Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Dear Paladiea: I got yer debate topic right here.


At the risk of being a bit repetitive, let's talk about censorship. Here's how it works around here.

Like most bloggers, I write stuff. And I like people to read that stuff. And I even like getting feedback on that stuff. And that's why I enable comments on this blog -- because I like to hear what other folks have to say. Sometimes, they agree with me, which makes me feel good and gives me warm fuzzies inside. And sometimes, they explain where I've gone wrong, and those people can just fuck off and die ... no, wait, that's just the cocaine talking. Where was I? Ah, right.

Not only do I have a comments section, but it is unmoderated. And, to top it all off, I even allow anonymous commenters. In short, come one, come all, pull up a chair and let's chat. However, I do have my limits.

As I have explained on a number of occasions, while I like a good intellectual tussle as well as the next man, there's a difference between an honest disagreement, and someone just wandering in here, shrieking incoherently and flinging feces at everyone in sight. At that point, I have a policy -- if you can't behave, there's the door and don't slam it on your way out.

This is not an original policy; many others do the same thing. Perhaps the best summation can be found here: "Comments are great; obnoxious comments get deleted. Deal." And that strikes me as perfectly reasonable. If you play nice, you can stay. If you act like an asshole, you can't. What's not to like about that? Sadly, though, others are not as graciously accommodating.

As I explained back here, "Proud to be Canadian"'s Joel Johannesen's position is that, if you don't agree with whatever oozes out of his intellectually syphilitic brain, you can hit the fucking road. Put simply, if Joel wants your opinion, he'll give it to you.

Then there's Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix™ and white supremacist Kate McMillan who, as my regular readers are well aware, for the longest time blocked me and/or people redirected from this blog from even reading her racist swill. We're not talking about blocking comments; we're talking about Kate living in such abject fear of my rapier-like wit and intellectual superiority that she refused to allow me to even see the crud she published. (And this is when I have never, ever, ever left even a single comment at that cesspool she calls a blog. Yes, that aroma you detect? That would be the fear wafting out of Delisle, Saskatchewan.)

And, finally, when it comes to censorship, well, you can't top Canada's best-known Catholic sociopath, Kathy Shaidle, who simply doesn't allow comments, period. Yes, we have some serious examples of the right-wing echo chamber here, don't we? One big wankery circle jerk, as it were.

But on the rare occasion when I turf someone who's just being an obnoxious dumbass, and contrast that with someone like Joel Johannesen, I get comments like this:

Anonymous said...

So you both practice censorship, whats your point?

A decent, openminded blogger like Olaf allows all comments to stand on their own merit.

But you wouldnt understand that premise, methinks.

Why, yes ... the obvious conclusion to be drawn here is that I censor comments, and Joel censors comments, so we're even.

There's your debate topic, Paladiea: Resolved -- that conservatives are moronic retards. No, seriously, there's your resolution. Sure, you might have to clean it up a bit to make it official but, hey, if you're up for it, I'm game. Really, I'll argue for the affirmative and, truth be told, I'm feeling pretty cocky since I have a bottomless supply of right-wing dumbfuckitude to work with.

So whaddya say? I'm psyched, I'm primed. You set it up and supply the scotch, and I'll be there faster than you can say "conservative assclowns."

Give it some thought. You know where to find me.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

"And, finally, when it comes to censorship, well, you can't top Canada's best-known Catholic sociopath, Kathy Shaidle, who simply doesn't allow comments, period. "

To censor is to delete content; surely a bright fellow like you knows that. With no comments allowed on her blog, Shaidle cannot possibly be censoring material that is not there. Only if she allowed comments and then altered or disposed of them, would she be guilty of that which you accuse her.

I know that it ruins a nice rant, but the truth can be painful at times.

CC said...

censorship: "counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy"

I realize that ruins a good comment, but the truth can be painful at times.

Ti-Guy said...

Censorship only has meaning when you are prevented, usually by a powerful entity such as the State or a corporation to express yourself when you have a legal/moral right to do so. I'm not sure how valid that is for commenters on a blog, especially when it comes to those who are commenting, not out of any desire to argue in good faith, but to simply derail the conversation.

Claiming that Shaidle's lack of comments is not censorship might be technically correct, but it's a little sophistic; it certainly indicates her unwillingness to accept a challenging argument and displays a certain amount of hypocrisy since she has been known to avail herself of the liberal commenting policies of other blogs (this very one, even) when she feels the need to....usually a "shriek 'n run."

Anyway, this topic is a Mulberry bush. The Righty blogs censor far more than progressive/liberal ones do. I'd have less of a problem with that if they didn't crow so often about their right to free expression. Sure...it's a right...reserved only for them, it seems.

Anonymous said...

It's her soapbox to do with as she pleases, just as you do here. Nobody has a right to comment on your blog: it is a privilege, which can be revoked. Shaidle has merely declined to offer anyone that privilege.

"counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy"

Leaving aside the assumption that your comments would contain valuable information, the implication here is that some party is expected to receive the information while it is excluded to the "enemy". This definition of censorship simply does not apply when all parties are excluded.

A more appropriate definition is : "2. deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances [syn: censoring] " ....from the same source you cite.

In my opinion, neither Shaidle nor you is practising censorship.

Paladiea said...

"Dear Paladiea: I got yer debate topic right here."

I can't help but imagining some crotch grabbing as that phrase is uttered...

CC, to argue that conservatives are all moronic retards violates the civility of debate right from the start. Which defeats the whole purpose.

Not only that, but you can't blatantly tar a whole group with the same brush. Not ALL conservatives are stupid. There are some intelligent ones. Just because they're fundamentally misguided about how the world should work doesn't make them less intelligent.

Anyhow, this is reaching the heights of ridiculousness. If you don't want to participate, I accept that. And you've removed me from your blogroll already, so really what's your beef?

Rev.Paperboy said...

rather than clog the thread, I've posted on this at the woodshed and galloping beaver

http://kevinswoodshed.blogspot.com/2007/07/shut-up-and-stop-trying-to-censor-me.html

Anonymous said...

Actually, I would say Joel is much more open and honest about his censorship policies.

He doesnt hide behind some screen of impartiality or fair subjective opinion, like you do. He is blatently partisan and makes it damn sure you understand that. It's people like you who 'pretend' to allow comments but ban people totally based upon your own subjective judgements who are a real problem, in my opinion. Paladeia falls into the same group, she picks and chooses who to ban without any clear guidelines either and also under a false pretense of actual open debate.

Thus, maybe your topic should be: Why is it so many bloggers are afraid of allowing truly open comments and the honest representation of multiple viewpoints on their blogs, like Olaf does?

Perhaps it has something to do with zealous little men/women hiding behind blogs they operate under a pseydonym because they lack true conviction (and understanding) in their belifs?

Then again, an opinion like that is likely to get a lonely old anonymous like me banned.... hahahah.