Legalized Banning (Updated)
[Guest post by DRJ]
I’m back and I want to address the topic of banning.
It’s been 7 days since Levi was banned and I intend to lift his 10 day ban if I can figure out how to do it. During the past week, Levi left comments in moderation complaining that banning him was unfair and cowardly. Too bad, Levi. You agreed to the rules in advance. Next time agree to rules you’re willing to live with.
Now for a completely different ban that involves fast food in South Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Times reports that an LA City Council committee unanimously agreed to a one-year ban on new fast food restaurants in South Los Angeles in an effort to combat widespread obesity and diabetes in that area. The proposal must be approved by the full City Council and signed by the Mayor. If approved, the moratorium will last 1 year and can be extended for two 6-month terms.
The ban was almost certainly prompted by a study published in January 2004 in the Journal of Pediatrics that concluded “Consumption of fast food among children in the United States seems to have an adverse effect on dietary quality in ways that plausibly could increase risk for obesity.” In a companion or follow-up article published in December 2004 in The Lancet, a 15-year study analyzed “… the association between reported fast-food habits and changes in bodyweight and insulin resistance over a 15-year period in the USA.” The long-term study concluded:
“Fast-food consumption has strong positive associations with weight gain and insulin resistance, suggesting that fast food increases the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes.”
The Center for Consumer Freedom criticized the study on several grounds and noted especially that the study primarily recommended curtailment of fast food marketing. It looks like the LA City Council committee is taking this one step further by seeking to also ban new fast food restaurants.
I don’t know LA politics so I can’t tell if this proposal has a chance to pass the full City Council and be signed into law by the Mayor. But if this law is such a good idea, it should apply to all of LA and not just South LA … and I think we all know that won’t happen.
UPDATE 1: Dana links this Pajamas Media article that has more on the South LA ban. Thanks, Dana.
UPDATE 2: On 7/29/2008, the LA City Council unanimously approved the one-year fast-food ban. I don’t know if the Mayor plans to sign off but I assume he will.
– DRJ
Another victory for the Nanny State!
Comment by Bradley J. Fikes — 7/24/2008 @ 2:36 pm
Every part of town has fast food outlets. Some neighborhoods lack grocers who sell fresh produce to make a healthy meal. That’s the deal-ee-oh.
Comment by steve — 7/24/2008 @ 2:45 pm
Tom Blumer wrote a great piece in Pajamas re this. One of the complaints was the lack of nearby supermarkets thus supplying better choices and quality of food. Which if true, is not that unreasonable.
“Some people will say, ‘Well, people just don’t have to eat it,’ ” said Jan Perry, the Democrat who represents the city’s overwhelmingly African-American and Latino District 9. “But the fact of the matter is, what if you have no other choices?”
However, the author did his homework,
“Quite the contrary: Web searches on two chains I’m aware of in the area reveal that there are ten Ralph’s or Food4less stores within four miles of the address of the advocacy group whose executive director is quoted in the article, and at least three Vons within a reasonable distance of its zip code. When did eating store-bought food at home become a nonviable option?”
Anything but assume personal responsibility. This is the further infantilization of a society.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/big-brother-doesnt-want-you-eating-burgers-in-la/
Comment by Dana — 7/24/2008 @ 2:46 pm
DRJ, you can lift or continue the ban of Levi how you and Mr. Frey choose. It’s your virtual living room, and you get to make the rules. If your electronic guests don’t like your rules…well…there are plenty of websites and blogs on the ‘Net.
But do remember that there has been a lot of trollish behavior of late. Does it enhance discussion?
I’m all for letting Levi back in…so long as he quits insulting others, being abusive, and using profanity in place of debate. It’s your call, not mine, but that is what I think.
Do I mind profanity? Let me put it this way: my father is a retired firefighter, so I think you know the answer to that one. What such a requirement might accomplish is two fold: minimize the mudslinging, which leads to…ah…more elevated conversation; and force Levi to think a bit before he posts.
Less faux-tough guy posturing, more information and data. Doesn’t sound bad to me.
Others may disagree, but that is my opinion.
On the other hand, I have often seen posters on other blogs and websites claim that insisting on some level of civility is tantamount to censorship. Puh-leeze. And such an electronic tough guy persona in fact does effectively censor others by driving them away. Followed by the “tough guy or gal” then claiming that other people need to be stronger.
So they get to define how other people should act, but no one dare do that to them? Hmmm.
The question is simple. Does Levi simply wish to fight with other people, or does he wish to discuss issues? If the former, of course he wants the right to cuss and insult above all things. If the latter, then perhaps we may actually learn what Levi believes, and why. There might even be some intelligent conversation.
Unless, again, it is all about the fighting.
Some posters here enjoy the mudslinging, and I have no quarrel with them. But I found Levi’s rants tiresome and a waste of bandwidth. He couldn’t even resist insulting you DRJ, with the ridiculous “crushed” line. Mind you, I am discussing the rants and barrages of insults by Levi, NOT attempts to explain his point of view.
Just my two cents. Sorry for the long post.
Comment by Eric Blair — 7/24/2008 @ 3:02 pm
Would this LA City Council committee unanimously agree to a one-year ban on cigarette sales in South Los Angeles in an effort to combat widespread lund disease and heart disease in that area?
The question is predicated on the premise that smoking (cf. not smoking) has a stronger adverse impact on health than does eating fast food (cf. eating other foods). I haven’t checked, but that is very likely to be true.
So, Councilmembers: if the one, why not the other? Nannies must protect their charges from all hazards.
As for Levi, his only complaint about the Rev. Wright debate could be that there was no agreed-on mercy rule. It was that bad.
Comment by AMac — 7/24/2008 @ 3:02 pm
You’re like Paul Newman at the end of “Color of Money”.
Comment by WLS — 7/24/2008 @ 3:08 pm
Eric Blair,
Patrick told me he trusted me to handle comments as I see fit when I’m online, and I’m considering a new approach. My idea is to edit comments that contain gratuitous insults and extensive profanity by replacing the offensive portions with this edit:
I may not be able to read every comment and I won’t edit with a heavy hand, but I think it would be helpful to eliminate the more offensive portions of comments — from both sides of the political aisle — and replace them with meaningless blather … because that’s all they are.
Any thoughts?
Comment by DRJ — 7/24/2008 @ 3:09 pm
Oh good, you can see this shit?
You’re acting like a baby. Don’t pretend like I ever had any choice or say in the ‘rules.’
And I never said it was unfair. Cowardly, yes. How is it not? But unfair, I never said such a thing.
Now you go ahead and keep making shit up about me without letting me respond, because that demonstrates how brave and enlightened you are. See you in 3 days.
Comment by Levi — 7/24/2008 @ 3:12 pm
My idea is to edit comments that contain gratuitous insults and profanity..
That might shut down the site.
Any comment thread more than 30 posts long is alpha-male asylum.
Comment by steve — 7/24/2008 @ 3:14 pm
WLS:
More like a battered Cool Hand Luke as he begged for mercy. Plus I don’t like eggs.
Comment by DRJ — 7/24/2008 @ 3:17 pm
steve,
I know and I don’t want to stop spirited discussion, even if it is sometimes insulting and profane. What gave me the idea was Patrick’s views on the Tony Snow obituary. I think discussions should be freewheeling but maybe there should be exceptions in cases like that.
Comment by DRJ — 7/24/2008 @ 3:20 pm
#3 Dana
stores within four miles of the address
I was carless for a while in CA, and I can tell you that getting groceries by foot or bus is no fun, and makes four miles a long, long way. I was saved by a mom-and-pop store about a mile away, downhill with a heck of an uphill return, but I was buying for one, not for a family.
But I wouldn’t favor a fast-food store ban. Maybe a small business grocery store startup loan program.
Comment by m — 7/24/2008 @ 3:21 pm
Brilliant plan. They won’t get fat because they won’t have any money to buy food because there will be no new entry level jobs created in South L.A. Do they really think there will be a rush of new non-fast food restaurants serving healthy fare setting up shop there?
Even more brilliant, they’ll be dependent on the government for food stamps.
Comment by ThreeSheets — 7/24/2008 @ 3:22 pm
DRJ, edit away. Its disheartening to think through an issue and express it in the comments only to have someone turn it into an opportunity to make a personal assault. If it happens too frequently it just becomes a pointless effort to comment.
If the debate is spirited and heated - yet remains respectful, thats great. But when the motive appears to be something other than disagreeing and plowing though, it only detracts from the conversation and becomes the focal point instead.
An even-handed approach will benefit everyone. After all, pissing matches are a very boring substitute for debate.
Comment by Dana — 7/24/2008 @ 3:22 pm
On the other hand, it’s great for the existing fast food places. No new competition.
And last, how is this supposed to help. A) It’s for one year and B) there appears to already be enough fast food joints operating to supposedly cause this obesity epidemic. So no new fast joints won’t solve anything. There already getting too fat with the number they have.
I’m missing something.
Comment by ThreeSheets — 7/24/2008 @ 3:25 pm
m,
I agree, but even then I’m not sure it will matter. In the long run the stores will stock what people buy. Even stores like Whole Foods sell fast food and junk food.
Comment by DRJ — 7/24/2008 @ 3:26 pm
Does this fast food ban mean that the stores will have to close down? That City employees are no longer allowed to patronize them? Or is it just a moratorium on new construction?
Comment by Drumwaster — 7/24/2008 @ 3:28 pm
#14 ThreeSheets
On the other hand, it’s great for the existing fast food places. No new competition.
Excellent. And that should be a ban-killer, if someone has the foresight to suggest it. It’s like “Free market for me, not for you; I’m pulling the ladder up.” I wonder if you’re not on to something happening there in local politics.
Comment by m — 7/24/2008 @ 3:32 pm
Drumwaster,
I think it’s solely a ban on new construction, and only if it passes the City Council and the Mayor signs it into law.
Comment by DRJ — 7/24/2008 @ 3:32 pm
If the LA city elections were held along with the state or federal general elections, these clowns would have a much harder time staying in office. BUt in February or April of odd-numbered years they just need to turn out a few thousand supporters and they’re in for 4 more years.
Three terms now, too.
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 7/24/2008 @ 3:35 pm
How many fast food chains don’t offer healthier items on their menus?
Comment by Rob Crawford — 7/24/2008 @ 3:38 pm
#15 DRJ
I agree that stores will, and should, stock what people buy. But there is some degree of product specificity among store types: I’m following up on #3 Dana’s pointing out that the proposal is contrasting fast-food restaurants with grocery stores. If all you’ve got for food in your neighborhood is block after block of fast-food stores, where do you buy bread and tomatoes and dried beans?
I’d say that the fast-food defense that “You can buy a salad at a fast-food store” is specious. I wouldn’t want to try to feed a family three meals a day on the fare that’s offered at fast-food stores, especially on a low income. And if fast-food stores were the only walkable option, I’d be awfully tempted to order up the filling fatty stuff, and I’d get tired of trying to force fast-food salads on the burger-entranced kids.
Comment by m — 7/24/2008 @ 3:50 pm
All the Los Angeles Democrats genuflect at the feet of Magic Johnson, sports hero and wealthy businessman who has done very nicely bringing businesses into “underserved” minority communities. Magic got his start in business with — wait for it — Fatburger and Kentucky Fried Chicken franchises. I wonder if any of these politicians have asked Magic what he thinks of the ban.
Comment by JVW — 7/24/2008 @ 4:13 pm
Who benefits from this? Established fast food businesses in the area do as they won’t be having any new joints taking their market share. More workers for fewer jobs means that they, and all employers in the area, can pay lower wages ( the office janitor doesn’t go and apply at the new burger joint therefore preventing his employer from raising his wage to keep him in his employ ).
Dig around and you will find the cronyism. Most new jobs in these areas were burger flipper jobs so I guess they are satisfied with the employment situation and the wages in that area.
Comment by j curtis — 7/24/2008 @ 4:16 pm
If you let Levi back, you know he’s going to do something to get himself banned again and will contribute nothing of substance here in the meantime.
Comment by Anon — 7/24/2008 @ 4:17 pm
On banning troublesome posters:
If you can do it–I’ve seen elsewhere that the troublemakers find a way through–it’s your call. One thing that’s great about this site is the thoughtfulness of the majority of commenters. All of the regulars seem like the sort of people who’d be first to admit that they’re flawed human beings and are bringing all of their experience to bear on the topics raised–and gracefully accept the experience of others in refining their views. If there’s someone who’s consistently not listening and not learning and just being annoying, well, that’s not the point of your forum.
I think that the comment policy over at http://volokh.com/ is a good model (select “comments” beneath any post, and scroll to the bottom), and it includes “As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events.” And also the very clever “sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.”
Comment by m — 7/24/2008 @ 4:18 pm
m,
I’m not against encouraging businesses to build grocery stores instead of fast food places and, as you suggested earlier, that could be accomplished with incentives and zoning. But my point is that just because they are grocery stores doesn’t mean they will stock and sell healthy food.
About once a month, I shop at a grocery store that primarily serves a low-income neighborhood in my town. It has 2 full aisles devoted to candy, twice as much as other grocery stores I’ve been in. The store wouldn’t stock that much candy if its customers didn’t buy it.
Comment by DRJ — 7/24/2008 @ 4:21 pm
Supply and demand. Businesses provide what is in demand. If junk food is the money maker, they would be foolish not to have this in great quantity.
If fruit/veggies/healthy stuff were the money maker, then it would stand to reason that would be stocked in great quantity.
Is it right for a city council to override the community’s apparent wishes? (of course that leads to obesity diabetes, etc., and subsequent increases in medical insurance costs for everyone, blah, blah….)!
Comment by Dana — 7/24/2008 @ 4:29 pm
The whole fast food/diabetes thing is shot through with PC. I was in a food4Less store in Wilmington about a year ago. In front of me was a Hispanic family, ages about 8 to 45. They were so wide, including the 8-year-old, that they had trouble getting through the line at the check stand. The obesity in children and the diabetic statistics are heavily skewed by an immigrant population with a genetic propensity of diabetes and a dietary regimen, even when prepared at home, that leads to obesity. There are a lot of black kids who are obese but south-central LA is also heavily Hispanic. I don’t think it would affect the statistics at all. It might even be an interesting experiment in the futility of government planning, except of course that we would never hear about the results.
The Mexican population has a strain of Indian in which some tribes, like the Pima of Arizona, that have an almost 100% incidence of diabetes by adulthood.
Comment by Mike K — 7/24/2008 @ 4:30 pm
To Levi,
I know you tried to comment and I tried to remove the ban and approve your comment. I don’t know why it isn’t working but please try again.
I also understand you object to my statement that you think your ban was unfair and cowardly. You state you did not claim it was unfair. One of your comments states that you think the ban was arbitrary and I interpreted that to mean you think the ban was unfair. I stand corrected, I think.
UPDATE: Levi, I discovered how to remove the ban and now your most recent comment appears as comment #8 in this thread. Welcome back. I hope you will take this opportunity to focus on discussion instead of insults.
Comment by DRJ — 7/24/2008 @ 4:40 pm
Have fun, DRJ. But Levi’s history leads to a prediction of what he brings to the discussion. He couldn’t help himself even while complaining.
Once you start editing him, he”ll be “racing” you to see what kind of profanity he can post, first. Sigh.
I hope I am wrong.
Anyway, that is only part of the discussion on this thread.
Comment by Eric Blair — 7/24/2008 @ 4:49 pm
#26 DRJ
I’m entirely with you on the concept that stores sell what sells, and I’ve seen the horrifying grocery stores you’ve seen. I lived in a southern city where an entrepreneur became extremely wealthy by opening a huge chain of grocery stores only in poor neighborhoods (and he sponsored a variety show on t.v. to advertise them), and not only were the non-foodstuffs more plentiful, and positioned precisely where you’d make a spur-of-the-moment purchase, but everything was more expensive than it was in the drivable-only, flat middle-class grocery stores. And lots of those people had no idea that they were paying premium prices, because they had never seen the competition. I don’t know what to do about that.
But if those same stores sell fresh vegetables and milk and rice, too, even if only in the back aisles, then at least there are choices. I would not want to be the mom marching the kids past the candy to buy the oatmeal, but it could be done.
Comment by m — 7/24/2008 @ 4:50 pm
Eric Blair,
I’m here to talk to people but my patience for Levi has worn thin. Levi has a choice to make and I hope he opts for talk instead of tantrums.
I also realize my editing idea won’t work but I’m still glad I threw it out there for discussion.
Comment by DRJ — 7/24/2008 @ 4:53 pm
#31 Eric Blair
. . . he’ll be “racing” you to see what kind of profanity he can post, first. Sigh.
I hope I am wrong.
No, you were right.
8. Oh good, you can see this shit?
You’re acting like a baby. Don’t pretend like I ever had any choice or say in the ‘rules.’
And I never said it was unfair. Cowardly, yes. How is it not? But unfair, I never said such a thing.
Now you go ahead and keep making shit up about me without letting me respond, because that demonstrates how brave and enlightened you are. See you in 3 days.
Comment by m — 7/24/2008 @ 5:00 pm
You are one of the “good guys/good gals,” DRJ.
Getting back to the rest of the thread, it reminds me of the “Thunderbird”/”Night Train” controversy years and years ago—liquor stores stocking more sweet high alcoholic content wines to particular neighborhoods. Ditto the liquors that seem directed toward teenagers.
But the problem, again, is the authoritarians trying to decide what is best for everyone. Personally, I wonder what habits the Council has, and their BMIs? Maybe a council of folks from a low income district should be empowered to make “lifestyle laws” for Beverly Hills? Like outlawing pedicures?
Someone always seems to know best for everyone else.
Anyway, these districts don’t seem to mind selling lottery tickets. And the majority of people buying those things, I believe, are very low income.
It takes a village….of busybodies, I guess.
Comment by Eric Blair — 7/24/2008 @ 5:00 pm
Now you go ahead and keep making shit up about me without letting me respond, because that demonstrates how brave and enlightened you are. See you in 3 days.
Comment by Levi — 7/24/2008 @ 3:12 pm
DRJ, this is the kind of stuff he’s attempting to post while he’s banned and you’re expecting civility from him when he comes back?
Really?
Comment by Anon — 7/24/2008 @ 5:07 pm
As Mike K said earlier, I don’t think the research is firm enough for us to start mandating how everyone eats and shops. Twenty years ago, medical research would have banned chocolate, coffee, eggs, and wine but now we know these items aren’t that bad and may even be good for us.
Comment by DRJ — 7/24/2008 @ 5:08 pm
#36 Anon
Amen.
Comment by m — 7/24/2008 @ 5:09 pm
Anon,
Expect isn’t the right word, more like hope, but it goes with the territory on a blog. Even Christoph still tries to comment.
Comment by DRJ — 7/24/2008 @ 5:09 pm
#37 DRJ
But “chocolate, coffee, . . . and wine” (less so, eggs, I guess) are splurges, and we are fortunate to be able to consider and reconsider their part in our budgets and health regimes.
But say you’re a mother of three, and you have $100 a week in welfare money to feed the family–I have no idea what the allotment is, but it helps to put a number there. If you care at all to put food in them, you are looking to buy bread and potatoes and margarine. If there isn’t a grocery store with produce, and you spend it on candy and coffee and alcohol, those kids are in tons of trouble come about day three of the week.
I wouldn’t mandate what people can buy and eat. But I’d mandate education and availability.
Comment by m — 7/24/2008 @ 5:28 pm
The idea that banning fast food restaurant construction is going to cause people to start buying healthy food and preparing it at home is just rank stupidity. Bloomberg level stupidity. But we’ve come to expect that from LA’s politicians.
You can eat healthy in a fast food restaurant if you want to. The reason people don’t eat healthy is that they do not want to. You can buy unhealthy convenience food in grocery stores and that is all that will happen at most.
Comment by SPQR — 7/24/2008 @ 5:46 pm
Oh, and about Levi.
You do notice that he can’t be educated.
Comment by SPQR — 7/24/2008 @ 5:52 pm
“Now you go ahead and keep making shit up about me without letting me respond, because that demonstrates how brave and enlightened you are.”
Oh, yeah - by all means, let the Troll come back and fling more scintillating refuse like this one. No question about it, he’s definitely adopted a completely different attitude - really, quite a sea change we’re witnessing here. Just like the fabled “Time Outs” rarely working with children prone to be superbrats, TrollBoy proves the case once again. But hey, thanks for playing.
Comment by Dmac — 7/24/2008 @ 6:10 pm
I’m not trying to blame poor / fat people - but can’t they make their own choices?
I’m pretty sure no one is forcing them to consume ‘bad’ stuff. Perhaps education might be better than nannyism?
Comment by steve miller — 7/24/2008 @ 6:10 pm
Levi has good company with Peter and Oiram. Y’all know I enjoy playing Whack-A-Troll, but I will try to not poke the hornet’s nest too often.
Comment by JD — 7/24/2008 @ 6:27 pm
The Los Angeles Center for Food and Justice has been working with the LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District) for at least 10 years to provide nutritious foods and to promote education about nutrition. In addition, the US Agriculture Dept. awarded several large grants to the LA area to promote healthy and nutritious eating.
Finally, this cached version of a 2005 California study lists eight separate programs active in South Central LA that provide education and direct access to food to promote “healthy food choices, meal planning, food safety, the need for exercise, and other local low-cost food resources.” Apparently this hasn’t been enough. At some point, people are just going to eat what they want to eat.
Comment by DRJ — 7/24/2008 @ 6:31 pm
DRJ, I appreciate you feeling the need to be fair to each poster here. Seriously, I’m grateful for it. The thing is it’s not just a question of being fair to this douche, but being fair to everybody else. If you know a guy’s going to be an a–hole to everybody and you have the determination of whether or not to let him post, you’re essentially deciding whether or not to be an a–hole to everybody. If Levi doesn’t like it…screw him, he doesn’t contribute anything. He can learn not to be a douchebag but I think this goes to the core of the guy’s character. (yeah, I know, I’m getting close to the line myself.)
It’s your determination, not mine, and the time may come when I am more grateful towards leniency, but I don’t think it’s warranted here.
Now I feel like a jerk for wasting time on this guy…
Comment by Anon — 7/24/2008 @ 6:34 pm
You heartless neocons aren’t paying enough in taxes. I have no idea what welfare pays families to live on. My cousin is on SSI in Pa. and gets $10 a month in food stamps (a debit card now). She is able to afford new car payments. A friend here in S. Fla. on SSI gets $180 a month in food stamps and gets plenty of healthy fruits and veggies. I don’t know the reason for the differences.
Things have gone up due to inflation, but as a kid back in the sixties, I knew a family of three was getting $122 monthly in Pa. state welfare payments plus the occasional, often poor quality surplus foods (replete with rat feces in some items).
Just spoke with a friend in Houston who said most of the Katrina trash is now gone and Texas has tough laws. You can be fined for walking on street when a sidewalk is available.Oh, the horrors! Shades of Singapore. Surely it will be one happy day across America when Obamessiah takes office and poor homeless people no longer are starving on the streets. I’m serious, I get the argument from libtards that the Bush dynasty has destroyed fairness across the board.
Levi is one of the libtards with no sense of shame or morality. Who comes up with crap like the military is treated like a cum rag? What kind of cretin thinks like that? I know many people do harbor BDS. An exclude feature would be a great idea. Yahoo has it on their business boards. It was great when the Paultards were running amok viciously attacking Fox News and their parent company.
Comment by madmax333 — 7/24/2008 @ 6:44 pm
DRJ, I hope your motto on commenters is “No More Mister Nice Guy” (Ms. Nice Guy would work too). Not mainly for the combative, profanity-laced remarks that we won’t get to read. But pour encourager les autres. And to draw in the thougtful lurkers who turn away at the spectacle of a food fight.
A couple of weeks back, I ate lunch at a salad-centered fast-food restaruant, part of a franchise chain (maybe SaladWorks?) Not a cheeseburger to be seen on the menu. Does the City Council ban cover them, too?
As a compromise, perhaps every customer can be required to show ID at the cash register. For locals, only low-fat vinaigrette will be allowed.
And don’t even think about croutons.
Comment by AMac — 7/24/2008 @ 6:51 pm
Anon #47,
That’s a good point with which I sympathize but this is Patterico’s blog and he wants a range of opinions including liberal points of view. I’m not sure if this represents Patterico’s views but I think it does:
Commenters like Levi may be articulating beliefs that other liberals agree with but don’t want to say. So unless liberal commenters complain about Levi, I think Patterico wants his voice to be heard, subject to the basic restrictions on tone and content that are expected of everyone who comments here.
Comment by DRJ — 7/24/2008 @ 6:59 pm
Please have the annoying commenters who are Independents identify themselves as such, so I can complain effectively (, he said, effectively pinning a “KICK ME” sign on his own backside).
Comment by AMac — 7/24/2008 @ 7:09 pm
Heh. You will be our designated Independent, AMac, and hopefully it isn’t a party of one.
Comment by DRJ — 7/24/2008 @ 7:26 pm
Letting Levi back in is a mistake, one that you will have to correct in short order, however reluctantly. He has fallen-off of his learning curve.
As to the LACC:
It is not for nothing that Los Angeles is known as one of the most business-unfriendly cities in CA. When one looks at the personal peccadillo’s of the suits at City Hall, and how they try to pronounce a better life-style for the rest of us - there is a complete disconnect.
Arrogance doesn’t even begin to cover it!
Comment by Another Drew — 7/24/2008 @ 7:40 pm
Oh good, you can see this shit?
You’re acting like a baby. Don’t pretend like I ever had any choice or say in the ‘rules.’
You had the choice to accept or reject them. You chose to accept.
And I never said it was unfair. Cowardly, yes. How is it not? But unfair, I never said such a thing.
That is true. I have reviewed the comments in moderation. You tried to get around the ban by using different names, using a different e-mail address, and using a different computer. But you never said it was “unfair.”
Now you go ahead and keep making shit up about me without letting me respond, because that demonstrates how brave and enlightened you are. See you in 3 days.
Levi, I’m telling you the same thing I told Drumwaster.
The next comment of yours I see with profanity or an insult, that comment gets deleted, and you go into moderation. You won’t be banned, but I’ll get to your comments when I get to them.
And I will never again approve one from you with a curse word or a personal insult.
Comment by Patterico — 7/24/2008 @ 8:02 pm
AMac - Isn’t self-identification a bit useless? Kos truly believes that he is the new center. Baracky is sprinting away from his prior positions, re-branding the hopey changey express into the traditional fight for the undecideds and middle-of-the-road voters.
FWIW - You do come across as an independent. I am not.
Comment by JD — 7/24/2008 @ 8:04 pm
There are hardly any grocery stores in South LA. It should be interesting to see how this turns out…
Comment by TLove — 7/24/2008 @ 8:08 pm
just ban him and get it done with. he a less educated version of that frisch lady. he wants to get banned so he run off and brag how he spoke truth to power and republicans couldnt handle it and had to censor him. he has never honestly tried to discuss any topic. he’s an insult to the lib commenters who are able to string coherent thoughts together.
Comment by chas — 7/24/2008 @ 8:16 pm
TLove, that was addressed above, I believe.
Comment by SPQR — 7/24/2008 @ 8:16 pm
Tlove is kind of independent. And hot. That whole japanese schoolgirl/librarian/dominatrix thing rocks.
Comment by JD — 7/24/2008 @ 8:16 pm
My bad, I didn’t read every post above. Maybe I should be banned for not being thorough.
Comment by TLove — 7/24/2008 @ 8:19 pm
Don’t be silly, TLove, it is always easy to miss a comment.
Frankly, JD’s would have put me off for a week or two …
Comment by SPQR — 7/24/2008 @ 8:20 pm
Hehehe. I don’t mind being called hot. In fact, I appreciate it.
Comment by TLove — 7/24/2008 @ 8:21 pm
You think? ‘Arbitrary’ and ‘unfair’ are different words. They don’t mean the same thing. Now I’m not sure if this was yours or Patterico’s idea, but one of the little rules of our debate was that you would be able to ban me whenever you wanted for whatever reason you wanted, or, arbitrarily. And let’s be honest, at that point, did anyone think that this ban wasn’t going to happen? I knew it would. And it got invoked weeks on an entirely different topic after our little thread where I insulted no one had fizzled out.
I’ve been very mindful to not call any of Patterico’s silly little trials unfair. This is your guys’ half of the internet, and I’m not going to come into your house and whine about the way that you treat me. They’re ridiculous and absurd and basically meaningless, but they’re not unfair. I want to be here, and I know what I have to deal with because of that. So please, don’t go putting words in my mouth, particularly when I’m not around to set you straight.
Also, this part:
Was I really ever given a choice? I’ve objected a few times to Patterico, and his response has basically been ‘Take it or leave it.’ He makes no effort to hear me out. He just tells me what to say, or else. I had no options, no recourse, don’t pretend that I did.
Comment by Levi — 7/24/2008 @ 8:30 pm
That’s not how it was put. Let’s remember:
So I could either accept the rules I didn’t like, or I could lose by default. Wow, that’s some choice there. Given similar circumstances, what would you have done, Patterico?
Now like I said, I don’t want to whine about being treated unfairly by a bunch of Republicans on their home turf. But for you guys to pretend like you’re been nothing but fair to me? Come on….
Comment by Levi — 7/24/2008 @ 8:44 pm
So a big part of the problem may be the absence of grocery stores in parts of South Central. Hmmm.
* Ban new dry cleaners? [no]
* Ease zoning for plumbing supply distributors? [no]
* Ban new hair stylists? [no]
* Tax incentives for pawn shops? [no]
* Ban new pharmacies? [no]
* Targeted incentives for bank branch offices? [no]
* Ban new fast-food restaurants? [YES!]
If only there was some city, somewhere, that had devised a way to persuade a national supermarket chain to locate in an otherwise-marginal neighborhood.
Comment by AMac — 7/24/2008 @ 8:46 pm
“I’m not going to come into your house and whine about the way that you treat me. ”
Who else laughed so hard, when they read that phrase, that their soda flew out their nose?
Comment by SPQR — 7/24/2008 @ 8:51 pm
Oh, brother.
Comment #374:
Oh, brother.
SPQR #65 — Reminds me somehow of the kid’s not-guilty plea that runs, “And I didn’t steal any of the cookies you made, which were not very good.”
Goodnight, all. Play nice!
Comment by AMac — 7/24/2008 @ 8:56 pm
Let’s see. Being routinely vulgar and rude to the host. Insulting other “guests” in the host’s “home.” And then being surprised when the host puts restrictions on behavior?
Once again, this is something I see fairly often on campus: a person who wants to do whatever he or she likes, but who doesn’t want other people—like the host of the blog—to do the same.
My favorite part was this:
“Damned by faint praise” comes to mind.
The first sentence was particularly amusing. The last shows that whole undergraduate level of reasoning, again. The whole passive-aggressive business was unsurprising.
Truth to power!
But at least there wasn’t any profanity at all this time, though there were some mild insults directed toward Patterico and DRJ (truth to power!). Gotta push that envelope, I guess, or someone might doubt the guy’s intellectual righteousness.
Still, an improvement over previous posts.
And hopefully, there will be some decent thoughtful posts in the future from the fellow. That is what the ever optimistic DRJ would like to see, and so would I.
Comment by Eric Blair — 7/24/2008 @ 8:58 pm
Downtown is NOT South LA - that Ralphs is surrounded by huge high rise buildings, the Staples Center, and hundreds of brand new luxury condo units.
Comment by TLove — 7/24/2008 @ 8:59 pm
Levi, the whole debate thing was to get you to debate civilly.
So I could either accept the rules I didn’t like, or I could lose by default. Wow, that’s some choice there. Given similar circumstances, what would you have done, Patterico?
So instead, you wanted to take part in the “experiment” because you felt some uncontrolled urge to participate? Next time you are in a situation like this, think about it. I mean actually sit there, and ask yourself, “do I want to take part in this, or is this just a bad idea?”
There is nothing unfair about choice. You were given a fair shake, infact, I’d say more than fair shake, considering you got back in a week, despite attempts to come back on in various ways, at least according to Patterico. I honestly think Pat has been very patient with you.
Comment by G — 7/24/2008 @ 10:38 pm
The simple answer to the fast food ban is for McDonalds to leak a document that they are redlining South LA. Oh the furor! The discrimination!
Maybe madates the must provide new and better access to their restaurants.
Comment by Corky Boyd — 7/24/2008 @ 10:49 pm
Banning is essential to the maintenance of the right-wing blogosphere. It would not and could not be the same without it.
Wherever liberals are allowed to debate freely, they trash conservatives soundly. Every time, every place.
This what creates such huge audiences for talkradio’s one-side, unopposed bloviating and for blog sites that ban all dissent, the second it begins to get the upper hand.
This is also the great beauty of the patterico.com and sites like it. They have created an inert echo chamber where ideas only fold in on themselves.
Take a look at the moaning around here. It goes nowhere.
Comment by McLovin — 7/24/2008 @ 10:55 pm
Because left-wing sites never ban, is that it?
(God, the hypocrisy is dense with this one…)
Comment by Drumwaster — 7/24/2008 @ 11:01 pm
The first thing anybody had to say to me when I first posted here was an insult. I don’t swear in new places on the internet until I see that it’s common practice, which it is around here.
And no, I’m not surprised about the ‘restrictions’ at all. Did you miss the part where I said I knew this was coming?
Oh do please explain this. I have no idea what you could possibly be talking about.
Is what you post what you’d consider thoughtful? Rehashing the same line over and over again? I get it, you work at a college. Do you have anything else in your quiver?
Comment by Levi — 7/24/2008 @ 11:01 pm
The first thing anybody had to say to me when I first posted here was an insult. I don’t swear in new places on the internet until I see that it’s common practice, which it is around here.
Trying to justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior? Whats that called again?
Comment by G — 7/24/2008 @ 11:06 pm
You don’t have to tell me about what it was about. I know better than you. Were you there from the beginning?
I just wanted to. An ‘uncontrolled urge?’ Again, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
A situation like…. arguing with a stranger on the internet? How could that ever be a bad idea?
My options were to play by the rules I didn’t like or admit I was a loser. That’s not a very good choice if you ask me.
Comment by Levi — 7/24/2008 @ 11:15 pm
It’s just the usual nonsense, G. The guy has a big chip on his shoulder about something and feels all manly when he fights and curses and calls people names. Truth to power!
When called on it, he starts splitting hairs and blaming other people. Truth to power, again, and no ownership of his own actions or behavior. Heck, he agreed to rules and then complains about it.
He is just here to fight. That’s it.
Otherwise, he would actually post something other than bluster.
Heck, I tried to get him to discuss something other than his own awesomeness, and how everyone else was (his favorite term at the time) “retarded.” I thought it might be interesting to learn what the fellow was about without all the faux-macho posturing. No dice. Just more tough guy stuff.
Whatever.
Comment by Eric Blair — 7/24/2008 @ 11:17 pm
It’s not that big a deal. You would honestly categorize ‘Swearing on the Internet’ under ‘Bad Behavior?’
Comment by Levi — 7/24/2008 @ 11:17 pm
Who is calling me on anything? You’re fighting against caricatures in your head.
No, I complained about the rules, then I agreed to them.
What’s the problem with that, exactly?
What did you try to discuss with me?
Comment by Levi — 7/24/2008 @ 11:19 pm
Hey, here is a thought, Levi: instead of fighting with people about your awesome awesomeness, why don’t you politely (!) ask Patterico and/or DRJ if you could post an actual entry here on something that doesn’t involve bashing people with whom you disagree?
You write a post, explain how you feel, maybe even link to some different websites to support your ideas. Then see if people could discuss it in a civil manner on both sides. You seem to think that everyone has it in for you, and when pressed, resort to the “they started it” approach.
How about a fresh start?
I have no idea if Patterico and DRJ would be interested (your comments toward them…ah…have not been conducive to them trusting your judgment). But if they were interested, then you could prove that you have a sharp mind and genuine analytical skills, rather than just a collection of reactive bile.
And maybe everyone could learn something. Otherwise, the same ho-hum.
Comment by Eric Blair — 7/24/2008 @ 11:24 pm
Oh, that was funny:
You did agree. If you didn’t like the set up, why did you do so? Unless you just want to fight.
Chip, meet shoulder.
Comment by Eric Blair — 7/24/2008 @ 11:27 pm
When it’s your website, you can come up with all the little challenges for the liberals to prove themselves that you want. Until then…
What did you try to discuss with me? I did get banned for no reason, I might have missed something after all. We can pick that up if you can drop the college stuff for a few minutes?
Comment by Levi — 7/24/2008 @ 11:31 pm
Again, the choice was play by the rules that I didn’t like, or admit I was a failure that ‘couldn’t debate civilly.’ What would you pick? You wouldn’t give it a try? Does that make me more resilient than you? You’d just roll over if you were in my position?
Comment by Levi — 7/24/2008 @ 11:35 pm
The hispanics from the old country are used to the long hike to the market… and quickly caught on to the one way shopping cart.
One welfare state generation later, the kids weigh 300 lbs, use food stamps and want the store to come to them
Comment by SteveG — 7/24/2008 @ 11:40 pm
“My options were to play by the rules I didn’t like or admit I was a loser. That’s not a very good choice if you ask me.”
So, flat out of no-where you just got randomly chosen to take part in this? There was no pre-discussion, or pre-thought on your part before the need to “agree to set rules”
As to “bad behavior” its a childish thing, I’m not calling cursing “bad behavior” I’m talking about your reasoning.
Comment by G — 7/24/2008 @ 11:46 pm
Patterico likes experiments, if not wagers, so how about this one:
Draw up a list of the five biggest right-wing blogs and the five biggest left-wing blogs.
Have a liberal try to get banned at the right-wing blogs and a conservative try to get banned at the left-wing blogs.
No obscenity, personal insults or bigotry.
Any takers?
Comment by McLovin — 7/24/2008 @ 11:52 pm
No, and again, I don’t think you know the extent of this. The ‘Official Debate’ thread was hardly the first part of this whole thing, do you realize this? There was an entirely separate thread which I can only assume you must have missed?
I’m just explaining myself. Eric Blair seems obsessed with my vulgarity and my rudeness, when vulgarity and rudeness is fairly prevalent around here, if my experience is any indication. What’s wrong with that reasoning, exactly?
Comment by Levi — 7/24/2008 @ 11:52 pm
That’s a good one.
I am only here because I was banned or furiously scrubbed from the others. Hell, it’s not even possible to register for most of them, as far as I can tell.
Comment by Levi — 7/24/2008 @ 11:53 pm
“What’s wrong with that reasoning, exactly?”
Are we civilized people? So, since allegedly the bar is set at cursing or rudeness, that paves the way for others to do or say as they please? I for one, look to example of the site owner ect… He’s explained his reasons in the past for moderation/not moderation ect.. I’m not here to try and swap insults with you. As for Eric Blair, he’s his own person, while I may see his points and perhaps agree to things he says, I don’t see it as the best way to engage you in a realistic conversation. To each his/her own. But I’m not going to do something because everybody else is doing it.
So you say you were cursed at or people insulted you when you came here. Then show them up. Show them you don’t need to result to insults, foul language, and knee jerk reactions. Don’t follow by example, lead your own path.
Not to say that I personally haven’t made insults, or cursed, in the past, or won’t in the future, if I ever do, its rare.
Comment by G — 7/25/2008 @ 12:01 am
Again, what’s the big deal?
I’m not following anybody. I swear a lot. In life and on the web. As a matter of etiquette, I will hold off on that until I make sure I’m in an environment where it’s allowed and tolerated.
Now, of course, I am not allowed to swear if I want to stay here, which I do. So I can stop. It’s no big deal.
Comment by Levi — 7/25/2008 @ 12:08 am
Wow. Levi writes:
Can’t wait to hear what the siteowners say about that one.
As for earlier posts, just as you have repeatedly urged people to look at things you have written in the past, I urge you to do likewise.
Frankly, I have some work to do right now. Have fun fighting.
Comment by Eric Blair — 7/25/2008 @ 12:24 am
Levi, I just think that I lack the ability to make you understand. Your reasoning is essentially “not everybody is called out on it” so that equals allowed and tolerated. Just cause you may see something on here that you think is “allowed” and “tolerated” doesn’t make it so, the blog isn’t moderated 24/7 and I doubt that Patterico or others always catch the things people say. You see, this is Patterico’s hobby, not his job. If everybody, and I mean everybody (other than the content contributors/admins) began swearing at each other trading insults ect… You’d soon see juts how “allowed” and “tolerated” it truely is.
Sure this is the internet, some guy’s blog. For me, I don’t see that as a reason to treat people differently than I would in real life. Sure I curse an extreme amount in real life, but that doesn’t need to follow me everywhere I go. I look at this as a discussion, debate, ect… Though I’ll add that it seems a lot of people want to deflect and change the subject, or just start up with the insults.
Comment by G — 7/25/2008 @ 12:29 am
What am I supposed to do with a statement like this? I mean could you possibly be any more vague?
Comment by Levi — 7/25/2008 @ 12:46 am
That’s not my reasoning at all. I look around, see that people are swearing, enjoy the fact that whoever is moderating the place is letting adults be adults, and have at her. There’s nothing else to read into it man.
Comment by Levi — 7/25/2008 @ 12:55 am
“This what creates such huge audiences for talkradio’s one-side, unopposed bloviating and for blog sites that ban all dissent, the second it begins to get the upper hand.”
- McLovin
That’s funny: I’m a liberal, and steve’s a liberal, and aphrael’s a liberal, and none of us are banned when we dissent. I’ve “gotten the upper hand” in plenty of arguments without being booted, because I’m not here to throw a hissy-fit: I’m here to talk, and to learn, and (in some cases) to teach.
Comment by Leviticus — 7/25/2008 @ 1:27 am
letting adults be adults
Levi, being adult is more than swearing and trash talking.
Comment by G — 7/25/2008 @ 1:33 am
This is priceless.
We need more Tlove
Racists
Comment by JD — 7/25/2008 @ 4:54 am
“I’ve “gotten the upper hand” in plenty of arguments without being booted.”
I sincerely would love to see and read that. Can you point out some examples, an example?
I can point to examples of people being banned for simply contradicting patterico’s view.
Comment by bunkerbuster — 7/25/2008 @ 5:28 am
Such a thing actually exists? God help us all.
DRJ, it’s awfully nice to see you back on the front page. Levi, not so much.
Comment by Pablo — 7/25/2008 @ 6:13 am
Most radio talkers love having the opposing viewpoint represented so that they can rip it to shreds. They like hearing from the opposition. I’ve listened to a fair amount of Air America and I can’t recall a single guest who opposed Teh Narrative except for Ralph Nader who got shouted down by Randi Rhodes on their very first day of broadcasting.
You didn’t get banned for besting anyone in an argument, Levi. You got banned for your behavior not for any sort of troothiness, and now you’re back. And yet you try and float that foolish canard. You haven’t learned a thing.
Comment by Pablo — 7/25/2008 @ 6:21 am
Levi is lucky I’m not running this site. He’d get a “Start your own blog because you are not posting your garbage here”. Maybe in a few decades if he grew up and could discuss reasonably, I’d let him back.
Comment by PCD — 7/25/2008 @ 6:34 am
So I could either accept the rules I didn’t like, or I could lose by default. Wow, that’s some choice there. Given similar circumstances, what would you have done, Patterico?
Now like I said, I don’t want to whine about being treated unfairly by a bunch of Republicans on their home turf. But for you guys to pretend like you’re been nothing but fair to me? Come on….
Not-So-Shorter Levi: “Now like I said, I don’t want to whine about being treated unfairly by a bunch of Republicans on their home turf. But I’m being treated unfairly by a bunch of Republicans on their home turf.”
At least we now know you’re claiming you were treated unfairly. Which you previously denied.
Dude, you could have taken your 10 bucks and declared victory. Instead, I set up some rules that would be easy for any civil commenter, but tough for you. Not impossible — but, for someone prone to insults, tough.
Yes, I permit some profanity and insults. And when, inevitably, you engage in profanity or insults, and go into moderation, your whine will be that you were just responding in kind to someone else.
But unless that person is using profanity or insults as part of most of their comments — as, for example, I have noticed about Drumwaster and you (usually with the insults more than the profanity) — they will be allowed the occasional lapse. Folks like you and Drumwaster, I’ve lost patience with. The final straw for you was when you cursed at DRJ and insulted her in this thread. You have earn yourself a special set of rules.
Oh, it won’t be long until you break them. And when you do, be advised that I have a day job and it takes me time to get around to approving comments.
Btw, given similar circumstances, I would have accepted the rules and provided 10 comments with links to substantive points. And I would not have gotten myself banned. Thus, no need for the waaaaaaaaahmbulance.
Comment by Patterico — 7/25/2008 @ 6:34 am
SoCal is so messed up under the Democrats. Jobs are so disappearing the my daughter asked to move back in with me.
Comment by PCD — 7/25/2008 @ 6:35 am
“Well, enough about me. Let’s move on: what do you think about me?”
In that spirit, Levi, I’ll copy-and-paste from Patterico’s #101:
You did accept the double-or-nothing dare instead of the PayPal’ed 10 bucks. No matter how fine the whine, that’s what it says on the bottle. The challenge was easy, but you weren’t up to it. Could Leviticus have done it? (yes) Could steve? (yes) Could aphrael? (yes)
C’mon–try harder. The site benefits from hearing dissenters with cogently-argued viewpoints.
What do you think about the L.A. City Council committee’s notion to ban new fast food restaurants in South Central to combat obesity? Will the residents appreciate the concern of their betters, or will they resent the special effort to limit their choices? Would the alternative of incentives to get a new Ralph’s or Safeway in S.C. (expedited permit approval, tax breaks, MDC loans) be a better approach? Or should gov’t just leave them alone? Why/why not?
Comment by AMac — 7/25/2008 @ 7:04 am
Whatever happened to the free market — letting people make their own choices?
Comment by Patterico — 7/25/2008 @ 7:21 am
104, Patterico, you ought to know the CA Democrat party’s philosophy is that they know better than anyone else how to run your life, redistribute wealth, and brainwash your children.
Comment by PCD — 7/25/2008 @ 7:31 am
To be honest, I knew that if you got banned, it would absolutely not be by DRJ’s hand. I knew this for an absolute fact.
To be even more honest, I actually thought you might be able to hold it together long enough for 10 posts. I actually thought that for bragging rights you would cowboy up.
For McLovin, I’d loike to point out that if you aren’t allowing obscenity or such, then it is unlikely that either the Republican or the Democrat would get banned…
Though I am tempted to take your challenge if you would allow the following addition to the rules:
The blog that first replies to the test comments with insults or profanity will cause that side to lose.
For example, if I post of DailyKos, and within 30 minutes get tolf to go fuck myself, you would lose.
How’s that sound to you?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 7/25/2008 @ 7:41 am
Apparently, I need to type slower…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 7/25/2008 @ 7:44 am
The bottom line is I’m a liberal at a conservative blog.
You changed the rules at every step. First all I had to do was state the conservative position, then all I had to do was post 10 comments without insults, then I had to do so in some unmoderated thread where others could insult me, or talk about oil prices, and I had to provide links, and you couldn’t even keep up on how you said you would update the thread. Would you have done your debate with the L.A. Times guy if it was run through the comments system at their website?
When did I insult DRJ? When did I curse at her? You told me no more F-bombs, so I haven’t. You told me no insults to DRJ, and I haven’t. Are you considering ‘I crushed DRJ’ to be an insult?
Okay, so I ‘got myself banned.’ How did I do that? According to your rules, I could be banned for either insulting DRJ, which I never did, or just because either of you felt like it. Are you actually pretending like I earned it because of something I said or did?
Comment by Levi — 7/25/2008 @ 7:58 am
Right. If I were to go on SadlyNo, for example (which I won’t), I could be as civil as you like and I’d still get mostly insults and profanity.
For a while I had a rule: never go on lefty blogs. I’ve modified that. Now, if they’re all pushing a point of view that distorts the record as to a provable fact, I go on there and state the fact. I try not to let myself get goaded into insults or profanity or anger. I try not to act super-offended or above it either. Ideally I just stand my ground, not taking guff but staying polite, and defend my fact.
It’s something I learned from Scott Kaufman: you have to not be surprised that people want to give you shit when you go onto one of those sites. Treat it like hazing, recognize it’s going to happen (even though it’s unfair) and some people may end up respecting you.
Arguing opinions instead of facts seems to me pointless enough so as not to justify the hassle, but YMMV.
That’s why I try to make this place hospitable to respectful and intelligent lefties. I’d like them to have a place where they can argue opinions and not get piled on.
Comment by Patterico — 7/25/2008 @ 8:06 am
Which you did and won $10.00 for doing. Then you accepted a double or nothing challenge:
I struck through bits that don’t speak to what you had to do to win the second challenge. We can ignore them as easily as you could ignore what you’re complaining about in them. What is left is what you had to do to win, and you didn’t come anywhere near doing it.
Comment by Pablo — 7/25/2008 @ 8:08 am
Levi,
I did not change the rules after you accepted them.
People who address DRJ as you did in #8 usually get banned. I cut you some slack because you felt you had been treated unfairly, in being accused of having complained that you had been treated unfairly, when in fact you felt that way, but hadn’t said so.
Comment by Patterico — 7/25/2008 @ 8:11 am
I could do it. There’s no reason I couldn’t revisit the thread and still do it. All the other parts of the challenge I accomplished with ease, I did far better than DRJ did in the earlier stage, as everyone seems so eager to forget. But I just lost interest. It took weeks for it to even get started, the rules were changed yet again, Patterico wasn’t updating the main thread, and people in the thread were talking about other things. It didn’t seem like anyone was taking it seriously, least of all Patterico, so I walked away, for which there was no clearly defined punishment.
I can do that. I’ve been doing that here, for months. Most of it is ignored and the conversation invariably becomes about me, which was one of the reasons I was eager to accept Patterico’s challenge. It was supposed to be different. It was supposed to be a higher standard for argument. Then I show up and he tells me that the audience will be permitted to hurl insult after insult and I’m not allowed to respond. Again, that just goes to show how seriously Patterico took this whole thing. He wanted an early K.O. and he didn’t get it, so he just changed all the rules again, then banned me for no reason.
Sounds like a good idea to me. They have the power to affect change in the general public health of their community and they’re going for it. Nothing wrong with that.
Comment by Levi — 7/25/2008 @ 8:19 am
So you are unbothered by the idea that people’s free-will is being trampled on?
I work (semi)hard for my money, and I should be allowed to spend it on the food I wish to eat. If I am tired and don’t feel like cooking, I should have every right to buy a couple of double-cheese burgers from Micky-D’s instead of having to cook something (which likely wouldn’t be all healthy anyways).
And this really sets a dangerous prescident, Levi…
Name me three things you like to do.
Work with me on this one…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 7/25/2008 @ 8:33 am
But Patterico doesn’t have that same right?
Comment by Drumwaster — 7/25/2008 @ 8:33 am
cogently-argued viewpoints.
Comment by AMac — 7/25/2008 @ 8:35 am
My #115 was in response to Levi’s #112.
Comment by AMac — 7/25/2008 @ 8:36 am
Hey the government should go the whole nine yards and mandate calisthenics in the town square, force people to fill out calorie counting cards, and how about create and distribute properly balanced meals for everyone! It’s for the public health you know.
Comment by Jack Klompus — 7/25/2008 @ 8:36 am
Again, your first little challenge to me was that if I wanted to be taken seriously, if I wanted to prove in your eyes that I could debate civilly, I had to understand the conservative position. To prove that, all you said I had to do was state the conservative position and have a conservative commenter freely offer that they thought it was a fair statement. After I easily accomplished that, you told me we could double down to see if I could go ten comments without insults. Which I agreed to.
Then, weeks go by, and you finally got around to starting the thread, with an entirely different set of rules. I thought we’d already agreed upon the rules, so I objected, and you told me it’d be proof that I couldn’t debate civilly if I objected further.
Now, is that an accurate summary of how this played out?
But what got me banned in the first place?
And yes, if you want me to say it, sure, I’m not being treated fairly. But I’m not complaining about it either. I know what I’m getting myself into by coming here, you just made a post talking about how people respond to you at liberal blogs, so I know you understand what I mean.
Comment by Levi — 7/25/2008 @ 8:38 am
Simply blocking new construction is not going to force people to quit using the restaurants they have been using all along. And the jobs that those new establishments could have offered to the youths of the community will now go to other towns. As will their tax dollars.
Comment by Drumwaster — 7/25/2008 @ 8:40 am
Oh, no, of course not. That’s why you are bringing it up in every single comment you make. because you’re NOT complaining about it.
*rolleyes*
Comment by Drumwaster — 7/25/2008 @ 8:42 am
Levi, your 108 -Would you have done your debate with the L.A. Times guy if it was run through the comments system at their website?
Huh? You’re seriously trying to make this charge? How about, would you be willing to put forth the same focused time and effort that Patterico put into that? Furthermore, I think that’s a “position” thing. Patterico, being uniquely qualified in that discussion. It was what a series of three or four post spread out over three or four days.
Comment by G — 7/25/2008 @ 8:43 am
Mr. Frey, you surely know about what is said about the futility of wrestling with a pig? It wastes your time, gets you all muddy…and the pig likes it.
This guy just likes to argue, and doesn’t see that argument (like the Monty Python skit) is not equivalent to debate. It’s a weird power thing. I look at several of the Left of center posters (mentioned above in the thread), and they aren’t having this kind of problem.
On the other hand, maybe this character will start posting his positions differently than this business. Maybe.
Comment by Eric Blair — 7/25/2008 @ 8:45 am
119. Exactly why this is complete meaningless fluff. It’s public posturing to point the finger at a “culprit”. So big deal they’re not going to build any new Mickey-D’s or Popeye’s. Guess people will just have to continue using the same ones they’ve gone to all along. I’m sure this legislation will also usher in an astronomical rise in Bally’s Gym memberships.
Comment by Jack Klompus — 7/25/2008 @ 8:46 am
What do you want from me? This is a boring story as far as I’m concerned. I don’t know anything about it and I’m not particularly interested, so…. what? What would you have me do? Just talk about nothing?
Comment by Levi — 7/25/2008 @ 8:47 am
Ah…post when something interests you? Or go to the gym and take up boxing or ultimate fighting.
Comment by Eric Blair — 7/25/2008 @ 8:49 am
That thread was created as an afterthought, once the excercise was already underway. It was a convenience to the reader and was not part of the agreed upon challenge.
The thread in which the debate took place stayed amazingly on topic. Where in that thread do you see it going O/T?
Your opponent took it seriously, and there at least half a dozen rebuttals there that you have completely ignored. Everything and everyone else could be ignored during the debate. There was one person you were supposed to respond to, at least 10 times with relevant links. You failed. DRJ at #563:
and at #594
You fell on your face, Levi.
Comment by Pablo — 7/25/2008 @ 8:50 am
It’s one thing to be expected to be treated unfairly by a group of people, it’s another to watch those people be all self-congratulatory about how fairly they treat everyone. Now we’re getting back to my favorite topic, Republican illusions. So I’m gonna talk.
Comment by Levi — 7/25/2008 @ 8:53 am
10 comments, with substantive links and no insults. What rules changed? You simply couldn’t do it.
Comment by Pablo — 7/25/2008 @ 8:53 am
The pinnacle of baseless hubris.
Comment by JD — 7/25/2008 @ 9:00 am
The links part, for one. Allowing people to insult me in the thread for another.
‘Couldn’t?’ How do you figure I ‘couldn’t’ do it?
I just didn’t want to.
Comment by Levi — 7/25/2008 @ 9:02 am
From the thread:
See? Even DRJ seems to think the format was cumbersome and awkward.
Comment by Levi — 7/25/2008 @ 9:05 am
I tell you folks, this is performance art. Consider this:
Truthfully, I have heard the same level of argument from my six year old.
You accept the rules, you stick by them. Or you write: “I’ve changed my mind and I am not interested in the challenge. See you.”
Or you could hang around and argue with people, I suppose.
I gotta go to work, but that was excellent absurdist art.
Comment by Eric Blair — 7/25/2008 @ 9:08 am
In the comments section of the Pajamas piece DRJ linked to in the post, Baldilocks herself who lives directly in the community being discussed, comments with this,
“All that said, I have no problems getting my fresh fruit and vegetables.”
Availability isn’t the issue. Its the demands of the public. The LACC is making a decision to restrict businesses from providing what the public wants.
Apologies for another link but this is an interesting counterpart to this subject and apparently the writing is on the wall not only in the possible ban for new fast food businesses but also the mandatory posting of all calorie counts in all fast food places which will supposedly inspire consumers make better eating/purchasing decisions.
“This law requires that the calorie count of every food on the menu be written in the same font and format as the food and price, right on the menu or menu board”
“Why should we invent laws to practically shame people into their personal lifestyle choices? It should not be left up to the government to make rules preventing me from being buried in a piano case, if that’s how I choose to live. Unlike smoking in a bar, devouring a cheesesteak and fries won’t hurt anyone but myself.”
Some very basic freedoms are hanging the balance it would seem.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/big-fat-brother-is-watching-your-calorie-count/
Comment by Dana — 7/25/2008 @ 9:09 am
Levi, you have won this thread, by your rules. Which are, per Eric Blair, the Argument Sketch rules.
A: … Look, let’s get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn’t.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn’t.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn’t.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn’t.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn’t an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn’t. It’s just contradiction.
A: No it isn’t.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn’t.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn’t; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn’t.
M: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn’t!
A: Yes it is!…
Comment by AMac — 7/25/2008 @ 9:11 am
The links are a problem? Sourcing your arguments is a problem? Yeah, I guess it is for you. For DRJ, it seemed to be a piece of cake.
When was it ever stated that nonparticipants couldn’t insult you? Hint: it wasn’t, therefore it is not a change in the rules.
And yet you had already agreed to do it, and you were going to teach us all a thing or two, like when you crushed DRJ. (Ha!) You know why the Detroit Lions didn’t win the Super Bowl? They just didn’t want to.
You don’t have what it takes, Levi. And that has nothing to do with your being a lefty. As has been repeatedly noted, there are plenty of lefties here who can hold their own. You’re not one of them.
Comment by Pablo — 7/25/2008 @ 9:11 am
Frankly, what does Levi add, except as an example of what is wrong with the left? Why are his constant tantrums taken at all seriously?
Although, Levi is as simplistic as the LACC. I wonder if anyone AT ALL brought up her weight problem to Gloria Molena?
Comment by PCD — 7/25/2008 @ 9:16 am
#124 Yes, we know you excel in your impassioned attacks on the evil wiping his arse with the constitution Bush or denigrating the military.
People really don’t give a rat’s asp if you are bored. One supposes you revel in the attention and seek to shock for sake of your own self-aggrandizment. Must really suck to be you. Or Perhaps you hide this side of your persona around the normal people in your world? Then again perhaps a shrink or some sort of psychotropic drug would even out your mood swings, assuming you’re not always the angry howling moonbat suffering from BDS and hate amerikkka first pathology. Don’t worry you have oodles of company and if you get lonely consider relocating to Berkeley, Madison, Manhattan or my own Palm Beach county. They’re coming to take me away…..
Comment by madmax333 — 7/25/2008 @ 9:18 am
I’m amused that he has completely ignored my civil response to his #112…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 7/25/2008 @ 9:18 am
Okay. I guess the subject of this post changed. Apparently I’m slow on the uptake…
Levi, if you want people to take you seriously and to give serious consideration to your points, don’t offend them before they even have a chance to get through your posts. Its self-defeating and you lose your audience before you even get out of the gate. FWIW.
Comment by Dana — 7/25/2008 @ 9:20 am
It didn’t keep her from participating. And she only made that comment after you had disappeared from that thread for over two days, though you were commenting elsewhere on this site. Why were you ignoring her? Why didn’t you say you weren’t going to finish up the debate? Ah, because you actually reappeared after a 5 day absence and responded to DRJ. Over the course of 12 hours, you posted 3 rebuttals and then disappeared altogether. And you want to blame the lack of constancy on someone else? Once it started, DRJ was there. You bailed out, repeatedly, because you were getting your ass handed to you and you know it, as does everyone else who has followed this.
Comment by Pablo — 7/25/2008 @ 9:23 am
It’s a rule change, is it not?
And for what’s it worth, most of what I saw of DRJ’s sources were excerpts from commentary or opinion writers. She had some numbers in there about a potential Colin Powell Presidential run and maybe something else that I missed, but most of it was just somebody elses’ description of the controversy.
And the Rev. Wright issue is entirely one of opinion, by the way, which is why I think it’s unnecessary to require links to ’sources.’ You’re either offended by ‘20 years!’ or you’re not.
Just adding more rules doesn’t constitute a rule change, is that what you’re telling me?
So how would you have responded if I just didn’t accept, took the ten dollars and admitted I ‘couldn’t debate civilly?’ What would you have said about that?
Did you miss the Tim Russert thread? Go take a look at that, and see who ‘holds their own.’
Comment by Levi — 7/25/2008 @ 9:23 am
I don’t know where it went, but I definitely responded to that. Let me do it again.
Nobody’s ‘free-will is being trampled on.’ It’s a one-year ban. The city has that power. They’re not allowed to build liquor stores and strip clubs and casinos in my neighborhood, that doesn’t mean my ‘free-will is being trampled on.’
And nothing will be stopping you from being able to do that, even if you live in the place.
I like to go to liquor stores and strip clubs and casinos. ds
Comment by Levi — 7/25/2008 @ 9:36 am
Oh, Levi can hold his own. He does it every day while looking at pics of Michael Moore and Rosie O’Lard en coitus.
Comment by JD — 7/25/2008 @ 9:38 am
You guys argue a lot
Comment by TLove — 7/25/2008 @ 9:46 am
142. JD - you will be brought up on war crimes charges for concocting that image.
Comment by Jack Klompus — 7/25/2008 @ 9:47 am
That was a pretty vile image JD
Comment by TLove — 7/25/2008 @ 9:49 am
The same way I’m responding to watching you fail miserably.
Comment by Pablo — 7/25/2008 @ 9:52 am
Just did a quick recap on the “debate” thread
DRJ used 8 editorials (including news site blogs), 7 News articles, 6 specific sources in relation to what she was saying,
You used one liberal blog with a youtube link, and a youtube link to Montgomery Gentry.
Seriously. And now you have the nerve to complain about her sources?
And for what’s it worth, most of what I saw of DRJ’s sources were excerpts from commentary or opinion writers. She had some numbers in there about a potential Colin Powell Presidential run and maybe something else that I missed, but most of it was just somebody elses’ description of the controversy.
So, DRJ has some 20 various sources that she used.
You had two, one of which, I shouldn’t even give you credit for. Fucking sad.
Comment by G — 7/25/2008 @ 9:58 am
*pokes TLove*
Gonna have another late night at the office tonight?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 7/25/2008 @ 10:04 am
Hehehe. NO WAY! I got kickboxing at 6.
Comment by TLove — 7/25/2008 @ 10:06 am
#144 not to be too hard on the obese obama worshippers, but apparently coitus between the Moore and Rosie is possible, albeit difficult. No personal experience with that, but a fat jolly woman I know set me straight vis a vis her very fat S.O. and herself. Yes, I know Rosie prefers young ladies with looks to scruffy jackasses like Moore, but at least they share a BDS mindset and blame America for world’s ills. Sad thing is someone can bash capitalism and adore a Castro or Imadamnutjob all the while making millions from free enterprise. Btw, whatever happened to Levi heroine Cindy Sheehan whose son died in Iraq and who is running against Pelosi?
Drumwaster must have other callings today, but he mentioned Wexler’s absence of a personal home in Fla. So today the moonbat Ft. Lauderdale paper has a front page write up. More about the champion for cheney and bush impeachment, Robert Wexler’s residence, a video and view houses and tax bills at sun-sentinel.com/wexler
Comment by madmax333 — 7/25/2008 @ 10:31 am
My sincere apologies for that vile image
Much better to envision Tlove in a plaid skirt and thigh high stockings
Comment by JD — 7/25/2008 @ 10:36 am
Much better to envision Tlove in a plaid skirt and thigh high stockings
Rather not have that image in my head either… but for different reasons.
Comment by G — 7/25/2008 @ 10:46 am
This working again yet?
Comment by Levi — 7/25/2008 @ 10:48 am
#117…
You’ve obviously seen an advance copy of BHO’s Inaugral Address…
#136…
Though you’re correct about Ms. Molina’s weight, she’s not on the LACC, but is a County Supervisor (has MUCH more power, and much less accountability).
And, why is the problem child still among the adults, and not restricted to the kid-table?
Comment by Another Drew — 7/25/2008 @ 10:50 am
Levi said he was not surprise that he got banned, nor was I, though for differing reasons. He thought he would get banned for having differing views, and I knew he would get banned because he is incapable of simply being nice.
Comment by JD — 7/25/2008 @ 11:37 am
There you go again…
Racist!
Comment by Another Drew — 7/25/2008 @ 11:44 am
AD, I remember Molina being on the City Council back in the 90s. Although I’m surprised I’m not attacked by Ehrenstein for mocking a Homosexual.
Oh, is Zev still around? He’s another one who was no stranger to the feedbag.
Comment by PCD — 7/25/2008 @ 12:06 pm
Yes, and he’s a Supe now too.
A sterling example of someone (like the presumptive D nominee) who has never held a real job - directly from college (UCLA) to the public pad, without even the camoflage of O’s Chi-town make-work.
Comment by Another Drew — 7/25/2008 @ 12:52 pm
Obviously, neither Zev or Molina have fulfilled their complete Peter Principle level.
Comment by PCD — 7/25/2008 @ 1:01 pm
Well, as has been said, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King.
These two, in their current environement, are stellar performers.
Comment by Another Drew — 7/25/2008 @ 1:07 pm