Just a quick announcement: From now on, one of the Atlantic's crack interns will be going through the comment threads at the end of every business day, deleting any comments that run afoul of our comments section's terms of service, which state that "By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable." I've instructed him to err on the side of deletion if he's uncertain about whether a comment crosses the line; I apologize if this has a chilling effect on freewheeling argument, and I especially apologize for not having time time to police the comments (and participate in the discussion more often) myself. If you feel that your thoughts have been unjustly deleted, feel free to send me an email, but in general I hope that this will encourage a greater degree of civility. We'll see how it goes.
« Tony Snow, RIP | Main | The Case of the Hundred-Dollar Paperback »
Comments
16 Jul 2008 03:16 pm
TrackBack
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Comments:
» Blog Comments, Redux from Outside The Beltway | OTB
Alan Jacobs: “Nothing could better justify Ross’s decision to start moderating comments on his blog than the comments on the announcement itself.”
For those who don’t click links, Ross Douthat has announced that, “From now on... [Read More]
» Blog Comments, Redux from Outside The Beltway | OTB
Alan Jacobs: “Nothing could better justify Ross’s decision to start moderating comments on his blog than the comments on the announcement itself.”
For those who don’t click links, Ross Douthat has announced that, “From now on... [Read More]
Comments (97)
"By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable."
Would that be the Supreme Court definition of "obscene"? I think it's pretty clear comments will be arbitrarily deleted per whatever subjective ("otherwise objectionable") criteria some person happens to be using that day.
As I have already experienced on the (now infamous I guess) Sailer thread.
Way to go.
Someone kept abusing teh word Semprini, didn't they?
(long awkward pause)
Monty Python skit. You had to be there, I guess.
"instructed him to err on the side of deletion"
Hmmm.
'defamatory'
Is that restricted to individuals, or when a whole race is defamed?
'otherwise objectionable'
So the deletions will be like the Judge on pornography i guess.
"one of the Atlantic's crack interns will be going through the comment threads at the end of every business day, deleting any comments"
That will stop someone, telling them in advance when and how frequently they will be deleted. If you're able to use ctrl+c/v, I'm guessing they can too.
Of course the Atlantic could actually get proper blog comment software with IDs so this wouldn't be an issue.
But it's good you dive in the second people impersonate racists, as oppose to actually be a racist who posts.
I really hope that this helps weed out all the Nazi-Klansman creeps around here that like to jump to the defence of the odious Steve Sailer whenever he's attacked.
Hector,
Do you really think that's likely, given Ross links and steals (defamatory/not defamatory?) from him?
He's far more likely to ban us for calling them racists.
Damn it, McCain!
I've got diet coke coming out my nose.
Thank you, Ross.
What's the procedure on using obscene words? I understand that presumably "fuck" is over the line, but what about 'f--'?
Also, if I'm not allowed to call Sailer a Nazi-Klansman, then the right-wing yahoos shouldn't be allowed to call me a Stalinist either.
Who else thinks this is code for "delete every post by Moe"?
By the way, I wonder what takes up so much of Ross's time that he can't screen comments. It certainly isn't posting often on his blog.
Aw, shit.
I hope this policy works.
If you want to improve the quality of the discourse here, why not hire Thomas R as a co-blogger?
Implicitly, Hector, you don't seem to object to vulgarity, name calling, or insults directed against people you disagree with. I wouldn't guess that you're a liberal.
This was a long time coming, and I'm sure if anything worthwhile is written, Ross might even reply. As of now, half the comments in the past week were calling Ross a racist, and the other half whining that Ross will have posts deleted for calling people racist.
Dilan, I would guess it would be more the former than the latter.
Freddie: "By the way, I wonder what takes up so much of Ross's time that he can't screen comments. It certainly isn't posting often on his blog."
usually i don't defend douthat, but if I were him, I wouldn't want to weed my way through the comment section either. that kind of soul-sucking drudgery is better left to the appropriate people, i.e. interns.
Freddie and raft: And, you know, he also writes for this august publication that actually hosts his blog.
Comments threads have usually run their course by the end of the day, anyway. I don't see this doing a whole lot.
bravo!
It would take chutzpah for a guest to whine that he can no longer freely soil his host's home. Fortunately, that quality is not in short supply among sectors of Mr. Douthat's commentariat.
The terms of service ("you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable") are simple enough. While abiding by them might inhibit preferred modes of expression, it won't discourage civil discourse. The intern's pruning of the infamous Sailer thread from ~170 to 105 comments has bowdlerized it to near-incoherence. On the other hand, that which remains is not a stain on The Atlantic's reputation.
Yay!
A welcome development, and long overdue.
Hrm -- like Hector, I wouldn't mind seeing some Sailer-defenders vanish.
But, er, while there are clearly things not to like about him, I still find Sailer a very interesting guy with interesting things to say, which is more than can be said of some bloggers, reporters, and entire newspapers. If being wrong (even in a morally not-kosher way) makes all of a writer's work tainted, we're going to need a much larger cleansing (and many of Hector's favorites are going away too).
Yes,
Well done AMac.
Your co-poster ben g came on defending Sailer under the pretence of free speech, and when he doesn't get anywhere, you demand censorship and banning of people who say nasty things.
What an honest and open exchange you are looking for.
Sounds great, although replacing comments with "comment deleted" instead of just straight up removing them maintains coherence in the thread.
Hrm -- like Hector, I wouldn't mind seeing some Sailer-defenders vanish.
But, er, while there are clearly things not to like about him, I still find Sailer a very interesting guy with interesting things to say, which is more than can be said of some bloggers, reporters, and entire newspapers. If being wrong (even in a morally not-kosher way) makes all of a writer's work tainted, we're going to need a much larger cleansing (and many of Hector's favorites are going away too).
I don't really expect Ross to edit his comments. I just think it's funny that he blogs when he so clearly doesn't like it.
If only he could censor 'contract obligation'.
"and I especially apologize for not having time time to police the comments (and participate in the discussion more often) myself."
The last time he acknowledged the comments properly I think was to ban Moe - when did Ross last 'participate'?
Ross,
i appreciate the change to the comments policy.
many issues were not addressed by the comments made to your blog thread on grand new party.
My progressive political views lead me to want to see the african american citizens of the us earn the highest possible wages and get the best possible wages for their children.
These goals are sabotaged by the massive influx of undocumented folks from south of the border.
I would bet that many of the sophisticated and upscale readers of the Atlantic pay their maid and the person that mows their lawn less because the influx of undocumented folks has pushed down wages in these occupations
the readers of the Atlantic that get offended by the "racism" of sailer are acting outraged, but their outrage is not doing a darn bit of good for african americans in america.
if they really wanted to help african americans they would come out against the amnesty.
By the way George Borjas, professor at harvard, is a latino and he has stated many times that his research leaves no doubt whatsoever that the influx of undocumented from south of the border hurts the african american population. But this authentic latino voice is conveniently ignored by your readership
With all due respect, i have to state that the majority of your readers are self satisfied, and smug. they like feeling superior to mr sailer all the while selling out the african americans of this country.
Shame on your readers.
Freddie: "I don't really expect Ross to edit his comments. I just think it's funny that he blogs when he so clearly doesn't like it.
well, maybe. there are different models of blogging. not everyone has to be Andrew Sullivan, and a few, high-quality meditations every other day isn't such a bad thing (though it's probably true that douthat's style would work best in a group blog).
Freddie wonders: "Who else thinks this is code for "delete every post by Moe"?"
Nah, not me. I can operate on elevated levels of invective, too.
The rush of huffing and puffing about Steve Sailer really reminded me of a post on "Stuff White People Like"
I think it really holds true - the people on this blog like to feel morally superior so they act "offended" by Sailer.
____________________
To be offended is usually a rather unpleasant experience, one that can expose a person to intolerance, cultural misunderstandings, and even evoke the scars of the past. This is such an unpleasant experience that many people develop a thick skin and try to only be offended in the most egregious and awful situations. In many circumstances, they can allow smaller offenses to slip by as fighting them is a waste of time and energy. But white people, blessed with both time and energy, are not these kind of people. In fact there are few things white people love more than being offended.
Naturally, white people do not get offended by statements directed at white people. In fact, they don’t even have a problem making offensive statements about other white people (ask a white person about “flyover states”). As a rule, white people strongly prefer to get offended on behalf of other people.
It is also valuable to know that white people spend a significant portion of their time preparing for the moment when they will be offended. They read magazines, books, and watch documentaries all in hopes that one day they will encounter a person who will say something offensive. When this happens, they can leap into action with quotes, statistics, and historical examples. Once they have finished lecturing another white person about how it’s wrong to use the term “black” instead of “African-American,” they can sit back and relax in the knowledge that they have made a difference.
White people also get excited at the opportunity to be offended at things that are sexist and/or homophobic. Both cases offering ample opportunities for lectures, complaints, graduate classes, lengthy discussions and workshops. All of which do an excellent job of raising awareness among white people who hope to change their status from “not racist” to “super not racist.”
Another thing worth noting is that the threshold for being offended is a very important tool for judging and ranking white people. Missing an opportunity to be outraged is like missing a reference to Derrida-it’s social death.
If you ever need to make a white person feel indebted to you, wait for them to mention a book, film, or television show that features a character who is the same race as you, then say “the representation of was offensive and if you can’t see that, well, you need to do some soul searching.” After they return from their hastily booked trip to land of your ancestors, they will be desperate to make it up to you. At this point, it is acceptable to ask them to help you paint your house.
James @ 6:03pm wrote:
Your co-poster ben g came on defending Sailer under the pretence of free speech, and when he doesn't get anywhere, you demand censorship and banning of people who say nasty things.
Four misstatements in one sentence. ben g is not my co-poster [sic], his remarks were cogent, adherence to terms of service isn't censorship, and I haven't requested that nasties be banned. (See this comment.)
By writing in a way that is not obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable, your error-filled but civilly phrased comment passed muster with The Intern. If obscenities etc. are a must, why not start your own blog? Imagine the thrill of instructing your own intern!
Steve Jones @ 6:41pm --
You make some excellent points, save the last sentence. Note that Atlantic readers hold a diverse set of opinions, not necessarily well-represented by the loudest of the commenters here.
raft,
I think you'll find you've just posted something insulting and defamatory. Don't worry, it'll be gone in 24 hours.
I would quote it, but then I'd get deleted also.
AMac writes: "The intern's pruning of the infamous Sailer thread from ~170 to 105 comments has bowdlerized it to near-incoherence. On the other hand, that which remains is not a stain on The Atlantic's reputation."
Though the link to Sailer's white supremacist website remains, along with numerous positive references to Sailer himself. If those don't add up to a stain on The Atlantic's reputation it's hard to imagine what would.
Perhaps Ross will start printing excerpts from "The Turner Diaries" here next.
By the way, when Ross refers to "crack interns," is he telling us the poor kids are working for crack? I thought that only happened at the National Review.
AMac,
he is a co-poster on the other blog you pimped. On that same blog he said he defended Sailer on the basis of free speech, and then you appeared demanding 'action'.
His arguments being cogent is a matter of debate, but the fact he cut and run is a little odd if he was winning the debate.
As for passing the censorship - if you look at the heavily cropped thread, I think all of my posts are still there. But nice try.
Ross has already said that the intern will err on the edge of deletion - meaning that it isn't certain every time, and so things will be censored. Whether there are terms and conditions are one thing, who defines the breach is another. But you know that.
Moe has been impersonated for months and no one cared much, not even Moe - the second a klansman gets mocked, it's the end of the world for you.
I've read the email you sent, you did request such a thing.
So four out of four incorrects. Well done.
What a shame that the terms don't include patronising, smug and mendacious.
It will be interesting to see if AMac and the other Sailerites continue to post here long after this little "revolution," or if they will go away and just resurface the next time His High Holy Whiteness is treated unkindly.
"my co-poster [sic]"
Amazing that you are so meticulous when it comes to my words, but so absent to even read the great Sailers who I quoted at length.
You don't fool anyone, and no amount of censorship will hide it.
James --
@ 7:03pm -- You have your interpretations, and I wouldn't try to change them. At 6:54pm, I put in a link to the comment of mine that you referenced. Other readers can click on it and form their own opinions, should they want to examine your charges.
@ 7:12pm -- As I noted in the Infamous Sailer Thread, a precondition for constructive debate is a commitment to engage in civil dialog. Since this is something that you don't agree to, I choose not to make the effort to discuss what interests you, on your terms. What are you thinking when you pepper your comments with four-letter words, ad hominems, and misrepresentations--that this is the way to attract high-caliber sparring partners?
MoeLarryAndJesus @ 6:56pm & 7:07pm --
I usually read Mr. Douthat when he writes for the paper version of the magazine. Thanks for caring. James has shown that he is able to make points cogently and civilly, when he wants to. Can you?
*
I see that the Red Guards' anti-rrracist brigade has returned to action, crafting lewd "AMac" comments at 7:26pm and 7:35pm. Hopefully the Crack Intern will scrub them. Meanwhile, I'm signing off.
AMac says: "MoeLarryAndJesus @ 6:56pm & 7:07pm --
I usually read Mr. Douthat when he writes for the paper version of the magazine. Thanks for caring. James has shown that he is able to make points cogently and civilly, when he wants to. Can you?"
I don't regard that as a cogent response to my posts. I also think we have very different ideas of what constitutes civility. I don't mind profanity much - almost all human beings use it and in some cases it is the most effective form of speech.
I get the feeling that you would be able to read posts supporting mass murder and torture and pronounce them "civil," while condemning anyone who responded to such posts by directing "bad" language at the mass-murder and torture-loving original poster. I think that's a ludicrous position. Tell me if I have misstated your position.
Sometimes identifying a rancid, worthless bastard as a rancid, worthless bastard is a public service.
well, maybe. there are different models of blogging. not everyone has to be Andrew Sullivan, and a few, high-quality meditations every other day isn't such a bad thing (though it's probably true that douthat's style would work best in a group blog).
I was just teasing. I agree that not everyone blogs alike, and shouldn't-- and nobody looks prolific compared to Sullivan and Yglesias.
Freddie writes: "I agree that not everyone blogs alike, and shouldn't-- and nobody looks prolific compared to Sullivan and Yglesias."
With Yglesias leaving it will be interesting to see if they bring in a new "voice," and if that voice will be another authoritarian statist like Ross, Ambinder, and McArdle. I hope not.
The way things have been going here would anyone be surprised if they gave it to Steve Sailer?
Good cite, Johannes.
The International Brotherhood of Journalism Interns will be filing a grievance shortly.
STRIKE! STRIKE! STRIKE!
AMac Let me respond to the following post by you-
______
Steve Jones @ 6:41pm --
You make some excellent points, save the last sentence. Note that Atlantic readers hold a diverse set of opinions, not necessarily well-represented by the loudest of the commenters here.
Posted by AMac | July 16, 2008 6:54 PM
___________
AMac, it is well known that Atlantic readers are strongly in favor of the amnesty. This is because Atlantic readers by and large do not compete with the 20 million illegals now in the usa. Atlantic readers benefit from the inexpensive cleaning services and lawnmowing services of these illegals. Atlantic readers willfully ignore the negative impact that the illegals have on african americans, especially young male african americans.
The point is, readers of the atlantic would rather APPEAR compassionate towards african americans by acting outraged at potentially racist comments. But they fight against the reform that would do the most good for the young african americans - that reform being the exit of the 20 million illegals
i think the reason atlantic readers are so much in favor of citizenship for the 20 million illegals instead of the exit of the 20 million is that the readers of the atlantic want to demonstrate their moral supriority to the "crackers" and "rednecks"
basically, white people are in a status competition with other white people. The white people who read the atlantic demonstrate their supriority to the less educated white people by advocating in favor of the 20 million illegals.
african americans are the pawns of status seeking white atlantic readers - so white atlantic readers sell african americans down the river and amnesty the illegals - all to serve the agenda of helping the white people that read the atlantic feel superior to the white people that are less educated.
Again, take some time to talk to the white people that read the atlantic - they take smug pride in being better than their less educated and less refined white people.
that is why i find the whites that read the atlantic as a group to be beneath contempt - they
claim to have the interests of african americans at heart but really all they care about is their own sense of moral superiority
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_blacks_and_immigration.html
Yes, I see it now:
White people are in conspiracy to enslave black people by not attacking brown people.
brilliant.
And of course, the corollary to this is that White people who DO attack brown people and want them out of their country, are of course doing it to help black people (who can't help themselves, it's genetic).
It's both inane and brilliant at the same time.
James writes: "And of course, the corollary to this is that White people who DO attack brown people and want them out of their country, are of course doing it to help black people (who can't help themselves, it's genetic).
It's both inane and brilliant at the same time."
It's "divide and conquer" as planned by lifelong bigots. If you succeed in demonizing one minority group it's a perpetual warning to all of the others. And of course if the bigots ever got their first demented fantasy fulfilled they'd start in on another group.
It's what they do.
Its about time, Ross D. Hallelujah.
To a lincoln:
The point is, readers of the atlantic would
rather APPEAR compassionate towards african
americans by acting outraged at potentially
racist comments. But they fight against the
reform that would do the most good for the young
african americans - that reform being the exit
of the 20 million illegals
I agree with your comments. There was a book by Thomas Sowell about this whole phenomena called "The Vision of the Anointed". It destroyed my last vestiges of liberalism, that, and working for the government.
But please do not take the liberals on this web site as reflective in any way shape or form as actual Atlantic subscribers. Harpers, maybe. Frankly, I'm mystified why The Atlantic is going for the well educated but stupid liberal demographic here.
To a lincoln:
The point is, readers of the atlantic would
rather APPEAR compassionate towards african
americans by acting outraged at potentially
racist comments. But they fight against the
reform that would do the most good for the young
african americans - that reform being the exit
of the 20 million illegals
I agree with your comments. There was a book by Thomas Sowell about this whole phenomena called "The Vision of the Anointed". It destroyed my last vestiges of liberalism, that, and working for the government.
But please do not take the liberals on this web site as reflective in any way shape or form as actual Atlantic subscribers. Harpers, maybe. Frankly, I'm mystified why The Atlantic is going for the well educated but stupid liberal demographic here.
At this point Ross should just acknowledge reality and give Sailer the naming rights for this blog. It's obvious who the organ grinder is in their relationship.
Oh, the monkey chased his tail
Around the flagpole...
TCD
you are dead on.
My gosh - George Borjas is a Latino and he has stated that the exit of the 20 million illegals would dramatically improve the wages and working conditions of african americans. better wages and working conditions are what matter to african americans - not the sanctimony of the whites that use african americans as pawns in their status competition.
i have to say that the readers of this blog just don't spend much time among the african americans that are searching for jobs. or much time reading - there are plenty of academic scholarly tomes that prove that the pro amnesty crowd has done more damage to the african americans of this country than the hicks and rednecks that are racist.
Racists are despicable, but the crowd on this blog that brought you the amnesty is much more despicable and dangerous to african americans
actually there are plenty of authentic minority heros that said that white people who encouraged illegal immigration were scumbags
These minority heroes include Fredrick Douglas and Cesar Chavez
Fredrick and Cesar were obviously not racists - but they saw the damage that the whites were doing to american citizens of color through immigration
pete says: "Fredrick and Cesar were obviously not racists - but they saw the damage that the whites were doing to american citizens of color through immigration"
Frederick Douglass (the actual spelling) was concerned about "illegal immigration"?
Holy Stupidity, Batman! We're supposed to be CIVIL in the face of such nonsense? Such AWESOME historical ignorance?
Douglass may well have been unhappy about the vast waves of immigration in his time. But were they "illegal"?
A quick survey reveals that Frederick Douglass viewed immigration as a basic human right, and he had sympathy for the Chinese and Irish immigrants who suffered discrimination upon arrival in the US. He was a great man with a fine moral sense, the very opposite of a racist.
Did he have misgivings about the negative effects immigration could have on the prospects for blacks? Yes he did. But this was because he knew the depth of the fear and hatred so many whites had for black Americans. And he knew that many employers would pit one group against another for economic gain. He was no fool.
He knew the Sailers of his time. And he knew who they served and what they stood for. It's no mystery.
Moe
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_02_27/article.html
You might want to hit the books a bit. Caesar Chavez did favor immigration restrictions and crackdowns on Mexican illegal aliens that threatened the wages of his workers. That belonged to his United Farm Workers Union
Based on supply and demand of course. The growers had to deal with Chavez if there were no imported scabs.
Hard to imagine why Ross would think of deleting any of these comments.
BTW Moe, you're much funnier and more effective when not using as much cursing and name calling. I still think you're a few things I can't write, but there it is.
Joy of Search, my hope is that you will one day experience Joy of Employment or Joy of Girlfriend/Boyfriend.
http://www.cis.org/articles/1996/paper10.html
"The former slave owners of the South want cheap labor; they want it from Germany and from Ireland; they want it from China and Japan; they want it from anywhere in the world, but from Africa. They want to be independent of their former slaves, and bring their noses to the grindstone."2
Thus did Frederick Douglass, just six years after the end of the Civil War, sum up the threat that mass immigration has posed to black Americans throughout much of our nation's history. Even before Emancipation, free blacks in the North had found their economic position challenged by immigrants. After the War, advocates for blacks initially feared that the defeated southerners would use immigrants to usurp blacks' role in the agrarian economy of the South. An Alabama man expressed the southern planters' thinking with regard to a scheme to import Chinese farmworkers:
dennis replies: "Moe
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_02_27/article.html
You might want to hit the books a bit. Caesar Chavez did favor immigration restrictions and crackdowns on Mexican illegal aliens that threatened the wages of his workers. That belonged to his United Farm Workers Union"
Dennis, you may want to check out some basic adult literacy programs because I didn't say a single word about Chavez.
I really am sick and tired of this sort of amazing sloppiness when people are responding to my posts. I write very clear and succinct English prose and there's just no excuse for this sort of inane response.
Ferrell says: "BTW Moe, you're much funnier and more effective when not using as much cursing and name calling. I still think you're a few things I can't write, but there it is."
That is, of course, a matter of opinion. And since you seem like the sort of 'consumer' who thinks Carrot Top is funnier than Bill Hicks, I can only say that your opinion about humor is of no interest to me.
Dennis posts: "Thus did Frederick Douglass, just six years after the end of the Civil War, sum up the threat that mass immigration has posed to black Americans throughout much of our nation's history. Even before Emancipation, free blacks in the North had found their economic position challenged by immigrants. After the War, advocates for blacks initially feared that the defeated southerners would use immigrants to usurp blacks' role in the agrarian economy of the South. An Alabama man expressed the southern planters' thinking with regard to a scheme to import Chinese farmworkers:"
I already covered that, dennis. So what? Douglass did NOT oppose immigration. He opposed the racists who used immigration as a weapon to drive wages down and oppress blacks. He regarded immigration as a basic right, as I said before.
I don't believe the Sailers of the world for a NANOSECOND when they pretend to have the interests of minorities in mind. That's not what they're about. They're people Douglass really despised and understood.
Moe,
the bottom line is that Frederick Douglass would have indeed looked at you with scorn and contempt.
you are responsible for the illegals from south of the border who displace the people that Fredrick looked to help out.
Moe, you claim to care about the african americans here but all your actions condemn them
douglass spoke eloquently against people like you - just google his speech "put down your bucket"
Caesar actually sent his brother to beat up illegals that were crossing the border - but he stated he would rather beat up the white enablers of the illegals (like you Moe)
just google it - this is not hidden
Booker T. Washington
was actually the black leader that demonstrably would have looked down the most at Moe -
Booker T made the "cash down your bucket" speech
clearly indicating addressing it at people like Moe who advocated for immigration that hurt the african americans:
To those of the white race who look to the incoming of those of foreign birth and strange tongue and habits for the prosperity of the South, were I permitted, I would repeat what I have said to my own race: “Cast down your bucket where you are.” Cast it down among the eight millions of Negroes whose habits you know, whose fidelity and love you have tested in days when to have proved treacherous meant the ruin of your fireside
Moe -
you may not be a racist but you sure advocate policies that hurt the african american community
Let's add one more african american to the list of ones that recognize the damage you do -
Barbara Jordan.
just google her - she gave many speeches saying how the illegals that you Moe bring in hurt african american employment
if this is too hard for you to understand, why don't you go speak to a few african american working class people and see what they think about your policies of bringing in millions of illegals
hear for yourself what they think of you moe
Wow - now I've been promoted to COYOTE! I'm bringing in illegals!
I'm really glad Ross's new Sailer-ordered censorship policies have elevated the level of intellectual discourse here.
This mini-flood of people with different names who can't manage to capitalize consistently while all spelling Cesar Chavez's 1st name "Caesar" is truly a credit to Ross and Steve Sailer and the American conservative intellectual tradition.
Excelsior!
Wow. Just read a few of the other comments. Is this new delete-the-comments policy about some kind of incipient Douthat-Sailer feud? Something about immigration? I feel so confused ...
Whites have a consistently worse view of Black-Hispanic relations than Blacks or Hispanics.
www.gallup.com/poll/108868/Whites-May-Exaggerate-BlackHispanic-Tensions.aspx
Traditionally whites also express greater concern about illegal immigration than blacks. The statement of "it does the most good for young blacks" at least hints at the idea that young blacks are/will only be competitive at low-skilled jobs.
Granted I considered the notion that illegal immigrants hurt blacks more than whites, although never that it's the worst economic thing they face, because on average they do have less education. However it's based mostly on a guess, which doesn't seem confirmed by reality. Do you at least have any evidence that blacks have lower unemployment in states with lowered rates of illegal immigration like Mississippi or West Virginia?
I don't favor illegal immigration, but it's for other reasons. Not because of some paternalistic preference for black hotel workers over Mexican ones.
Personally, I find it hard to get worked up about illegal immigration one way or the other. I will say this, though. Most of these illegal immigrants are coming from countries whose economic and political structures were warped at _our_ behest, for _our_ interest (and in the interest of the elites that collaborate with us.) We f---ed up their countries and now we have the gall to tell them not to come to ours. If we are serious about ending illegal immigration then we need to get serious about stopping meddling in Latin American politics.
It's also worth pointing out that the part of the country where most illegal immigrants from Mexico tend to go is one that we _illegally_ and _immorally_ STOLE from their country.
"I'm really glad Ross's new Sailer-ordered censorship policies have elevated the level of intellectual discourse here."
You seem to have left out "chuckles" or "Sailer's towel boy".
Any reason why?
Of course, we all know liberals don't really give a damn about blacks or Hispanics.
Their canned outrage at "racism" and "xenophobia" is simply a class marker, like wearing $5,000 watches or driving an expensive (always foreign) car. Most of them don't really benefit from illegal immigration, but fanatically support "Amnesty" anyway because it says:
"Hey, other whites, I'm so well off I don't have to compete against illegal aliens."
They clam be for the working class and poor - but ally themselves with the Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street.
Let's all take a step back.
What i see in the above thread is an individual making the following arguments
(1) the wages and working conditions and employment rates of african americans are today much lower because of illegal immigration than they would be if there were no illegal immigration
(2) academics have proven this
(3) prominent african american leaders like the late Barbara Jordan that have taken the time to study this agree that illegal immigrants push down black wages and employment
It would seem that all of the above statements are pretty easy to prove or disprove through careful research on the internet. I have taken the time to do so and find that the evidence is pretty clear.
Again, it seems like a certain group of people on this board respond to careful and calm well reasoned logic with cries of racism.
That doesn't seem fair - there seem to be plenty of people whose true concern in life is helping young african american males get jobs (instead of being frozen out of the employment market) and these folks are shouted down.
It seems like the many of the readers of the atlantic would rather pick a fight with white racists so they can feel superior to white racists. They don't want to confront the fact that there is a sharp economic conflict between the illegals and the african americans.
Racists are scum. But actually doing something that helps african americans get jobs is useful too - not just saying racists are scum (as indeed they are)
AMac,
I hadnt realised just what high standards the blog you pimped was:
"His shallowness shows in his redirecting HTTP referrers from MR to a filthy porn site showing mentally ill white women having sex with Negroes; he can’t win a debate with us and this is the best he can do. "
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/more_praise_for_razib_khan_of_gnxp/
Stay classy, and give ben another biscuit.
If you are going to impersonate someone, chuckles, perhaps you should bother to get the upper and lower case on the user name correct.
And given nearly all the screed from earlier did the same mistake, well done for showing your hand.
You still can't get the name right.
Very impressive.
Will be interesting to see if the 'crack intern' removes the impersonations of myself and Moe (and, presumably, Staash, but who can tell) as quickly as the more 'obvious' posts.
James,
I have my own reservations about this new moderation system.
What's the point of removing offensive comments at the end of the day? By then, the damage has already been done and the "conversation" (to put it charitably) will have already veered way, way off course. The only benefit to the Atlantic is that the offensive posts won't be returned in search results from this site (which I guess is a reasonable if unambitious goal).
What's really needed are user accounts and a moderator to approve comments before they are posted. I wouldn't wish that job on anyone, not even you or ML&J.
I'm not sure if I want this comment kept or moderated:
But I agree totally with your last comment Staash.
It's a ridiculous system, and is already being gamed.
many other web sites have this system where a post is not posted until a moderator approves it
problem is it is expensive it requires paying a moderator and most sites that discuss these issues just don't have the money
i would like to move this conversation to a more well run and well regulated site
by the way racists are among the worst scum but the pro immigration people on this site are worse since they are hypcrites engaged in competitive symbolic altruism
That's so arbitrary its amazing.
Ben g's posts and my responses are cut?
And some of the worst posts still stand, and you've deleted both messages from my impersonator and me.
This intern is so inept he'll probably get the new blog.
Ridiculous.
James,
If you were given this shit task, how much effort would you spend on it?
My guess is that Ross will eventually go Andrew's route and disable comments completely.
Fantastic. So now I can call the intern a complete intern and it won't be deleted?
Or say ferrell is an utter intern?
This is hilarious. Now the word 'intern' is judged obscene.
Two agreements in one day Staash. Its done something.
Of course if fairly mild scraps like ben and mine are to be deleted then any argument can be.
Which then means you either don't bother or just call them a naughty word since they'll probably read it before deletion.
And if anyone saves the page they can repost like last night.
Great system
Ps - the c word got deleted as did intern. The first one ok but the second...well, they shouldn't think so badly of themselves.
Test post:
At least I don't plaster the makeup on like a trollop, you cunt.
Posted by John McCain | July 16, 2008 3:55 PM
I really hope that this helps weed out all the Nazi-Klansman creeps around here that like to jump to the defence of the odious Steve Sailer whenever he's attacked.
Posted by James | July 16, 2008 3:57 PM
Damn it, McCain!
I've got diet coke coming out my nose.
Posted by JFPIV | July 16, 2008 4:00 PM
I wonder what the policy is when the material to be deleted is then quoted by another comment, as in
Test post:
At least I don't plaster the makeup on like a trollop, you cunt.
Posted by John McCain | July 16, 2008 3:55 PM
Posted by James | July 16, 2008 4:04 PM
Posted by Copy and Paste | July 16, 2008 6:19 PM
well, it's working very well so far.
'intern' gets banned twice, and yet somehow this slips by.
I can't see how this system will go wrong, especially since what will happen was announced in advance.
We can all thank MoeLarry&Jesus for directly causing this site to have to be moderated, with a tiny assist from the impersonator. The conservation between Ben G., Amac, James and others wasn't exactly civil, but it wasn't bad enough to result in this.
Why should anyone fear moderated comments? I wish Ross would simply delete any comment that includes the following:
Nazi
KKK
Racism
The "N" word & any other racial epitaph
The Seven words you can't say on TV
Xenophobe
anti-semite
Fascist
Traitor
Stalinist
It would actually make for a more civil discussion.
All the interns or just the ones who aren't partying in P-town with Sullivan?
Ooops!
a tiny assist from the impersonator.
No need to thank me (us?).
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Groucho,
tell us more, before the intern comes back from the bagel run.
Of course, one upside for Ross is that commentgate resulted in everyone forgetting the original point of the post:
Ross was caught Plagiarizing Sailer's work.
That used to be an issue once.
but no, far more important to stop people calling racists 'vermin' and the like.
Censor me not
For I am as a February gust
I cannot be subdued
I am free
I am unbound
I am ... Ross Douthat's Hair.
Would this be the same intern who will be replacing Ambinder when he is fired for being a hack?
This intern is becoming a truly integral part of The Atlantic's great empire.
Turn out the lights, the party's over.
Seriously, I hope this has the desired effect (of calming people down a little here) and not the undesired effect (of censoring unpopular views).
Posted by Dilan Esper | July 16, 2008 3:35 PM