Redstate

We can worry about what that says about them after the situation's resolved.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Jim Tomasik

Yeah, and Free Republic has already tagged it as a staged diversion. There's ugly everywhere.

...after reading your comment I went to DKos and this was what I found:

[Update] We currently know nothing about the man, why he did this, his background, his stated goals (if he even has any), or his motivations. Right now, it is irresponsible in the extreme to conclude who he is, why this is happening, what it means politically. Right now all we know is that there are two people being held hostage, they're probably terrified, and it's happened in a small campaign office of the Clinton campaign in rural New Hampshire. Just as it was offensively and stupidly premature for people to draw conclusions about who perpetrated the Oklahoma City bombing in the minutes and hours after it happened, it is irresponsible to conclude at this time what this means, who is behind it or anything else we cannot know until more information is available.

I almost never look at DKos, and I'm not going to bother visiting the other sites you mentioned, because I suspect that if there are any accusations about the political nature of the perpetrator, they are being made by irresponsible commenters -- similar to those farther down this thread who are calling the perpetrator a "plant" by the Clinton campaign to garner sympathy and boost her poll numbers.

Almost anything is possible, but some things are pretty unlikely. Trying to characterize the nature of the man involved in this crime when virtually nothing is known about him is both irresponsible and stupid...no matter who does it. The urge or need to vilify the "other" side based on stereotypes and biases is worth resisting.

anything about "responsible" persons at any of those sites. I challenge you to find more than 10 "responsible" at any of
those site on any given day. Today, the irresponsible commentors came out of the woodwork. For example:

From DKos...
"They've given up on being compassionate... (7+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
Kestrel, jbeach, murrayewv, concernednyer2005, SaneSoutherner, kimoconnor, Shem

AND conservative. Their true colors shining through... and it's not a pretty sight. How could anyone cheer on the potential loss of life?

I draw comics. You can read them here. Thanks! :)

by SnowCountry on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 01:04:39 PM PST"

DU
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Nov-30-07 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. The RW radio nuts are trying to incite the mass genocide of

Democrats a la Rwanda a few years back, IMHO. Yes, I said that. And I mean every word of it. They mean to kill us.

Google "Dominionism". Read some Ann Coulter, because she is the lead inciter.

and from Huffington Post we have this interesting thread.

expand collapse elkabong (See profile | I'm a fan of elkabong)
Republican Terrorists:

Eric Rudolph
David McMenemy
Michael Townley
Timothy McVeigh
Terry Nichols
Paul Hill
Chad Castagana
Mark Uhl
Reply | posted 02:24 pm on 11/30/2007
NEW expand collapse UncleKnuckleFunk (See profile | I'm a fan of UncleKnuckleFunk)
...Jeffrey Dahmer
...Richard Rodriguez
...Jesus Christ
...George W.Bush
Reply | Parent | posted 02:26 pm on 11/30/2007
NEW expand collapse jackejett (See profile | I'm a fan of jackejett)
If you want or need to have the fact reiterated that FOX is one right wing neocon news group....tune in now....

They are going out of their way to downplay this issue and to make certain that the person doing this is not a major player in the repuke party. They keep saying he is just a run of the mill political person.

They are so gross.

jackjett
Reply | posted 02:24 pm on 11/30/2007

Anonymous people behaving poorly, and you want to extend that to castigate an entire party? comments by a few people does not d**n the rest just because you want to try to demonize them.

---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

There was none of that. The comment did not indict the DNC, the Democrat Party or any other Democrat entity or official.

It did indict the nutters and pigs that run the sites mentioned and quoted. As well they should be indicted (I think it's bordering on a hate crime - and if anybody incites violence, it's the commenters on Kos, DU, and the like). If you posted something like that about Democrats here you'd probably be (rightfully) banned and repudiated.

Apparently, you've been living a sheltered life on the Internet. The bile that is spewed from both ends of the spectrum can be reprehensible and is noteworthy for its content rather than its origin.

I don't hold DKos* responsible for what some idiot commenters say, anymore than I hold Redstate responsible when some fool** immediately "suspects" that someone taking hostages at a Clinton campaign office is a "plant." Blind partisans keep trying to accuse the other side of being the sole or main or worst practitioner of something that is an inherent part of the Internet.

There are always going to be comments that offend (justifiably in many cases) and when the number or extremism of the comments reaches a certain level -- different for different individuals -- it's time to look elsewhere.

Redstate keeps a tighter rein on comments than many sites (but also gets far fewer comments than some), but my experience has been that the posting rules are unevenly applied. That said, truly outrageous commenters are usually warned promptly. However, I once wrote a message to the Redstate powers quoting a comment (by a regular commenter) that I considered a clear violation of the posting rules. I never received a response.

However, it isn't always the rogue commenter who says something offensive. Late one night I visited Redstate and was utterly disgusted by a post made by X (I won't use his name because after many months I can't accurately reproduce his words). The posting was brand new with zero comments. I commented on the inappropriateness of the opinion, but my comment never appeared -- and the posting itself disappeared. I don't know who removed it, but it seemed like someone (the author himself?) may have realized how outrageous the posting was and how poorly it reflected on this site.

Unfortunately, and this is true of Redstate as well as many other sites, the opposition is demonized as "the enemy," rather than as Americans with a different viewpoint.

* I also don't frequent DKos and I never read the comments.

** Everyone has foolish thoughts; the important thing is to know when to keep them to oneself.

As I said, you were wrong in thinking that anybody was castigating a whole Party.

And you seem perfectly content in equating the off-color plant comment here - which if you actually read it has an almost comic tone to it - with comments on other sites that call Jesus Christ and the President "Republican Terrorists."

If you don't like the content or the way the rules are enforced here, don't visit. But your statement only proves my point - RedState has rules, makes a serious effort to enforce them (I don't know that I agree with your issue with the "evenness" of the enforcement), and has in fact deleted posts that are out of line (not receiving a response from RedState is not inherently indicative that no action was taken).

If there are rules at DKos and DU, they are, from the comments I've seen, totally useless - I don't know exactly what they prohibit. And given that we have one "off-color" comment here (the plant one you refer to), is it really fair to compare this site to ones where better than half of the comments are written such that "off-color" would be generous and "over-the-line" would be more apt.

I don't see why your comment addresses my basic point that DKos and DU and their ilk are pretty much reprehensible. If someone decided to come by my house and camp on my lawn and start shouting obscenities at anybody who passed by, wouldn't it be fair to blame me for it if I just sit inside and don't even bother to ask him to get off my (private) property? The same is true of the sites in question. As we hear much here - blogs are not a public park, they are private property, owned by, and under the control of, the people who pay for their existence and maintenance. I don't have to condone someone letting their property become an overgrown cesspool.

I didn't say a word about anyone castigating an entire party. It's easy to get commenters confused with one another.

"And you seem perfectly content in equating the off-color plant comment here - which if you actually read it has an almost comic tone to it - with comments on other sites that call Jesus Christ and the President 'Republican Terrorists.' "

I wasn't equating the comment here (today) with any comments about Christ or the president. There are obviously levels of offensiveness. However, as I pointed out elsewhere, there have been plenty of comments here about loyal, well-meaning (if misguided) Americans being traitors and cowards. Those kinds of comments debase any responsible discussion of important issues.

Because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they hate America or want it to fail. That is simply a product of a limited mindset that exists in black and white, where truth is what "I" believe and everything else is treason or heresy.

"If you don't like the content or the way the rules are enforced here, don't visit.

Thanks, I'm a big boy, I can fend for myself. I can also recognize when a policy is not evenly applied, although I certainly don't consider that the greatest injustice ever.

"But your statement only proves my point - RedState has rules, makes a serious effort to enforce them..."

I thought your point was how horrible other sites are.

"(I don't know that I agree with your issue with the "evenness" of the enforcement), ..."

No surprise there. I would have bet anything that you wouldn't agree.

"...(not receiving a response from RedState is not inherently indicative that no action was taken)."

That is, in theory, true. Of course, I haven't really noticed any significant difference in the commenter's habits.

"I don't see why your comment addresses my basic point that DKos and DU and their ilk are pretty much reprehensible."

This began with a challenge (by JohninVA)to find 10 responsible commenters on any of "those" sites in a day. I did it within a single post, thus putting the lie to the challenger's contention. I'm no fan of DKos, but I'm less of a fan of gross generalizations with little or no basis in fact. (Note: I don't even know who "DU" refers to. I went to a number of the more popular left-sites and checked their blogrolls and didn't find any site with those initials.)

"If someone decided to come by my house and camp on my lawn and start shouting obscenities at anybody who passed by,..."

I don't think this is a comparable situation, but what if the person simply started shouting that certain Americans were traitors or cowards because they disagreed with the shouter?
For my part, obscenities don't really bother me, although I find their indiscriminate public use to be annoying and a sign of a poor vocabulary.

"wouldn't it be fair to blame me for it if I just sit inside and don't even bother to ask him to get off my (private) property?"

In such a case, your neighbors would be fully able to call the police and deal with the "public nuisance" themselves. The fact that the person was on your property wouldn't make you any more of a victim or any more responsible for effecting a resolution than anyone else within earshot who objected to the behavior. (For example, if your neighbors had small children and you lived alone, the neighbors would, in my opinion, have reason to be more concerned than you.) And, if someone doesn't like the language on a site, he or she can go elsewhere. It would be unreasonable to expect people to move out of their houses.

"The same is true of the sites in question."

I disagree. I have no objections to sites that prohibit obscene language. I don't need it to express myself, and I hope others can get by without it as well. But, as I said, I'm an adult, I've heard it all many times before, so I don't let it bother me. While I might regret someone's resort to obscenities, I'll still try to wade through the muck and address the ideas -- if it looks like there are any.

"I don't have to condone someone letting their property become an overgrown cesspool."

No, you don't. But you may do a grave injustice to many sincere people when you lump whole groups into a pile of "ilk." The original challenge was bogus. There are many responsible comments on most serious blogs. There are also many commenters, across the politican spectrum, whose contributions are offensive. Personally, I think calling someone a traitor is far more offensive than calling someone a [removed out of deference to Redstate's posting rules].

Wow, if only all of life's challenges were that easy. I read your challenge, went back to DKos, read the opening post by Miss Laura (responsible) and the associated comments. Out of the 39 comments that were posted at the time I read them, only a few were even mildly stupid or irresponsible (and they were analogous to Redstate comments I see all the time). When someone wrote something "irresponsible" (like equating mental illness and a political party), that posting was immediately followed by a disapproving response to that comment.

Interestingly, as an aside, I consider your challenge to be analogous to the "irresponsible" comments I saw at DKos. Simply put -- a gross and inaccurate generalization based on partisanship.

...the overwhelming evidence suggests he's an animal. There are no known cases of plants taking hostages (although some plants are carnivores -- see "Little Shop of Horrors").

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I was happiest as a heathen

This just goes to show how divisive a candidate Clinton is.

What an ignorant (trollish?) thing to write. Did you suppose Reagan was shot because he was too "divisive"?

In fact, the maker of this one may now go explain to the Directors why they should turn his account back on.

Don't vex me, people.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Jim Tomasik

It's a bucolic pretty, bucolic town with wealthy college and it's also got more than its share of fruit loops and wackos, if my expereience is any guide.

The hostage taking is taking place in Rochester, not Manchester. And exactly what wealthy college are you referring to in Manchester? UNH-M?

Both Manchester and Rochester are (or at least were a number of years ago) very blue collar, working class places. No real "money" in either place. As a matter of fact, the highlight of Manchester was that it seemed to be the southern migration point for French Canadians. Twenty years ago if you didn't speak French there were parts of Manchester that not really safe.

Wealthy college???? The closest one would be Harvard. Unless you're thinking of Dartmouth, in which case it's a ways to the north west, on the Vermont border in Hanover.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

At the beginning. I was told it was Manchester, where St. Anselm College is. St. Anselm is the most well-manicured college campus I've visited in the past 10 years, including Harvard. I spoke to one of the cops on duty there for the college and he told me: "Yeah, it's a beautiful place because the priests here have more money than God."

I forgot, it's been a while since I was in NH. Dartmouth is much nicer. But the cop was right.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

The abominable in pursuit of the unsavory.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

.

before we start hearing that Bush's draconian cuts to health care funding are behind this.

it will mean they're hard up for issues.

lesterblog.blogspot.com