Censorship

As regular readers have no doubt noticed, I don't usually have time to participate in the discussions in the comments threads. I have even less time, unfortunately, to police them for profanity, ad hominems, etc. However, starting with the last post, I'm going to make a half-hearted attempt: I've done a little deleting and banning, and I'll attempt to respond semi-expeditiously to people who can't manage to write a post without deploying terms like "asshole" and "douchebag" and "Repiglican."

And yes, I'm mainly talking about one commenter here.

Comments

Is it still okay to make racist allusions to "welfare duchesses with big TVs," though?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 13, 2008 6:19 PM

I also think that Repiglican is a fair usage, as it's distinguishable from "Republican." Repiglicans support torture and want to nuke Iran. Republicans may not be my cup of tea, but they're not evil. Ann Coulter certainly deserves to be called a Repiglican, and I don't see why Republicans would want to share the same label with her.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 13, 2008 6:25 PM

Over the years, Ross has tried to police me. I resist these efforts unyieldingly.

Give up, Ross.

I am
Ross Douthat's Hair

Posted by Ross Douthat's Hair | February 13, 2008 6:36 PM

Oh Ross, have mercy-- Moe is just another angry Lefty looking for a place to vent. Don't worry, he's harmless-- and even this li'l old conservative Catholic gal gets a good chuckle out of his posts every now and then. I have to admit, when I first saw "Repiglican," I could not stop laughing-- and hey, if this is the price of 8 years of stable, conservative leadership, and two outstanding Supreme Court justices, we should all be willing to tolerate a little bitterness from the losing side.

Posted by MD | February 13, 2008 6:50 PM

I hope we're still allowed to post all sorts of nasty cracks about how blacks and Hispanics are lazy, un-American slobs who aren't grateful to their white superiors. But I'll bet we will be, because we vote for your heroes.

Saint Reagan forever!

Posted by TheRacistsWhoLoveRoss'sBlog | February 13, 2008 7:02 PM

that pic of the lion is hilarious.

Posted by hilarious | February 13, 2008 7:03 PM

Ross, just fyi, Moe is now trashing you on Matt Yglesias' blog:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/mccain_for_torture.php#comment-1333730

Yes: you are anti-American, Ross.

Posted by Derannimer | February 13, 2008 8:00 PM

There, I said it, Jehovah, Jehovah!

Posted by jehovah | February 13, 2008 8:03 PM

God Bless you Ross.

Mama always said: Ignore them and they’ll go away.

Yet: It’s not working....

Posted by Fitz | February 13, 2008 8:09 PM

Is Ross American? I always thought he was Canadian.

Posted by boondoggle | February 13, 2008 8:25 PM

I don't like censorship...and I don't think it will be effective in this format.

But I like constant tendentious vulgarity even less...and ignoring the comments obviously hasn't worked.

Posted by jhb | February 13, 2008 8:28 PM

Ross, I agree with Fitz. Mostly we ignore these foolish remarks, though they have become wearisome and detract from the excellence of this blogsite.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | February 13, 2008 8:33 PM

Ross,

You may have a point about 'a--h---' and perhapse 'd--bag'. But correct me if I'm wrong, but 'Repiglican' is neither obscene nor profane.

Really, if you let known racists post on your blog (not saying _you_ are one) that black people are less intelligent, then it seems silly to quibble about a bit of profanity. I think making aspersions about the intelligence of black people is a little worse than saying 'repiglican'.

Posted by Hector | February 13, 2008 8:47 PM

Is it still OK to tell Mitt Romney jokes?

Did you hear about Mitt Romney's new job? He'll work at Disney's Tower of Terror, scaring people with stories about what will happen if a Democrat is elected. And it's the real Mitt. Disney tried to build an animatronic one, but it was unrealistically lifelike.

Posted by Mike | February 13, 2008 9:01 PM

And if I can't use words like "douchebag", it's not fair for you to write posts about Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by Mike | February 13, 2008 9:04 PM

Good call.

Posted by Ben A | February 13, 2008 9:05 PM

Re: if you let known racists post on your blog (not saying _you_ are one) that black people are less intelligent, then it seems silly to quibble about a bit of profanity.

Hector, I think that’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. I do NOT believe Blacks are less intelligent than whites, and I am rather suspicious of people who chant that mantra. But that is still an empirical claim that can be debated much as we debate other contentious claims, such as evolution or supply side economics. If on the other hand there were posters using the n-word or other ethnic insults, that would be more similar to what Ross is objecting to.

Posted by JonF | February 13, 2008 9:09 PM

Are we allowed to talk about the future President Douchebag and his opponent, Senator Date Rape?

And really Ross, when you cite people who have dedicated their lives to trying to prove that blacks are genetically mentally inferior to whites, you really don't get to censor a commenter for saying poopie without looking like a retard. You're one of the better conservative bloggers out there, but your habit of approvingly linking to people whose sites have been listed as hate sites (such as VDare by the Southern Poverty Law Center) is disturbing.

Posted by Reality Man | February 13, 2008 9:10 PM

I've got to say, "repiglican" makes me chuckle every time I think about it.

Posted by Sefrankel | February 13, 2008 9:10 PM

Rather than using the R-word, I suggest trying "pork-guzzler" as the term of art for your typical GOP member. Terse, accurate, and wholly unblasphemous.

Posted by indubal | February 13, 2008 9:13 PM

What if we're talking about the actual process of douching? Can we use "douche bag" in that context?

Posted by Jason C. | February 13, 2008 9:13 PM

I hear that among certain Inuit tribes, "douthat" is an extremely vulgar equivalent for female genitals. Can we still talk about Ross?

Posted by akiko | February 13, 2008 9:16 PM

Is it permissible, rabbi, for me to ask the meaning of words like "repiglican" or "douche bag"? I am very afraid of blasphemously misusing them.

Posted by mazilderan | February 13, 2008 9:18 PM

Yeah, objecting to Repiglican part is absurd, esp when mainstream Republicans support torture as pro-American. That seems genuinely offensive to me. Repiglican is just juvenile and hurts feelings. Of course, maybe waterboarding, by causing emotional trauma, only hurts feelings in the long term and hasn't actually caused any organ damage.

That's snark, of course, but the point is made. Where is the moral compass?

(for a laugh, go to Balloon Juice for Erick Erickson's latest idiocy about why conservatives have less free time. RedState boggles the mind. Then there was the time his website went down and he blamed it on liberals! Oy vey...)

Posted by snark | February 13, 2008 9:20 PM

I foresee a mighty roar of rage from The Douthat. Alas, what fear and trembling come over me... Surely the slaughter shall be great, and the severed genitals of foes shall drape his chariot.

Posted by lordpercy | February 13, 2008 9:21 PM

*whispers* everyone knows that for Rep**licans t*rt*r* is only to*tu*r* is you use the word (which is now forbidden, and must be referred to as enh*nc*d inte*roga*ion). What a bunch of conniving d*u*h*ts, if you take my meaning.

Posted by torturer'sapprentice | February 13, 2008 9:25 PM

All of this proves that Ross Douthat is a closet liberal, because in the year 658, Marcus The Deceased (a wellknown liberal arts student in lower Calabria) discussed censorship in mildly approving terms. Admittedly, he was discussing removing genitals from the figures on Greek vases, but that only enhances the unseen, and powerful connection between liberalism, censorship, and an obsession with genitals.

Posted by jonahgoldberg | February 13, 2008 9:29 PM

"But that is still an empirical claim that can be debated much as we debate other contentious claims, such as evolution or supply side economics. If on the other hand there were posters using the n-word or other ethnic insults, that would be more similar to what Ross is objecting to.

Posted by JonF | February 13, 2008 9:09 PM"

If someone was arguing that Jews have horns or that they use the blood of Christian children to make their metzo but avoided using any mean words, this would obviously be a lot more offensive than someone using the term for a feminine hygiene product. I personally find it silly to link to avowed racists yet to get the vapors over some barely naughty words. It's not like the commenter who must not be named was going around calling everyone necrophiliac fucktards. I'm not sure a Kyle's Mom "Blame Canada" mentality would be a positive addition to this blog.

Posted by Reality Man | February 13, 2008 9:29 PM

"a Kyle's Mom "Blame Canada" mentality"

Er, care to clarify that?

Posted by basilbrush | February 13, 2008 9:31 PM

"a Kyle's Mom "Blame Canada" mentality"

Er, care to clarify that?

Posted by basilbrush | February 13, 2008 9:31 PM

To paraphrase from the South Park movie, killing and maiming are ok as long as no one says any dirty words. I meant it to mean that it is kind of silly to choose to ban someone for saying douchebag in their comments yet turn a blind eye, or even link to, people whose arguments are much more vile than mildly offensive word choice, such as people like Steve Sailer that believe that black people are genetically inferior to white people mentally.

Posted by Reality Man | February 13, 2008 9:43 PM

Goodnight sweet Moe, and may flights of angels speed thee to thy rest.

Posted by Justin K. | February 13, 2008 9:46 PM

I consider it an honor to be banned by a man who links to a white supremacist like Steve Sailer, and a man who was so incensed by the suggestion that Saint Reagan might suffer from a whiff of racism that he felt driven to deride a poor woman as a "welfare duchess." Ross Douthat grew up in prosperity and amid ample opportunity, but lacks a certain basic graciousness of nature. It's too bad, because he does have some strengths as a writer. He just doesn't mind using them to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted.

Goodbye, Repiglicans and human beings!

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 13, 2008 9:55 PM

As it's his blog hosted by Atlantic I imagine he can censor it to whatever degree the two parties agree is acceptable. Most every forum, newsgroup, etc I know of do so. That said they usually limit restrictions to swear-words and racial epithets. This sounds a bit more restrictive than that, but again his right.

Posted by Thomas R | February 13, 2008 10:38 PM

I fell out of my chair when I clicked the link for "Ross Douthat's Hair." I literally, really did.

Posted by Freddie | February 13, 2008 10:42 PM

I had no idea that Ross was not naturally blond.... The things one learns on blogs.

Posted by kritikos | February 13, 2008 10:50 PM

Freddie says: "I fell out of my chair when I clicked the link for "Ross Douthat's Hair.""

In the jungle,
Steve Sailer's jungle,
The censors sleep tonight.

The wienie way, the wienie way, the wienie way, the wienie way...

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 13, 2008 10:54 PM

I really don't see how suggesting that some races are inherently less intelligent than others is vile. It's not like this is a debate like global warming or evolution, where a small unscientific minority uses shifty rhetoric to win arguments. The idea of a link between race and intelligence has been backed by quite a few prominent geneticists, enough at least to merit the label scientific minority. A link between race and IQ is far from proven, but the data is ambiguous enough that it is rather silly to call someone a racist for linking to Steve Sailer.

Posted by Climkadiddler | February 13, 2008 10:59 PM

Climkadiddler - care to name those prominent geneticists?

Posted by kritikos | February 13, 2008 11:07 PM

adiddler writes: "A link between race and IQ is far from proven, but the data is ambiguous enough that it is rather silly to call someone a racist for linking to Steve Sailer."

Even Matt Drudge has enough sense not to link to a site considered a hate site by the Southern Poverty Law Center - but Ross goes beyond that by including all these affectionate asides to Sailer. He's also authored some highly questionable entries here himself. And there has been a surfeit of out-and-out racist crap posted here off and on over the year or so I've been paying attention, none of which ever gets axed. What does fall under Ross's censoring scalpel? My use of "Repiglican." Ooh, I'm an evildoer!

As for "asshole," Ross himself used it, and of course Dumbya Bush used it on tape at least once. It's used on network television, and it's been used against me here more than once. I never complained - I like the action. But some of the conservative posters here ran off and complained to Ross and he responded like a good party man usually does.

Maybe if he had a big TV he wouldn't waste his time on such silliness.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 13, 2008 11:12 PM

I was wrong to say geneticists. I should have simply said "scientists"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/159368021X/
This is a book written by Richard Lynn, a professor of psychology at the University of Dublin.

This is an excerpt from a book ("Narrow Roads of Gene Land, Volume 2: Evolution of Sex"), by William Hamilton, i.e. Darwin II. It doesn't explicitly favor the idea of a link between race and IQ but it certainly encourages debate.

"Might it be, then, that in a meme-dominated and societal analogue of the genomic evolution I have just described (which analogue we can take to be the pan-humanist culture of today) the seekers for a total truth about, say, racial intelligence, about male-female differences, about the harmlessness or even therapeutic outcomes of smoking, and so on, are like those genes inseparably linked into drive complexes and functioning (unknown to themselves) to 'defend' their complex in its basically divisive work - defend it against inhibition from outside influences? This would be similar to the worst accusations being made against those scientists who investigate the above socially sensitive matters, which are to the effect that the scientists are secretly on the side of some form or other of parasitic 'drive' in society and that their proclaimed concern about truth is a pretence: what they really want, the view says, is the triumph of fascism, of capitalism, the Mafia, or whatever. Following the same line might it be fair also to say that the champions of 'no difference' in race or sex, or intelligence (and, to go again to that more trivial level, of the idea that we will all get cancer if we allow smokers the smallest licence), are the guardians of a greater 'untruth' that allows people to live together in mutual harmony, implying that these critics really deserve to be praised as our protectors even when they are factually wrong? I think there is a valid analogy here and I think also it is roughly how the self-appointed guardians choose to present themselves - leaving aside, usually, the step of frankly admitting that they are promoting factual untruths when they know that they are."

This is the wikipedia article on William Shockley, the fellow who won the Nobel Prize in Physics for inventing the transistor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley

This is the wiki on Arthur Jensen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Jensen

And I'm sure you've heard of James Watson

I'm not really trying to make the point that race can determine IQ, I just think it's wrong to castigate people who bring the topic.

Posted by Climkadiddler | February 13, 2008 11:31 PM

I'm not really trying to make the point that race can determine IQ, I just think it's wrong to castigate people who bring the topic.

First, I think you're wrong to assert that a measured invocation of "race realism" is all that goes on here. You're suggesting that race is only couched in purely rationalistic terms when it's discussed here. I find that problematic.

Second, a common mistake is to believe that because there are those who endorse race science and don't have aggressive, offensive racial animus, that the movement as a whole is that way. But there are many who support race science who are also just plain old run of the mill anti-black racists.

Finally, my question for people who hold your position is always this: is in inoffensive because of how it's asserted, in a mannered way, invoking science (or pseudoscience); or is it inoffensive because it might be true? And if it's the latter, what other ideas that are generally regarded as abhorrent can we accept into polite discourse, if only they are presented in the right way? Could someone assert, say, that Jews are wicked schemers, and remain a member of polite conversation, if only they used similar rhetoric to the hereditarians?

(Note please that I'm a civil libertarian above all else, and would ban no thought-- none whatsoever-- from the discourse. But you and others are having a discussion about what ideas are morally conscionable, not which are permissible, and it's in that spirit that I'm speaking.)

Posted by Freddie | February 13, 2008 11:50 PM

I think the only major point that needs to be made here is this:

MoeLarryandJesus. You are not a funny person. Using stupid name-calling is not funny. None of your posts are funny, they are stupid and juvenile. I know you fancy yourself a regular blog-comment comedian, but no thinking person ever thinks what you say is funny. It is ALWAYS lame. This blog will increase its humor quotient simply by not having you not around. Addition by subtraction. You're like the Zach Randolph of blog comment humor.

Good night.

Posted by brian | February 14, 2008 12:15 AM

Censorship? You're just letting the trolls win by refusing to play their game.

Posted by Quietus | February 14, 2008 12:19 AM

brian whines: "You are not a funny person. Using stupid name-calling is not funny. None of your posts are funny, they are stupid and juvenile. I know you fancy yourself a regular blog-comment comedian, but no thinking person ever thinks what you say is funny. It is ALWAYS lame. This blog will increase its humor quotient simply by not having you not around."

I'll bet you have every last episode of "Reba" saved on Tivo, brian.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 14, 2008 12:33 AM

I'll bet you have every last episode of "Reba" saved on Tivo, brian.

You just made his point for him. That was beyond weak.

Posted by anon | February 14, 2008 1:45 AM

"Even Matt Drudge has enough sense not to link to a site considered a hate site by the Southern Poverty Law Center - but Ross goes beyond that by including all these affectionate asides to Sailer."

I do find that disturbing. Well I'm not sure about the SPLC part as at times they're overzealous in what they count as a hate group. In this case though they're not far wrong. In my experience Sailer is a relatively polite and educated man who happens to be a racial supremacist. I'm uncomfortable with anyone considering the opinions of racialists worthy of dispersal.

Still I don't think Douthat himself is racialist or at least I've no strong evidence either way. Also it's an election year and the other sites where I could talk about the election require registration.

Posted by Thomas R | February 14, 2008 3:01 AM

anon quotes and writes: "I'll bet you have every last episode of "Reba" saved on Tivo, brian.

You just made his point for him. That was beyond weak."

Was it as beyond weak as saying something is beyond weak?

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 14, 2008 3:12 AM

Thomas R says: "In my experience Sailer is a relatively polite and educated man who happens to be a racial supremacist. I'm uncomfortable with anyone considering the opinions of racialists worthy of dispersal.

Still I don't think Douthat himself is racialist or at least I've no strong evidence either way."

No, the evidence isn't strong, but if it gives a dukkk the opportunity to quakkk and seems to lookkk up to the dukkk, maybe it's a dukkkling. I certainly wouldn't associate with a dukkk. Who else links to Steve Sailer, anyway? It's sort of like walking around giving out free copies of "The Turner Diaries."

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 14, 2008 3:27 AM

"Who else links to Steve Sailer, anyway?"

A few people at National Review Online. That, Derbyshire, and some of their more histrionic articles is part of why I quit reading them.

Posted by Thomas R | February 14, 2008 3:46 AM

Hey TheBanned,

You seem to be chattering more often now that you're banned than you were when you were merely disdainfully tolerated. If you want to play the martyr, quit whingeing and shut up!

Or at least pray to your bilious hippie gods that Ross doesn't include tediousness in his criteria for deletion.

Posted by Fred S. | February 14, 2008 4:52 AM

Personally, I found some of MoeLarryandJesus's comments funny.

Posted by Reality Man | February 14, 2008 8:06 AM

I'm not for racist language, for douchebag and asshole (or better still, asshat) are perenially useful and apt terms in enlightened, civil discourse. I need only point out that some people really are total douchbags. Others are undeniably asshats.

Posted by Bill | February 14, 2008 8:15 AM

Taking about ML&Jisms while I don't care for Repiglican, Dumbya is very appropriate.

It is beyond silly to censor one guy.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | February 14, 2008 8:18 AM

quit whingeing and shut up!

People who think the word "whingeing" somehow comes across better than the term normal people use (whining) are douchebags.

Posted by Bill | February 14, 2008 8:26 AM

Nothing offends offensive people like telling them they're offensive. In a free society pockets of "censorship" make sense to me. Classrooms, movie theaters, my house. Ross can do what he wants here.
Many years ago, I was a high school teacher. A kid in my class used the N-word to taunt me. I threw him out of class. It was a public school, on the outskirts of Cincinnati. The principal met with the parents, who said that was the way they talked at home. The principal sided with the family, the kid was re-admitted.
My class became the kid's class.
I posted on redstate.com a fairly harmless jibe at Limbaugh supporters. I was tossed off, because the conductor on that train thought I had implied that Limbaugh's listeners were racists. I hadn't, but if the name on the masthead wants me gone, fine. By the way, is there anyplace online that is all about blogs and postings, decorum, etc.??
The blogosphere is a big place.

Posted by fougasseu | February 14, 2008 8:37 AM

MLJ, I don't think you were banned from posting. But comments such as the gem yesterday calling Mrs. Bush a douchebag are probably goners from here on out, and the blog won't be poorer for that.

Fwiw, I think you make some good points on occasion, but lay off the ugliness. It makes you look much worse than your intended targets.

beyond that, when did Morris Dees become the judge of who is and isn't racist?

Posted by chris | February 14, 2008 10:23 AM

I've never cared much for Moe's tone, but he does have a knack for taking commenters down a peg when they richly deserve it. He also tends to stay on topic, which is more than I can say for the people who show up in comments to criticize Moe for things he said on other websites.

It's your blog, Ross, and you get to make the rules. I would just encourage you to limit the censorship to objectionable posts and not to get into the whole business of banning people unless it's absolutely necessary.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 14, 2008 10:54 AM

FYI - Creating a reasonable tone for discussion is difficult. Persistent abusers should be banned, get the message & go away!

His name is Jim Keane and when he's not busy ruining any possibility of interesting discussion from taking place at Ross' site, he is getting banned from Wikipedia for trolling and vandalism.

However risible and entertaining, this fellow is, he does tend to ruin the possibility of interesting discussion on this site. One has to either ignore his basically vicious remarks or try to make light of them. Though Ross allows wide latitude of discussion on this site, he needs to can this rude character.

He has been banned from multiple sites. Justifiably banned & anyone with access to Google can find out for themselves.

"I can see at least four other admins who have looked this over or handled a request from you to be unblocked under this name. The block wasn't for your username it was for your deliberate and knowing trolling."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MoeLarryAndJesus

"Under his new name "TortureIsWrong" you were banned "for repeated trolling" as well as creating "multiple accounts, or sockpuppets, to abuse Wikipedia policies."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/TortureIsWrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppeteers&from=T

Posted by EnoughMoe | February 14, 2008 11:01 AM

chris tells me: "MLJ, I don't think you were banned from posting."

I sure have been, at least under that name. I type, I hit "Post," and I get a message telling me I've been banned from posting comments.

I've been kicked out of better places, and out of worse. In addition to Wikipedia, where I ran afoul of people who think saying TortureIsWrong is a bad idea and that ridiculous HuffingtonPost blogger Steve Swirsky is a conservative, I've been banned by FreeRepublic and TownHall and Tom DeLay's charmingly evil site.

So being banned by a bosom buddy of white supremacist Steve Sailer isn't exactly a big surprise.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 14, 2008 11:59 AM

I dont understand the need for censorship. So what if someone uses a dirty word or two? Doesnt that just undermine their argument and make them lose credibility with anyone who would read it???

It seem to me you're just strong arming and bullying someone who you don't like in order to silence them.

And that IS un-american.

I'm disappointed.

Posted by freaktown | February 14, 2008 12:27 PM

1. I often agree with MoeLarryAndJesus.

2. I can take a strident tone myself when confronted by what I see as the more intolerant and immoral elements of the right.

BUT:

3. There's no reason Moe can't tone it down. You can argue against people's positions WITHOUT using profanity or constant namecalling. In fact, this sort of thing detracts from arguments.

I think Moe ought to tone it down a little and Ross ought to let him post if he does.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 14, 2008 1:34 PM

"I'll bet you have every last episode of "Reba" saved on Tivo, brian."

ROFL!

Posted by brian | February 14, 2008 1:45 PM

Dilan Esper writes: "There's no reason Moe can't tone it down. You can argue against people's positions WITHOUT using profanity or constant namecalling. In fact, this sort of thing detracts from arguments."

I think my use of profanity is being overstated, and of course this is the Atlantic, where Matt Yglesias (amusingly so) refers casually to members of the media "jizzing in their pants" over John McCain.

Here's a fairly typical post of mine: "Please - pretty please - let the Repiglicans run on prolonging the Iraq war. Combine that with the sure-to-come hate campaign from Rush and Hannity and Coulter about how Obama's a Muslim who's too dusky for America and the GOP will have skewered itself for the next decade. I know they have that sort of stupidity in them, of course - this is the party that's still solidly behind Dumbya Bush, the 200 pound tumor in the White House."

I'm not sure what part of that needs to be "toned down," as I think it strikes a perfectly acceptable tone. The objection to the use of "Repiglicans" has been gone over over and over again, but it seems like a mild epithet for a party whose presumptive nominee has just voted to affirm the use of torture.

I also don't think it's "namecalling" to identify someone as a liar who is lying repeatedly - for example, by parroting nonsense about "precipitous withdrawal, or this comment of yours: "Fitz, "special rights" is a LIE. We are talking about gays having the same protections that OTHER MINORITIES WHO FACE DISCRIMINATION HAVE. Do blacks have "special rights"? Women? Pregnant women? Religious minorities? The disabled?

Some Republican spin doctor came up with "special rights", but it has nothing to do with what we are actually talking about.

Simply put, if you don't support EQUAL rights under law for gays and lesbians, including the right not to be discriminated against because of who they are, I don't really care about your convoluted explanations. You support using state power to make gays and lesbians miserable in the same ways that blacks used to be made miserable. And there's no word for that other than hate."

Sometimes there's just not much else you can do but point out that your opponent is a liar. Well done, by the way.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 14, 2008 2:28 PM

Moe, you may have been banned under your old name, but you're obviously having no problems posting under your new one. if only Chinese censorship were this slipshod.

Posted by chris | February 14, 2008 3:02 PM

Moe:

"This is a lie. Here's why I think that" is an argument.

"Repiglicans", much as I sometimes agree with the sentiment, is an epithet, not an argument.

Look, I sometimes cross the line too. But that doesn't mean Ross is wrong to draw one.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 14, 2008 3:06 PM

Trolls are always the same.

They try and bait everyone down into their regression to the mean.

Instead of a difference of opinion its a "lie". Instead of a different choice of words, its "spin".

Instead of analysis, its name calling and silly analogy.

They impute both motives & beliefs onto opponents they have no reason to even suspect.

It’s telling that they get banned & it’s telling that some champion them. Misery loves company.

Like children they come crawling back rather then grow up & find a place they are welcome.

Let the adults talk.

Posted by Fitz | February 14, 2008 4:08 PM

Bill,

'People who think the word "whingeing" somehow comes across better than the term normal people use (whining) are douchebags.'

Wow, that syntax is tortured. "Whingeing" is a term in common usage throughout the Commonwealth, which is not-coincidently where I live. In case you hadn't guessed, some non-Americans read this site... you tit.

Posted by Fred S. | February 14, 2008 4:23 PM

Trolls are always the same. They try and bait everyone down into their regression to the mean. Instead of a difference of opinion its a "lie". Instead of a different choice of words, its "spin".

I completely disagree. This kind of talk just lets people lie and spin and get away with it.

The fact is, our political discourse has a lot of BS argumentation in it. Arguments made by people who don't believe them, arguments made by people who would never make the argument in the opposite position, and arguments made by people who simply don't care about the truth.

For instance, there is a commenter on a prominent legal blog who obviously wants to defend the Bush Administration at all costs, and will just keep saying demonstrably untrue things about the Iraq War, the interrogation and surveillance policies, etc. He clearly knows that what he is saying is false. But his entire intention is to draw everyone into a "one side says this, the other side says that" argument where there is no absolute truth, only positions that are equally valid.

So calling people out on lies is actually very important. The key is you have to identify the evidence and make an argument. But if we don't call people out on lies, the liars win, because they get to make everything look like it is an unresolveable contest between equally plausible ideas. Their lies get a pass, and the truth looks like one more point of view.

The problem isn't calling people out for lying. The problem is simply implying that everyone in the Republican party is a "pig" without supporting the argument.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 14, 2008 4:34 PM

Fitz writes: "Instead of a difference of opinion its a "lie". Instead of a different choice of words, its "spin"."

When someone says over and over again that the two Democratic candidates favor immediate withdrawal from Iraq, withdrawal in 90 days, precipitous withdrawal, and so on, and so forth, despite being told over and over again that this is untrue, it isn't "a difference of opinion" or even "spin." It's a lie, and people who tell the same lie over and over again are liars. We'll be hearing those same lies over and over again until November, just as we heard so very many out and out lies from the Bush administration on each and every facet of the Iraq war since its inception.

Since Fitz has supported the Bush administration through each and every one of those lies, and since he continues to support them, and since he echoes their lies daily, I am forced to conclude that truth has no meaning to him. Party before country, party before honesty, party uber alles. I have seen nothing in any of Fitz's posts - and I have seen hundreds of them - that suggests anything else about his character.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 14, 2008 4:37 PM

Moe, will you lose your voice without profanity?

say it ain't so, Moe.

Hang in there. Although I notice it fired you up and you posted more now than ever before.

Posted by Shemp | February 14, 2008 6:56 PM

I stopped reading ML&J's comments long ago. Sure, once in a long while he actually attempted to make logical arguments, and once in an even longer while they were good arguments, but sorting through all his childish bile and epithets to find the needle in the haystack just isn't worth any amount of my time.

Posted by scottynx | February 14, 2008 7:00 PM

Interesting that Moe's justification for dumping a bucket of Tourette's on his political opponents parallels the justification given by the Rubber Hose Right for using torture: "But these are REALLY BAD people. They don't DESERVE any better. You [plant bombs to kill civilians/ deny gays spousal visitation rights], you deserve to be [waterboarded/ called a dumb racist]. You [baby-killers/ baby-killers] have made your bed,, now go lie in it." Strike out what doesn't apply, according to your side of the political fence.

Although I drew the straw to be Moby Dick to Moe's Ahab for couple of weeks there, I oppose Ross banning him, or even censoring his more intemperate outbursts.

On the other hand, censorship aside, Moe's take-no-prisoners style isn't particular effective at winning over people who initially disagree with him (unlike Dilan, who has basically the same views, and expresses them robustly, but doesn't make it a personal vendetta).

For example, after being repeatedly informed that my views on foreign policy are really motivated by secret desires to fellate Dick Cheney, to masturbate Dick Cheney, to be sodomised by Dick Cheney, etc etc etc whatever Dick Cheney, I'm probably not in the best mood to read Moe's postings about how the GOP is full of homophobes.

Posted by Rod Blaine | February 14, 2008 7:05 PM

Here we go again - the same old nonsense about how what's happening here are earnest efforts to "win over people" and a serious comparison by Rod Blaine between torture and being called a douchebag. Yeah, that one will fly with rational people.

I recall saying something about Rod being a "Bush-slurper," and if he wants to read homophobia into that I think it's a reach. "Lickspittle" is a fine old word hat I could have used instead with just as much justification. But yes, the GOP is most certainly loaded with homophobes, which is likely one of the reasons Rod loves it so.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 14, 2008 7:38 PM

Word to the wise, Moe - the exaggerated eye-rolling, the groaning sound effects, the frequent ejaculations (no pun intended) of "I can't seriously believe you think that! Are you stupid or just evil?" - they're all 100% all content-free. They don't actually prove anything. It's a fallacy callled "begging the question". You need to show people are wrong before shaking your head in disbelief that they can be so wrong.

I seem to recall more than one Moe mot suggesting that I secretly long for intercourse with Dick Cheney. Way to express your view of the ultimate degradation without being homphobic, Moe.

Now Moe's right that being waterboarded is much worse than being called a KKK racist idiot theocrat Bush slurper etc etc. But by the same token, setting off bombs among one's fellow citizens is worse than voting Republican. So Moe thinks people deserve to be insulted - and what's worse, monotously and only occasionally entertainingly insulted - for voting GOP. God for you. By the same token, a substantial proportion of your fellow citizens think Khalil Sheikh Muhammad deserves to be hooked up to electrodes for planning to kill civilians. [*]

[* Not, note, for killing civilians by accident in the course of hitting a military target. I realise you sneer at the intention/ accident distinction - which is why no doubt you think Teddy Kennedy should be jailed for life alongside Charles Manson, no? - but nonetheless the Repugs have managed to write this distinction into American law for the past 400 years.]

Yes, yes, you're just using words. So if an Oepration Rescue activist says "Abortion is murder!" or an Alabama televangelist says "Gays are an abomination!", you shrug that off? Sticks and stones? More to the point, if a radical imam preaches "Jihad against America, the Great Satan!", that's just words too?

And if you're not posting with at least some point of trying to persuade people to your point of view,, what use is it? Do you think hardened Arab-torturing war profiteers (or swinging Undecideds) are going to abandon their evil ways and vote Kucinich - not because you prick their conscience or demonstrate their errors - but because they can't tolerate some anonymous comboxer unloading on them?

Posted by Rod Blaine | February 14, 2008 8:20 PM

Rod Bush replies: "So if an Oepration Rescue activist says "Abortion is murder!" or an Alabama televangelist says "Gays are an abomination!", you shrug that off? Sticks and stones? More to the point, if a radical imam preaches "Jihad against America, the Great Satan!", that's just words too?"

Yes, Rod - those are just words. And I'll answer them with words. I realize you'd like to throw the rabid imam in jail and donate a stick of dynamite to the Operation Rescue scumbag, but yeah, mostly I shrug words off.

And you're quite wrong - I don't "need" to show someone is wrong before shaking my head at their stupidity. I'm not a neonate, and I've seen enough stupid people and moronic arguments in my life to recognize them very quickly. Let's not pretend that you behave any differently, either.

As for old Khalil, what you and your ilk will never - ever - understand is that I don't care what happens to him. It's not about him. It's about us, about who WE are as a people, and about what we should stand for. The Bushpigs have betrayed us on that score, and for that reason I feel much more anger at them than I do at some lunatic old terrorist whose life was effectively over the moment he was captured. Khalil Sheikh Muhammad attacked us, but what the Bushpigs did was worse. They betrayed us. I don't expect you to understand me. I don't have any reason to think you have that capability. I don't think you can be cured. Sociopaths can't be cured, and cowards don't seem to get over their condition either.

As for what you think I've said about you and Dick Cheney, that's between you and your id. I'm not responsible for your fantasies. I do think you'd be very happy sitting on his lap and telling him what you want for Christmas, though. Make of that what you will.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 14, 2008 8:41 PM

scottynx writes: "I stopped reading ML&J's comments long ago. "

A Google search reveals that this is the first time scottynx has posted on Ross's blog. Amazing and amusing.

Comments like scotty's should all start with "needless to say."

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 14, 2008 8:51 PM

BML&J: Don't ever change. Ever.

Posted by Henderstock | February 14, 2008 9:18 PM