GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Revisiting Terms of Community Conduct

by

Earlier this week, I got this email from one of our usual rabble-rousers.

Thanks for pulling quoting only the end sentence to my letter and still not providing me with the posting(s) which you claim violated your rules.

I suspect this has been done to other people who simply don’t agree with your point of view.   You do however allow your conservative supporters to attack people on a personal level on a regular basis with no action taken against them.   If you actually followed the rules you set down, posters  like [name deleted] and [name deleted] would be banned from posting.

My response:

Wrong.  You have no idea what I think or do.  And you shouldn’t be a baby and whine about what others do or don’t do.

Be a man and stick to the damn rules of conduct for yourself.  This is my blog and I’ll deal with people (and always have) appropriately regardless of their viewpoints.

I have NEVER censored a comment because of an opinion stated.

Stop worrying about what others are doing and tone down your own flaming and inciteful rhetoric.  You are a bully and if you want to continue commenting at GayPatriot, you need to stop it.

Otherwise, move along….  pretty simple.

Now, for the benefit of all…. here’s a reminder of the Terms of Community Conduct.  They apply to all commenters, regardless of party or ideological affiliation.  Worry about your own conduct, and we’ll be fine.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  1. I used to be a supervisor of about 15 adults (I was 25 at the time)…. supervising adults has to be one of the most annyoing jobs on earth. I’ve never seen people behave in such stupid , juvenille ways, trying to use me and the company as weapons against one another.

    “Its not fair, Jane took 61 minutes for lunch and it says right here lunch is one hour long”

    “Bob came in to work 3 minutes late.. why isn’t he being discplined”

    “If Marcy insults me one more time,i’m going to cause a scene” (it’s legitimate she came to me to resolve something instead of resolving itself though when the facts came out , she was the one who was the instigator)

    Etc.
    I never want to manage people again.

  2. Another point: This blog is Bruce’s private property, and he can he run it however he pleases. No one has any “right” to have his or her opinion posted here, just as no one has the “right” to have a letter to the editor published or the “right” to have their opinions underwritten by advertisers who find them objectionable.

    And anyone who doesn’t like Bruce’s Terms of Conduct, or the way he enforces them, can just go somewhere else.

    (I’m not the one who sent that email, just in case anybody was wondering…)

  3. vaara:
    Whether or not this blog is Bruce’s is not in debate, but the outside community / those who participate here may use their posting privileges, for as long as they last, to point out what they believe to be unfair or inconsistent enforcement of the stated rules. There is no reason for the first to somehow trump the second.

  4. Torrentprime, I agree with your points. In fact, it appeared to me that there was such inconsistent enforcement depending on the posters’ points of view. On one thread, there was, IMO, and egregious example by one of the conservative posters, and I pointed it out. To my knowledge, those offensive remarks were not deleted, while I’ve seen less offensive remarks by those on the left be deleted. It is possible that the individual was dealt with privately.

    One reason why I point this out is I usually enjoy this blog and the exchange of ideas. I like the fact that more so on this blog than on others, you can have differing point of views not escalate into a toilet war. If there is inconsistent and unfair enforcement, then this blog will be in danger of becoming the conservative version of blogAmerica. I suspect that GP and GPW do not want this to occur.

    Anyway, I promise to all that this will be my last “whine” on this subject. I will post here as long as I feel I am welcome here, find the exchange beneficial, and not banned by the blogmasters.

  5. #2 – vaara – Thanks for saying that! I have said the same before.

    #0 Bruce – I have a couple questions. I will abide by whatever you say. (Asking in public because the answers could be instructive to the group.)

    1) Suppose commentor X has been caught telling lies in the past. (Falsehoods of such jaw-dropping irresponsibility and crudeness that they had to be intentional, on some level.)

    Am I making a personal attack (banned by the rules) if I say something like the following? “X, since you’ve been caught in lies in the past, I needn’t believe your assertions now, until you care to supply evidence for examination.”

    This came up recently. Commentor X claimed I had just attacked him personally as a liar. I thought I had avoided that form, while staying truthful about X’s past behavior and why it would make me want proof of his latest assertions.

    2) Suppose commentor X says things like, “The Iraq war has no connection to the war on terror and is only George Bush’s despicable vanity war”, thus insulting the well over >500,000 great Americans who have chosen to protect X’s life the last several years, by fighting that war.

    Do I violate the rules if I openly say that the insult X just cast, and not the Iraq war nor any other part of the GWOT, is despicable?

    Again, I will abide by what you say Bruce. Thanks.

  6. #5:

    Am I making a personal attack (banned by the rules) if I say something like the following? “X, since you’ve been caught in lies in the past, I needn’t believe your assertions now, until you care to supply evidence for examination.”

    I would think you’d want to provide the specific evidence of the past lies and not just expect everyone to accept your assertions as Divine Truth.

  7. The problem is, there are certain people who post here, who do nothing but repeat leftist fallacies they pick up at Kos, Americablog, or MyDD over and over again. For example, some copy-pasting idiot hack might jump into a thread with some old tired lie, like “BushCo lied when he said Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger!” At which point, of course, thoughtful, informed people will refute the lie with facts and citations.

    Then, a few threads later, the same copy-pasting idiot hack will repeat the same lie as though it had never been refuted. So, the thoughtful types will have to waste time-and-energy refuting it again.

    After a while, the cumulative weight of such behavior should burden the idiot hack, and not those who argue honestly. If a person demonstrates that they are not interested in real argument, but just in spewing left-wing whining points peppered with “BushCo” and/or “Rethuglicans” (tell-tale signs of a limited intellect), then I think they earn whatever opprobrium is expressed at them.

    But of course, I respect Bruce and Dan’s right to run their blog, their way.

  9. #7:

    some copy-pasting idiot hack might jump into a thread with some old tired lie, like “BushCo lied when he said Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger!” At which point, of course, thoughtful, informed people will refute the lie with facts and citations.

    Well, since I’ve never made a statement like that about the Niger uranium, I know you can’t be referring to me. It must be this mysterious “Commenter X.” 😉

    I do admit to the use of the term “Bushco” since it is so very descriptive and much shorter than “Bush Administration” or “Bush Crime Family.”

  10. I’m all in favor of honest argument. IMHO that automatically excludes any “argument” that relies on any or all of the following:

    1. false assumptions (Person A supports Party B, therefore Person A automatically supports everything that every single supporter of Party B says or does)
    2. tu quoque statements (Party B did something wrong, but Party C did something similar once, so it doesn’t matter)
    3. groundless ad hominem attacks (if you’re going to accuse Person A of supporting murderous dictators, you’d better be able to provide solid evidence that this is actually the case)

    Well, I could go on listing logical fallacies, but you get the point. Ultimately, I think someone who relies on low-quality arguments is saying much more about him- or herself than about the target(s) of those arguments.

  11. #6 – Haha, Ian – You (emphasis on you) would think that; but you’d be wrong.

    You see: It’s the job of the one who has lied in the past, Ian, to go about the business of supplying proof and evidence when needed, not mine.

    Also, in the recent instance, when demanded, I did point out the individual building out a lie in action. The individual did not understand it – whether maintaining a strategic pretense, or due to a genuine reading disability, I do not know.

    #7 – V, exactly.

  16. Its rather clear that these rules are enforced arbitrarily at the subjective whim of the site owners. Heck, I can think of one instance where the host of the site has unjustly called me a liar (still waiting for that apology) 🙂
    But who cares? Its their site, they can do what they want.

    But since the door is open,
    Does “libtards” qualify?
    How about “Dhimicrats”?
    Etc etc etic…

  17. Bruce, there are a handful of former commenters who have been rightly blocked from this blog but then, as you and I both know, tried to circumvent that blocking in a number of creative ways… they were blocked for the exact reasons you outline in blog’s code of conduct –which is not, in substance, much different from countless other blogs.

    Interestingly, from comments THEY’VE made on other blogs, they continue to read your blog… they’re just not able to inject this public square with their own brand of vitreol and poison. Which, I think, is good.

    I think your code’s emphasis on dialogue, debate and civility are important. Your leadership and support of those standards is important, too. I’d ask some of the FarLeft commenters to treat this blog a bit differently than the usual low-brow posting of comments (same spin, same topic, same tired tone) one finds on MyDD threads, the DailyKos or BlogAmerica, or ThinkProgress and others. Over there, it seems it’s ok to be like JerrySpringer or KeithOlbermann… drive by, slander someone, play to the base with spin and glibness, retread old cliches and try to reduce the debate to taunts and jeers. Some here do a great job of avoiding that liberal pitfall of “TV values”… but far more here are wallowing in it still and don’t appreciate the stench they create.

    Frankly, I’d just be happy if those who think they are being unrightly censored or censured would first make certain it isn’t a case of inefficient cyber-filters… and then take it from there.

    What’s that old saw about “I feel paranoid because all the bastards in the world are after me”? Maybe if some of the complaining commenters would just put down the victimhood card it might help a bit.

  18. I’ve been the target of some pretty nasty invective on this forum. (The poster who responded to my (and Matt’s) essays on adoption by saying I was a terrible father, just to name one) but I’ve never felt the need to whine about it. Maybe some people need to cowboy up.

  19. Calarato, the problem with “lying” in a setting like this is, to put it frankly, is that like beauty, lying is in the eye of the beholder. People tend to believe arguments and “facts” when it supports their position, and tend to not believe them when it doesn’t support their position.

    So on a blog like this, let’s say we have Person A and Person B with opposing ideologies. A says someone else lied, and backs it up with “proof.” B then comes up with his own links to dispute it, and then says A lied. And it goes back and forth. Because both persons declared they are right, and they’ve proved their point, continue to call their intended targets liars, or at least that they lied.

    This is also true when one is trying to support their position with “proof.” Unfortunately, it seems like you can prove 2+2=5 these days, and probably could come up with several links to support the point. Many times, when I see persons with opposing views provide supporting links of an issue in question, I’ll read through them. Most of the time, frankly, I’m not convinced either way, because the links simply do no prove their point. At best, it gives the person providing the links more evidence, in their mind, that their position is correct. In the meantime, the opposing posters question the other person’s link sources, the context, etc.

    A few months ago, I asked one of the posters if there was irrefutable proof about bribes involving France, Russia, and the UN (I think this was the issue, but not certain). He suggested that I google the key words he supplied. So I tried. Of course, there were the million or so links. I read through the first 20 or so of them. Some of them had nothing to do with the bribes. Others were articles stating that someone else had said that such bribes occurred. And the others were opinions of others that either said that they believed the bribes occurred or believed they did not occur (I don’t remember which). I suppose it’s possible that if I sifted through several more or thousands more, I could have found the smoking gun.

  20. Pat, regarding the provision of links etc.: There comes a point where we (myself, and presumably others) can’t spoon-feed people. With respect to other GP commentors, I doubt anyone has planted more news article links in GP discussions, over time, than I have. If you don’t want to believe Saddam was bribing officials in the U.N. and in a variety of countries including France and Russia, then it won’t matter what research you do – nor what research anyone else does for you. The stuff is out there. High officials have been indicted and convicted over the bribes. But I can’t make you decide it’s true, nor do I want to try, after a point. Sorry.

    With regard to lies being “in the eye of the beholder” – Well then – Let’s say I call ’em as I see ’em.

  21. Pat, there’s added silliness in all that too beyond the “You’re lying gotcha”… like the number of times a reference is nothing more than a link to some wildly-eyed, foaming blog or MSM source which is suspect when it comes to unbiased reporting.

    The notion that providing links here is equivalent to the use of footnotes in peer-reviewed professional journals or citations in scholarly journals is silly. I can’t recall the number of times Wiki cites are used –not to inform or expand the depth of the debate– but as a tool to prove the attestor is correct. That’s different than if Dan or Bruce or others cite something an average informed person might not know… like who the best supporting actress was in 1940 or the poll break outs and tabs for a Congressional seat… or where Livonia is… obscure stuff.

    The use of referencing links to prove the validity of one’s point is overused on the blogs. Hell, there are some blogs where nearly every word is referenced back to something, even if it’s a dictionary to explain the commonly used word! OK, don’t ask for a cite or link to those blogs; I was kidding.

    I think the use of links, while possibly well intentioned, is usually employed to make a pretense of credibility behind a position… unless it’s an issue that’s not well known. Oooh, look at me Mom, I’m a scholar in the blog world.

    Opinions, both informed and ignorant, are treated the same in our public square. It’s what we do with them that matters. And frankly, many here aren’t present to discuss… they’re here to taunt or wrap themselves in the echo chamber of an opinion confessional. Either way, references and links in the comment sections have little value for them.

  23. (#20 P.S. – Though I must admit, only a tiny fraction as many officials have resigned, been indicted or convicted as ought to have been. The Volcker Commission Report found that the corruption was widespread and involved billions of dollars. Benon Sevan, the top U.N. official in charge of Oil-for-Food, was indicted only last month, so his case hasn’t concluded. A private businessman, Tongsun Park, was convicted last year for acting as a bribe-paying agent to U.N. officials, but the recipients of his bribes at the U.N. have not been indicted. At least one Russian U.N. official resigned over the scandal. Credible allegations (of taking bribes) have been made against both George Galloway of the UK, and Charles Pasqua of France, but no one wants to pursue. Galloway did win a British libel lawsuit against a newspaper that had reported the allegations – but only on the grounds that, under extra-tight British rules, the newspaper should have waited for additional confirming evidence before publishing; NOT on the grounds that the charges were false or lacked credibility.
    You may well imagine that the whole thing is a diplomatic and political nightmare and many leaders, including the Bush Administration, do not want the diplomatic boat rocked any more than it has been.)

  24. #22 – Matt, silly on multiple levels.

    Ian in #9 openly offers “Bushco” as his personal descriptive shorthand for “Bush Crime Family”… then in #15, tries to claim he hadn’t just used “Bush Crime Family”.

    As if we all can’t read #9. Or as if we would all read it as sloppily as Ian has read others’ comments before. Or as if #15 isn’t, in itself, Ian further using the term in his choice to mount an extended defense of it.

  26. “They apply to all commenters, regardless of party or ideological affiliation.”

    Not so, Bruce. I have had a few of my comments deleted for “insulting” other members of the board — on one occasion I simply stated that I didn’t think someone had really thought much about his/her opinion, and it was deleted.

    On other occasions, I have drawn your attention to far more flagrant personal insults by other (conservative) members of the board, and you told me to stop tattle-tailing. In fact, I wasn’t tattling, only pointing out that you enforce your policies inconsistently — with what would appear to be leniency to conservative posters.

    Not that I expected much else.

    –Chet

  27. #25 – NDT: If you check Wikipedia on that, well, the Left party line is that the discovered Oil Ministry documents could have been somehow tainted by association with the the nefarious powers of Ahmed Chalabi.

    Never mind that some British papers had intelligence / Iraq document experts authenticate the documents at the time of discovery. Chalabi has magic powers, you know.

    Obviously, I accept the documents as valid (and hence, Maloney’s report). I’m just dutifully informing you of the opposition’s comeback (however weak) and why I gave other cites in #23.

  28. Chet, I cannot fathom your position.

    For all your complaints – and note, you’ve again left out the part where you were deleted for foul language – you are treated far better here than any conservative or patriotic libertarian would be on a lefty blog. Starting with the fact that, in reality, nearly all of your posts stand.

    I would further opine that you get better treatment than your performance merits. From day one (that I saw), your comments have been replete with insults, sneers and demeaning terminology for political conservatives, patriotic libertarians, or anybody you disagree with – sometimes even the blog as a whole.

    Some right-ish commentors go there, but with this difference: They’re just friends in a place where they can finally blow off a little steam… they haven’t come to trash the host’s beliefs and sneer at him.

    Gee… Chet… think that might be a factor? Do you think good manners could have something to do with NOT going out of your way to trash your host’s beliefs and associations when you come to his online home?

    Recently, we had a somewhat lefty (or at least, “not righty”) commentor try a different tack. HotMess. He tried this attitude: I’m in somebody else’s house… they’re doing me a favor, letting me come over… I’ll stick to my beliefs and I’ll share them, but if I need to spit on my host or his choice of friends, I’ll do it elsewhere.

    You know what? HotMess got farther.

    Conservative name-callers in this place do bend the rules; but, at least they’re not coming from a bad-faith place of being out to sneer at the guy who makes it all possible. That’s a valid and meaningful difference. Deal with it.

    Bruce, sorry if this is out of line.

  29. Calarato — am I the only one to have used foul language? I think not. And when I realized that was why my comment was deleted, I accepted the result without indignation.

    And the only insult I’ve given — if it can even be called that — is that I came on here because I appreciate real conservative thought, but that I haven’t found any of that here. Even though I’m a “liberal,” I appreciate real conservative intellectuals like Buckley, Burke, Andrew Sullivan, and more recently Donald Kagan. I don’t agree with them, but they’re smart.

    Real public dialogue is difficult, Calarato. It requires that individuals be held accountable for their beliefs. What you interpreted as insults was just me calling you and others to task for your positions, which I find untenable. You’ve done the same to me, and I didn’t interpret it as insults toward me. But when you and others called Ian and keough “idiots,” that seems like an insult to me. Of course those were comments that Bruce DIDN’T delete.

    –Chet

  31. I came on here because I appreciate real conservative thought, but that I haven’t found any of that here…

    That’s precisely what I’m talking about. That, in itself, is a sneer. Not at me, mind you. I’ve long advertised I have zero background as a conservative. But a sneer at everyone else on the blog, including the hosts? Let them decide.

    And Chet – shockingly, you didn’t wait for all us meanies to persecute poor little you, before you started in with that type of comment. You started in with it from the very first comment of yours, at least that I saw. (I may have missed something.)

    As I said: Whoever “HotMess” was, the approach they tried gets them farther.

    Your approach has seemed to me to be, “I demand that Bruce and Dan treat me EXACTLY the same as other commentors, EVEN THOUGH other commentors approach the blog with respect and goodwill, while I approach it with contempt.”

  33. Calarato, the fact that I was questioning the sources for the UN bribery scandal doesn’t mean I don’t believe it. In fact, I’m fairly certain that it happened. But at the time I googled as suggested months ago, I hadn’t heard too much of it. NDT’s linked article has probably been the most detailed on the subject. First, one of the things that Maloney points out is that the story hadn’t got much press, and that was three years ago. And it still hasn’t got that much press. And I haven’t heard much from Pres. Bush about it either. I’m trying to catch up here on stuff, so I admit that I haven’t checked out all of his links referenced in that article. So far I haven’t seen actual documents that say these things occurred. When I have more time, I will check further, and see what I get. Also, the author appears to be partisan from the last sentence of the article. Again, this doesn’t make it not true.

    My point is, in general, what happens when we have two opposing viewpoints, and people provide their own links. Each views their own links as credible and disputes the credibility of the other person’s links. And then both parties say they did the appropriate research, had the credible links, made the logical arguments, checkmate or whatever, and say they proved their point.

    As you suggested, what many people do for a particular issue, is have a belief based on their ideology. So then they will tend to believe the sources that support the view, and question the credibility that do not support the view. I even see those who have discredited perceived partisan sources such as the New York Times or National Review, but will cite them when it supports their view, under the guise that if they are taking a view that is contrary to the usual publications view, then it must be true.

    Anyway, Michigan-Matt’s comments about links says it better than I did.

  34. I find it impossible to respond to Leftists half the time. Take Ian’s last statement about him not finding conservatives who think.. What am I supposed to do to counter , prove that I think? The Left engages in the most immature and disinengious rhetoric , I resent it and them

  35. Just speaking for myself, I have no idea what disinengious rhetoric is, so I can’t be accused of using it. Do you mean disingenuous, Vince? And by the way, what’s more immature — asking conservatives to account for their positions, or dismissing anyone who opposes you as a “leftist”?

    –Chet

  36. Calarato — the rules do not say anything about banning sneering. Anyhow, sneering is something one does with one’s face, and you can’t see my face. What the rules do say is: “Challenge the ideas of those with whom you disagree, not their patriotism, decency, or integrity.” Now, if people’s comments were deleted for challenging my patriotism, decency, and integrity, all of your posts would disappear into the ether.

    And your comment that you have zero background as a conservative — well, I’m shocked, Calarato, just plain shocked.

    –Chet

  37. Vince P, just curious. Do you also resent it when someone who shares your views, but says liberals don’t think, or as you say, engages in immature and disingenuous rhetoric?

    Even if you believe that more liberals engage in this behavior than conservatives, why call out just the liberals when this behavior occurs?

  39. #35 – You asked Vince, but I’ll take a shot.

    Do you also resent it when someone who shares your views, but says liberals don’t think, or as you say, engages in immature and disingenuous rhetoric?

    Personally I don’t resent it, either way. As far as I’m concerned, people can say what they want – then live with the consequences of their words – including others’ comebacks.

    Generally, by the time someone says “Liberals don’t think” or “Conservatives don’t think” or whatever, they are shutting down any dialogue that might have existed. (Or at least, their participation in it.) And often, that’s fine. If the target has been evasive and shown no signs of independent thought, it’s time to shut things down.

    What I find odd (let’s say) is the lefties who come to GP mainly to cast insults, posture and sneer at the blog (or its real-or-imagined denizens). Only a pretense of dialogue or information-sharing, if that. We know these people because their whole goal is to make themselves obvious, i.e., to have the insult received.

    And yes, I would find equally odd a conservative or GP-er who did the same on, say, Kos. Either example would show an ugly, weak and empty (not to mention clueless) person.

    Even if you believe that more liberals engage in this behavior than conservatives, why call out just the liberals when this behavior occurs?

    Because calling out the conservatives would be someone else’s job. (The liberal’s.)

    Let’s say someone is being aggressively dense on a topic I care about. Let’s say I offer excellent information, and not only do they not absorb it, they get progressively nuttier. (It’s happened.) At that point, I can KNOW they’re not thinking (or at least choosing to do a fine impression of it), because the evidence is in front of me.

    Now let’s say somebody agrees with me on a topic I care about. Because they agree with me, it’s a short conversation. I have little or no evidence as to whether they arrived at their position thinkingly or unthinkingly. I don’t get to see how that particular sausage was made, so to speak.

    Now let’s say I’m a third party, watching person B get kookier / more un-thinking on person A. Maybe I’ll join in calling B out; or maybe I’ll just STFU. Because it’s not really my job, either way. I’ll do whichever is fun for me (and that I have time for).

  40. #34:

    Take Ian’s last statement about him not finding conservatives who think.. What am I supposed to do to counter , prove that I think?

    Well, at least get it right as to who said what.;-)

  41. 39, Calarato, your points are well taken. But Vince P stated that the reason he doesn’t like immature and disingenuous rhetoric. I was curious if it’s okay with him when conservatives do it. Is it okay simply because he agrees with their point of view?

    And I agree with you now regarding letting people say what they want. I’ve called out people for name calling, insults, etc., and won’t any more.

    We also agree on the type of scenario you mentioned. I’m not sure we would always agree who the person who is getting “progressively nuttier” though.