Patterico's Pontifications

7/26/2007

Another Smug and Dishonest Lecture from Rick Ellensburg — Or Is It Thomas Ellers?

Filed under: Scum — Patterico @ 4:05 pm



Hey, I’m a contributor to a hate site!

Or I would be, if you believed Rick Ellensburg.

This is Allahpundit’s reward for constantly patrolling Hot Air for inappropriate comments, as well as lecturing, threatening to ban, and sometimes banning the offenders.

He gets to have some self-righteous sock-puppet claim that he devotes his life to a “hate site.”

UPDATE: Greenwald claims he is merely making a point about hypocrisy, nothing more. But it’s a false argument, as is evident from the history of this disgusting hypocrite.

Greenwald is trying to have it both ways, as he always does when he talks about how hateful right-leaning blogs are. He tries to claim he’s just noting hypocrisy — but he clearly revels in doing the exact things he accuses the right of doing. He truly believes that Hot Air is a hate site and that Malkin is a racist.

It’s exactly like the time that he condemned the right for failing to denounce the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. He claimed that he was just engaging in irony — but that argument was dishonest tripe, as I showed in this post. Greenwald hysterically pursued the argument that I had a duty to denounce Misha, and anyone who thought he was being ironic was naive — as naive as those who are giving him the benefit of the doubt now.

111 Responses to “Another Smug and Dishonest Lecture from Rick Ellensburg — Or Is It Thomas Ellers?”

  1. That reminds me, I need to do the laundry … I’m out of clean socks.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  2. Do the posted comments on MM and HA indicate a bona-fide hope for the death or painful demise of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Rosie O’Donnell, Keith Olbermann etc? Do the comments indicate pleasure over the health issues of Elizabeth Edwards, Bill Clinton?

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  3. One of the lowest and most dishonest tactics is to attempt to smear and demonize a blog by exploiting statements left on the blog by commenters despite the fact that the comments have no relationship to the arguments made by the blogger.

    How many times have Gleen(s) done exactly this?

    Pablo (99243e)

  4. This pops right up, which, while not exactly the same thing, denotes their utter hypocrisy on the issue.

    Pablo (99243e)

  5. Ah, and on further review, Patterico has mined the occasions on which Glen(s) have done exactly what he’s decrying.

    Good, good times.

    Pablo (99243e)

  6. It doesn’t matter who posts the comments. That the administrator of the blog allows them to remain, indicates that he/she deems them appropriate content for his forum. Whoever owns a blog or discussion forum has a responsibility to moderate and remove banal or offensive posts that don’t contribute to the discussion, but otherwise lowers level of discourse and smears the whole website.

    Fco (825303)

  7. BS, Fco. Just because Patterico does not hit delete every time semanticleo and AF’s comments pop up, does not mean that he endorses their drivel.

    For the Left to complain about hate after the way they have gone after Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al is laughable. For the Gleens to do so take a set of balls so big that they would not fit in a dump truck.

    Or, he could just be a flat out liar.

    JD (26b504)

  8. It doesn’t matter who posts the comments. That the administrator of the blog allows them to remain, indicates that he/she deems them appropriate content for his forum.

    That’s patent nonsense. Not only do our terms of use explicitly disclaim endorsement of user-provided content but we’ve had almost 590,000 comments since the site launched. Where do you think I’d find the time to read them all? I actually defended Kos on that ground after O’Reilly’s first segment about this. With the volume of traffic he gets and the enormous number of comments, it’s impossible for Kos to weed out every stray venomous remark. O’R would have been much better off sticking with Markos’s posts or those of other prominent diarists. Lord knows, there’s no shortage of material.

    Thanks for the support, Pat, but I honestly don’t care what Greenwald thinks. I’m not saying that to be spiteful either, or as some blanket denunciation of the left. Very simply, after years of watching him work in bad faith, I no longer care even the slightest bit about what he thinks. He’s a left-wing partisan zombie in the mold of Blumenthal and Conason; he couldn’t be fair if he tried.

    Allah (179258)

  9. The most recent example, of course, is Bill O’Reilly’s campaign to pressure Jet Blue to withdraw its sponsorship of Yearly Kos due to statements made by Daily Kos commenters who have no connection to the site other than using it to comment.

    Right out of the gate, a bald faced lie. Kos’ own words were plenty to make anybody reconsider. The front page diarists just added to it.

    Before I go any further, I am going to point out that it is fundamentally dishonest for the Gleens to use O’Reilly as a standard for the Right, as most on the right are no fan of his, and his Right wing credentials seem to be limited to him being on Fox.

    Also, should you feel like following Gleen’s links through, you will likely note that his characterization of the contents, and the actual contents, are rarely the same, or even similar.

    The comments are not deleted and are virtually never opposed. Her hate sites traffic in content which is the hallmark of white supremacism and violent groups targeting Muslims

    Comments are routinely deleted. If they are not opposed, why aren’t Gleen’s minions out doing so. Attaching her to white supremacy groups is a really nifty trick, shince Malkin is not white, and has repeatedly been the target of vile racial slurs and insults to her character simply for being a minority woman who does not agree with the worldview shared by all 18 of the Gleens.

    Having said that, I cannot stand Malkin. Not sure why, but she is not my style. There are a whole host of ways to go after her, but not at all surprisingly, the Gleens took the most dishonest one.

    Anyone care to wade through the cesspools of the Gleeens comments to prove he runs a hate site?

    JD (26b504)

  10. Well, what’s a “hate site”?

    If a web site posts correspondence from a terrorist, which justifies the terrorist’s killing of particular categories of people — and leaves the correspondence up and accessible for years — does that make it a “hate site”?

    If so, what about the Washington Post and the Unabomb Manifesto?

    As a technologist during that period there was no doubt in my mind that this man hated and would kill me if he could, as he had killed or maimed dozens of others.

    Now, the Post and NY Times’ decision to pubish the manifesto in order to prevent threatened addional bombings was likely correct. Yet a decade after Ted Kaczynski was convicted (and regrettably not hanged), the Post still posts this hate screed.

    Over the top? Perhaps. But a better case than you can make about Hot Air, I think. Though probably not about DU.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  11. Obviously you can’t monitor the forum 24/7, and no one person can possibly review every comment. So you deputize a few regular visitors whom you can trust to moderate the discussion. Or you can place “Flag for inappropriate” links. If it gets worse, then you require registration for commenting. You can’t put up a forum and wash your hands of whatever irresponsible, hateful, or vulgar commentary is posted. If you have your name or brand is at the top of the page, whatever commentary is ALLOWED to remain is on you.

    Fco (825303)

  12. Kevin – Part of me agrees that should have come down the moment it outlived its usefulness. The other part disagrees, and thinks that the wacky ideas of anyone, especially if they have acted on them, should be exposed far and wide, so people can recognize crazy.

    FCO – Let’s accept your premise as true (which I do not). That takes away Gleen Ellers McEllerson’s point that Kos should not be held responsible for the comments on his site. But then he would go on and conclude that Michelle should be responsible for the exact thing. For Gleen, that is about as close to good reasoning as we should hope for.

    JD (26b504)

  13. Hate, racist, sexist, homophobe, looks-ist, circumcisionist, add any other -ism or -ist here have almost completely lost their meaning by the Left’s bastardization of their traditional meanings. Any more, they are tossed around so frequently so as to make them meaningless, or to simply stop any type of discussion. Oppose affirmative action – RACIST. Disagree with Gleen McEllerson – HATE. Disagree with Pandagon – SEXIST. PATRIARCHY. Disagree with a Dem – HITLER.

    It would be nice if the traditional usages and meaning of words could be restored, to where they actually had meaning.

    JD (26b504)

  14. […] In defense of Hot Air, too, at Patterico’s. Posted in: Nutroots, Housekeeping comments (38)   trackbacks (2) […]

    Michelle Malkin » About this “hate site” (41113f)

  15. Allah:

    Not only do our terms of use explicitly disclaim endorsement of user-provided content but we’ve had almost 590,000 comments since the site launched.

    We’re not talking about an implied endorsement. There’s valid and intelligent commentary I disagree with that’s fit to post. And There is commentary made from my side of things that doesn’t deserve to be published. And I’m not referring to anything that’s just simply disagreeable, but downright obscene.

    Subjective? Yes. But if you operate a forum, the quality of the discussion you allow to take place, not the ideas expressed, reflect on you. If you let the hyenas run wild, civil and intelligent people won’t want to come visit.

    If you do run a forum (I’m new here :), I commend you for providing a means for healthy debate. But there is a responsibility that goes along with it IMO. And I’ve mentioned a few things to help out with that. If a moderator ignores that responsibility, then the site can be used as a medium to post hatred or disgusting messages, by people who are not allowed to on any other forum.

    Fco (825303)

  16. Fco,

    That’s hogwash. People who run sites devote time to moderation as they’re able. The fact that somebody posts a comment you find offensive is really your problem, not the site owner’s.

    Eric (605286)


  17. “That’s hogwash. People who run sites devote time to moderation as they’re able. The fact that somebody posts a comment you find offensive is really your problem, not the site owner’s.”


    I agree with Eric.

    Logically, if Eric were wrong, then that means I must have been homosexual for the length of time someone called me a fag and it remained on my site.

    Oh dear. I just remembered I didn’t remove that comment.

    Whatever will my girlfriend say when she finds out that, her experience notwithstanding, those three characters remaining on my website mean I agree with them?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  18. While some sites have policies to delete comments for a variety of reasons, it is not legally required, right up until you start deleting some comments and leaving others.

    Once you take *some* action to delete a comment that someone could (reasonably) consider actionable, then you are indeed responsible for those you leave up because you have approved them by leaving them alone.

    So, if one is concerned about being responsible for blog comments the only sane thing is do nothing and wait until you are asked by your ISP or court to remove them, then do so immediately and without comment. Of course, this makes your blog comments the ISP’s problem if he’s the one policing your blog, so he probably will wait for a court order, too.

    Odd state of affairs with two predictable outcomes: some blogs have no comments, and the range of published comments is wide. Don’t know that there’s a problem with that….

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  19. Gleen just asserts that michellemalkin and hotair are hate sites, given his abuse of the English language. With the exception of the people familiar with his cant, he does not get called on this by his fellow travelers, because it is part and parcel of The Narrative.

    JD (26b504)

  20. An instant credibility destroyer is when someone makes a connection between someone like O’Reilly and conservatives in general.

    Either their compass is broke, or they are being purposely misleading. Either way, there’s not much point in listening to them.

    Ray G (50194a)

  21. As I read it, Glenn is asserting that HotAir is just as much a hate site as DailyKos. Allah himself seems to understand the situation. He wrote above: I actually defended Kos on that ground [not quoting comments] after O’Reilly’s first segment about this. Maybe you don’t like what Kos and his co-editors write on their front page, but that’s not what Bill O’Reilly used. He used comments, most if not all of which got troll-rated into oblivion soon enough. If a blog is judged by its comments, HotAir and O’Reilly’s own site are as vicious and violent as Kos. Goose. Gander.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (d00432)

  22. While some sites have policies to delete comments for a variety of reasons, it is not legally required, right up until you start deleting some comments and leaving others.

    Once you take *some* action to delete a comment that someone could (reasonably) consider actionable, then you are indeed responsible for those you leave up because you have approved them by leaving them alone.

    So, if one is concerned about being responsible for blog comments the only sane thing is do nothing and wait until you are asked by your ISP or court to remove them, then do so immediately and without comment. Of course, this makes your blog comments the ISP’s problem if he’s the one policing your blog, so he probably will wait for a court order, too.

    Odd state of affairs with two predictable outcomes: some blogs have no comments, and the range of published comments is wide. Don’t know that there’s a problem with that….

    Comment by Kevin Murphy — 7/26/2007 @ 7:31 pm

    Where is said statute or case law?

    This sounds like the old sourcing out of one’s ass or opinions.

    And as the great philosopher, Clint Eastwood, said:

    “An opinion is like an *ssh*l*. Everybody’s got one.”

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  23. #21 Andrew J. Lazarus, you are 100% right.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  24. I would agree with AJL, if Kos himself did not have a history of intemperate remarks himself. I agree that the owners of blogs should not be accountable for comments made by others. Markos “Screw ’em” Kos, and the folks from his convention are a bit different, given the size of the community, their conventions, and their direct attempts to insert themselves into the political process. I guess, on principle alone, I find it difficult to agree with Andrew, completely.

    JD (26b504)

  25. “I would agree with AJL, if Kos himself did not have a history of intemperate remarks himself.”

    But Kos isn’t quoted here. And I’ve done intemperate things in my life. That still wouldn’t make me responsible for someone else’s actions.

    Now, the people who actually POST as opposed to make comments… Kos is much more responsible for them.

    And often they’re disgusting.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  26. Christoph #22,

    This is America, not Canada. We are not afraid to express our opinions or our theories of the law for fear that it may be something that we never learned in school. As for opinions and assholes, it my opinion that you were a total asshole for atacking Kevin that way.

    nk (1c6c66)

  27. nk,

    Kevin is obviously free to express his opinion.

    I’m asking him where the case or statute law is to support it.

    He’s not saying this should be the law… he’s saying this is the law.

    Is it?

    “Once you take *some* action to delete a comment that someone could (reasonably) consider actionable, then you are indeed responsible for those you leave up because you have approved them by leaving them alone.”

    News to me.

    Perhaps he’s right. So what’s his source?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  28. Okay, I don’t read Kos, but if he edits the site at all, and he doesn’t edit certain things that are reliably deemed offensive, then he has to own to a certain degree some responsibility for the comments that remain.

    Seems pretty straight forward to me.

    Ray G (50194a)

  29. The fact is that there are themes posted by Bryan, Allah and Michelle — particularly in regards to “La Raza” and Obama that invite this type of silliness. Allah does try to weigh in where he can but when you incite or titillate with the thread titles or pics.. well one shouldn’t be surprised that some of the kooks gravitate to that thread.
    Even in the recent one that Patterico posted some began waxing sentimental about shooting “hogs” — subject was the possibility of releasing a bunch of felons that are illegal aliens. Patterico didn’t invite those type of comments — but they showed up all the same.

    I’m not a fan of Malkin because her logic is flawed in many cases. If x occurs then y must be true. Hotair is the “fast food” route for some – Patterico is more for the meat and potatoes offerings re issues.

    voiceofreason63 (6e1b18)

  30. You guys are just jealous of the brilliant and handsome Glenn Greenwald. I’m not saying he’s the finest human being whoever lived, because that’s a given. Shame on the lot of you for questioning his infallibility!

    Ellis Ricksburg (12ed69)

  31. Much of this has to do with semantics, and what is reliably deemed as kooky or offensive.

    The tendency is, of which I agree, is to leave things alone. A Left wing blog will have Left wing nuttiness. A Right wing blog ditto.

    Any blog is definitely going to be judged by the overall site, and not just by the content of what they personally write and they know this.

    Thus, when a blogger chooses to leave something up, they are allowing themselves to be associated with those kooks. Even if they don’t agree, because they want to generate more traffic, and they know the kooks are traffic, and other more stable posters will hopefully drown them out, et cetera.

    Why don’t more mainstream magazines allow comments? Among other reasons, they understand that they will be Intrinsically connected to those comments, like it or not.

    Ray G (50194a)

  32. Okay, I don’t read Kos, but if he edits the site at all, and he doesn’t edit certain things that are reliably deemed offensive, then he has to own to a certain degree some responsibility for the comments that remain.

    Seems pretty straight forward to me.

    Comment by Ray G — 7/26/2007 @ 9:02 pm

    A newspaper publishes many letters to the editor. It doesn’t publish an even greater number and it corrects some.

    It is therefore responsible for the opinions expressed in the letters?

    Often newspapers — on purpose — let two conflicting opinions sit side by side. One of those two opinions may be repugnant.

    More importantly, the newspaper has 6oo-staff say. It’s a business. It publishes things for its readers not because it agrees with them all.

    Kos, Allahpundit, and Patterico are not responsible for offensive comments made by others.

    If you disagree, as I said above, I respect your right to your opinion. However, I don’t believe anyone has provided any sources where it is the law of the land.

    If Kevin Murphy’s theory logically holds true then as long a blogger allows any crap, offensive opinions, smut, threats, etc., on his website he’s in the clear. But as soon as he removes any of it, he’s now liable for anything that removes.

    So all I have to do to destroy an unmoderated blog forever is leave one terrifically offensive comment on it — perhaps attacking the blogger’s mother in a political and scatological way — and the blogger is obligated to keep it.

    But if it’s removed, why then, the blogger now has a full-time job policing comments of all stripes.

    That makes no sense at all.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  33. *liable for anything that’s not removed

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  34. Chris:
    It is therefore responsible for the opinions expressed in the letters?
    They are responsible for what they print in their paper.

    It’s really not that difficult to understand.

    The paper can distance themselves from a nutty opinion that they decided to print, and no one would fault them for running a variety of outlooks.

    But if they chose to run a letter that was nothing but profanity laced racial slurs and vulgar sexual comments (or whatever you want to imagine as an extreme scenario) they would understandably come under a great deal of fire.

    Thus, they choose to run letters that in the larger picture will enhance their readership, but stop short of attaching to themselves to an implied approval of a reliably offensive opinion, be it for language or whatever.

    Likewise, a blog chooses to let most comments stand in the interest of overall readership.

    I don’t know about this “law of the land” stuff you keep kicking around, but if there is room to remove anything, then there is room to criticize what remains.

    If that still isn’t clear, next try explaining why a newspaper would be in the right for not printing an obscene, vulgar letter to the editor.

    Using your current logic, a newspaper should print every letter to the editor – disregarding the limitations of printed space for our hypotheses.

    Ray G (50194a)

  35. Kos deletes comments. Michelle does. I disagree with the practice, if someone wants to make a complete ass of themselves, they should either be banned, or in the alternative, humiliated and embarassed. Everybody has their own rules, and how they hold themselves out, and by their own standards, is how they should be judged.

    JD (26b504)

  36. “But if they chose to run a letter that was nothing but profanity laced racial slurs and vulgar sexual comments (or whatever you want to imagine as an extreme scenario) they would understandably come under a great deal of fire.”

    If they put it in quotes and then report it as the comment of so-and-so, then it would be reporting of what someone else thinks, not the paper.

    And that’s essentially what a comment is. It tells you what Joe Blow in Selma, Alabama thinks. It doesn’t mean the paper/blog thinks that.

    You have a right to remove advertising/criticize someone for not moderating comments/letters to the letter, surely, and I dislike Kos and his commentators as a rule.

    But he is not responsible for what other people say unless he hires or contracts them. If he has a blog with thousands of commentators/millions of comments, and he does, he can’t be responsible for policing all those individual opinions.

    Perhaps he should set up a process in place to do that and recently he’s expressed frustration with the more vile comments on his blog and how it hurts his site’s mission… but he still ain’t responsible for Jow Blow.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  37. This demands a separate comment because it’s so absurd:

    “Using your current logic, a newspaper should print every letter to the editor – disregarding the limitations of printed space for our hypotheses.”

    <sarcasm>Yes, that’s why I said:

    “A newspaper publishes many letters to the editor. It doesn’t publish an even greater number…”</sarcasm>

    One thing has nothing to do with the other in any way, shape, or form. A newspaper is an entity, often a corporation. It may exist for 200-years.

    During that time, dozens of people will hold high level management positions. Tens of thousands of opinions will be published and a larger number won’t be. Articles will be written by hundreds of writers on any number of topics.

    The newspaper is responsible for it’s own opinions, of course, and readers and advertisers can patronize it or not at will. It’s called Capitalism.

    But no, it isn’t responsible for every single opinion expressed by all the Joe Blows and Mary Strumwaters over 200-years.

    You’re confused logically, Ray G. It is Kevin Murphy’s opinion that would seem to indicate by analogy the newspaper has to publish every single letter they receive without exception unedited:

    “Once you take *some* action to delete a comment that someone could (reasonably) consider actionable, then you are indeed responsible for those you leave up because you have approved them by leaving them alone.”

    …or remain responsible for every opinion everyone expresses during its history.

    As I’ve pointed out above in comments #22, #27, and especially #32 above, that’s as absurd as your point.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  38. Generally, Kos comments become invisible if troll-rated by two “trusted users”. The formula for becoming a trusted user isn’t public, but involves being a frequent commenter whose own comments are high-rated. (Trusted users can choose to see invisible comments.)

    I was a trusted user for a brief time, when I was commenting there more often than I do now. Generally, troll ratings are reserved for spam and for occasional material that read like the work of provocateurs or trolling pranksters. It wasn’t supposed to be applied to serious material, even that which diverged from the approved Great Orange Satanic line.

    Kos and his principal lieutenants are much too busy to review each comment. We’re talking about hundreds of comments an hour.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (d00432)

  39. Kos uses a modified version of the trust metric system originally implemented on Kuro5hin; all evidence suggests that it works better on Kos than it did on Kuro5hin.

    The problem Kuro5hin had was that community reinforcement didn’t work once there were a sufficient number of people who were not interested in maintaining it. That is: given a sufficient mass of people interested only in spamming and trolling, they could start downrating reasonable comments and uprating trollish comments.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  40. If you want to see moderation gone crazy, go to RealClimate.com.

    Al (b624ac)

  41. Anyway, Ray G., I’m rethinking my opinion somewhat.

    To start with, I showed poor human relations skills in how I replied to your serious comment with sarcasm. I apologize. Sarcasm is almost always a bad idea except for a stand-up comic.

    (However screaming the N-word is a bad idea for anyone, even a stand-up comic or you, nk. Moving on.)

    Yes, in a sense a newspaper is responsible for the comments it publishes, the editorial positions it maintains or allows, and the quality of the newsprint. Everything.

    But the punishment mechanism should it screw up here is the market. I object to anyone saying the newspaper is liable for the opinions of another person.

    And at least a newspaper has to take an action to actively publish a letter. A blogger really can’t police comments, certainly not in real time, without stifling debate. A successful blogger has too many comments to do so on a cost effective basis in any case.

    So I don’t think they’re liable for what is clearly someone else’s opinion.

    But yes, you have every right to criticize them for providing a forum for objectionable views and allowing those views to remain.

    And they have every right to let those views stay.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  42. “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
                                    — Voltaire.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  43. I’m all for letting liars, frauds, cowards, and the violent have their say. As often and as clearly as possible as a matter of fact. Makes it easier to hunt them down and kill them should the shit hit the fan.

    [I recognize that this is not a threat against a particular person, but let’s lay off such talk anyway. This is exactly the sort of comment that the fraud Greenwald would cite to prove that my site is a hate site. I almost deleted it, but I’m leaving it up because otherwise he mighr pretend that it was worse than it really is. I’ll simply note my disapproval of anyone talking about killing anyone — even in the abstract — and ask for anyone else to refrain from such comments, which are more suitable for HuffPo or Kos or Greenwald’s blog (where I have seen threats, by the way). — P]

    Alan Kellogg (36a622)

  44. That was better than Voltaire, Alan!

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  45. Patterico:

    Regarding your entire blog post, Rick Ellensburg is tacitly criticizing those who equate a blogger with the worst of his commentators, isn’t he?

    While he know doubt feels Michelle Malkin is hateful (I don’t concur) I thought he was pointing out the dishonesty and absurdity of criticizing Markos Zúniga based on what his commentators say.

    Did I completely misunderstand — or did you?
    (could easily be me, just trying to figure it out)

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  46. *no doubt

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  47. I misstated Kos’s last name. It’s actually “Moulitsas”.

    No wonder he goes by his first name (not because of any problem with his last name, but the complexity of the Spanish surname system)!

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  48. gee wiz, what an icky thread

    james conrad (7cd809)

  49. This freedom of speech and freedom of the press meld is a real pain in the *ss isn’t it?

    paukl from fl (ae01cb)

  50. gee wiz, what an icky thread

    The GGs are an icky subject.

    BTW: Re Kevin’s Comment #18 and Christoph’s Comments #22 ad profundium:

    In a recent First Amendment (establishment of religion) case, the U.S. Supreme Court used a very similar analysis as Kevin’s in Comment #18 on the issue of viewpoint discrimination. There is also the common law maxim that “silence implies assent”. I don’t think that either approach applies more than tangentially to the subject at hand but they cannot be fairly said to be entirely off the wall either.

    nk (1c6c66)

  51. A blogger is not legally responsible for the contents of commenters. See DiMeo v. Max

    Pablo (99243e)

  52. He goes after Allahpundit because AP, more than any other blogger, worries about what the likes of this Ellensburg will say about him.

    This is Ellensburg just trying to keep AP’s axe blade good and sharp. I’m sure Ellensburg laughs when he sees AP in a frenzy banning posters who might offend Ellensburg.

    It’s a huge problem that some conservative bloggers are allowing Ellensburg to cultivate. For instance, Ann Coulter is the favorite commentator of so many of those conservatives who would be inclined to visit a site like Hot Air and Ann Coulter would be banned over there in a heart beat.

    j curtis (ecc9cc)

  53. Christoph is right, you completely missed the point of Greenwald’s post. It wasn’t that Malkin’s site should be branded a hate site, it was that if it is fair for Malkin to brand dKos as a hate site based on the most offensive comments left by any random commenters, then it is equally fair to smear Malkin on the same basis. Geese, ganders, etc.

    IMO, Malkin, O’Reilly et al. really should have left the whole JetBlue/dKos thing alone. Let them sponsor YearlyKos, and if they later refuse to sponsor a right of center blogbash because it’s too “political,” make a stink then. Instead they jumped the gun, scoring a quick, dirty and ultimately Pyrrhic victory that will hurt the blogosphere in general more than the hard left in particular.

    Xrlq (3dd434)

  54. “He goes after Allahpundit because AP, more than any other blogger, worries about what the likes of this Ellensburg will say about him.”

    I’ve always attributed it to good manners.

    People get pretty heated about politics, and when no one really knows who they are, they can express themselves in very mean-spirited ways. I give Allah a lot of credit for policing his own side of the argument. I’m not sure the line I’d draw would always be exactly where his is — I’d probably ban a few more if I had a high-traffic site like his — but he deserves credit, not mockery.

    Attila (Pillage Idiot) (68fd1f)

  55. Xrlq,

    I believe you and Christoph are being naive, as I explain in an update.

    Patterico (0546cf)

  56. nk,

    “In a recent First Amendment (establishment of religion) case, the U.S. Supreme Court used a very similar analysis as Kevin’s in Comment #18 on the issue of viewpoint discrimination. There is also the common law maxim that “silence implies assent”. I don’t think that either approach applies more than tangentially to the subject at hand but they cannot be fairly said to be entirely off the wall either.”

    I agree. It’s not entirely off the wall, but I don’t agree it supercedes the First Ammendment. It would be chilling for modern free speech indeed if bloggers were responsible for millions of comments on their site clearly labeled as being left by other people. Popular blogs that allowed interactive discussions would quickly become untenable.

    I guess we could still have unsuccessful blogs with few comments where the blogger acts as cop/editor.

    Somehow, I don’t think SCOTUS would hold Patterico responsible for what you say. If he did, considering some of the things you’ve said in the past, I’d ban you quick. Heck, I’d ban me.

    But he isn’t and shouldn’t.

    How was the law applied in this First Amendment (establishment of religion) case. Without knowing that, it’s impossible to know whether this is relevant to the law at hand. It might be.

    What’s the case and what happened?

     
    Patterico,

    For what it’s worth, Glenn Greenwald undoubtedly does consider Hot Air hateful as I believe I stated in #45, but then Glenn Greenwald’s a moron. Howver, at least one of the points of his post was, I believe, to illustrate absurdity by being absurd. I think he said in his opening sentence:

    “One of the lowest and most dishonest tactics is to attempt to smear and demonize a blog by exploiting statements left on the blog by commenters despite the fact that the comments have no relationship to the arguments made by the blogger.”

    … and then he went on to say:

    “O’Reilly read a few cherry-picked, inflammatory comments, labelled Daily Kos a “hate site,” and then said: “Every respectable blog in the country does not permit this hatred.

    “Here is but a sampling of the views promoted by the Aribter of Upstanding Political Discourse, O’Reilly partner Michelle Malkin, on her two hate sites, MichelleMalkin.com and HotAir.com.”

    Yes, I understand he used the words “promoted” and “promotes” to follow and that’s indefensible.

    However, the starting point of his post was a blogger isn’t responsible for their comments and it’s a demonizing smear tactic to say they are.

    He’s being inconsistent, but then he’s Glenn Greenwald. Yet you can’t just say he didn’t start his post that way because he did.

    You say:

    “UPDATE: Greenwald claims he is merely making a point about hypocrisy, nothing more. But it’s a false argument, as is evident from the history of this disgusting hypocrite.

    “Greenwald is trying to have it both ways, as he always does when he talks about how hateful right-leaning blogs are. He tries to claim he’s just noting hypocrisy — but he clearly revels in doing the exact things he accuses the right of doing. He truly believes that Hot Air is a hate site and that Malkin is a racist.”

    Yes, Glenn Greenwald is provably dishonest and immature. Undoubtedly he’s revelling in doing just that.

    And, as I not naively said in #45 above, he does feel Michelle Malkin is hating, as do many people.

    I don’t share his views, I believe she’s a loving, beautiful person filled with justifiable righteous anger.

    But a less moral liberal would view her as hating, would they not?

    An illegal immigrant who had already justified in their mind illegally entering the USA, perhaps even stealing someone else’s identity, and now had a family here they wanted to stay united might view Michelle Malkin as quite hating indeed. (I don’t. I think she’s right and they should have followed the rules.)

    A woman contemplating an abortion who learns Michelle Malkin views abortion as evil might find Michelle hating. (I don’t. I know she’s right and it is evil. The evil person is projecting their warped character on a person with a more pure one.)

    So in my view Glenn Greenwald is:
    1.) Making a clear point he identifies (AND IDENTIFIED IN HIS OPENING SENTENCE) about bloggers being unfairly attacked because of their commentators’ statements
    2.) Joyously beating “rightys” over the head with something he thinks his side has been unfairly attacked with
    3.) Being inconsistent as always because he likes to do #1 himself… and that’s true… you’re right about that

    He’s trying to have it both ways and you’re right to point that out… but you can’t pretend he didn’t begin his post by pointing out the unfairness of attacking a blogger for the comments left by others.

    I’d say he declared that quite openly and then proceeded with what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    So in this case, because of the ignorance of Bill O’Reilly in not understanding how the Internet works, he’s right.

    I like Bill. Just this time he’s wrong. As, I believe, you are limited to the remaining areas I made clear in this post.

    Glenn Greenwald explains his post:

    “UPDATE: From past experience, posts which employ the line of reasoning used in this post are fundamentally misunderstood by those who are, for whatever reasons, incapable of understanding this two-step logical train:

    “(1) Standard X is dishonest and corrupt.

    “(2) Those who advocate and apply Standard X to others ought to have that standard applied to them.

    That is not all that complicated.”

    Why in the world are you forcing me to publicly agree with Glenn Greenwald?

    That’s exactly what I said and it was clear in his original post before I read his update.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  57. Christoph,

    Please don’t say I am “pretending” anything because I am not.

    I think we agree: GG is the one pretending. He claims to be making a point about hypocrisy. But he is doing more. And he is dishonest.

    Patterico (d7010a)

  58. Patterico, I’m doing a control-f trying to find where I said you were, quote, “pretending” anything. I can’t find it.

    I was clear I consider you partially mistaken in this; I never said you are insincere.

    Can you please explain where I said that or something similar?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  59. Patterico, I’m sorry. I did use the word pretend (and didn’t search for that using control-f, just “prentending“.

    To clarify, I meant that as a figure of speech. What I meant to say is that he clearly is making the point he’s making, and, being inconsistent, is guilty of it himself on frequent occasions.

    So yes, we basically agree at least on that last part.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  60. as naive as those who are giving him the benefit of the doubt now.

    Naïve? Moi? I think it takes a certain naïveté to view this “Malkin is a hate site” post as though it had occurred in a vacuum, or just happened, by pure coincidence, to run shortly after Malkin et al. had persuaded JetBlue to dump its corporate sponsorship of Yearly Kos on exactly the same theory you are now rightly decrying. Even if Greenwald had not made his point explicit at the very beginning of his post (which, as Christoph has aptly noted, he did), common sense should make it pretty clear that this was intended to be a “turnabout is fair play” piece, not an instance of a blogger seriously floating a novel theory that bloggers ought to be judged according to their worst commenters.

    I’ll stack my Greenwald-hating credentials against anyone’s, but in this instance, I have little choice but to conclude that Greenwald has the better argument. I’m not even sure this is an example of me giving anyone the benefit of the doubt, as Greenwald stated his point explicitly at the beginning of the piece, leaving little room for doubt.

    Xrlq (3dd434)

  61. Greenwald’s theory is that bloggers should be judged by their worst commenters — if the comments are representative of the bloggers’ views and the comments are left up and unmonitored.

    This is what he argued during the debate over comments at HuffPo re the attempted attack on Cheney. As I showed at the time, HuffPo was guilty of doing everything that Greenwald says should make a blog responsible for ugly comments.

    He is seriously trying to say Hot Air is a hate site because — so his argument goes — Hot Air and Malkin “promote” racism and because they don’t even attempt to discourage hateful comments.

    Which is a goddamned lie.

    And Xrlq, you would normally be able to see through this. But you claim to puff up your opinion with false credbility by invoking your Greenwald-hating credentials.

    The reader should also know that you have had public conflicts with Malkin and Hot Air. I think this is clouding your judgment.

    But why don’t we set aside discussion of credentials and biases, because you could invoke my bias for Hot Air and Malkin (which is well known). Look at the facts.

    Hot Air does not promote racism. Allah tries to monitor comments. Greenwald suggests otherwise. Greenwald is a goddamned liar.

    As I have said in a related context, he is talking out of both sides of his ass. If you want to listen only to what’s coming out one side, I can’t control that.

    I agree — not just “now” but always have — that bloggers shouldn’t generally be judged by their commenters. TO THE EXTENT that Malkin is making that argument — and don’t assume she is to the extent claimed by the liar Greenwald; look at her actual words — that argument is wrong.

    But if you encourage him use that as an excuse to take false swipes at Hot Air by claiming falsehoods (it promotes racism; they don’t challenge racist comments), you’re enabling vicious lies.

    Patterico (dfced1)

  62. “Greenwald’s theory is that bloggers should be judged by their worst commenters”

    GG:
    “(1) Standard X is dishonest and corrupt.”
    “(2) Those who advocate and apply Standard X to others ought to have that standard applied to them.

    It’s not that complicated pat. It really isn’t.

    AF (4a3fa6)

  63. Yes, I have had a few public differences with Hot Air and Malkin, but I defy you to produce a single incident (or series thereof) in which I came down anywhere near as hard on either as I routinely do on Greenwald – the guy you’re calling me “naïve” on. I’m pretty sure if you were to scour my archives for links to hotair.com and michellemalkin.com, you’d find that the positive references outnumber the negatives, and the only reason I’m less than 100% certain is that I’m far more likely to blog about stuff I disagree with than I am to throw in a “me-too” post in which I have little to add beyond simple agreement. If personal bias were the deciding factor, it’s a pretty safe bet I’d side with Malkin over Greenwald rather than vice-versa.

    As to the question of whether Malkin does judge dKos by its commenters, let’s just say that while the case is not as cut and dried as Greenwald makes it out to be, she didn’t exactly take pains to distinguish Kos’s own “screw them” comments from the much more recent uglies paraded by Bill O’Reilly, either. That probably makes O’Reilly a better target than Malkin, as his was a clear sin of comission while hers was more a matter of omission, but it’s hardly surprising that a blogger singled out her rather than him, if for no other reason, then because she’s a blogger and he isn’t.

    Xrlq (3dd434)

  64. This is my “me too” comment.

    If personal bias were the deciding factor, it’s a pretty safe bet I’d side with Malkin over Greenwald rather than vice-versa.

    I think Xrlq, like Greenwald, has the better of the argument.

    In fact, it strikes me that you would know that, Patterico, in which case I don’t know why you brought it up.

    I’ve criticized Michelle Malkin, Allahpundit of Hot Air fame, you, and myself — does that mean I’m “biased” against them and in favor of Glenn Greenwald?

    Hardly.

    That was either a poorly reasoned ad hominem attack on Xrlq if you were familiar with his views or made in ignorance if you weren’t. Unless there’s a third possibility, which hasn’t occurred to me.

    Also, this was a bit condescending of you:

    And Xrlq, you would normally be able to see through this. But you claim to puff up your opinion with false credbility by invoking your Greenwald-hating credentials.

    How do you know what he’d “normally” do or that he’s attempting to “puff up” his opinion with “false credibility”?

    I’d say he, like me, simply disagrees with you. Why can’t you accept that on its face?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  65. Christoph,

    Xrlq has the better of what argument? I thought you and I agreed that just because Greenwald claims he’s only pointing out hypocrisy doesn’t mean that he’s not calling Hot Air a hate site.

    My pointing out X’s dislike of Malkin and Hot Air was to provide context for his implication that his opinion must be objective, because he regularly slams Greenwald, so (the argument goes) there’s no emotional reason for him to defend Greenwald unless Greenwald is right. Actually there is.

    X,

    As I said to Christoph, I agree that Malkin could be read as implicitly approving O’Reilly’s arguments based on dKos comments. As such, we agree it’s a bad argument. If Greenwald made it clear that he doesn’t really think that her site or Hot Air or MM.com was a hate site, I’d have little quarrel with his post.

    But come on. If we strapped Greenwald to a table and gave him truth serum, and asked him if he was genuinely trying to make the case that HA and MM.com are hate sites, he’d be forced to say yes. Do you disagree?

    Remember his posts re LGF and HuffPo — which he linked in this one. He pointed to whether the blogger says similar things — which he argues here by suggesting Malkin is racist by referring to the Manzanar book. He says it’s relevant whether bloggers monitor their comments — and then makes the outrageously false suggestion that HA not only doesn’t . . . but that HA “promotes” racism. Do you agree with that, X?

    I would like to answer these questions.

    if you are agreeing with AF that Greenwald doesn’t seriously mean to argue HA is a hate site, you’re ignoring what he has consistently argued about comments on blog posts — much of which he linked in that latest post.

    Accepting that is ignoring what he has written, and credulously giving him credit for honesty and reasonableness.

    In short, he is right to argue that comments, without more, should tar a blogger. But he goes further, and seriously argues HA is a hate site. It’s the same exact bullshit he always tries to pull.

    Patterico (c548ca)

  66. Let me put it this way.

    Everyone who thinks Greenwald doesn’t really intend to persuade his readers that HA and MM.com are hate sites, raise your hand.

    If your hand is in the air, you are a sucker.

    Can anyone hear even imagine GG saying:

    Of course I didn’t mean to argue that Hot Air of MichelleMalkin.com are hate sites, and I don’t believe that they are.

    Raise your hand if you can picture seeing that on his blog.

    Are any of you really that credulous?

    Really?

    Patterico (627ed2)

  67. I am forced to correct a grammatical error in this from Patterico: “As I have said in a related context, he is talking out of both sides of his ass. ”

    It should be “asses” plural of course.

    Carry on.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  68. I think it takes a certain naïveté to view this “Malkin is a hate site” post as though it had occurred in a vacuum, or just happened, by pure coincidence, to run shortly after Malkin et al. had persuaded JetBlue to dump its corporate sponsorship of Yearly Kos on exactly the same theory you are now rightly decrying.

    Strawman. I never said that and don’t think that.

    Patterico (192a56)

  69. “Xrlq has the better of what argument? I thought you and I agreed that just because Greenwald claims he’s only pointing out hypocrisy doesn’t mean that he’s not calling Hot Air a hate site.”

    I agree with you about that. In fact, I said more or less that in #45, that he undoubtedly considers Michelle Malkin hateful. I’m sure he likewise considers some of its commentators hateful. (In the latter case as he has unsurprisingly proven, sometimes he is right.)

    Where Glenn Greenwald has the better of the argument is he explicitly makes the point in the first sentence of his post and in his unnecessary update that bloggers are not responsible for their commentators, but he’s going to beat MichelleMalkin.com and Hot Air around the head with it if they do so to Daily Kos.

    And as you’ll recall, I’ve defended Markos Moulitsas on the basis he isn’t responsible for his commentators, just his own offensive statements.

    Greenwald believes Hot Air is hateful, as I often believe Daily Kos is and in no small measure because of Markos Moulitsas. But he’s not saying Hot Air is hateful because of its commentators, just that some of its commentators are hateful too.

    He’s saying Michelle Malkin is hateful because of her book and positions.

    I disagree, but nonetheless, that’s Greenwald’s point, as he expresses fairly clearly.

    The argument Xrlq has the better of is that you were attacking him unfairly and have no special knowledge of his motivations or what he actually is thinking.

    He does and that’s why he said what he said.

    You were accusing him of either intellectual dishonesty or being so blindingly biased against Hot Air, he was puffing up his opinion with “false credibility” (your words).

    I think you are wrong. Unlike you, however, I don’t know this for a fact because I’m not in Xrlq’s head. Yet I’m taking him for his word.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  70. X and Christoph,

    And on whether GG is effectively exposing genuine hypocrisy, did you pay any attention AT ALL to the fact that Allah DEFENDED Kos on the comments issue?

    So you think GG is Effectively Demonstrating Hypocrisy by citing one of 590,000 comments at Hot Air, when the primary blogger there a) monitors comments, b) writes nothing racist, and c) AGREES THAT KOS SHOULD NOT BE JUDGED BY ITS COMMENTS? Do you consider it an effective argument simply because that blogger’s boss (who almost never posts at HA) made an approving reference to O’Reilly’s misguided argument . . .but didn’t take care to note that, while Kos is a hate site, it’s not for the reasons that O’Reilly said, but because of what Kos himself says?

    Weak. This is the guilt by association crap GG is an expert at.

    Patterico (03758d)

  71. But come on. If we strapped Greenwald to a table and gave him truth serum, and asked him if he was genuinely trying to make the case that HA and MM.com are hate sites, he’d be forced to say yes. Do you disagree?

    I disagree. While it may be true that GG finds Malkin and O’Reilly hate sites he was not making that argument in the essay in question. He just wasn’t. He was making the case that Bill O’Reilly’s use of comments as evidence of hate-site-ness is hypocritical, ignorant of the way blogs work, and unacceptable. Rather than conceding that this last point is correct—even if Cindy Sheehan and Osama bin Laden are the ones making it—you’re trying to parse the essay to find trace evidence of something that isn’t there. If GG thinks these are hate sites (BTW, I think LGF is a hate site) he’s probably left copious documentation of that belief elsewhere. Go find that and refute it, instead.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9)

  72. But come on. If we strapped Greenwald to a table and gave him truth serum, and asked him if he was genuinely trying to make the case that HA and MM.com are hate sites, he’d be forced to say yes. Do you disagree?

    I have no clue how to answer that. Simply seeing the name “Greenwald” and the phrase “truth serum” in close proximity just about made my head explode. That said, I don’t think the principal point of this essay was to show that HA and MM.Com are hate sites, but to show that they are just as much “hate site” (or, in GG’s twisted world, perhaps a bit more so) than dKos. I suppose if you asked him if he thought HA and MM.com were hate sites, he’d say yes, for the simple reason that they are right of center, ergo “hate sites” by definition. In short, while I’d be surprised to see Greenwald making the statement on his blog that you throw out, I would not be at all surprised to hear him say this, instead:

    Of course I didn’t mean to argue that Hot Air of MichelleMalkin.com are hate sites. They are, of course, but that’s beside the point.

    Xrlq (3dd434)

  73. Christoph,

    You need to read Greenwald’s post more carefully. You keep asserting that he says at the beginning of his post that bloggers aren’t responsible for their commenters. That’s not what he’s saying. He explicitly says that it’s wrong to hold the blogger responsible “despite the fact that the comments have no relationship to the arguments made by the blogger.” And indeed, this is what he has historically argued. And indeed, he has historically argued that ugly comments at Kos and HuffPo bear no relationship to the blog content itself — a demonstrable lie that I have debunked. He has also consistently argued that racist comments at LGF and Malkin’s blog *do* bear a relationship to the blog content. It’s the same argument he makes about MM.com and HA in this post, and it’s a lie supported by other lies.

    As regards Xrlq, you can accept or reject the sinceity of the explanation I already gave. Apparently you’re rejecting it — in bold letters, even.

    Patterico (b57456)

  74. You’re offering an “explanation” for your statement about Xrlq building false credibility and being biased against Hot Air, when you should be rather considering a retraction and apology.

    You have no basis for your statement. Xrlq was being both honest and rational.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  75. n short, while I’d be surprised to see Greenwald making the statement on his blog that you throw out . . .

    I’m the only one here who is reading what he actually said, as I just explained to Christoph.

    He says it’s a hate site. Xrlq admits he believes it. He sets out a standard for proving it in the sentence you throw out, and then tries to meet that standard.

    With lies.

    Which you are enabling.

    Patterico (1e67a9)

  76. “While it may be true that GG finds Malkin and O’Reilly hate sites he was not making that argument in the essay in question. He just wasn’t. He was making the case that Bill O’Reilly’s use of comments as evidence of hate-site-ness is hypocritical, ignorant of the way blogs work, and unacceptable. Rather than conceding that this last point is correct—even if Cindy Sheehan and Osama bin Laden are the ones making it—you’re trying to parse the essay to find trace evidence of something that isn’t there. If GG thinks these are hate sites (BTW, I think LGF is a hate site) he’s probably left copious documentation of that belief elsewhere. Go find that and refute it, instead.”

    — Very astute, Andrew J.

    And you make a point about LGF.

    I think there are some great posts there and I love his defense of Israel, which I share.

    But MANY of the commentators say some offensive things.

    Last night late I read something that bugged me.

    It was a post about jumping the camel — literally — six of them.

    And in the first ten comments (can’t be bothered to read more), I found:

    paxnhymn 7/27/2007 11:58:25 am PDT reply quote

    savages! Savages! barely even human…

    everybody! Sing along!

    Sponge 7/27/2007 11:59:25 am PDT reply quote

    Is he disqualified for touching the last camel with his hand?

    paxnhymn 7/27/2007 12:00:04 pm PDT reply quote

    re: Sponge

    yep. Now that hand has to be cut off…

    Sponge 7/27/2007 12:01:02 pm PDT reply quote

    It’s just amazing to me that we have to cater and tolerate these 3rd world, stuck in the 4th century creatons when THATS the best they have to offer as a national pasttime.

     
    And that sort of glee at another culture’s alleged failings is common.

    But this wasn’t a failing. This was a lighthearted yet significant athletic accomplishment. As good-natured and likely to be God-blessed as anything you could imagine. And it earns such disdain.

    So, while I don’t think Charles Johnson is racist, I think many of his commentators are.

    Getting back on point, I agree with Andrew J. that this essay in question was fair enough in context.

    “If GG thinks these are hate sites (…) he’s probably left copious documentation of that belief elsewhere. Go find that and refute it, instead.”

    Yeppers.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  77. In fact, upon further searching, Charles Johnson himself wrote a good essay about the issues at hand.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  78. CORRECTION: Charles Johnson was quoting the esteemed Robert Spencer. It’s well worth reading.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  79. ““If GG thinks these are hate sites (…) hes probably left copious documentation of that belief elsewhere. Go find that and refute it, instead.”

    Again?

    Nope-ers.

    Btw, the comment of AJL’s you find so astute is one where he claims I didn’t concede a point that I have conceded twice.

    So very astute, that.

    Meanwhile, you *all* ignore the point I made about how Allah has conceded the same thing.

    Doesn’t fit your argument — kills it, actually — so you just pretend I never said it.

    Patterico (5ad0db)

  80. If any of you ever try following all the links maybe you’ll understand the point I’ve been making.

    Patterico (214ae1)

  81. More context here. Read it — or pigheadedly ignore it. I can’t control which you do.

    Patterico (4cdd39)

  82. “He was making the case that Bill O’Reilly’s use of comments as evidence of hate-site-ness is hypocritical, ignorant of the way blogs work, and unacceptable.”

    I think where AJL is going with the above is you are not acknowledging that Glenn Greenwald is making that point — not that you haven’t made the point, which you have, many times.

    “Did you pay any attention AT ALL to the fact that Allah DEFENDED Kos on the comments issue?”

    No. Not really.

    I make the same damn point as Allah in this thread and I know he agrees with me on this so I never saw any point of looking up his views again.

    Why?

    The point about Allah doesn’t kill it at all.

    It’s a red herring. I defended Kos, Allah defended Kos, you do too I think on this at least… the point is about Greenwald’s essay, not Kos. And Andrew J. Lazarus nailed that.

    This essay, in context with when it was released juxtaposed with the attacks of Bill O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin on Daily Kos for what it’s commentators say, beginning strongly the way it did, was a good reply.

    Re: Nope-ers.

    Your PREVIOUS attacks on Glenn Greenwald were strongly on point and funny as hell, I might add.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  83. Great link, just read it, you’ve proven Greenwald is a dishonest buffoon and hypocrite, something we’ve all acknowledged.

    Still, this one was a pretty good essay.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  84. Christoph,

    Hopefully it helped you understand that his consistent view is that righty sites are responsible for their comments, because — his stupid and dishonest argument goes — the comments on righty sites are reflective of the ethos of the blog.

    This is why his introductory sentence, with its lawyerly qualification, is a preamble to a serious argument that HA is a hate site. Because — he dishonestly says — HA promotes hate and delierately leaves up hateful comments.

    It’s what he’s arguing. Plain as the nose on your face.

    Patterico (edab77)

  85. “Hopefully it helped you understand that his consistent view is that righty sites are responsible for their comments, because — his stupid and dishonest argument goes — the comments on righty sites are reflective of the ethos of the blog.”

    I’m sure he believes that. He’s a leftist provocateur. What else is he to believe?

    “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  86. And you make a point about LGF.

    I think there are some great posts there and I love his defense of Israel, which I share.

    But MANY of the commentators say some offensive things. Last night late I read something that bugged me. It was a post about jumping the camel — literally — six of them. And in the first ten comments (can’t be bothered to read more), I found:

    —Christoph

    You’re not as intellectually honest as I hope you would be, Christoph. Muslims consist of all races and nationalities. Ergo, making fun of backward Muslims is not racism.

    I’m a member of LGF, and I’m quite familiar with the comments and contents on that blog. I have been reading and posting there for a little over two years, and I am fairly confident that the super majority of comments are not racist. I find nothing wrong with making fun of backward Muslims. I do not make fun of normal Muslims, just the backward ones who live life like they still belong in the 7th century. When an Egyptian imam put out a fatwa claiming that the Islamic restriction on unmarried men and women being together could be lifted at work if the woman breast-fed her male colleagues five times to establish family ties, my fellow LGF members and I will ridicule that Muslim. We will also poke fun of Muslims who believe in the urine fatwa, which states that drinking the urine of the Prophet Muhammad was deemed a blessing. When millions of Muslims take to the streets to riot and stir up violence over a bunch of cartoons, we will make fun of them. When Palestinian terrorists partake in incredibly weird terrorist exercises like jumping through fiery hoops, we will lambaste them. When Hamas enforces the so-called vegetable codes, which states that certain vegetables should not be placed next to each other to avoid any immoral suggestions (tomatoes & cucumbers, for example), we will take pleasure in ridiculing those backward Muslims all day long.

    And you need to grow thicker skins, Christoph.
    Every single day, Muslims around the world are maiming and murdering untold innocents (see LGF for numerous news articles). where is the outrage from sensitive people like you? However, when LGF members ridicule those backward Muslims, armchair critics like you jump in with the all-purpose “racist” card that you know so well. Are you an apprentice of Jesse Jackson by any chance?

    Kaijimbo (2c2f60)

  87. Patterico,

    If Greenwald wants to take something so outrageus seriously, that is Greenwald’s problem. I exaggerate to illustrate.

    Alan Kellogg (ee277b)

  88. “Every single day, Muslims around the world are maiming and murdering untold innocents (see LGF for numerous news articles). where is the outrage from sensitive people like you?”

    You don’t know me.

    That outrages me more.

    But it’s unseemly to be insulting a man and his culture for engaging in an athletic event. A decent event. It’s just beneath you.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  89. “When Palestinian terrorists partake in incredibly weird terrorist exercises like jumping through fiery hoops, we will lambaste them. When Hamas enforces the so-called vegetable codes, which states that certain vegetables should not be placed next to each other to avoid any immoral suggestions (tomatoes & cucumbers, for example), we will take pleasure in ridiculing those backward Muslims all day long.”

    Any suggestion the man competing was a terrorist?

    If not, how do you explain comments like:

    savages! Savages! barely even human…

    everybody! Sing along!

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  90. If not, how do you explain comments like:

    savages! Savages! barely even human…

    everybody! Sing along!

    It’s called sarcasm. Surely, you can see that. How long have you been reading LGF? For the record, I did not post in that thread but I, too, thought it strange, and quite funny to see a man jump over six camels. He used a trampoline, too, so it’s not something to write home to mom about.

    It’s not racism, Christoph. After a long day of mostly depressing news about politically correct Western leaders selling out common sense to appease the Islamists, after a day of reading about how Muslim entities are targeting our children for brainwashing through the educational curriculum, Charles puts up his “And Now for Something Completely Different” thread to help us unwind. Sometimes, that’s a musical selection he wants to share; a guitar performance, for example. Sometimes, it’s a video of a monster robot tearing up a retired fighter jet. Sometimes, it’s something strange like a man jumping over six camels. Posters commented on these videos. In this instance, they made fun of the act, they made fun of the man, but they did not care one bit about what his race is. Many commented that if only Muslims invested more of their time and energy in athletic events, they wouldn’t be murdering people on a daily basis. When LGF posters poke fun of the Leftist idiot who built a model of the World Trade Center with a cement block and chicken wires, were those posters being racist as well? Knock off with the race card; it’s not going to stick. You’re smarter than that (or at least you should be).

    Kaijimbo (5de0b8)

  91. You disgust me, Kaijimbo.

    Warning.

    Actual unambiguous sarcasm to follow. For those who care, I am part North American native.

    “What a bunch of chugs, man. Savages. Barely even human.”

    Yeah, that was funny.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  92. You disgust me, Kaijimbo.

    Is that suppose to me something coming from an over sensitive, easily offended person like you, Christoph? You took the first ten comments out of a 208 comment thread and expect clear thinking people to believe LGF members are a bunch of racists? Not very intellectually honest, but then LGF bashers like you are a dime a dozen, so I don’t expect much from folks like you.

    Warning.

    Actual unambiguous sarcasm to follow. For those who care, I am part North American native.

    “What a bunch of chugs, man. Savages. Barely even human.”

    Yeah, that was funny.

    Whatever your ancestors or mine did took place hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago. We’ve all evolved considerably since then. It’s the millions of Muslims who have not evolved that’s the problem. It’s their religious culture that permits head chopping, hanging, stoning women for adultery, rape, cutting off of hands for minor offenses like thievery, and blind adherence to the words of a murderous, child molesting pedophile is what makes them savages. It has nothing to do with their race. Many of them don’t belong in the 21st century. Example #434,555,916

    When a member of Qatar’s ruling family discovered that three of his female relatives had been seated in business class next to men they did not know (the horror!), the sheikh went ballistic and held up the British Airways flight for nearly three hours before being ordered off the plane.

    Economic and social status have nothing to do with it; it’s their mindset that make them a primitive people.

    Kaijimbo (5de0b8)

  93. I read LGF frequently, Kaijimbo, and have for quite some time as I made clear.

    I admire Charles Johnson as I also made clear. I linked to a post of his in this thread.

    The post I linked to includes his implementing an automated filter to try and snag racist comments because he clearly can’t monitor the volume of comments he has personally.

    I’ve made that point consistently in this entire thread.

    I do not believe most LGF commentators are racist, yet I have seen many hateful comments on that site.

    In response to someone blowing up a pizzeria, I understand it. Less so in response to someone completing a harmless athletic event I couldn’t do and you couldn’t either.

    So your response to disgusting comments about a man engaged in athletics, a man to the best of your knowledge who has done nothing wrong, is to point out barbaric acts committed by other people.

    <sarcasm>No, you’re not prejudiced at all.</sarcasm>

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  94. Okay, so making fun of an athletic man who can jump over six camels is barbaric to you? It’s barbaric to make jokes about him and how he leaped over some camels? That’s barbaric to you? Mean spirited, I agree, but barbaric and hateful? Racist? Jeeze. You’re too touchy-feely, Christoph. If your name wasn’t indicative of a man, I would not be surprised if you are presently going through that special time of the month.

    Kaijimbo (5de0b8)

  95. “Okay, so making fun of an athletic man who can jump over six camels is barbaric to you?”

    You’re dishonest.

    The quote both you and I used as a reference for discussion is:

    savages! Savages! barely even human…

    everybody! Sing along!

    Making fun of an athlete for his performance is one thing. Saying he’s a savage and barely even human because of the group he belongs to is quite something else.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  96. What an entertaining post by Patterico the Dissembler.

    When you can’t actually contend with Greenwald’s facts — they are clear and unassailable — you turn to the ad hominem,

    Pretty rich, in this post. Greenwald is a disgusting hypocrite? He vacations in South America with his boyfriend? Very nice character burn.

    drummaster (99edbd)

  97. Are you really sure that Greenwald’s facts were unassailable? Because they looked to me a lot like Rick Ellers’ facts or Thomas Ellensburg’s facts … not to mention that they looked pretty well assailed.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  98. You’re dishonest.

    You’re right. I misread the previous paragraph and I apologize. The comments you posted about the LGF thread are sarcasm, i.e. tongue in cheek. Of course, the man is not a savage. I only read about the first 25 comments on that thread prior to coming here, but in the interest of fairness, I went back and read all of it. I suggest you do the same if you consider yourself to be even remotely honest. However, if you’d much rather embrace an already fallacious assumption instead of admitting that you’re wrong, allow me to summarize the comments for you.

    Of the 208 or so comments, over half are off topics that have nothing to do with the video: squirrels being shot, Qatar man causing ruckus on British flight, Scottish men in their kilts, etc. Of the remaining comments that were on topic, a super majority were complimentary of the man for his athletic ability. Only a small number of comments were mean spirited. They were mean spirited comments, not racist, so get your facts straight before you accuse LGF members of being racists.

    Here is what you said in post #76:

    So, while I don’t think Charles Johnson is racist, I think many of his commentators are.

    Prove it, Christoph, if you have the wherewithal. If you can’t, man up and admit it.

    Kaijimbo (5de0b8)

  99. Christoph,

    The gist of all this can be summarized by post #202 by Fernandez of LGF:

    Nobody here is jumping camels. Did anybody say they hate these guys because they jump camels? I think we were all very encouraging.

    If you’re going to jump camels, shouldn’t you expect to be mocked?

    If it were white guys jumping camels (or horses or trucks) or the Jerry Springer Show that was under discussion, would they consider it hateful?

    No, they’d agree with everything spouted.

    Kaijimbo (5de0b8)

  100. “I misread the previous paragraph and I apologize.”

    Kaijimbo, thank you. I accept your apology.

    I’ll be frank and say I won’t reread the entire thread although I respect you’re doing so.

    The reason I won’t read the thread is selfish. I just came back from the office supply store with a labeler and intend to label my file folders ála GTD — Getting Things Done.

    A very cool book; I’d buy one. (Patterico et al., I’m sure you have effective systems in place, but if you have any remaining organizational / time management challenges, I can’t think of a better book.)

    However, I would make the time if it wasn’t for the fact that I agree with you as I’ve plainly stated.

    Most LGFers AREN’T racist or unduly prejudiced and Charles Johnson isn’t. Criticizing Islamic terrorists or even details of a culture, any culture, you disagree with isn’t evidence of racism nor prejudice. (But the words, “barely human,” are.) Criticizing camel sports is certainly fair game.

    My point was never different. I also didn’t agree completely

    with Andrew J. Lazarus’s assertion that LGF is a “hate site”. After all, I’ve read the site for years and would enjoy commenting there, just have never been online when registration was open.

    Patterico’s site, my exceedingly humble personal blog, Hot Air, and any number of sites have hateful commentators — that doesn’t mean the site itself is hateful.

    LGF is in this category, in my opinion. However, largely due to its popularity and Johnson’s technical coding skills, it lends itself to an enormous volume of comments which can’t be effectively monitored like Patterico’s or Hot Air’s site.

    And in that enormous volume of comments, most of which are positive if often outraged, sad, etc., feelings I share about evil acts, are some hateful dribble… like the selective quotes I mentioned above.

    I hope you have a great day. I’m going to put batteries in my labeler.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  101. *read

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  102. Final thoughts…

    Imagine paxnhymn was criticizing football. Notice the contrast:

    1.) He looks like a freak jumping over the line. Besides, football’s a sissy sport.
    2.) He’s a savage. Barely even human.

    I think it’s self-evident why one is acceptable (although I’d criticize you for dissin’ my sport like that) and the other not.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  103. Ah, but you said “many racists.” I challenge you or anyone reading this thread to find many racists at LGF. Give me a number that can be considered “many.” That’s all. I know you can’t, because I have not noticed many racists at LGF. One here or there but I don’t think they’re around anymore. Not long after i registered there, a few long time posters were banned, not because they were racists but because they were out of line with their posts. We moderate ourselves and Charles does not shy away from banning racist posters. LGF critics almost always label LGF as a racist site but none of them can prove it.

    Kaijimbo (5de0b8)

  104. There are many racists, a function of having many commentators.

    Still but a minority in the whole.

    But more than here, for example.

    That’s all. I know you can’t, because I have not noticed many racists at LGF.

    I agree, completely, it was a subjective reaction spurred by a recent experience reading something that bugged me not a quantitative analysis.

    LGF isn’t a racist site. I disagree with Andrew J. Lazarus. However, there are at least some racist commentators from time to time.

    Now, I yield the floor to you. I have a girlfriend bugging me for her attention and even she’ll have to compete with my new labeler.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  105. I’m sorry, but I just didn’t need to visualize Gleen having it both ways. How about a nice slice of pie?

    Dan Collins (cfa8f7)

  106. Okay, Christoph. You have a great day as well.

    Kaijimbo (5de0b8)

  107. Kajimbo and Christoph:

    Just my observation but there probably are very few “racists” at many of the political sites. What causes problems is when those few appear and splash mud on the majority.

    And the anonymous nature of blogs makes it easy to be a “provocateur” who may want to embarass the regulars of a site.

    I think what is more important are how the “regulars” at a site address extreme comments. It is also good practice at polishing good civil discourse in political issues. If the intent is to persuade someone to agree or at least understand the components of the argument, snark and defensiveness don’t work very well, in my opinion.

    voiceofreason63 (eca89a)

  108. While I agree that it is not valid to call Kos a “hate site”, can I call it an insane asylum?

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  109. Robin – Given that link, I would venture to say that is a fairly accurate assessment.

    JD (26820f)

  110. The tables are turned, sooner than I thought. It seems that the right’s answer to Glenn Greenwald, Michael “Savage” Weiner, did exactly the same thing, and with the same result.

    Xrlq (635cdd)

  111. Michael Savage is hardly representative of the Right. He is a nutjob.

    JD (26820f)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7203 secs.