                  Your proposed solution is no solution at all.  It is that we should simply be quiet.  There are some here that are perfectly content to remain quiet in the face of antisemitic comments.  We've seen that in diary about Joe Lieberman where diarists have refused to say anything when he was accused of dual loyalty.  I don't fall into that category.  I'm not going to remain quiet.

                  Please read our community letter and support our efforts to clean up this site.

                  by Mets102 on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:06:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Whether she does / doen't agree (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Dont Call It

                    with what's said is up to her

                    If she doesn't agree she's not so worked up that she wants a ban

                    And she's NOT suggesting you be quiet - she's suggesting you leave it be OR continue arguing your points - YOUR choice

                    You want to NOT be silent - DO SO.......just don't expect others to be silent about what they may perceive to be offensive comments on YOUR side

                •  And... (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mets102, fizziks, Plubius, allergywoman

                  ...G-d forbid we should ask for moderation of hate speech from... moderators.


                  "Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls, it's more democratic." - Crash Davis

                  by JayinPortland on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:08:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  so why not allow 9/11 CT diaries (6+ / 0-)

                  and vaccines cause autism diaries?

                  And anti-evolution diaries.

                  And anti-abortion diaries

                  After all, if people don't like them, they can just not participate.

                  How far are you willing to take this concept?  And why is I/P different.  

                •  Cool. I'm start a whole new series (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  on the so-called "Feminist" War on Men.

                  The first diary will cover how the woman who first articulated "rape is about power and not sex" bullshit predicated her insane belief on the man-hating principle that all men are rapists.

                  You are welcome to not participate.

            •  That's a nice attitude to have. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              fizziks, zemblan, Plubius

              I, on the other hand, am not going to ignore comments and speech that have, in the past, led to... bad situations for our people.

              I just don't get it.

              Yes.  It's quite clear you don't get it.  That's the problem.

              And my mental health is just fine, thank you very much.  But I appreciate your concern.  Seriously, who made you a fp'er here again?  And why?

              "Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls, it's more democratic." - Crash Davis

              by JayinPortland on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:00:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Bwahahahahahaha. (5+ / 0-)

                Yes, I can tell that the incivility of these diaries must be very upsetting for you.


                Look, folks, I'm Jewish and I've had plenty of verbal brawls about Israel. But I don't do it here, because oh my god, why? Why? My grandmother and I can have heated arguments about it, but we never resort to name-calling. Somehow, we manage to discuss it without invoking Nazis and genocide.

                But that's been proven, many times, to be impossible here. So I don't bother with the I/P diaries. What's the point? We're going to solve the problem here on a blog? Really?

                I just do not understand why people who supposedly hate these conversations insist on engaging in them. I spent maybe a week participating in I/P diaries a few years ago, and that was more than enough for me to realize I have no interest in these discussions. I don't understand why people who say they don't like these discussions either continue to participate in them. That one's beyond me.

                •  You just make the case for a ban... (5+ / 0-)
                  Look, folks, I'm Jewish and I've had plenty of verbal brawls about Israel. But I don't do it here, because oh my god, why? Why? My grandmother and I can have heated arguments about it, but we never resort to name-calling. Somehow, we manage to discuss it without invoking Nazis and genocide.

                  But that's been proven, many times, to be impossible here. (emphasis my own) So I don't bother with the I/P diaries. What's the point? We're going to solve the problem here on a blog? Really?

                  It is precisely because it is impossible to engage in civil discourse here on the issue, for a myriad of reasons, and, for which both sides share some degree of responsibility that I/P should be banned.  It does nothing to help elect Democrats and everything to hurt the election of Democrats.  Think about it for a second.  You're a lurker.  You come to this site.  You see calls for Hezbollah nuclear weapons.  You see denials of Jewish peoplehood.  You see claims that Jewish-American politicians hold dual loyalty.  You see claims that Jews control the government.  You see claims about Palestinian child brides.  What are you going think?

                  Please read our community letter and support our efforts to clean up this site.

                  by Mets102 on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:11:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, I made the case for ignoring. (5+ / 0-)

                    See, I think the I/P discussions are absurd. Ergo, I don't comment in them. (Yes, I note the irony of my commenting in this diary, but what can I say? Irony is ironic that way.)

                    But I don't need Markos to make a rule that says I can't read them. I just don't read them.

                    Here's a crazy idea though: Try not reading I/P diaries. Try it for, say, a week. Don't click them, don't read them, don't comment in them. (Oh, and don't write them either.)

                    •  again, why not try staying away from (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JayinPortland, Mets102, Plubius

                      anti-abortion diaries, or anti-gay-marriage diaries, or anti-evolution diaries?

                      You don't tell people to "stay away" from those, you ban those!  And yet you are telling us to "stay away" from equally absurd "Iran should have nuclear weapons" diaries.

                    •  No. (4+ / 0-)

                      Because see, some of us aren't really up for ignoring hate speech.

                      Is that really so much of a problem?

                      "Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls, it's more democratic." - Crash Davis

                      by JayinPortland on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:18:06 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I've written something like 1 I/P diary... (4+ / 0-)

                      in the past 5 months.  That's it.  I barely comment.  The only reason I pay attention to them is because I have friends that post in them, so I read their comments because they're my friends.  Also, I keep tabs on them because I'm proud to be one of the loudest and strongest voices combatting antisemitism here and it only makes sense that I'll read the diaries that are the source for 95% of antisemitism on this site.

                      Tell you what, implement an I/P moratorium.  Let's make it for an entire month.  At the conclusion of that month, let's see how the site has fared for it, including the degree to which antisemitism and anti-Arab bigotry have been reduced.  If there's no noticeable difference we can discuss bringing it back.  If there is a noticeable difference, we make the ban permanent.  What do you say?

                      Please read our community letter and support our efforts to clean up this site.

                      by Mets102 on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:18:42 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't make those decisions ... (8+ / 0-)

                        for the site.

                        But again, I don't need a rule to keep me from participating in diaries I don't like. I just, you know, don't participate.

                        •  So, again... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          fizziks, JayinPortland

                          your proposed solution is that Jewish posters, and our allies, just ignore the antisemitism at this liberal/progressive Democratic site?  Ignoring the problem and pretending like it doesn't exist won't make it go away.  The problem will just fester and continue to grow.  Antisemitism, and bigotry in general, is not the same as personal anonymous personal insult.  They are group insults that are applicable to those that post here and those that do not so long as one is a member of the group so targeted.

                          You might be willing to let it slide, including the antisemitism, through the act of simply ignoring it here.  I will not let it slide.  I will combat it.  And, I will advocate for the most effective measures to eliminate it from the site.  The most effective, by far, would be a full-time moderator who could police the main source of the antisemitism, I/P.  Absent that, the most effective method of dealing with the problem is banning the source of it, again, I/P.

                          Anyway, I think this discussion has run the course of its usefulness.  So, in closing, Gmar Chatimah Tovah, and, if you're fasting tomorrow night and Saturday, have an easy fast.

                          Please read our community letter and support our efforts to clean up this site.

                          by Mets102 on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:57:11 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  What a radical idea (0+ / 0-)

                          hope you patented it........someone may use it in other areas

                      •  Intriguing (0+ / 0-)

                        Considering you have referred to I/P diaries as a pie fight etc and you claim to have hardly exactly are "one of the loudest and strongest voices combatting antisemitism here" ??

                        The only way that could be is if anti-semitism which you profess to be one of the main reasons to ban I/P diaries is NOT the main realm for such comments.

                        In which case the subject matter(s) that should be banned is not I/P but those subject realms which are bringing forth the anti-semitic comments and causing you to be "one of the loudest and strongest voices combatting antisemitism here"......

                •  I think you should seriously consider this: (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mets102, JayinPortland, Plubius

                  You are saying that if you don't like it then don't participate.

                  So why doesn't this same argument apply to diaries against abortion rights, or against gay marriage rights, or against evolution, or for vaccines causing autism, or for a controlled demolition of WTC 2?

                  Why are all of those other divisive, pointless, hyperbolic arguments worthy of banning... but for some reason Iran and Hezbollah having nuclear weapons, or Zionists causing the Holocaust, is not?

                  And why should people be expected to happily ignore the later but not the former, and in fact are protected from the former?

                  •  If those subjects are banned (0+ / 0-)

                    I'd suggest your questions as to why they're banned are best directed to the fella who would most likely have instituted tha ban - Kos

                    Kaili Joy may know whay he instituted the ban (if he did) , she may not - Kos most certainly would know

                •  That's very nice. (4+ / 0-)

                  And my name is Jason, I've had more than a few brawls myself and I've played basketball in high school.

                  So we're even.

                  None of this changes the fact that as a moderator here, you are one of the people who should be combatting the hate speech which puts me and quite a few others here on edge.

                  I do not hate these conversations.  For that matter, I do not "hate" anything, really.  I do, however, strongly dislike the constant demonization of Jews and Israel which is tacitly accepted here.

                  Somehow, we manage to discuss it without invoking Nazis and genocide.

                  Indeed.  Same here.  So the question is, why do I have to log into this site almost every day and find invocations along these lines?

                  I participate, and I keep looking, because I am always up for fighting hate speech.  There's quite a bit of it around these days, unfortunately.

                  "Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls, it's more democratic." - Crash Davis

                  by JayinPortland on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:16:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You don't have to do that. (5+ / 0-)

                    I'm here every day all day long. It's my job. And I still manage to avoid that kind of shit.

                    No one forces you to participate in these diaries. No one. If you do, that's your choice. But suggesting that we need to implement a rule for those people who are incapable of resisting these diaries is pretty absurd.

                    •  you still haven't answered my question (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Mets102, JayinPortland

                      why ban any topics then?

                      If people should just be expected to stay out of offensive topics of their own accord, then why do we ban 9/11 CT, or anti-abortion advocacy, or vaccine autism advocacy at all?

                      If you could indicate why you think these things are different and deserve a ban it would move this conversation forward.

                      •  And again ... (7+ / 0-)

                        I don't make those kinds of decisions for the site, some of which were made long before I was hired. So I can't really offer you an official explanation. (Although I will say that I am unaware of a ban on anti-abortion diaries. I've seen a few here in my time and don't believe I've seen people banned for writing them. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.)

                        There are a lot of contentious issues that we discuss at Daily Kos. We can't ban all of them; there would be no site. Look at how contentious Obama discussions are. Should we ban all discussion of the president? That seems impractical.

                        Now, as for banning conspiracy theories ... Again, I'm not offering you an official answer here, just my own guess. But it's one thing to say that you're not allowed to say made up, crazy shit (i.e., vaccines cause autism or instant retardation or whatever). That's fairly cut and dry. But saying you can't discuss an entire region of the world, which does frequently include American politics, which is, after all, what we talk about here at Daily Kos? How do you enforce that? What if the president travels to Israel? Can we not talk about that? I just can't even imagine how you would ban all discussion.

                        In general, I'm on the "more speech" side of the debate. That is, I generally don't think that shutting down speech is the answer.

                        BUT ... there's a difference between a rule and a choice. So while I respect your right to duke it out every day all day long about I/P, I don't know if that's such a wise choice. It's a toxic subject here, engaged in by a relatively small handful of people. If those handful of people agree that such conversations are toxic (even if they disagree about the why), then why do they continue to write about it? It seems to me that for all the complaints, it's because at the end of the day, y'all actually love talking about it. So why should we make a rule that says you can't?

                        •  thank you for the answer (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Mets102, JayinPortland

                          I must say you are wrong though about this:  I do not `love' talking about it.  But just as I couldn't let a vaccine autism connection be promoted on a major website with thousands of readers without responding, the same thing applies to one sided hyperbolic demonizations of Israel and Jewish people.  I can't let them pass unanswered.  Fine for you if you can, but I can't.  But that doesn't mean that I relish participating.

                          I do appreciate the distinction you have drawn between batshit CT and an entire region of the world.  I agree it wouldn't be as straightforward to set the boundaries.  But I still believe it would be possible.

                          •  The boundary is or are clear. (5+ / 0-)

                            If I understand the intent of what you are saying correctly. Anti-semitism is bannable, racism is bannable, hate speech is bannable, calls to or for violence is bannable, CT is bannable. Ignorance and stupidity? Not so much. The people that say or engage in bannable things should be baned but banning a subject because it attracts more people that engage in that kind of behavior is going a bridge to far. Just as an example but let me first say that I am totally against nuclear arms, discussing if Iran should have or not have nuclear weapons can be a good and interesting and even useful discussion. If someone starts or comes into that discussion advocating that Iran should use them against Israel, or Saudi Arabia for that matter, that person should be banned. That is clearly inciting violence. To be extremely clear here: do I think Iran should have nuclear weapons? ABSOLUTELY NO. But that is my opinion. Do I like Israel having nuclear weapons? No, but I do understand why they have them and why DeGaulle made sure Israel got them. Do I leave myself wide open to be criticized, accused of hypocrisy and even ridiculed  by making such a statement? Absolutely, but it is a discussion worth having. But if we ban the subject the discussion can not be happen and not having the discussion does not make the problem go away. If we have the discussion perhaps we can persuade and convince.

                            Someone in an earlier comment said that politics is about fighting. I wholeheartedly disagree, politics is about persuading and convincing and in rare instances should be about fighting. But fighting should always be the last thing we should resort to and only after all other means have been exhausted.

                            "Capitalism has defeated communism. It is now well on its way to defeating democracy."
- David Korten

                            48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam

                            by basquebob on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:43:00 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  I am also unaware of an anti-abortion ban (0+ / 0-)

                          Which is to say that it doesn't have to seem to have come up in any meta issues since January 1, 2009 or in any old versions of the FAQ.

                        •  You're not wrong about whether there have been (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Karl Rover

                          unbanned anti abortion diaries and comments here, KG. Remember when the Health Care Bill was going through and when Stupak was an issue  and not an ex Congressman.

                    •  So you're a mod? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Diane Gee, splintersawry


                      Don't let any of this get to you.  I/P is becoming a much nicer place with the new rules and policies.  They're working.  Let them work.

                      Nice to meet ya.

                      Celtic Merlin

                      Struggle with dignity against injustice. IS there anything more honorable that a person can do?

                      by Celtic Merlin on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:25:42 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Who made her a front pager ??? (0+ / 0-)

                Just a wild guess but maybe Kos - you know that fella who owns the site, the fella who you're asking / demanding ban discussion on I/P

                Dunno how thick / thin skinned Kos is.....but just to be on the safe side, I would suggest that questioning his judgement on who to appoint as an FP'er is not the right way to go.......

                •  ummm... huh? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mets102, KenBee

                  Who questioned Kos' judgement on who should be a front pager??

                  Really, that's just about enough distraction and trolling out of you.  You've said your peace here.  You've also revealed that you know far more about the history of I/P than someone with your UID should.  It is time to stop threadjacking and let the adults continue their conversation.


                  •  Trolling - hardly - (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Dont Call It

                    I've disagreed with you vociferously and continuously - the fact that you call it trolling says all that needs to be said as to why you want the subject banned.....interestingly NO ONE has seen fit to HR any of my many comments on this diary - strange for such an "ubiquitous troll".....wonder if that has anything to do with Kos' warnings re HRing for disagreement ?

                    As for UIDs - the fact that that is all you and Mets can resort to says it all about your LOUSY I've said before Kos could well tell you to zip it in the same way - given his UID is lower than yours.....would you accept that line ?

                    similarly one has to wonder why the UID argument hasn't been landed on Kaili - her UID is double yours.......why haven't you tried that on her?

                  •  I do (0+ / 0-)
            •  and when mainstream Democratic candidates (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mets102, JayinPortland, Plubius

              click over and see "Hezbollah should have nuclear weapons" or "Jews aren't a people" has 15 uprates and zero pushback?  Then what?

            •  When were you made personally responsible for I/P? (8+ / 0-)

              My understanding is that when folks violate the rules in I/P, their misdeeds are to be brought to the attention of the site mods who decide what action is appropriate.  Jay here seems to feel that you (Yes, you personally Kaili) are supposed to be babysitting I/P so that he doesn't get offended.  If you're a moderator, that's news to me.  I don't know who any of the mods are now that Meteor Blades is gone.

              I've been participating regularly in I/P since (roughly) the August or September before the Gaza Massacre started in 2008.

              There has been a very, VERY noticeable change in I/P since "the Great Purge" happened.  Folks are (for the most part) not so nasty as they'd been before Markos instituted his new rules.  Those who can't seem to control themselves are getting tossed, and that is NOT well-appreciated by their friends.  Civility has been the rule lately and is becoming the new normal.  Markos' new rules need time to work - and they're working.

              It seems to me that the members of the group Adalah (generally supporters of the Palestinian cause) are quite happy with the new rules and the new way of doing things and the obvious civility which is now taking hold of I/P.  The teammates of Team Shalom (who support the Israeli side of the conflict) - not so much.  I'm not a member of either group, but I feel that you should compare the Tip Jar of this diary with the Team Shalom team roster.  Apparently, one of the umps rightly tossed a member of their coaching staff and now The Team wants to end the discussion altogether.

              Your position, however, is dead on - if you don't like I/P, don't participate.  That's been the way of I/P for as long as I've been a part of it and probably long before.

              What I'm EXPECTING (and perhaps The Team is also expecting) is that once I/P becomes a place of regular, civil discussion about the issues and events of that region, more Kossacks will decide to join the discussion.  They may even become better informed about these issues and events.  I would welcome that.  So should the rest of this community.  Otherwise, we'd all have to rely on the MSM for news of the Middle East.  Considering the job the MSM has been doing with Occupy Wall Street (and the much crappier job they've been doing with Israel/Palestine and the Arab Spring), that doesn't sound like a very good way to keep Progressives properly and well informed.

              The new system is working.  If you're really a mod, let it keep working.

              Celtic Merlin

              Struggle with dignity against injustice. IS there anything more honorable that a person can do?

              by Celtic Merlin on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 11:44:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  no WE need a ban (2+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Mets102, zemblan
          Hidden by:
          Dont Call It

          because this issue will tear the progressive coalition apart, and because, for example, serious candidates will have second thoughts about being associated with a site where advocacy for Iranian and Hezbollah nuclear weapons is tolerated.

      •  Exactly. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mets102, fizziks, Plubius, zemblan

        "Don't participate," especially coming from someone who should be moderating this crap, reads like the very absolute highest heights of hypocrisy and cowardice.

        I'm not going to stand for Israel = Nazi analogies, nor should anyone else here (except for those who push it, of course).  Yet this is what what we constantly have to deal with.

        Just so this person doesn't have to get their fingers dirty?  Sorry, I don't accept that.

        "Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls, it's more democratic." - Crash Davis

        by JayinPortland on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 06:49:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  and to push it further (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mets102, zemblan

        "Vaccines cause Autism" is effectively banned while "Hamas should have nuclear weapons" isn't.  Why is that?

        •  Well it's actually Hezbollah... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fizziks, zemblan, Plubius

          but that's more a distinction without a difference considering that they're both on our government's list of designated foreign terrorist organizations.

          Please read our community letter and support our efforts to clean up this site.

          by Mets102 on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 06:54:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Although I totally abhor the idea of... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...Hezbollah having nuclear weapons, it is not a good comparison. "Vaccines cause Autism" is CT. "Hamas (sic) should have nuclear weapons" is a matter of opinion. Now someone advocating that Hezbollah acquire NWs to use against Israel or anyone else for that matter is perfectly bannable since it is a call to violence. In reality we all know why Hezbollah would want NWs, so yeah it is pretty screwed up and the person making an argument to the contrary would have a hard time passing the laugh test although it is not a laughing matter.

          "Capitalism has defeated communism. It is now well on its way to defeating democracy."
- David Korten

          48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam

          by basquebob on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:54:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No offense, but that is way too glib. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zemblan, Plubius, allergywoman, fizziks
    •  And yet another great idea from Kaili! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Only discuss things with people you agree with!!

    •  If the issue is deeply personal enough... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fizziks, allergywoman, stevenaxelrod

      ...not participating is irrational.

      Take our recently departed gun control troll as an example.  Someone whose primary tactic is to present a fun-house mirror caricature of me and those like me is someone who leaves me with two choices:

      1. Respond
      2. Allow the offensive meme to stand as truth

      This website is not a safe haven for twisted memes.  Thus, I respond.

      I agree with Fizziks in the sense that both sides are so entrenched that anyone who enters the no-man's land of discussion and compromise risks getting nailed by snipers from both camps.

      I also agree with Fizziks in the sense that a two-state solution is the most just solution available in a fundamentally unjust situation.  However, my view of a two-state solution is one in which the Palestinian state isn't an economically untenable Swiss Cheese of a state.

      "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Mohandas K. Ghandi

      by DaveinBremerton on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 08:32:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You didn't address (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mets102, zemblan

      one thing in this diary.  Did you even read it or are we supposed to just bow to your superior wisdom?

  •  absolutely not. (11+ / 0-)

    Your solution do dealing with passion-inflaming, hot-button issues is to ignore them?

    Hell no.  I'm capable of sifting through the noise.  

    I mean...let's ban all discussions of race, sex, death penalty, abortion, etc. etc.


  •  Nearly? (3+ / 0-)
    An exception could possibly be made for diaries directly having to do with current American policy or current political campaigns, but that's it.

    That's quite a shoehorn for those of us who wear tennis shoes and the occasional python boot.

    Dickishtisity comes from people, not from subjects.

    I find that there are a few people who frequent I/P that provide information and analysis. Yes, experts. I would miss THAT.

    And yes, it gets ugly, but removing a mirror never made anyone pretty.

  •  I'm really torn on this. (8+ / 0-)

    On the one hand, some of the debate is over the top. On the other hand, this is a huge political issue and we should be discussing it at a cutting-edge political blog. I think the problem isn't the topic, but the debate.

    Kos took some heat for the purge, but post-purge and post-boycott, this is a much more pleasant place than it was before. It seems that the message he was trying to send sunk in everywhere but I/P.

    I don't know what the answer is. Maybe he should just take a zero tolerance policy going forward and give anybody who crosses the line--even my a millimeter--a timeout for a couple of months?

    •  I'm torn too (6+ / 0-)

      On the one hand, it is a very significant issue. And it would really be valuable if we had a forum where Democrats on both sides of this complicated issue can debate the compelling arguments made by both sides, and learn from one another.

      But that just doesn't seem to happen here, at least not in the 7+ years I've been around.  I/P diaries seem to  consistently attract Jew-hating comments that make people of good will cringe.  And, making matters even worse, so many of the expressions of extreme anti-Israel vitriol seem to come from folks who appear not to give a rat's ass about electing Democrats.  This place should not serve as a platform for the expression of this kind of venom. I think it damages the reputation of the blog, the Democratic Party, and the candidates we so desperately need to elect.

      •  I guess I agree, but (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mets102, Plubius

        the thing is that it hasn't damage the reputation of the blog. And that baffles me. Some of the stuff that I've seen in I/P has blown. my. fucking. mind. But nobody seems to nobody about it, but I/P regulars. Perhaps the new moderation system might work. Let's see what the wider community thinks about Nazi analogies and giving Hezbollah nukes. I think this is overall a good community and that people will be taken aback at some of the offensive comments we've seen.

      •  Notice you mention only (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        "jew hating comments".....odd that because the actions of the 'zapper' himself (Kos) suggest that he believes that the pro Jewish / Israeli side was not entirely clean in this regard........

        •  yet more evidence that you didn't read the diary (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mets102, JayinPortland, leftynyc, livosh1
        •  I am aware of only one guy on our side (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fizziks, leftynyc

          who ever used anything close to hate speach.  He's forsworn this site. Set up his own.  Kinda gone off the deep end, but, hey that is just my opinion.

          As for the rest of us on Team Israel,  there is no parity with the filth spewed by those in the Pro Palestine Support Group.

          Mets and Fizziks and others have documented that filth. And how that filth is not only tolerated by Team P, it is often recommended.

          I challenge you to come up with ONE comment by anyone from Team Israel that even approaches the filth commonly spewed by Team P.

          •  you know one guy.. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Diane Gee

            and you and others posted hateful comments on his looney site to.  

            A democratic come back

            by Dont Call It on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 10:37:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And what comment did I post? (0+ / 0-)

              Remember that?

              Uh, no, I guess not.

              •  Hard to point out (0+ / 0-)

                since he just purged half of his hateful dkos-bashing website from the history books. That blogger likes to rewrite history whenever it suits him. There is a way-back machine, though to those who want to waste the time looking through that morass of bile.

                •  And yet, with no support, (0+ / 0-)

                  you rec a comment saying I and others posted "hateful comments"

                  I never posted hateful comments.

                  Zombie boy is a liar.  And you have no shame.

                  •  Plubius (0+ / 1-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Hidden by:

                    I have long read that site, and still keep an eye since I had to take legal action against the man who created it.

                    I have seen your name before the great deletion happened a week or two ago.

                    Of course, it could have been someone lying and using your name, but I think one of your dear friends here that post there might tell you if you had an imposter... but it is the net, it theoretically could have been a fake-you. I just find it unlikely.

                    Now, as for proof? He deleted 90% of his history.

                    Also, my regular readership will notice that I deleted about a gazillion blog posts and readers' comments along with it. I hope that this has not put anyone's nose out of joint, but I very much feel like I want to start fresh. It's actually kind of funny. Yesterday as I began the process of dismantling this joint I got an email from a friend of mine who says, "Hey, Karma, your blog is melting!"


                    Yes, it most certainly was.


                    Read it while its still there.

                    •  Liar (0+ / 0-)

                      I never posted "hatefull comments"


                      You are a liar.

                      You have no shame.

                      •  Do you deny posting there? (0+ / 0-)

                        or just deny hateful (which is, of course, a matter of opinion)

                        •  "Hateful comments" (0+ / 0-)
                          Diane G :: Memorial Day 2010: Israel Officially Becomes Nazi Germany
                          This country, our country, and every fucking country that had a citizen on board those ships should send a full-force fleet to free their people, and protect those vessels, and shove a goddamned nuke up Israel's ass if it doesn't comply. We need to end this blockade by FORCE.


                          You now have a choice.

                          Apologize for lying that I posted "hateful comments" or I will notify the site ads.

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

                            I withdraw it not because of any threat of anything I said on another blog in a fit of mouthiness, when my husband was dying and in response to the website that said that all of the activists were jihadis and started the fight... besides the fact I have often ran my mouth worse about Cheney and Bush... in rhetorical anger.

                            I Withdraw it because I finally had some time to review your comment history here, and you could not POSSIBLY be the poster who used your handle at Lord of the Karmafishes.

                            You seem a reasonable person, and not to be the one I read who used your name.

                            I apologize fully to you. Sorry for the delay, but I am now working 3 jobs. In fact, it is 8:30 PM and I am taking a break from my data entry to reply, after starting my 1st job at 8 am.

                            By the way? That one statement does not define me. I was angry and hurt, and said "if they do not comply" which I knew they would if challenged, and I knew they would never be challenged.

                            Were the threat of nuclear war be started by anybody, including us, I would be dead set against it.  But I did run my mouth that time.

                            I was angry, sleep deprived, hurt by the reaction of former friends... hell, a Holocaust survivor was on that ship!

                            And? My husband was dying of cancer, at home, and I was his sole caretaker, and didn't leave the house for a year. I guess I let the blog-thing become my only outlet to the world, and took other's words too personally and tried to retaliate, if not escalate in kind.

                            I am not proud of who I was then.

                            But I choose to forgive me and do better.

                            I do apologize.

                            You seem like a better person than I tried to accuse you of, and I was wrong, totally wrong.

                •  That feels like the sort of claim (0+ / 0-)

                  You should back up with links.  

      •  Not just "Jew-hating" comments, livosh1. You (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco, basquebob, Diane Gee, elliott

        know this.  There is just as much, if not more, "Arab-hating" or more specifically, "Palestinian-hating" comments/sentiment expressed, because it is almost completely acceptable to do so in the present US discourse.  That is spotlighted and countered in I/P discussions here.

        If for no other reason than that, I/P should continue here.  To include the 10-15M Arab/Muslims in the US in the Democratic party discussion and voting.  

        NONE of the bullshit hatefulness should happen.  But I/P does bring it out and in doing so enables all of us to expose it, perchance to make a more inclusive party.

        This isn't a zero-sum dynamic.  Or it shouldn't be.

        Sumud muqawim. Unadikum. Salaam.

        by Terra Mystica on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 09:29:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly. There are only 4-5 Arab Pro Palestinians (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Terra Mystica, Diane Gee, elliott

          posting here. There were more more, but they left the site, due to harassment. This seems a way of shutting off the last remaining pro Palestinian voices, all of whom are Christian, because being a Muslim Arab pro-Palestinian voice on this site means to endure endless abuse and harassment.

          There are a few Israeli and Jewish posters who are upset by the blatant human rights abuses by the current Israeli Government and the settlers, who join the 4-5 Arab pro Palestinian posters.

          And that is the voice that fizziks and all who support him/her want to silence.

          What about this article by Nick Kristoff on NYT:

          Are we allowed to discuss this or not?


          It's *Gandhi*, not Ghandi

          by poco on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 10:35:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you mean they left the site because they were (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mets102, zemblan


            There were more more, but they left the site

            "Left the site"?  That is a hilarious euphemism you chose!

            Simone Daud
            General Choomin
            Pete Rock
            Joe Johnson
            Alexi Hershey
            costa print
            and, of course, The Most Interesting Man In the World

            All banned.  (of course at least three of them are back as someone else)

          •  You're right. I don't think we should be able to (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Celtic Merlin, poco, Anorish

            discuss NYT OP-EDs about big issues here.

            Sand meet head...  ;)

            Sumud muqawim. Unadikum. Salaam.

            by Terra Mystica on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:09:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Just read the Kristof piece to the end. Amazing, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            angry marmot, poco

            though not surprising.

            Mainstream recognition that One State is the default outcome and a call for, if this is not going to be settled along the lines that everyone knows it has to be settled along, that all Occupied Palestinians should get the vote in Israeli elections.


            Sumud muqawim. Unadikum. Salaam.

            by Terra Mystica on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:09:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  IP only issue where commenters accused of hate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fizziks, Mets102, Plubius

    I think that I/P is probably the only issue where commenters routinely accuse the diarists and each other of being motivated by hate.

    Even B/W race diaries don't often go that far.

    Do you know why they call it the American Dream? Because it only happens when you're asleep.

    by Visceral on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:01:27 PM PDT

    •  it's because I and P aren't capable of seeing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      basquebob, splintersawry

      the issues from the opposing perspective.  Almost completely impossible.

      With the race/sex issues, we can at least look and see how far things have come, even if they're not there yet--and the tension usually arises from how far someone has come along on the acceptance spectrum...there aren't Black and White camps.

      This is different.  There really are camps, and hardcore blinders, although each side purports to want peace.

  •  During last month's pie war (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    angry marmot

    the I/P diaries were the calmest place on the site ...

    The thing about quotes on the internet is you cannot confirm their validity. ~Abraham Lincoln

    by raboof on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:01:59 PM PDT

  •  I/P is a national political issue. (8+ / 0-)

    Moreover, you can be damn sure that Democrats will get blasted from the right for doing anything mildly aimed at an actual two-state solution.  Who is going to push back if not folks like us?

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 07:21:38 PM PDT

  •  This will not succeed here. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fizziks, zemblan

    The masses are too invested in the anti-Israel narrative to be pulled from the habit, regularly supplied by the pushers.

  •  When your only tool is a hammer (4+ / 0-)

    every problem looks like a nail. There seems to be quite a censorious tendency among the most vocal pro-Israel supporters here.

    I follow Voltaire. I may not agree with you but will defend to the death your right to state your views.

    Yes, it's a private site, but most of what informs our passion to be Democrats is connected with more than party concerns.
    Otherwise, brain dead hackery ensues.

    More practically, most of us stay out of I/P diaries after a while, the exhaustion kicks in.

    •  are you ready to defend to the death (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mets102, zemblan

      the right of 9/11 CT theorists to peddle their views here?  How about abortion opponents?  How about Republicans in general?

      No, there is a limit to speech in a private forum with a specific mission.  The only question is, where is that line drawn.

      •  If Kos opened discussions on that (0+ / 0-)

        that's fine with me - his right to decide what's open for discussion on the site, I'll defend his right to make that choice.

        Hell when / if time permitted, i'd argue my points.....and so be it

        "There is a limit to speech in a private forum with a specific mission"
        DAMN RIGHT....and it's for the OWNER of said private forum to decide what those limits are......and for the rest of us noobs to look at his decision and decide if we want to continue posting here under those guidelines and if so whether we wish to participate in diaries commentary in which we may not like.

        Note I wonder if Kos would care if Republicans posted here as long as they STUCK to the rules.....why do I say this ? because Kos DOES NOT and has NEVER asked for proof of voting history......

      •  I would have to know about the subjects you (5+ / 0-)


        Was there a big CT problem at one time. Was it of the size that community moderation could have handled it? If not, why not?

        Per Republican points, trolls come here often and are dispatched with. Perhaps the HR system could be made better.

        I think you are overly literal as to the specific mission.

        What you are saying is that since there is a lot of heat in i/P diaries, that might make us look bad. To whom? People who came here to learn about Democrats? Potential contributors?
        Other Democrats?

        Look if you don't like I/P diaries, stay out of him.

        You have a side of the fence as regards I/P that seems to be the side consistently trying to censor.

        I have come here for 6 years and have posted over 6000 comments. I have never seen such as "sky is falling" attitude during my participation here as during the past three months or so.

        Perhaps this has to do with the fact that what was once accepted boiler plate about i/p is now challenged?

  •  Sigh... (5+ / 0-)

    what crap.

    Lets see; if we bitch about the US moving rightward and oppose our R/W parties, its great.

    If we bitch about Israel moving rightward and oppose their R/W parties, we are bigots.

    3 BILLION a year. I think that gives us a say.

    I support Jewish Voices for Peace, ad the thousands protesting in Israel for a more LEFT, Democratic solution.

    Your accusation of bias here pales.

    Being LEFT means right for everyone, not only those whom you do not despise.

    How do you sleep at night?

    •  Did you read ANY of the diary? (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mets102, Plubius, leftynyc, livosh1, zemblan

      This diary did not presume to take away your say on aid to Israel.  There would still be countless forums where you could discuss that.

      This diary didn't call you personally a bigot.  It advocated for removing the forum where many people peddle hate speech.

      This diary accused nobody of bias.  It did point out the fact that these discussions are not productive, and advocate for positions that are at odds with the Democratic party.

      •  Uh, that would be "no" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fizziks, leftynyc

        Why read the diary when you can get indignant?

        Indignant is much more fun.

      •  I read the diary (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        and you do presume to take away our democratic right to discuss where Democrats stand on where our tax money is spent, on THIS democratic platform.

        And you quoted banned bigots, rather than any of the patient, sane, peace activists still working furtively to give a voice to the debate.

        You deny bias, then say that positions are at "odds with" the democratic party... if thats not bias, what is?

        My Democratic party is for free and Democratic autonomy for all People, including Palestinians.

        I expounded below.

    •  Spare us your (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mets102, livosh1, zemblan, fizziks

      bullshit righteous indignation.  If people were able to discuss Israeli policies without delving into outright antisemtism, this wouldn't be a problem.  

      •  bullshit righteous indignation? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco, Karl Rover, Terra Mystica

        How very adult of you.

        Outright anti-semitism gets banned. Thats what Kos has been purging.

        Apparently rude name-calling and ad hom's still get a pass.... and people questioning why a front pager is a front pager, and such....

        Maybe if you participated in a reasonable manner, the discussion would be more reasonable.

        •  You speak from ignorance (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mets102, fizziks

          when it comes to me - I have one HR to my name and it's from a few years ago.  You must be confusing me with someone else or didn't bother to check it out.

          Outright antisemitism?  As opposed to the wink and nod kind that's rampant here.  

          •  You attacked me (0+ / 0-)

            just here and now... that tells me how you treat me, and probably others.

            You spoke of outright anti-semitism, so when I say they get banned, now you want to point to some undefinable wink and nod stuff for your next step. It seems no matter what the bar keeps moving, huh?

            •  You consider that an attack? (0+ / 0-)

              Given the holiday upon us, I sincerely apologize for offending you.

              I don't lower the bar for anyone but I don't think you have to call anyone a nazi before it's an insult.  You apparently do so whatever.

  •  It starts with banning I/P discussions, and then (7+ / 0-)

    your obsession with party loyalty as a fundamental priority will have you advocating banning discussions on all the other subjects where Dem pols march in lockstep with the Republicans: permanent Pentagon pork, unchecked military aggression, extra-judicial assassination, warrantless wiretapping, the drug "war", and job-killing "free trade" agreements.
    Restricting free speech may make you feel better, but the only places where restricting free speech has ever been viewed as a solution to a problem has been in totalitarian societies.

    "The corporatism that has overtaken our democracy is an ideology that insists on relentless positivism — that's why it opposes criticism and encourages passivity." --- John Ralston Saul

    by skunkbaby on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 08:21:43 PM PDT

  •  Wouldn't it be better for the Democratic Party if (6+ / 0-)

    somehow Arab/Muslim Americans were included in our FP discussion?  If they saw that a major blog aligned with just one of the major parties took their concerns seriously?  Such that they felt included enough to vote D?

    Wouldn't that more than offset the loss of a small number of Jewish, single-issue voters on I/P?  It would bump us up in FL, MI, and CO (believe it or not), state-wide.  We would gain a new, energized base component, 10-15M strong.  This is NOT a zero-sum situation.  People of all ethnicities would

    I don't know where to start with the diary.  But maybe a good place is the glaring contradiction that a One State Solution is advocated here, or that that is even bad.  So what in either case.  It is simply the default condition at the moment.  Our/US policies in blanket support of Israel have made that the case.  Our Democratic Party Platform has helped make that the case.  I/P diaries you cite simply show why it is the default condition and why Palestinians are powerless to oppose that progression strongly enough to make a Two State Solution even possible and why acquiescence to this is a path of least resistance to an overwhelming fate, for both peoples.  

    A One State Solution is, at this point in time, the simple acknowledgement of the status quo.  Maybe that will change, but not if some seed discussion is not advanced to point that out.  Even from your own POV, that should be the clear case.  You don't want a OSS.  Our policies have made that the case.  It would seem to me that you would welcome some alternative discussion to help make that NOT the case.  Again, if only to seed the RW political discussion that would make that NOT the case.

    Self-determination is completely NOT the issue.  Israel exists.  Israel will continue to exist.  Self-determination has been accomplished.  The question is, is continued expansion and taking of another people's resources a self-determination issue.  It is absolutely NOT.  The I/P discussions here show that, and that people can make up their own minds based on info that you won't see or hear anywhere else in the MSM.  This is necessary exposure.  Uncomfortable exposure to some, to be sure, but necessary nonetheless.

    A plurality of Americans want the US to recognize Palestine as a country in their current bid at the UN.  Are we, here, to ignore that?  As our government and Party seem to ignore many similar popular sentiments?  Solving this problem justly, durably, and soon seems to be an alignment with more support for Dems, rather than less.  Failure to do so results in the OSS outcome you say you oppose.  

    I'm sure I didn't touch all the bases in the diary, but I'll conclude with something Aunt Martha posted a bit ago.  It's a cite from the Democratic Party Platform in 1900:

    We favor the continuance and strict enforcement of the Chinese exclusion law, and its application to the same classes of all Asiatic races.

    Change is what we [should] strive for as Dems.  It's no different on this issue.  Discussion of this issue promotes that change.

    Sumud muqawim. Unadikum. Salaam.

    by Terra Mystica on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 10:44:04 PM PDT

    •  one need not be a "one issue" voter (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to be scared away from a party in which elements embrace nuclear arms in the hands of Hezbollah and Iran.  

      Since those sentiments were massively uprated, it is essential that this site distance itself from such positions.

      Not only that, but in the same breath that you dismiss people who want a two state solution as "one issue" voters, you then say the way Democrats will attract Arab and Muslim Americans is to embrace this one particular issue.  You don't see the contradiction there?

      •   As you know, that was a lament on the imbalance (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco, soysauce, Friendlystranger

        in negotiating strength and the continual Israeli invasions of Lebanon.  It shouldn't have been said that way.  It shouldn't have been said at all.  He apologized.

        As to contradictions, and this is typical, I don't "dismiss" people that want a TSS as single-issue voters.  The vast majority of people that are aware of this issue want a TSS as a preferred outcome.  Heck, I prefer a TSS.  It's just not where this is headed given current practices.

        The single-issue part comes into play when that desire is couched in terms of simply and singularly supporting Israel's practice of ongoing assimilation and intransigence and that the US should blank-check that [or else they vote for the other guys].  

        On the last bit, Arab/Muslim voters are not a monolith.  This is one of the things that that gets objected to in I/P when said about Jews.  Arab/Muslim voters will not all vote, en masse for Dems if a policy of a just and durable solution is adopted by this party.  But such a policy/platform shift will be an inclusive step that would entice more Arab/Muslim voters, particularly since Palestinian statehood is getting the highly visible play it's getting.  Particularly in this anti-Muslim environment we are in.  It just makes sense to me.

        Sumud muqawim. Unadikum. Salaam.

        by Terra Mystica on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 11:32:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  shb, "People of all ethnicities would"... embrace (0+ / 0-)

      justice and a durable end to this conflict.

      Sumud muqawim. Unadikum. Salaam.

      by Terra Mystica on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 11:05:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting that you said... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fizziks, Mets102
      The I/P discussions here show that, and that people can make up their own minds based on info that you won't see or hear anywhere else in the MSM.  This is necessary exposure.  Uncomfortable exposure to some, to be sure, but necessary nonetheless.

      Would simply point out that there is plenty of info that never makes it here either.  The info here is primarily anti-Israel, presented by people who are anti-Israeli.  There is no need to pretend.

      To be anti-Israel here is popular.  To be perceived as anti-Palestinian will have people calling for your head.

      The magnitude of anti-Israel diaries, as compared to pro-Palestinian diaries, is what creates I/P conflict here.

      Anti-Palestinian diaries are few and far between, for obvious reasons.  However, if Israeli conduct is subject to scrutiny, why should its adversaries get a free ride?

      It is fine to criticize Israel, but is it necessary to demonize it, relentlessly, and sometimes those who defend against the demonization?  Such defenders already have one hand tied behind their back.  Once more, only some information is allowed to "make it here" while the notion persists that this community is well informed.  

      •  Define "anti-Israel." And then please explain why (4+ / 0-)

        supporting an oppressed and subjugated people is something anyone would advocate, let alone acquiesce to, here (i.e. the reason why there are so few "anti-Palestinian" diaries).

        Further, please explain how being "anti" a foreign country is somehow a negative, or an insult.

        FTR, I am not "anti-Israel."

        Sumud muqawim. Unadikum. Salaam.

        by Terra Mystica on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:54:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Anti-Israel is defined... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          by the litany of diaries that fault it and its leaders as if the sole reason for the problems, and often by applying a double standard of analysis.

          Anti-Palestinian scrutinizes the behavior of Palestinian decision makers and leaders who oppress and subjugate their populations more than Israel, by far.

          This is a two sided affair.  Israel is a state because it made that choice.  Palestinians could have chosen the same, starting in 1947, but decided to forge a different path, a negative one to destroy Israel.  According to Abbas Zaki, just a few days ago, nothing has changed.

          If we say that we want to wipe Israel out... C'mon, it's too difficult. It's not [acceptable] policy to say so. Don't say these things to the world. Keep it to yourself.

          What a waste.

        •  Feh. shb "supporting the oppression and (0+ / 0-)

          subjugation of a people..."

          Sumud muqawim. Unadikum. Salaam.

          by Terra Mystica on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 12:32:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I've come close (29+ / 0-)

    and at times, I've decided to do so, but then I don't.

    Why? Because if I banned every discussion that had nothing to do with electing better Democrats, we'd wipe out a good chunk of the site's content.

    This is a community site, and like any community, there are some rough patches. On the plus side, the I/P people don't drag their bullshit into other people's diaries. I've got to respect that.

    And I actually DO think that civility is much better these days, so I'd argue my purges (and frequent subsequent reinstatements) are having the intended effect. So far.

    •  It's definitely your call (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mets102, leftynyc, zemblan

      This was me making the case for what I think would be best at this point.  I think that content should definitely be allowed that has nothing to do with electing Democrats, but not content that really potentially interferes with that.

      Thanks for reading and considering.

    •  I don't completely agree with you... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fizziks, leftynyc

      in that I do favor the I/P ban.  It generally doesn't drag itself out these days, but that's mostly because many I/P writers don't write on anything other than I/P.  However, it has in the past, as this comment, from a diary I wrote about Pamela Geller trying to stop a mosque in Brooklyn demonstrates.

      More importantly, seeing calls for terrorist nuclear weapons or that the US government exists only to facilitate Israeli actions or the repeated claims of dual loyalty against Jewish members of Congress does have a negative impact, both upon this site and upon the Democratic Party as a whole.  This site is, arguably, the premier Democratic affiliated blog.  Take yourself out of the role of its founder and publisher for a moment and put yourself in the shoes of a lurker.  As I stated above:

      Now, let me ask the following:  In what other part of the site would advocating for terrorist nuclear weapons, under any circumstances, not lead to a summary banning?  In what other part of the site would saying that the US government existed only to facilitate another nation's actions be tolerated for weeks on end before a warning was issued and get uprates in the interim?  In what other part of the site would mocking someone living directly in the path of Irene and worried about evacuating be tolerated?  In what other part of the site would defending a banned antisemite be tolerated?  In what other part of the site would borderline trutherism be tolerated?  In what other part of the site would using Georgia's murder of Troy Davis for one's own political ends be tolerated?  All that has happened in I/P.

      If you would like links to each every one of those incidents, I will be happy to provide them to you.

      Please read our community letter and support our efforts to clean up this site.

      by Mets102 on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 11:20:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Your new rules have helped (10+ / 0-)

      clean up the threads considerably.  There is a shift happening in the grassroots of the party in favor of a just resolution to the I/P tragedy.  We've seen that on this site where there is much support for hearing the Palestinian perspective in a world where they don't get a foothold in the MSM.  Like any other issue, you are asking us to be adults and discuss ideas.  Some here find it easier to attack people, read into comments and derail.  But this discussion is too important to our country's future to ban.

      I take responsibility for what I say. I do not take responsibility for what you understand.

      by soysauce on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 04:33:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kos, the level of discourse has indeed (10+ / 0-)

      improved since the purge and under the norms of post-purge moderation. From my perspective the problem lies with some of the personalities addicted to I/P (and the lengthy history of vitriolic interaction among them) not the subject matter per se.

      Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

      by angry marmot on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 05:49:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Markos, (14+ / 0-)

      I started looking at fizziks' links and after the first few I stopped.  Why?  Because almost every single one was to a banned user.  The only user that was not banned was given a warning by Meteor Blades and apologized for the Hezbollah nukes comment--see, e.g., Meteor Blades' comment here:

      ...and while he was warned, the comment was in the context of why there should be a nuclear-free Middle East.

      Indeed, Meteor Blades announced after the apology that as far as he was concerned, that matter was laid to rest:

      I've made it clear to you (and by implication)... (8+ / 0-) my comment here that the "Hezbollah nukes" is, in my view, laid to rest

      So, given the way fizziks begins his diary, it seems that the system is working.  Users make outrageous statements; they get banned.  In fact, any rules that were broken so far were broken by the diarist, who breaks the rules set down by Meteor Blades by referring to a comment made by a user that Meteor Blades states he considered finished.  

      •  Umm, I address that in the diary (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        S M Tenneshaw

        so I guess you didn't read it.

        Those incarnations may have been banned, but you know as well as I that the users are still with us.  Plus many of those diaries and comments were not from banned users.

        And also, the fact that certain usernames are banned does not change the fact that all of those comments appeared and most of them were uprated.  

    •  Thanks for not banning. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      The boss needs you, you don't need him. -- France general strike, May 1968

      by stargaze on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 01:11:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I/P isn't the problem (8+ / 0-)

    it's people turning into assholes when they are arguing and forgetting they are talking with other real human beings.  There are plenty of other issues on this website that cause piefights.  I've seen some awful excuses for debate happen regarding gun control, racism, and sexism.  Should we ban those topics also to improve civility on dailykos?

    Heck, discussions about Obama's performance as president lead to the ugliest and angriest shitshows on this website, so should we end those as well?

    It is not the fault of the topics that people choose to discuss.  The blame lies squarely on the people involved who turn into idiots when someone contradicts them, or were morons to begin with.  You'll notice the people who have said the most brazenly awful comments that you cited in your diary have actually been banned.  The system isn't perfect, but it does work from time to time.

    It's also not particularly unusual that many people on dailykos only focus on I/P issues.  Most people here tend to focus on one or a few narrow topics that interests them.  There are people here who only write about drug policy, or labor issues, or foreign policy...I myself spend a good majority of my time on tracking election stuff on

    In short, don't ban any discussions (besides obvious idiocy like 9/11 conspiracies).  Instead, ban idiots.

    •  we've tried banning idiots for 7 years (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mets102, zemblan

      it hasn't worked on this topic.

      •  So what kind of numbers (8+ / 0-)

        are we talking about, here?

        What's the average number of confirmed zombie incarnations per banned user?

        Who are these banned users who's only purpose in life is to make a new account to continue tormenting here on DK in I/P diaries?

        I'm curious as to the mindset of someone who is obsessed enough to continue this behavior. It's as if they have nothing better to do than piss you off. Apparently it's working.

        I'm sorry, but it takes two to tango. One side to say something and the other side to react. The other side reacts, feeding the first side. Rinse. Repeat.

        Here's an idea that's already been floated... Ban yourself from the I/P diaries. So you miss a comment or two that you would've normally had to push back against. Big fucking deal.

        The idea of banning a topic because you can't "free yourself" from that topic is absurd.

        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
        ~ Jerry Garcia

        by DeadHead on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 02:17:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  NO GAG-RULES ON DKOS (4+ / 0-)

    Sometimes difficult things are worth talking about.  Slavery was such a divisive issue that the US Congress passed procedural rules to prevent discussion of the issue.

    I/P issues are simply the inevitable result of a colonial government refusing to acknowledge basic human rights of the indigenous people.  

    I have a list of automatic 'bullshit' calls on Likud apologist tactics.  The top two:

    1.  The issue is too complicated.  People in this area have always fought.  

    2.  Change needs to happen, but discussions are too inflammatory right now.  We should wait a few more years until we can discuss them more calmly.  

    These tactics both play directly into the hands of Likud.  Both tactics may be satisfactory to people who live as citizens of a sovereign government, protected by basic civil rights, but are inadequate to people who are kept as stateless refugees ruled by military occupation.

    So long as my tax dollars support this abomination, I will continue to express my opinions that it needs to be address honestly.

  •  No. (14+ / 0-)

    But thanks for fulfilling (albeit belatedly) my prophecy.

    Next week I expect we'll see the beginnings of a (6+ / 0-)

    campaign demanding that Markos ban I/P from the site altogether.

    I/P isn't the problem per se; the problem is rather some of the personalities who frequent and/or attempt to 'police' I/P. This diary was entirely predictable, and represents little more than another attempt by this diarist and a few associates to control not only the tone but also the structure and content of both diaries and commentary related to I/P.

    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

    by angry marmot on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 05:22:05 AM PDT

  •  Respectfully disagree. (4+ / 0-)

    It's part of the political spectrum, at some point it HAS to be discussed, banning it only sweeps it under the rug where it can fester with less scrutiny. Yes, it hurts to watch, but it's a necessary price.

    Also, I have actually seen some evolution, and persuasion, on some posters, on both sides of the issue. "Well,  we don't call the Syrians nazis  right out of the gate just because of their thuggish behavior, after all", one patient pro palestinian explained to another who was insisting on using a nazi analogy the other day. I think some of the educational posts, by you and others, Fizziks, ARE actually seeping in, as futile as it sometimes seems.

    Another point: If the I/P discussion is banned or almost banned, the very next diary would be "THEY won't let us discuss Certain Topics, proof that THEY control the media and the Democratic Party and..." ---- it would be a whole new level of EWWW with even more ugly innuendo than we currently see.

  •  Predictable and Ridiculous (5+ / 0-)

    as the more vile of the debaters get rightly banned, leave it to one of the allies and/or friends of the banned to drudge up totally one-sided offenses of the past to try and shut down what has now become a more civil debate.

    Lets see: "If we can't play mean and dirty, then lets shut down the game" is the answer?

    I think not.

    I find the new rules equitable, and the new discourse sound.

    For a person who has been one of the loudest voices in the dialogue to demand on "Democratic" principles to shut down the Democratic process by which people debate a topic that is completely politically relevant to leftist values is absurd.

    3 billion dollars a year of my tax dollars go to Israel, and according to the demonstrators in Israel today, it goes to a right-wing government. We oppose the right-wing here, and also abroad, from the left. I do have a say whether or not my money is spent to irectly oppress a people and deny them their right to autonomy and DEMOCRATIC self-governance.

    For those who like the former Bush supporters who claimed "my president right or wrong" who blindly support Netanyahu's policies to demand that our voices be stifled here on a democratic blog is directly UNDEMOCRATIC.

    It smacks of sore-loserism... since the quieter, saner, more civil users are now coming to the forefront as the screamers get banned.

    Right now, as we are at a crossroads, when Palestine is trying to have herself recognized by a world longing to see her free with only the opposition of the US and Israel (who both supposedly WANT a 2-state solution, ironically) to ask that we not be heard, not report on the daily suffering of her people, not speak to the process by which she is made free.... I can think of nothing MORE against what the Democratic process is than to shut this down.

    I will not stop speaking against human rights violations on my dime, I will not stop hoping for a free Palestinian Democracy.

    I would suggest to those of you who "suddenly" have decided that an I/P discussion which is now "policed" by terms of respect and decency is too tough for you to handle?

    There are other blogs in which you can go back to the screaming and insulting ad hom's of the past. Just don't do it on dKos.

  •  Disagree, but had to tip the jar (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    angry marmot, fizziks

    since resident troll Don't Call It engaged in his typical ratings abuse.

    Unapologetic Obama supporter.

    by Red Sox on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 07:24:48 AM PDT

  •  Hilarious (8+ / 1-)


    'Now that the new rules are prohibiting me and my ideological allies from pissing in the pool and turning off many Kossacks, now that it's becoming even clearer that the vast majority of people at this site do not support my POV, I believe we should stop discussing this issue.'

  •  So, if we accept the suggestion... (6+ / 0-)

    ...then a topic that is already being used as a huge Repug wedge-issue against Obama towards 2012, will not be discussed on a site that has been very instrumental to the Democratic victories of 2006 and 2008.

    That's just from the narrow election perspective. But this site is far more than a pure electoral organizing point.

    You have forgotten that the site's mission is not just "electing Democrats" per se, but better Democrats.

    Which means: politicians that reflect our values rather than the Beltway or powerful big-league lobbies. In other words, this site represents the voice of the Democratic progressive base.

    Israel-Palestine is one of a string of issues on which the Democratic-party high echelon acts against the values and interest of the Democratic base - e.g., healthcare, Wall Street, Iraq/Afghanistan.

    On I-P, this gap is perhaps at its most gaping absurdity. Most Democrat Congress members find it safer to voice and support positions and laws that are far-right neocon, even anti-Arab at times - rather than listen to their base which has demanded for years a far more balanced approach.

    Daily Kos is one of the very few American platforms with a sizable readership, where this frustration can be expressed. The diarist, who on I-P happens to be close to the Beltway view, has seen that POV's main tool to derail debate on the issue - the systematic trashing of diary threads - taken away.

    So now, naturally, the "nuclear option" is being attempted.

    Please reject it resoundingly. Thank you.

    •  I should also add that the diarist himself... (6+ / 0-)

      ...has recently been a partner to a living proof that the new system, providing better protection for diarists, actually works.

      Following Netanyahu's UN speech, there has been a passionate debate here on the meaning of "Jewish State" and Palestinian right of return (RoR). Instead of being buried in thread flame-wars, the debate was carried out by high-quality diaries, most of which reached the rec list.

      soysauce: on "Jewish State"

      fizziks: on "Jewish State" (and RoR)

      soysauce: more on RoR

      yours truly: Comparing Palestinian and Jewish historical memory

      fizziks: defending Jewish peoplehood (for the life of me, I dunno why fizziks chose to not place an "Israel" tag on this, I missed it and would have T'd and R'd heartily)

      So why is fizziks now calling for a ban, exactly as he is himself engaged in some meaningful substantive debates for a change?

      He should answer that. But the way he helped trash the thread to my diary linked above - the only thread of the 5 that was such trashed - might raise a few eyebrows. The pretext for trashing the thread was an accusation (raised by another user, but aggressively pursued by fizziks) that soysauce's first diary was some sort of plot against Jews, because it was posted 2-5 hours (depending upon time zone) before the Jewish New Year holiday started. An accusation that was denied, debunked, prompted a (needless) apology from soysauce - and yet was carried on by fizziks for about 24 hours.

      My sense is that the minority POV on Israel-Palestine (minority - as evidenced by pretty much any site poll on the subject) feels it is losing the control over the discussion. The discussion here looks nothing like what you can hear in Congress, or on CNN/ABC/etc., or the New York Times. It perhaps resembles the Guardian more. So they feel insecure and disoriented, and prefer that the discussion be vanquished completely.

  •  Can we PLEASE stop with diaries based on... (4+ / 0-)

    ...digging up stale and resoundingly-hidden comments from the site's dust-bin?

    I can post here numerous examples when the diarist (fizziks) himself has engaged in, or supported, dickish/trollish/racist/Nazi-allusion behavior, out of his own free will and choice, over the last several weeks.

    I won't do it. It's a waste of time.

    The pretense that somehow the site's minority POV on Israel-Palestine is the one being victimized, is ludicrous.

    For those unsure, I suggest going to the list of diaries by Adalah - a group that represents an anti-Occupation POV closer to the majority of this site (as evidenced by the number of rec-list diaries, and by pretty much any site poll on the matter) -

    then to the list of diaries of the I-P focused Team Shalom (TS), in which the diarist (fizziks) is a member.

    First, note the relative quantity of diaries each group produces.

    Then, if you wonder where the heck fizziks and other TS members - by his own admission, a "vociferous" participant in I-P debates -  do their "I-P debating" (if that is the right name to call their behavior; IMHO it isn't). Obviously, very few of them spend most of their site I-P energies actually writing I-P diaries -

    Look no further than the Adalah threads. See how new, exciting, efficient and effective techniques for derailing and trashing them are being developed all the time.

    Note how the new "guest in someone else's diary" is pulling the rug from under all these technologies. A number of TS members and others representing a similar POV, have been banned for (pretty blatant) dickishness.

    THEN, you will really understand the motivation for this sudden ban call. Rather than learn to behave decently and play by the rules, the "nuclear option" is being pulled.

  •  Yes, it looks like the pro-I (4+ / 0-)

    wants to stop the discussion because more & more people aren't seeing things their way.  Democratic party members support human rights.  There is no way they will support occupation of Palestinians or Jim Crow for Arab Israelis.  The tide is turning.

  •  I/P discussion is notably worse than all but RKBA (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and even less likely to lead to any positive result.  It's a worthy scolding.

    Inland: A privately held corporation spun off from the Womb Division of MomCo a half century or so ago.

    by Inland on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 10:49:04 AM PDT

    •  How much time to you spend in I/P each week? (3+ / 0-)

      How many times a month do you comment under I/P diaries?

      I'm asking because I'd like to know how this opinion you hold was formed.

      Struggle with dignity against injustice. IS there anything more honorable that a person can do?

      by Celtic Merlin on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 10:54:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You don't agree? Seriously? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Wow.  Even by I/P combat protocol, that's an amazing position.  Mind if I don't get sucked into a ridiculous discussion over the obvious?  Thanks. Bye.

        Inland: A privately held corporation spun off from the Womb Division of MomCo a half century or so ago.

        by Inland on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 11:01:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't agree. (6+ / 0-)

          From my perspective I/P discourse has improved considerably in the wake of the purge and in the context of post-purge norms for moderation. Community moderation seems to be working better than pre-purge, and the suspensions (of participation and of ratings-privileges) do seem to have had the intended general effect of making Kossacks more mindful of their own (and their 'team-mates') rhetoric and behavior within comment-threads. Frankly, things in I/P right now are the most civil I've seen them in quite a while. Now, that's not to say that there isn't room for yet further improvement, but things are definitely progressing...

          Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

          by angry marmot on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 11:18:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Terrific non-answer. (0+ / 0-)

          The questions were:

          How much time to you spend in I/P each week?


          How many times a month do you comment under I/P diaries?

          Based upon your non-answer, I must assume the factual answers to be: "Damned little" and "Not at all".

          Thanks for playing.

          Struggle with dignity against injustice. IS there anything more honorable that a person can do?

          by Celtic Merlin on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 08:33:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I participate in both I/P and RKBA (0+ / 0-)

      and IMO I/P is way worse.

      Interestingly, as an aside, both of those areas cause people to develop strange notions of what the progressive or liberal viewpoint is.  In RKBA, for some reason some people think the liberal position would be the one that seeks to impose a new prohibition regime on law abiding consenting adults.  And in I/P, for some reason, people think the more liberal position is the one that would deny two peoples' the right of self-determination and supports the right of feudal theocracies to possess nuclear weapons.  Strange, that.

      •  One people is already being denied (0+ / 0-)

        . . . denied the right of self-determination.  They're being denied that right by the other party in this.

        And let's not get started on "theocracies" and "nukes".  Those are completely separate subjects from what we're discussing here.

        Struggle with dignity against injustice. IS there anything more honorable that a person can do?

        by Celtic Merlin on Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 08:37:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I note you 'did't want to risk adding a poll (0+ / 0-)

    Gasoline made from the tar sands gives a Toyota Prius the same impact on climate as a Hummer using gasoline made from oil. ~ Al Gore

    by Lefty Coaster on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 07:57:06 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site