The excuse that you can't police your own comments section, which is merely data on a hard drive, has been, and always will be, a bogus excuse to justify laziness on your part. Inaction or silence is de facto approval of the information being presented on your own website.

As Sgt. Mom said, "There is no shelter in silence, people--- those who do not speak against, are in danger of being assumed to agree with the perpetrators of the next jihadist atrocity."

That principle applies to everyone, not just jihadists. If you don't speak against the fundamentalists, the haters, the racists, the closed- and small-minded in your own midst, then you are no better than the "moderate muslims" who do not speak out against their own extremists.

I'm sorry, but if you don't believe that Charles can police his own comments section, how can you believe that we can ever solve the problems of the Middle East?

Stryker,

Point well taken. In fairness, LGF's regulars frequently do engage "the closed and small minded in [their] own midst."

As for being "just data on a hard drive," well, so is the Encyclopedia Brtiannica. Doesn't mean that it's reasonable for me to be able to proof-read it all and keep up a day job too (3,000 comments a day!?!). This is one aspect of the power law problem, and the reason that many really large blogs remove their comments sections entirely.

I believe that fixing this problem will require more than just administrator will - it will require new tools around authentication and delegated administration, similar to those that evolved on and for MUD/MOO virtual communities a decade ago.

And I'm really hoping that happens before Winds of Change.NET becomes big enough to need it.

Here we go again.

Praktike,

If I was allowed to shoot troublesome LGF commenters and/or punish their employers, while paying the intelligent regulars to keep order and giving them tools to do so, I could clean up the situation in a big hurry. There's a big difference between the kinds of tools available to us in each case.

Indeed, I could make a pretty good argument that the biggest failing of the liberal approach to foreign policy is that it DOES treat serious enemies and serious threats like some kind of unruly comments section, rather than serious and existential threats that demand hard decisions and the bare-knuckles use of traditional statecraft.

I think it's ridiculous that people expect bloggers to not only spend huge amounts of time creating insightful and informative content, but ALSO take care of everyone who has something to say in their comments section. There are many blogs that have a person whose responsibility is doing moderation.. but I don't imagine that they're easy to find.

There's the larger questions of what type of speech should be allowed under the policy.. but I think people should acknowledge how much work is involved in running a blog like Winds of Change or LGF.

=darwin

JK - I enjoy your stuff and learn a lot from it, so I'm pleased you are taking such a mature attitude to LGF.

It seemed from yesterday's discussion that a number of leftists whould like to see the site suppressed because it raises issues they think should be beyond the bounds of debate - most particularly: the idea that contemporary Islamic cultures have deep problems which they are showing little capability or willingness to address. The argument - or even just the assumption - that Islam has intrinsic and disturbing tendencies towards intolerance, violence, and resistance to modernity (among many others) may or may not be true - I have my own suspicions, but they're not really relevant to the point. Whatever one's stance, this is clearly an issue that cannot be simply annihilated by brute force or knee-jerk moral outrage. On the contrary, if current world trends continue we will see ever more people beginning to ask such questions.

If Islam is itself a problem it will clearly be a big one - as many posters have noted, there are 1.3 billion muslims and people rarely change their religious allegiences for political reasons. That this thought is ugly or terrifying, however, does not mean it cannot be true. A willingness to entertain unpleasant thoughts is a basic characteristic of mental maturity, a trait the left seems to have abandoned long ago. In this respect, LGF is a precious resource, even for people whose conclusions diverge from those predominating there.

LGF reflects a world that is definitely not nice, and many of those who post there get extremely angry about some of the events and opinions prevailing in certain regions. Some vent, or explore extreme scenarios. But LGF is also honest, courageous, open and necessary as an antidote to various PC 'groupthink' assumptions. I have massive respect for Charles Johnson and for what he has done.

"But LGF is also honest, courageous, open and necessary as an antidote to various PC 'groupthink' assumptions. I have massive respect for Charles Johnson and for what he has done."

I have a lot of respect for Charles Johnson as well, but if there's a ready-made parody of "groupthink," the comments at LGF are it. In becoming an antidote to "PC" assumptions, do you have to become what you're fighting? And if so, what's the difference between yourself and what you're railing against? About as much difference between Coke and Pepsi. Same thing, different marketing.

"it's ridiculous that people expect bloggers to not only spend huge amounts of time creating insightful and informative content, but ALSO take care of everyone who has something to say in their comments section."

Again, it's laziness. When CNN linked to my site, I had over 16,000 comments added in just two days. I experienced no trouble sanitizing them even though I had a limited amount of time in the day to devote to the website (there being a war on and all). I know I don't get the same amount of yahoos on my site on a regular basis as Charles, but I don't care for excuses in lieu of accountability. For all of this "benefit of the doubt" nonsense that's given to people you have an affinty for, yet not to those whom you dislike, one thing is always clear: It's your website, therefore, you're accountable for everything on it.

I can't see how anyone can expect Charles Johnson to take responsibility for policing his comments section, other than by eliminating the most outrageous comments if he so chooses. LGF has many more commenters and comments than Winds of Change and is run by one guy who is entitled to his own policies on this. That is not how I see the primary issue. Rather, that primary issue is (i) whether Charles Johnson's policing reflects a bias against certain types of content he deems objectionable ("PC commenters, offensive antisemitic comments, etc.") which de facto, directly or indirectly, causes it to 'favor' (and perhaps encourage) other types of content (not from Charles himself) (eg, offensive anti-Muslim comment), (ii) if so, whether that is a problem. I say "yes" and "yes".

I think the LGF thread is addressing a long list of points that should not reasonably be at issue: (i) whether Charles provides useful content (yes), (ii) whether LGF is entitled to take an anti-PC anti-idiotarian stand (yes, of course), (iii) whether it is proper for LGF to take the view that there is an ideological/religious and problem throughout Muslim culture generally (yes), (iv) whether LGF has some obligation to balance its content with 'good news' from the Islamic world (no - and I do in fact think that Charles Johnson provides some limited balance in any event).

Hi.

Stryker said: "It's your website, therefore, you're accountable for everything on it."

True. So your top priority has to be covering your rear.

There's a simple solution for unwelcome comments, and if you feel responsible for the comments on your blog, or fear that you may be held responsible, you should do it. Ban comments.

Melanie Phillips's Diary used to have comments. It was infested by Jew-haters, and the comments got too much for Melanie to keep up with, so she very reasonably banned comments.

Is it just me, or does this talk of 'sanitizing' have an ominous side to it?

There are some notorious LGF posters who I assume would be the targets of such 'sanitizing' - Bigel and Camel Prophet are regularly described as going beyond the pale (due to their readiness to invoke nuclear attacks as a policy option). I have to admit to valuing their contributions, which lack realism IMHO but help to prevent the boundaries of the 'thinkable' becoming too constricted.

To tackle another widely cited example: Should it be illegitimate to advocate 'nuking Mecca' in a post? Again, I welcome the decision not to exclude such comments from LGF. After all, is it really possible to deny that there are imaginable circumstances in which such horrendous steps might be required. Why would such an act be worse - more 'unimaginable' - than the devastation of Hamburg, Dresden, Nagasaki, or Hiroshima under the increasingly plausible circumstances of an all out war including Wahhabi-inspired nuclear attacks on the US? - At least with Mecca a death-blow would be struck at the heart of the enemy ideology itself, rather than merely targetting random enemy population centres. Could the religion, with its unique geographical sensibility, survive such an eventuality - worth thinking about even if only for purely philosophical reasons.

It might even serve a valuable purpose to expand the zone of the imaginable precisely so as to produce an atmosphere of deterrence. Might not the realization that the utter nuclear destruction of Islam's religious heartland was being 'imagined' by extreme 'infidel opinion' act as a psychological brake on acts of Islamist mega-terror? Who knows (so don't try to stop people discussing it).

Perhaps for those unfamiliar with LGF it needs to be noted that the 'nuke Mecca' theme is very rarely encountered, and usually occurs as an anti-PC joke or a venting opportunity rather than anything more sinister.

The point is, such 'evil' thoughts will occur in any case. Banning them from all public debating forums would simply drive them into paranoid underground refuges where they will fester and evade all critical examination.

Last example: Saying nasty things about Palestinians, usually following some ghastly murderous obscenity (typically met with general indifference elsewhere - after all, who cares about dead jews, right?) might be unfortunate, but inapropriate lack of anger can sometimes be even more disgusting than an excess of it. The idea that Palestinian culture has become profoundly sick seems to me a legitimate one, whether you agree or not. No other abused or exploited people (and I don't necessarily mean by the Israelis) turns to such revolting means when it comes to expressing resentment.

Sorry to take up so much bandwidth. Long live LGF!

Hey, JK, thanks for keeping a calm and level head as the blogosphere oh-so-gently implodes all around us. It's nice to find eloquent and thoughtful discourse.

My question is this: I know AL has gone on record as saying LGF should not be shut down, nor should the idea even be mentioned - I agree. Free speech is of the utmost importance and no voice - on either side - should be silenced. So how do you feel about InstaPundit, Fried Man and LGF cheering on, if not leading, the charge to extinguish Daily Kos' advertisers?

This, to me, is the same thing, but instead of going to Kos' ISP (as morons have done to LGF), they went after his advertisers. Why is this not a double standard on their parts?

Just - honestly - curious to hear your take.

Poisonhead, by coincidence I just had a revelation and rethought my attitude to Camel Prophet. See my latest post in the Armed Liberal thread in a couple minutes for more.

"Is it just me, or does this talk of 'sanitizing' have an ominous side to it?"

About as ominous as sanitizing undesirable elements in an Iraqi neighborhood or Afghan mountainside.

Inaction or silence is de facto approval of the information being presented on your own website.

That's ridiculous. Also, Charles has a specific disclaimer.

There's a simple solution for unwelcome comments, and if you feel responsible for the comments on your blog, or fear that you may be held responsible, you should do it. Ban comments.

That's even more ridiculous.

So how do you feel about InstaPundit, Fried Man and LGF cheering on, if not leading, the charge to extinguish Daily Kos' advertisers?

This is a timely theme. LGF has up on the site right now complaints to one of its advertisers from (potential) customers complaining of anti-Arab bias. I'm not sure what LGF's point is in flaunting this: the complaints seem to be largely accurate. Charles seems to think that if he throws a duck in your face hard enough before denying it's a duck, his proof will be more compelling.

I have less concern about ordinary commercial advertising. I would be more concerned about any mainstream politician advertising on LGF and find LGF's jumping on Kos about Democratic candidate advertising risible. It is that same laughter that I feel when LGF calls IndyMedia "Nazi Media".

Charles has responded thus far by mischaracterizing the criticism against LGF as saying that he must control all comments or as an attack on his entire readership, to quote from his site, "LGF and all of our readers and commenters are under attack (“white supremacists,” “Nazis,” “hate speech,” etc. etc. you know the drill) at Winds of Change. I’ve had my say. Perhaps some of you might want to defend yourselves against these accusations too."

That's a thoroughly disingenuous 'response'. I have not seen Charles address the specific claim that LGF is highly selective in its policing of comments in a way that purges out the anti-semites and "pc trolls", but leaves intact all of the hate spewing from the other side.

Stryker

That's where we differ - I think there's a difference between friends and enemies (viz A.L.'s wonderful post on the subject) - 'wild' LGF posters aren't comparable to islamonazi insurgents IMO

I agree with Stryker that the "volume of comments" thing is an excuse. Charles has, in fact, shown a singular ability to shape the tenor of comments on his site. He tends to ban people who don't play the way he likes, and lo, those who remain are those who do play the way he likes. Or at least is comfortable with.

The fallacy lies in assuming a blogger has to police each and every comment made to his or her site. They don't. Once someone has made known what he or she prefers and has deleted a few comments from those who stray outside those boundaries, the overwhelming tendency from the remaining parties will be to try to stay inside the lines and go elsewhere. Charles has obviously established the lines at LGF -- he just doesn't want to take responsibility for them frankly. (Hence the "I have a disclaimer" excuse.)

IOW, the same form of partisan auto-selection that happens on Daily Kos and Atrios happens on LGF. Yet, neithe of the former two have regular constituencies of racist loonies that have to be played down as the local humorous colour. Maybe the fact that Charles' blog attracts such people gives him pause, but I doubt it.

to try to stay inside the lines and go elsewhere.

to try to stay inside the lines OR go elsewhere...

I think I like the comments best which basically say: "If youu need a nanny go and find your own. This and LGF are two of millions of blogs that no one makes a dime off of, let alone a living.

If/when the legal beagles start getting their pounds (tons?) of flesh from unmoderated blogs (99.99% of them) their numbers will decline and those without nannys won't have anywhere to go anymore.

I have not seen Charles address the specific claim that LGF is highly selective in its policing of comments in a way that purges out the anti-semites and "pc trolls", but leaves intact all of the hate spewing from the other side.

To tackle another widely cited example: Should it be illegitimate to advocate 'nuking Mecca' in a post? Again, I welcome the decision not to exclude such comments from LGF. After all, is it really possible to deny that there are imaginable circumstances in which such horrendous steps might be required.

Poisonhead, I agree that there are imaginable circumstances where such a thing might be required.

The issue is, what are the useful ways to discuss those circumstances? In my WOC article on just war yesterday I noted one yardstick we might use as a framework for such a discussion: a) that the circumstances present a serious emergency which leaves us (so far as we can tell) little choice and b) that we acknowledge that taking those actions constitutes a horrible thing, justifiable only because the alternative would be worse.

What bothers me about many comments throughout the blogosphere is a casual, gleeful "nuke 'em til they glow" attitude about massive force. I'm bothered for several reasons.

As the wife of a retired military officer and as someone who works with military every day (currently on faculty at one of the service academies), I am pretty familiar with just how horrible such actions would be. While I have no compunctions about the use of military force where it is justified, I never ever take it casually.

Those people in US uniform who are being injured and killed in Iraq and Afghanistan right now include friends and colleagues of mine. They could be the young men and women I taught last year.

It devalues THEIR lives as well as the lives of the enemy if we are glib about the use of force. WAR IS NOT A VIDEO GAME, but I fear many have come to treat it that way.

Every time we as a country use military force -- including and especially massive force -- we are affected as much as the enemy, albeit in more subtle ways. The quote from Churchill about the use of poison gas is a good example of how even those who are moral and farsighted can be caught up in anger and desire for revenge, saying and doing things that lessen them.

Armed Liberal's discussion about leaving anger behind is apropos here.

I am not a pacifist. I do indeed believe that force can be justified and I am deeply angry at the murderous bigotry and willingness to slaughter that characterizes fundamentalist Islamism. My daughter was close to the twin towers on 9/11, we had friends who were in the section of the Pentagon that was hit that day. I doubt there are many here or at lgf or Rantburg or elsewhere whose rage exceeds my own.

It's BECAUSE this is so serious an issue that I want very much for us all - not just the website owners like Joe or Charles or Fred Pruitt, but all of us - to be careful what attitudes we encourage as we vent our anger in words. Venting's okay, but if it becomes an excuse either for slopping thinking about war or for bigotry of our own, we will literally cause our own society far more harm than many seem to realize. Much of the anti-war feeling in the US, UK and Europe has its roots in just the sorts of attitudes that Churchill and others indulged in during a very difficult time. The decision to bomb Dresden was not the worst legacy of those dark days. That it might have been done with some triumpal glee, rather than in sorry, is.

Once someone has made known what he or she prefers and has deleted a few comments from those who stray outside those boundaries, the overwhelming tendency from the remaining parties will be to try to stay inside the lines and go elsewhere.

So the claim that he leaves intact all of the hate spewing from the other side is inaccurate. The tolerance level is very marginally higher for people from the other side; they get a pass if they aren't just posting utterly hateful, worthless bile and if they might just be venting harmlessly.

Evariste,

That is a good, thoughtful and fair response, far preferable to the notion that there is nothing to talk about. My personal impression from what I recall seeing, even if I don't visit LGF comments threads regularly (anymore), is that the tolerance level is too high on one side and perhaps too low on the other. In other words, the problem is more than "marginal", but at least we are talking about matters of degrees. I'll have to think about that some more...

Robin,

Excellent, excellent points.

The excuse that you can't police your own comments section, which is merely data on a hard drive, has been, and always will be, a bogus excuse to justify laziness on your part. Inaction or silence is de facto approval of the information being presented on your own website.
**************************************************
Just data on a hard drive? LOL I started to print off the thread that started all this at work to read through it on my meal break.

I hit cancel when I realised it was going past 200 pages to print.

That's just ONE thread.

This is a timely theme. LGF has up on the site right now complaints to one of its advertisers from (potential) customers complaining of anti-Arab bias. I'm not sure what LGF's point is in flaunting this:
**************************************************
Because they were a RIOT to read I almost fell out of my chair when I read--

"name: David

comments: I friend of mine recommended your olive oil, but unfortunately I saw that you advertised your product with a website called littlegreenfootballs.com

I consider this a hate website and will refuse to buy any products from your company so long as you advertise over there."

Now ISN'T that a bizzare coincidence?

A FREIEND recommended their olive oil and he
just HAPPENED to stumble on to their add on LGF?

Does anybody believe this mentally challenged, writer even BUYS olive oil?

I mean it was about the lamest complaint I have seen, except for the exchange on Hosting matters.

There was another site the same crowd whined to and they got laughed off the site by what looked like the regular posters.

Charles? I don't think you have too much to worry about "LGF is Hateful" does not seem to have the stuff. I wonder what sheltered life this guy has lived up to now?

Re: Advertisers. This is always going to be problematic for media that delve into political controversy, and there's nothing wrong with consumers making their opinions known. Blogs in general are going to have this problem, I think, though BlogAds and other aggregators may help by decoupling ad placement from any one blog.

The difference with Kos is that his advertisers are politicians, and therefore their paid presence on his site (or any site) is an endorsement in a way that goes above and beyond. An olive oil maker can say "hey, this isn't about politics we just want to reach lots of people", but a politician can't say that when the site itself is political. If the owner of the site they advertise on says something bad or stupid, they're going to catch heat for that - and deservedy so.

Gimp sez:
>So how do you feel about InstaPundit, Fried Man
>and LGF cheering on, if not leading, the charge >to extinguish Daily Kos' advertisers?
>
>This, to me, is the same thing, but instead of
>going to Kos' ISP (as morons have done to LGF),
>they went after his advertisers. Why is this not >a double standard on their parts?
>
>Just - honestly - curious to hear your take.

Personally, I think it's time for some "chill pills" to be distributed. I'm glad the wx is warming up so I can get back out on motorcycle.

I don't if Daily Kos lives off his advertising revenue..but it's a fact of life- even prior to the internet- that customer pressure can strongly influence ad sponsorship. It's part of the game and the reverse is true just as well. Just asking Gimp...how many folks wrote/e-mailed/called advertisers and actually supported Kos and explained their position calmly and cooly? I don't believe Kos was ever in danger of having his site shutdown due to loss of revenue from ads.

Playing NetKop ("I'll shut you down by complaining to your ISP!"), as was apparently done in the case of LGF, is not looked upon kindly in the internet realm. I've seen more than a few folks scourged for attempting to be Mr./Ms. NetKop in one capacity or another.

FWIW- There's the diff.

With all the whining about content, banning, etc
I'm reminded of what someone once said about USENET, but I believe it applies in the context of Blogs and their comment sections/threads as well:

"It is truly The Savage Jungle - the Freudian Id personified. A place where the benefits of semi-anonymity serve as a brutal millstone that democratically grinds the bloated egos of all participants to the lowest common denominator of civility."

If you don't like the Jungle..stay the hell out.

Joe: fair enough.

I just thought I'd throw that out there.

Garbiel Gonzalez:

I see that you haven't seen fit to answer my direct statement to you on the other thread or by e-mail so I'll paste it in here yet again:

Hello Gabriel:

I admire and enjoy your commentary on various sites and your occasional blog postings on Winds of Change, so I must say I'm hugely disappointed with your conduct in the recent comment thread on the objectionablility or lack thereof of LGF's content.

First. It is you who opened the pandora's box of "hate speech". Surely you know that the existence or non-existence and legal viability or lack therof of the concept of "hate speech" is, in and of itself, a contentious issue. I personally believe that calling something a "hate (fill in the blank)" is generally a bullying tactic, meant to automatically invalidate something and inflame PC sensibilities against it without having the decency to present an argument as to what's wrong with it. Surely, you know the way such concepts are abused to shout down unpopular speech on, for instance, US college campuses, and have first-hand experiences with this technique in France? Yet you cavalierly invoke the "hate" appelation, and surely enough an anti-LGF mau mauing campaign begins, and has now extended to a campaign to have Hosting Matters drop LGF. And, I might add, you do this, without one single specific example or link to any comment that you find to be "hate speech".

Second, you whinge about getting banned for writing a comment which pretty directly implies that the majority of commenters at Charles's site are neo-nazis. Wouldn't you expect to get banned for saying something like that? If you meant something different than that then you should have been more careful with your language.

Third, you still seem to persist in some bizarre fantasy that some significant portion of LGF commenters are in fact neo-nazis. Please tell me Gabriel, how many is it? How many white supremacists frequent this pro-Israel site? What are their names and how do you come by this information?

Frankly. I think you owe Charles Johnson an apology.

Sincerely,

Eric Deamer

Now you show up on this thread, seemingly having backed down from your more extravagant claims of "hate speech" and vast numbers of white supremacist commenters on LGF, but still with no apology, or even acknowledgement of your previous claims. And still, you continue to make claims about the number and tenor of comments and Charles Johnson's management of them, while providing no links or examples. And furthermore, you actually admit that you don't regularly go to these comment threads.

Also, the full consequences of the pandora's box of "hate speech", which you opened, have now been born out, with an attempt to censor an internet site. And yes, censor is the correct word in this case. Asking advertisers to reconsider advertising with a given site isn't censorship. Trying to stop the site from being hosted is. No one attempted to do the latter with "the Daily Kos", but they do attempt it with LGF, and yet they whinge on about "free speech". Do you feel in the slightest bit responsible for this phenmoenon?

I'd also like to note that as the earlier thread has grown to a positively LGFesque length of almost 500 comments, there are many objectionable comments there on both sides. Would Armed Liberal, whose thread it was, like to be held directly responsible for the worst of these comments?

Here is the link to the obviously coordinated attempt to go after one of LGF's advertisers that Gabriel cites approvingly above:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10549_The_Left_is_Thrashing

The first e-mail says that LGF is a "neo-nazi" site. Another asks if the olive oil is made in Israel or on "occupied Palestinian land".

Judge for yourself what this campaign is really about.

There is a system that would allow moderating comments with delegation of authority. Disable the Movable type comments and install a forum system.

You could modify Movable Type to automatically create a thread in the BBS and link to it when a new article is posted.

Go check out: phpBB

It supports groups, moderators, and authenticated users. It will likely load down your server a lot more since it's much more database intensive. Everything's a trade off.

Eric,

LGF is not a church. It is just a website. Charles Johnson is not Jesus Christ. He is just a website operator.

Frankly, I fail to understand the obsessive tone of your comment and suggest you might want to chill a bit.

That assumes a static population of the parties that like to push the boundaries, and as a constantly growing site, lgf attracts new trolls and haters from both ends of the spectrum constantly.

It assumes no such thing. Plenty of sites attract traffic on a constant basis without consistently drawing hatemongers. It's very common for bloggers to shape their comments section with targeted dismissal of such people. LGF isn't an excpetion.

Here is the link to the obviously coordinated attempt to go after one of LGF's advertisers that Gabriel cites approvingly.

I think your missing the larger point. There are several emails quoted in LGF's post, one of which does refer to it mistakenly as a "neo nazi" site. But the others describe it as "virulently anti-Arab" and a "hate website". These latter descriptions are entirely correct and - coordinated campaign or no coordinated campaign against LGF - it seems pathetic to deride attacks against you by pointing to truthful statements.

I can only view this as a demonstrative of the extent of Charles' capacity for denial magnified by the huge echo chamber he has created.

Gabriel Gonzalez:

I have not seen Charles address the specific claim that LGF is highly selective in its policing of comments in a way that purges out the anti-semites and "pc trolls", but leaves intact all of the hate spewing from the other side.

I DID respond to this (baseless) accusation. As did dozens (if not hundreds) of LGF readers, including some who disagree with me most of the time, but (oddly enough) have never been banned or deleted.

You're engaging in argument by repetition. You admit you don't read LGF, yet continue to make this spurious accusation in spite of numerous testimonials to the opposite. If I had any doubt remaining that you're carrying on a personal vendetta, it's gone now.

Joe: when I wrote "is this what you want on my blog?" I was referring to a comment that has now been deleted, trying to organize the bashers into a campaign to have my Amazon and PayPal accounts shut down.

That person has now posted this same comment all over San Francisco Indymedia.

Stryker: so far on Winds of Change, I've been called a "white supremacist," a "neo-Nazi," a "hater," a "clown," etc etc.

But "lazy" ... now there's a new one.

Joe: "is this what you want on my blog?" should be "is this what you want on your blog?"

Thanks for this post Joe.

I agree with you that it is best for everyone to have the many points of view represented and that reasoned and intelligent debate is not only important, but entertaining as well.

This is why I have become a big fan of this site!

It's not a church, and I'm not an acolyte. I don't think Charles Johnson is Jesus Christ and I'm not even an LGFer or lizardoid or whatever. Frankly, I think a lot of the points raised about the problems with the community there are very valid. I don't think the discussions there are very interesting honestly, as there's so little diverstity of opinion. And, I think there are far too many puerile comments, a small portion of which could probably be described as mindlessly anti-Arab or anti-Muslim.

That's all neither here nor there. As you yourself said, the discussion wasn't meant to be some general appraisal of the worth of this particular website.

As a disinterested party who enjoys both Winds of Change and LGF on some level, though I seldom have the time to comment at either place, I'm simply pointing out what you've said as one of the primary actors in this discussion and the real world consequences of your statements.

You make no attempt to engage the substance of my comment, and simply say it has an "obsessive tone", and snidely imply that I have some sort of religious devotion to Charles Johnson. Pathetic.

I'l ask again, now that (I hope) you understand where I'm coming from, and we've gotten that bit of throat-clearing out of the way:

1)Do you warrant that blithely labelling something "hate speech" without, at the very least, a rigorous definition of that term, is problematic? If not, then why not, and can you at least tell me what "hate speech" is, and how this concept applies to LGF?

2)Do you see how this concept of "hate speech" was instrumental in the subsequent attempt to get LGF taken off of Hosting Matters? Or do you think that the subsequent campaign to have LGF removed by echoing the "hate speech" rhetoric is totally unrelated?

3) Do you honestly not think that accusing a website of being a hang-out for neo-nazis and white supremacists is a little out-of-line as a comment, and is adequate grounds for being banned from it?

4) Since you said it in the earlier thread but aren't persisting in it now, I'll ask again, what percentage of LGFs readers do you think are neo-nazis/white supremacists? This is a very serious charge and not one to be made cavalierly.

Those are my questions. If you don't think they are germane to the discussion, that's fine. Just say so. I think they are. I've phrased this in as direct and straightforward a way as possible. If you answer again with a snide comment and a dodge of the substance, it will be to your public discredit.

Charles -

I yanked the 'defund LGF' posts as soon as I saw them; as noted, that game won't get played in my threads.

A.L.

Eric,

Thank you for your response. I am sorry for my earlier tone, but I must say that I had found your approach somewhat overbearing and therefore did not understand.

I have a basic problem with your umbrage as follows.

First, the "white supremacist" statement was made in a highly specific context (see thread). In fact, I should be deeply offended at your failure to consider that context prior to your irresponsible charges against me that I have unfairly characterized LGF. It was only raised again in the recent thread here on WoC by Charles himself.

More generally, your heartfelt concern for the extreme nuances and potential abuse of the term "hate speech" is Orwellian, given your lack of corresponding concern about the dozens of highly offensive and often racist statements made day in and day out in LGF threads by dozens of posters. You should be ashamed of yourself. Aren't you? If not, please explain why.

I have never described LGF as a "neo-Nazi" site. I have mentioned the hypocrisy of LGF's describing IndyMedia as "Nazi Media". I still shake my head in disbelief whenever I see Charles so describe IndyMedia. Don't you, Eric? If not, why not and why are you not embarrassed at your failure to think as I do?

LGF does function as a center for expression of hatred and bigotry. The only serious question is the extent to which Charles contributes to this problem. In fact, Eric, this is so self-evident that I am deeply offended at your failure to see the obviousness of this and can hardly continue this discussion with you until you issue a full apology for such failure. And please, do not respond with snideness or sarcasm. That will only result in your immediate public humiliation. In fact, if your next thought is anything other than complete agreement with me, you should immediately feel yourself to be utterly worthless.

Geez, you're a pleasant one, aren't you Gabriel?

Once again, you continue to make the same charges, with no further substantiation and no owning up to the real world consequences of your accusations. Whatever. You're obviously not posting in good faith and feel that you have some highly personal stake in this for some reason.

Is snide condescension your normal method of argument? No wonder you choose to remain pseudonymous.

Oh, one last thing. Fuck you.

Gabriel, can I make a suggestion to try and take some small amout of the heat out of this?

"Hate Speech" is a term of art these days, and making that accusation is akin to accusing someone of a criminal act. Is there another term that would convey what you're thinking about without hitting that big, red button? 'Hateful speech,' or something?

A.L.

Thanbks for the clarification, Charles. A.L. had whacked that comment by the time I read the thread, so that wasn't clear to me. I've modified the post to remove the misunderstanding.

As an extension of my earlier discussion with Praktike, I'll add that while anyone has the right to complain to advertisers about where they advertise, attempts to shut down Amazon and PayPal accounts do cross the ethical line into censorship and suppression of speech. Something that's standard M.O. for much of the Left these days, but that doesn't make it any less repugnant. (Note that I'd be equally contemptuous of someone who tried to do this to Kos, or even Hesiod.)

"Joe: when I wrote "is this what you want on my blog?" I was referring to a comment that has now been deleted, trying to organize the bashers into a campaign to have my Amazon and PayPal accounts shut down."

As for Charles being called lazy, hey, I was called a leftie in these discussions. The characterizations are about equally valid... strange days, indeed.

Sgt. Stryker:

About as ominous as sanitizing undesirable elements in an Iraqi neighborhood or Afghan mountainside ...

I think we should recruit some more European partners, and perhaps secure a UN resolution, before we make Blogistan a target in the War on Terror.
---
But seriously folks - this issue of deleting posts from LGF has been beaten to death over and over again. It's a good thing Charles Johnson runs LGF and not me, because I'm such a hopeless John Stuart Mill freak when it comes to speech that I would probably delete fewer posts than he does - and you guys would be really hopping mad.

I am a little disturbed by the continual refrain of "CJ is quick to delete anti-semitic posts." Has anybody really got a problem with that?

On the other hand, while Charles gets the blame for everything that someone else does, other bloggers are given a free pass for things they are personally responsible for:

- Nathan Newman accuses Charles of encouraging people to flood him with e-mail.
- Matt Stoller at bopnews.com repeats Newman's ridiculous accusation as if it were fact.
- Another blogger (if I may call her such) accuses Charles of master-minding a spam attack, a DoS attack, and encouraging personal threats.
- Various ankle-biters blame Charles for the sorry predicament of Daily Kos.

Of course other blogs feature posts and comments encouraging all of these things against Charles and LGF (KOS, THOU ART AVENGED!), which go undeleted. (Though many are deleted, of course, as Armed Liberal points out.)

what eric sed

There's a good, time-tested solution to the problem of holding a publisher accountable for comments: put them in a Usenet group instead of on the site. Usenet is a wonderful tool that is far less utilized than it formerly was, mainly because of web-based forums and comment sections. There is case law holding hosting companies (ISPs and those who maintain news servers) harmless from damages claimed because of material posted by individuals who are merely customers of the service.

Usenet is available free (as a news-to-web gateway) through Google News, and a regular news feed is also available through a German server; most ISPs also offer news service, often contracted out.

It's easy enough to start a thread on a newsgroup and include a link to the website post you want to discuss.

I much prefer Usenet to comments or web forums, because most newsreaders thread posts, allow you to mark as already read or even invisible the stuff that isn't new, and allow you to killfile individuals and threads you aren't interested in reading.

Thank you AL. I think at this point it's also fair to at least speculate as to whether Gabriel's long-term residence in France has caused him to inculcate the much more, shall we say, "lax" concept of free speech practied in Europe as opposed to our country's much more vigorous defense of it. Perhaps an organized campaign to shut down a website or ban a speaker from a college campus or to discredit someone on the grounds of "hate speech" (i.e. speech that offends someone) is of no concern to Gabriel, not because he can't conceive of it, but because to him this is just the normal course of events? It should also be noted that concepts such as "hate speech" are most readily invoked to censor pro-Israel speech, and almost never anti-Semitic speech which spews forth daily in such large amounts even in America, and I would have to assume even moreso in France that perhaps to Gabriel it's just so much background noise.

There is no weaker argument against a statement than to say that it's "highly offensive". Anyone can be offended by anything. That's completely subjective and complete bullshit. It offends you, so what?

Again, "racist" is an innacurate characterization. I've seen vigorous attacks on the Arabic culture and on the religion of Islam on LGF, some of which went over the line, IMO, but never antying that attacked anyone for being a member of a certain race. The most extremely bigoted comments I've seen are anti-Semitic comments coming from trolls.

Oh, and "Nazi Media". See, here's the thing. Indymedia has a lot of people who post on it who are blatantly, undeniably anti-Semitic. You know, like they hate Jews. They really, really hate 'em. You know who else hated Jews? Nazis. Get it?

It's also fair to at least speculate as to whether Gabriel's long-term residence in France has caused him to inculcate the much more, shall we say, "lax" concept of free speech practied in Europe.

Eric: I continue to be struck by the profound stupidity and condescension of your statements.

evariste,

See my latest post in the Armed Liberal thread [emphasis added]

Since A.L. is one of the principals here, there's no single "the" Armed Liberal thread. Perhaps you could tell us which one you're referring to (via its permalink or something?)

Thanks!

Is there another term that would convey what you're thinking about without hitting that big, red button? 'Hateful speech,' or something?

AL-

If it's for the purpose of 'taking off heat', yes. Otherwise, I am frankly not so sure. I agree we are not talking about speech that is either criminal or constitutes an incitation to violence. All of those definitions of "hate speech" are excluded.

I am really not trying to be perverse. I do think here that there is a question of principle as to what should be regarded as acceptable speech on a website (not permissible, not legal, but ehtically acceptable). I also feel strongly that LGF has a problem. Charles thinks this is just some vendetta. I'm not so sure. I don't want to gut a valid debate by defining out the very points that are in controversy.

Let me think about this.

I find the entire argument over the comments section on LGF, or any other blog, fairly foolish. Any unmoderated forum will get its share of nutjobs and loons. The measure of a blog, website, forum, etc. shouldn't the amount of noise on it. The noise is always there. It should be how much signal, how much interesting and insightful content is available.

I continue to be struck by the profound stupidity and condescension of your statements.

And I by your continuing avoidance of the substance of my comments. But please, yes, do think. It's clear that you hadn't done us that courtesy before opening your mouth to begin with. I'll be on tenterhooks here waiting for you to tell everyone what is and isn't an "acceptable" utterance.

Eric,

Why don't we both agree that we are cluttering up this thread with our little dogfight and take it out back to our email accounts?

Joe, i don't remember advocating any particular course of action. Just expressed my opinion of LGF and its utility in the war of ideas.

Garbriel:

I originally e-mailed my intial comment, but you didn't respond to it.

I really don't have much more to say. I just genuinely think that this does boil down to a greater defensiveness of free speech on my part than on yours. Your basic argument, that LGF includes a non-trivial number of bigoted and hateful comments, and doesn't add anything productive to the discussion of the war on terror or understanding of the Middle East or Islam is perfectly reasonable. I think it's wrong, but it's a defensible position. If this is all you are saying, then you've made your point and it's time for you to move on and not look at that site. Yet, instead of moving on, you make this point again and again and again, and use words like "hate speech", "racist", and "highly offensive" in making it, the same code words that others (or for all I know, you) are using in campaigns to censor the site. I'm attuned to how such words are debased and abused to censor speech, but you don't even acknowledge the possibility.

If your point is that you consider LGF to be an objectionable site, you've made your point (and made it and made it and made it). I fail to see what further denunciations from you will accomplish, except to rally the forces of censorship, which your words have possibly already played a part in doing. Between your offense and censorship, I'll choose your offense any day.

Your obsessiveness and repetition of your points, without conceding a millimeter to the "other side" are what lead some to see this as a personal vendetta on your part.

That someone would even think about what is "acceptable speech on a website" is truly, frighteningly Orwellian.

That someone would even think about what is "acceptable speech on a website" is truly, frighteningly Orwellian.

Eric, my comment specifies: "not permissible, not legal, but ethically acceptable" specifically so as to address the concern you raise. This was meant to be specifically direct so that all could easily comprehend my full meaning.

Hey Kirk Parker-pardon me, I would have assumed my meaning to be obvious. I meant the Armed Liberal post titled A Corresponadence that brought so many lgfers and lgf detractors out to debate. I'm towards the bottom, do a find-in-page (Ctrl+F in most browsers) for "10:23 AM" if you don't want to spend a lot of time finding it.

A CorresponadanceA Correspondence

Yes, I think even with those caveats the mentality that rates speech as "acceptable" or unacceptable is fundamnetally anti-freedom. I find some speech, like the Daily Kos "screw them" remark to be hateful, repellant, disgusting, vile etc., but it would never occur to me to think whether or not it was "acceptable". That's the sanctimonious terminology of a nanny or schoolmarm, and it profoundly irks me to hear it. Whatever qualifiers you add, it hews far too close to saying the speech should be censored, and provides yet another rhetorical formulation for the pro-censorhip crowd.

[oops-seems the <strike> tag doesn't work on Winds of Change]

Eric Deamer,

I wouldn't have a problem with labelling Kos' comments as "unacceptable," but with the caveat that I mean socially unacceptable--that is, deserving of criticism, disagreement, and refutation. There's a difference in degree here, but it's sort of like burping loudly in public. That would deserve a furrowed eyebrow (an expression of social disapproval commensurate to the offense), but not a lawsuit or a citizen's arrest.

Last time I checked earlier today, Charles had blocked all AOL users from posting on LGF, apparently because the trolls who were demonizing right-wingers in general and his blog in particular had AOL IP addresses. If I understand correctly, he is able to let individual users back in.

This is unfortunate, as I'm sure there are a lot of AOL users who are good bloggers and play by the rules. But them's the breaks when you subscribe to AOL. And Charles is completely within his rights to do such. It's HIS blog!

Now, as far as "nuking Mecca" goes. It's one matter to just blurt this out without thinking. It's another matter entirely to postulate the possible outcome of continued actions by Islamofascists and the governments which support them (read: SAUDI ARABIA) which could lead to the annihilation of Mecca, Medina, and any other holy sites of Islam.

It sucks, but people have GOT to be ready for this possibility and understand the reasons for it.

"'wild' LGF posters aren't comparable to islamonazi insurgents IMO"

This i think is part of the problem. To some of us the typical LGF posters are not only comparable to the latter, they add to the problem of the latter, since it is STRATEGICALLY urgent that we NOT cause muslims to think that they and their religion are demonized.

Charles, I know longer comment at or read LGF. I got tired of being flamed as a leftie when i post a viewpoint that is right of center. I got tired of the cavalier viewpoints, the monotony, the adolescent mindset. And yes, the widespread hatred.

LGF may not be "hate speech" as a term of art, but at a time when the US is relying on allies in the muslim world, from Afghanistan to Kurdistan to Morocco to Indonesia, LGF spreads a poison that is dangerous to Americas grand strategy.

"I am a little disturbed by the continual refrain of "CJ is quick to delete anti-semitic posts." Has anybody really got a problem with that?"

of course not. It does indicate that he could delete hate filled antimuslim threads if he wanted to, though.

"I'm done. The smear going on here is painfully obvious; out of context quotes, out of context thread titles, outright lies, and a whole lot of willfull blindness. Have fun, kids.

P.S. Thank you, Jim, for the kind words.

Posted by: Charles Johnson on April 7, 2004 02:24 AM "

Out of context quotes - from Charles Johnson.

This is about the most hilarious thing ive seen on the web in a long time!!!!!!!!!!

LGF spreads a poison that is dangerous to Americas grand strategy.
Posted by: Liberalhawk on April 8, 2004 10:17 PM
**************************************************
Indeed? One man in blogspace has that much power?
Then praytell what is the effect of--

(sorry but you will have to register to read the full text, WoC might not want me to use that much bandwidth)

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?table=old&section=current&issue=2004-04-10&id=4486

"Murderous rhetoric
Some Bush-loathers rejoiced in the Fallujah atrocities: Mark Steyn says that there is a virus of hate in the Democratic party "

If excessive rhetoric by one's man's blog is a danger to the Nation what's the effect of the same by leadership of a major political Party?

"Nonetheless, there’s a kind of airbrushed Chinese whispers going on: out on some website, some fellow makes a ludicrous charge. An opportunist senator removes the profanities and starts using it at rallies. A newspaper reporter glosses over the more obviously paranoid aspects and frames it as a questions-are-being-raised issue that Bush needs to address. It’s fun while it lasts. But after November’s election has come and gone, the damage to the Democratic party will linger a long time. "

"IOW, the same form of partisan auto-selection that happens on Daily Kos and Atrios happens on LGF. Yet, neithe of the former two have regular constituencies of racist loonies that have to be played down as the local humorous colour."

You're kidding right? You don't think the loonies at Kos and Atrios are as bad as LGF? Talk about selective partisan blindness.....

"I have mentioned the hypocrisy of LGF's describing IndyMedia as "Nazi Media". I still shake my head in disbelief whenever I see Charles so describe IndyMedia. Don't you, Eric? If not, why not and why are you not embarrassed at your failure to think as I do?"

What Eric said. Indymedia not only has blatantly Nazi comments, but posts text and links to blatantly Nazi sites and articles. I mean really nasty racial stereotypes and conspiracy theories. You will not find stuff like that in Charles' posts, and less of it in the comment threads than on Indymedia. The two are not comparable.

"LGF may not be 'hate speech' as a term of art, but at a time when the US is relying on allies in the muslim world, from Afghanistan to Kurdistan to Morocco to Indonesia, LGF spreads a poison that is dangerous to Americas grand strategy."

This is a debating point which may be true (frankly, I doubt it), it is certainly not such an evident truism that it serves as a criterion for silencing proponents of opposing viewpoints. I suspect many LGFers might contend that spineless 'multiculturalism' (dhimmi appeasement) has given many muslim societies the impression they can wage an intensifying ideological-terrorist war against the West without any payback whatsoever.

Liberalhawk:

"To some of us the typical LGF posters are not only comparable to ["islamonazi insurgents"], they add to the problem of the latter, since it is STRATEGICALLY urgent that we NOT cause muslims to think that they and their religion are demonized."

Let me tell you something else that's strategically urgent. It's strategically urgent that we stop apologizing for the fact that we don't live under theocratic tyranny, and don't want to. It's strategically urgent that we understand exactly what we're up against. It's strategically urgent that we stop looking at "Muslims" as a tangle of hyper-sensitive phobias that have to be appeased and defended from the truth, and start looking at them as part of an international community in which they have a responsibility to co-exist peacefully.

You really slay me with your "spreading poison" stuff, Liberalhawk. I suppose MEMRI is spreading poison, too. Is anybody else spreading poison that might be harmful to your grand strategy - like the people who cheer the deaths of Americans in Iraq, for example?

Are you going to reassure the Christians and Jews who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq that their religion is not being "demonized" in the meantime, or is that kind of demonization okay?

Spare us the Moral Equivalence, please. "Moral Equivalence" has never been anything of the kind. It's never been anything but one-way apologism for cruelty and brutality.

Liberalhawk:

"To some of us the typical LGF posters are not only comparable to ["islamonazi insurgents"], they add to the problem of the latter, since it is STRATEGICALLY urgent that we NOT cause muslims to think that they and their religion are demonized."
*************************************************
So tell me? What is YOUR responce to Armed Liberal?

"
Let me roll a skunk into the discussion.

You say '...I would say it's pretty obvious that religious persecution is a dangerous activity to participate in (or encourage).'

What if the religion involved is bad? What if it, as a mainstream value, advocates things which we find horrible and intolerable?

You're starting out pretty much as the rest of us do; assuming that everyone is the same except that they eat spicier food than we do and wear more interesting clothers (hyperbole, I know, but bear with me).

What if they aren't?

A.L.

Posted by: Armed Liberal on April 7, 2004 01:39 AM"

*************************************************
I mean, what if their religion IS the Demon?

What then?

PS Armed Liberal?
What was the reason
for using the word

bad

rather than

Evil?

Gabriel:
Thank you for acknowledging Charles' perspective. He is really good at presenting the hopeful news from the WoT as well.
Joe:
I imagine this was like coming home to find your house used for a kegger over the weekend. You are very gracious.
A.L.:
Loved the analogy, but I think, a grad school college bull session.
I still think that none of Charles' critics can have spent much time at his site. I've only been here a short time but I have never seen a white supremacist or nazi on Charles' blog, and I have never seen anyone banned without just cause. I think perhaps, I am the most scared being at LGF. I'm a part-time theoretical population geneticist, and frankly, I am terrified. I've done the maths, and we don't have much in the way of margins. Islam may well take over the world. Islam is potent and powerful, and it means our deaths. It means our deaths whether we are Christians or Jews or druids. Individual muslims do not mean our deaths. of course, but Islam as a sub-genome certainly does. Either we destroy it, root and branch, or we change it, force adaptation. Sometimes I think that Charles is not strident enough.
LGF is very tribal. The posters police the threads themselves. A big part of LGF is "shout at the devil" or maybe even "laugh at the devil". LGF uses humor to combat fear. It may be crude, rude and lewd, but it is effective.
If a trip to WoC is stepping into the Age of Reason, with toga'd philosophers and doric columns, then LGF is a battle group, circled around a campfire, with a drinking thread or two. Or, to use A.L.'s metaphor, a biker bar. Now I don't know about you all, but if Apocalypse is peeking over the event horizon, I think I'd rather be hangin' in a biker bar, than philosophising with a bunch of grad students. :-)

"LGF spreads a poison that is dangerous to Americas grand strategy."

You mean, of course, the truth.

(Damn Platonists [insert Strauss joke here].)

Doctor Slack,

The fallacy lies in assuming a blogger has to police each and every comment made to his or her site. They don't. Once someone has made known what he or she prefers and has deleted a few comments from those who stray outside those boundaries, the overwhelming tendency from the remaining parties will be to try to stay inside the lines and go elsewhere.

This presumes that the posters on a blog are static, which is not the nature of the bloogosphere. While most sites do have 'regulars' they gain new participants(including one-shot posters) all the time. If the tolerance level is zero, then the administrator DOES have to police every post since many weren't there for the examples.

The administrator may feel safe skipping posts of regulars, but again, if there's zero tolerance then they must screen even those posts to be safe.

Doctor Slack,

Oops, missed the post where the previous point was made. Instead I'll go on to this:

It assumes no such thing. Plenty of sites attract traffic on a constant basis without consistently drawing hatemongers. It's very common for bloggers to shape their comments section with targeted dismissal of such people. LGF isn't an excpetion.

Which part of the site do you believe attracts the hatemongers, the comments or the content? If you think the comments do then you have a good point. However, if it's the content then the policing of the comments will have little or no effect on incoming posters.

Therein lies the meat of the debate about LGF, whether the content inspires hatefulness or is just un-PC. This discussion about the comments is a diversion since even if the comments were disabled it would not answer that question.

twisterella -

Thanks for 'getting' the metaphor; but I'll point out that it takes both the pointy-headed guys under that stands at U of Chicago and the burly biker types to win; and it even takes the artistic ones to help you understand why it's worthwhile.

I see some of the same issues you do, but as someone who's devoured a bunch history, Western society didn't look so different a few generations ago.

The issue is whether we can help expedite some similar tranformations in the Islamic world.

Many of Charles' posters don't think so, and are convinced that The Big War is here.

I think it's on the horizon, but can still be avoided.

That's the difference between us, I think.

A.L.

But really, a lot of the ritual LGF-bashing that periodically cycles through the blogosphere like flu from China seems to me either remnants or death throes of a certain part of the liberal psyche: the desire to be one of "our" sort of people. You know--enlightened, tolerant, willing to see the other [potentially oppressed] side's view, a believer in civic engagement and the common bonds between humans, blah blah. Of course we have to look at the good of Islam. Of course we should call it (or at least condone it being called) a religion of peace, and how intolerably improper of Charles and his minions to break that taboo, even proudly flout it!

As the genteel proto-PC of a domestic elite, this makes sense. Elite position, that old magnet of envy, has always been a precarious thing and the universalist and connective rhetoric is (and has from the liberal WASP days been) a logical and by now reflexive gesture of class self-preservation.

In GG's claim of "hate", in LH's terrified talk of "poison", and even in AL's desire to be evenhanded between LGF and Kos I hear an echo of the old fear, that sense that the ravenous potentially resentful masses are outside the door waiting to rush in if anyone breaks the spell of rhetorical unity & equality by speaking an impolitic word...

But any barrier is long gone. Islam -- the Islamists if you like declared its intention of barbaric domination, of war against the West -- against Israel and the United States in particular -- long before Sharon or Rumsfeld or Charles Johnson said or did anything in particular. (Note that the anti-American and anti-Jew fantasies are far beyond the grasp of anything like facts, of basis, not least thanks to the ravings of lefty nuts from the West.) Meanwhile it hasn't been our strength, our willingness to stand up as predominant in the world, that's been the provocation. It's been our weakness, the very same sort of enlightened talk that works in a domestic setting between rational and fundamentally similar parties.

Of course the "religion of Peace" stuff is great as aspirational language, and barring some mass exchange of nukes it'll be the basis on which we secure our future relationship with the Islamic world... After we win. After they learn they can't destroy nor convert us. For now, Bush's hypocrisy lays the groundwork. But first we have to win, and to win we need to truthfully see our enemy and to have the will to to defeat -- if necessary (and it all-too-often is) to kill -- him.

Myself I've liked the self-consciously decent forum you've set up as WoC, Joe, where left is allowed to meet right, though I'm mostly here for Trent's occasional post and Dan Darling's great summaries. It's a good thing, and may be the seed of something. But what Charles does is important. Really really important.

A point I elided but maybe shouldn't have: it's not the ugly truth that breeds hate. It's putting that truth outside "acceptable" discourse. Example: the last presidential election in France.

Charles doesn't breed hatemongers. He liberates many people from a certain important sort of resentment.

(Still the comments tend to run a bit doom-n-gloomy at times.)

How then, should Democrat Jerry's reported comments indic that Sadr is a "legitimate voice" in Iraq be interpreted, given the deaths of American servicemen in combat defending not only their lives but untold peace-minded Iraqis and espec America itself. I don't see or hear ex-SEAL Kerry singing comradely "HALLS OF MONTEZUMA" as these brave American warriors died - what I hear, see, and read is Kerry making KOS-style comment in that US soldiers fought and died because they were wrongfully challenging Sadr's violence-based, anti-American, pro-Iranian Revolution, [Righteous]LEGITIMACY - anti-Americanism and anti-American violence is legitimate, NOT HIS OWN COUNTRY, or at least his own country as led by Dubya and the GOP-Right, in the name of the five expensive homes Kerry won't likely give up even for Left-based Utopianism-Anti-Materialism!? Say it t'aint so!?

Kris Hasson-Jones,

Another option coming the other direction is to utilize the RSS feed to get the content without the comments.

I see some of the same issues you do, but as someone who's devoured a bunch history, Western society didn't look so different a few generations ago.

The issue is whether we can help expedite some similar tranformations in the Islamic world.

Many of Charles' posters don't think so, and are convinced that The Big War is here.

I think it's on the horizon, but can still be avoided.

That's the difference between us, I think.

A.L.

*************************************************

A.L. I too have a ranenous appetite for History as a boy I once borrowed a text on Medieval History our Pastor was using as a doorstop and read through it in hmm 3 or 4 days?

As to whether the Big War is on the horizon?

I respectfully disagree with you.

If one considers the costs in human lives?
Bangladesh, Sudan, Iraq, Algeria? etc etc.

I contend the Big War has been ongoing and spreading for over a generation, it has at
present barely touched OUR shores. (3000 here against say 2 million in Sudan about the Same in Bangladesh)

Yes Western Society did not look much different generations ago. That is true.
What is also true is someone who lived generations ago cannot drive a 3 inch spike down through the top of your head TODAY for not converting to his religion.

As far as what any Society was like generations ago?

We are completely safe.

. . . I have not seen Charles address the specific claim that LGF is highly selective in its policing of comments in a way that purges out the anti-semites and "pc trolls", but leaves intact all of the hate spewing from the other side.

And Charles won't do that because he is highly selective—as are probably most bloggers.

To each his own what he lets stand.

I agree with Stryker that the "volume of comments" thing is an excuse. Charles has, in fact, shown a singular ability to shape the tenor of comments on his site. He tends to ban people who don't play the way he likes, and lo, those who remain are those who do play the way he likes. Or at least is comfortable with.

They don't all get banned. Many leave of their own accord after one too many times of being shouted down by the horde. ;-)

""virulently anti-Arab" and a "hate website". ". . .

. . .LGF does function as a center for expression of hatred and bigotry. . .

I don't agree with that at all, Gabriel! Charles points out ugly truths in the Arab/Islamic world. If they can't take it they should change it. The comments may be made by some who are anti Arab. But, that has little to do with Charles.

Their websites, Arab News is a good example, print plenty of HATE against the U.S. and Israel.

I have been thinking that perhaps the way to go is to let the "undesirable" comment stand and just edit in a disclaimer (on the offending post) instead of eliminating it. That draws attention to its undesirability and the fact that the blogger does not necessarily agree. More work—but—the papers do it.

"There is no weaker argument against a statement than to say that it's "highly offensive". Anyone can be offended by anything. That's completely subjective and complete bullshit. It offends you, so what?"

ABSOLUTELY!

"I know longer comment at or read LGF. I got tired of being flamed as a leftie when i post a viewpoint that is right of center. I got tired of the cavalier viewpoints, the monotony, the adolescent mindset. And yes, the widespread hatred."

I agree and have done the same—left. Although, I still don't think it is a "hate site." Some of the posters are over the top.

"LGF spreads a poison that is dangerous to Americas grand strategy."

Well, the truth hurts and the Arab/Muslim world is having a hard time with all the lights being shone on them. The pen is mightier than the sword. Let those who believe LGF (Charles) does not print the truth refute it with proof.

I think everyone should be heard. And water seeks it own level. OTOH—a blog is a PRIVATELY owned website, like someone's home. He can invite whom he chooses and ask whomever he chooses to leave.

As Voltaire said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Lili

A.L.: That's exactly my point! The tribal behavoir the west left behind ages ago is perfectly preseved in Islam! It helps to consider Islam as a competitive organism, seeking reps. The analogy is a virus-- it just makes copies. The mechanisms for doing this have evolved over centuries.
My fear factor relates to the incredible potency of meme enforcement in Islam, via the Qur'an.
Of course, we need to change Islam for our strategy to succeed, but how? That's the dicussion Micheal Ledeen and some posters were having the other day at LGF.

"You really slay me with your "spreading poison" stuff, Liberalhawk. I suppose MEMRI is spreading poison, too. Is anybody else spreading poison that might be harmful to your grand strategy - like the people who cheer the deaths of Americans in Iraq, for example?

Are you going to reassure the Christians and Jews who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq that their religion is not being "demonized" in the meantime, or is that kind of demonization okay?"

The demonization of christianity and Judaism is not OK, its terrible, bigoted, and backward. Its fascistic, and I hate it.

Are the people who cheer the deaths of Americans in Iraq spreading poison, thats dangerous? Yes, damn straight they are.

Is Memri spreading poison? No, as far as I can tell. They print facts, with no attempt to generalize from them, or make sarcastic remarks about the "religion of peace". and at least occasionally they print moderate statements from the Islamic world - and when they do they dont focus on how exceptional they are. IIRC Memri provided info on the differences between Arafat and Abu Mazen, while Charles insisted that any differences between them were a "charade" until Arafat fired Abu Mazen. AFAIK Charles has never admitted he was wrong.

"What if the religion involved is bad? What if it, as a mainstream value, advocates things which we find horrible and intolerable?"
A.L.

You mean like if they institute an inquisition, which murders heretics and jews???? I would quite rightly distinguish between those committing the crimes, and those who interpret the religion differently. I would focus on the actions of the two different groupings, and would not trouble myself about who is the "correct" interpreter of the religion.

And in all this I would insist about learning about the potential sources of evil in any religious texts, seriously, and without bias. That is not what I find on LGF. I find instead a few select Koran quotes taken out of context, and interpreted in the worst possible way. When this is pointed out, it is suggested that because the most fascistic elements in the muslim world agree with the LGF view, it is therefore correct.

There are some horrid statements about Christians and gentiles in general that can be found in the Talmud. Antisemites routinely pull these out of context, both out of their textual context, and out of the context of Jewish history and life. Their doing so is not any less antisemitic if they find some Kahanist who agrees with them. As far as I can tell, LGF does essentially the same thing with muslim texts. Are there more pro jihadi/salafists among muslims than there are Kahanists among Jews? Sure, but there are explicable historical reasons for that.

"I still think that none of Charles' critics can have spent much time at his site. I've only been here a short time but I have never seen a white supremacist or nazi on Charles' blog"

ive spent plenty of time there.

Of course you wont find nazis, Charles is friendly to Jews. Or white supremacists, LGF is ok about non-whites as long as theyre not muslims.

'As Voltaire said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." '

and do you and Charles apply this to the mullahs ranting in Mecca, Gaza, and elsewhere.

Charles QUITE RIGHTLY understands that hate speech coming from the pulpit of a mosque is more than just speech, and is profoundly dangerous. Yet he and his defenders hide behind Voltaire and libertarian views of free speech when challenged for their own speech.

"Of course we should call it (or at least condone it being called) a religion of peace, and how intolerably improper of Charles and his minions to break that taboo, even proudly flout it!"

fairly obviously, Islam has elements that are very violent, and elements that are peaceful. In that sense it is naive to call it a religion of peace, only slightly more so than to call Christianity a religion of peace. LGF does not show the diversity in islam over time and space, and within its texts, but instead attempts to show a narrow, largely misleading view of Islam. The consequence is to encourage folks to oppose admin policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans, Indonesia, and elsewhere that involve cooperating with Muslims, any muslims. This is OBJECTIVELY bad for the WOT, JUST as lefties calling for withdrawl from Iraq is OBJECTIVELY bad for the WOT.

"That's exactly my point! The tribal behavoir the west left behind ages ago is perfectly preseved in Islam! It helps to consider Islam as a competitive organism, seeking reps. The analogy is a virus-- it just makes copies. The mechanisms for doing this have evolved over centuries.
My fear factor relates to the incredible potency of meme enforcement in Islam, via the Qur'an.
Of course, we need to change Islam for our strategy to succeed, but how? That's the dicussion Micheal Ledeen and some posters were having the other day at LGF."

All proselytizing religions make copies of themselves. The most succesful at this has been Christianity. Islamic texts, like Christian ones, have been interpreted differently by different people over the years. Kemalist Turks think they are muslims too, and their interpretations of the Quran are valid. That the Wahabi strain in recent years has propogated so successfully has less to do with the content of the Quran, and more to do with the funding flowing out Saudi Arabia.

I have little doubt that if Saudi oil had somehow all turned to water in say, 1979, thered be a lot more sufis, moderates, etc in the Sunni muslim world than there are now, and far fewer Wahabis.

There are some horrid statements about Christians and gentiles in general that can be found in the Talmud. Antisemites routinely pull these out of context, both out of their textual context, and out of the context of Jewish history and life. Their doing so is not any less antisemitic if they find some Kahanist who agrees with them. As far as I can tell, LGF does essentially the same thing with muslim texts. Are there more pro jihadi/salafists among muslims than there are Kahanists among Jews? Sure, but there are explicable historical reasons for that.

Posted by: liberalhawk on April 9, 2004
**************************************************
There certainly are horrible things in the Talmud, The Christian Bible most any religion.

Tell me? How many Holy Armies have the other religions raised recently?

How many millions have been butchered by them for not converting?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26672

Sudan's holy war against the south was reaffirmed in October by First Vice President Ali Osman Taha.

"The jihad is our way, and we will not abandon it and will keep its banner high," he said to a brigade of mujahedin fighters heading for the war front, according to Sudan's official SUNA news agency. "We will never sell out our faith and will never betray the oath to our martyrs."

How does the situation in Sudan today differ from the tactics of Muhammed and his Companions in the Arabian Penninsula at the dawn of the 7th Century?

LGF does not show the diversity in islam over time and space, and within its texts, but instead attempts to show a narrow, largely misleading view of Islam. The consequence is to encourage folks to oppose admin policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans, Indonesia, and elsewhere that involve cooperating with Muslims, any muslims. This is OBJECTIVELY bad for the WOT, JUST as lefties calling for withdrawl from Iraq is OBJECTIVELY bad for the WOT.

Posted by: liberalhawk on April 9
**************************************************
So why don't you give links to the Peaceful side of Islam if you claim LGF gives a misleading view,

NOT what the Quran or Islam SAYS but what it DID.

Give us examples of a Peaceful Compassionate Merciful Muslim Nation.

Or is it your contention that lieing about Islam is a better tactical move?

liberalhawk:

How do you measure success? In population genetics it is the number of reps, in pure form. I would argue that Christianity has been heavily secularized, and the reps are no longer pure.

It is always difficult to make this argument without offending. Look at poor Sir Richard and his twenty year battle with the "intelligent design" beings.

Well, liberalhawk, it has been swell (not)! I'm off to the Belmont Club thread at LGF where it seems my knuckle-dragging, bloodthirsty, muslim bashing, bigoted cohorts are actually making some progress. Too bad all you can do is watch and listen there-- perhaps you might learn something?

And by the way, j'acuse! I think you are an intellectual voyeur, unable to open your mind to the sharp blade of science!

a bientot, twisterella

Just a note to all those that feel our campaign should not be advertising on LGF and other sites.

Blogs as popular as LGF and others cannot and should not be expected to scan and police each and every post. The numbers simply don't allow someone such as Charles Johnson to be able to keep a full-time job and devote "48 hours per day" to do this.

Bryan Coffman does not now, nor has he ever condoned hate of any kind. Our traditions, values and core beliefs as conservatives simply do not allow us to hate. We love you all, even those that would seem to hate us just because of the advertising in question here or our views on specific issues.

Our campaign HQ has received tons of phone calls and emails regarding this issue. Bryan has taken many of the phone calls and answered many of the emails personally. No less than 90% of these are positive.

For those that do support us, we would like to thank you for that and for those that don't, please do not hesitate to contact us by phone or email to discuss specific issues.

We do try to answer each and every call and email so please be patient when contacting us.

Thank you
Billy Pickering
Campaign Manager
Coffman for Congress

For those who have doubts about the openness of LGF to genuine debate, rather than self serving villification, try this simple test:

Next time you spot a posting or discussion on LGF that is inaccurate or skewed to make a claim that doesn't reflect the realities of the situation, try posting a rebuttal (no posturing, just the facts) of the claims and see how a bit of dissent from the prevailing group ethos is recieved.

You don't have to display any great radical political/religious beliefs to feel the wrath of the groupthink there. Just posit an alternative viewpoint.

It's no FreeRepublic, mind. There are regulars on LGF who seem open to debating the issues of the day, and who display both good manners and critical faculties. They just get drowned out by the noise and fury of the many, who gather there for the reassurance of the propaganda. I don't mean the fringe nutjobs like bigel etc. I just mean the mainstream who see a dissenting argument as the badge of a. the anti-semite, b. the 'dhimmi', c. the 'america-hater', and so on.
It's no mystery why the animosity towards (take your pick) the French, the UN, the Canadians, the Democratic party, the EU, the Belgians, the Spanish, the 'LLL', all Press Agencies, all mainstream media outlets, the BBC, any vaguely leftwing or social-democratic party anywhere is so constant and seemingly irrational. There's a core consensus worldview in operation on the site, that just can't tolerate an opposing view. At least FreeRepublic spare us the hypocrisy of pretending otherwise.

I posted for a year or so. On a near daily basis I was accused of being an anti-semite, despite never posting anything that would support such a claim. I'm neither an anti-semite, nor indeed an anti-Zionist, and made that clear repeatedly. If there wasn't any middle eastern aspect to the issue at hand then the old reliables 'anti-american' or 'moral equivalence' were rolled out to dismiss whatever point I was making. This with the usuall derogatory terms and talk of 'trolls' etc. The name calling etc is no great matter, but the real loss is any avenue to validate the case that LGF sets out to make. I personally don't buy into most of the anti-Islamic demonisation and Bush/Likud/neo-con/PNAC flagwaving that they promote, but I am interested in hearing and debating their case. In the absense of possibility for reasoned debate all I'm left with is a take-it-or-leave-it mix of fact, supposition, fabrication, and propaganda, which isn't particularly interesting beyond the comical and car crash intrigue element.

Yes I know. There are equal offenders on the other side of the fence. That's no excuse. (see! I'm no great moral-equivicator either!)

so i guess freedom of speech doesnt count for the web. or for people at LGF? or for people who have bad or dangerous thoughts and ideas? need to sanitize what people say, need to bleach the written word.