Sunday, August 21, 2005

It's finally official
I pushed them over the edge. I have been banned from DailyKos. Apparently, comments about the fact that Cindy Sheehan called for the destruction of Israel (which she did) are not allowed. In fact, any disagreement with her positions seems to be forbidden. I never once mentioned any personal aspect of her life. I mentioned the fact that no one seems to be able to show evidence that a single Iraq vet stands with her, and the fact that she wants to eliminate Israel. I stuck strictly to the facts of the situation and the facts of what she had to say.

And my comments were flushed down the memory hole, and in the process I lost my comment priveleges.

Party of tolerance my ass. They'll never win another national election because they don't have any new ideas, and they can't even face the ideas that we do propose.

And in case "TealVeal" happens to read this: you say that I am scum because I smear the mother of a fallen soldier. First, I ask you to definse "smear," since I didn't say anything against her that wasn't addressing something she'd said.

Second, what's the limit on that. If she murdered twenty people, for example, would I be allowed to call her a murderer? Or would that make a smear? What if she wanted to round up all of the hispanics in the world and wipe them out? Could I talk about that, or would that be a smear?

If you want to blindly follow someone without considering what they say, then fine. But don't be so high and mighty about it if you can't even defend the things that person has said.

UPDATE [8/21/2005 - 15:10]: I think that the Kossacks could all benefit from reading this column. Richard, if you're still lurking around, it would do you some good, too.

And this.

5 comments:

emily rogers said...

You should have expected to get banned from dailykos. It's not that we aren't the party of tolerance, it's that dailykos is not the site of tolerance for right wingers.

Even if you were respectful in your comments, Kossacks will still be turned off by the fact that a) you're a right winger, and the community doesn't like right wingers, and b)you posted your right wing website on your signature. That really irks people.

Kos isn't a site for right-wingers. Many Kossacks come to Kos for the chief reason that they want to talk to other people who hold similar political views. They're sick of too much interaction with Republicans.

You've got freerepublic and other sites that do the same thing for your side. Why not go hang out at redstate or something?

kitebro said...

Sorry you were banned. I hate to see Kos stooping to the level of Redstate.org. I was banned within 5 minutes from there. I like to hear opposing views. I've never troll rated you, so my hands are clean. As to your assault on the mother of a man who gave his life for our country, that's sad , too. It's a shame that Bush supporters have to resort to such tactics. The dirt dredged up in the columns that you site are pathetic. It's a disgrace. You should distance yourself from that nasty nonsense. The anti-war movement has begun. Deal with it.

RFTR said...

Emily: I appreciate your reasoned response—except for the fact that you think I'm a right winger. That's precisely the type of intolerance I'm talking about. I understand that Kossacks are fed up with people who blindly follow an opposing philosophy. But I've always been there to give people a chance to reasonably debate issues with me. Some take me up on it. Others just zero rate me because of a link in my signature.

You assume I'm a right winger, but have you read my blog? If so, you'd discover pretty quickly that I'm not.

Why don't I hang out at red state? Because I don't fit in there either. And as long as you people (who are supposedly getting together at DKos to figure out how to win elections) shun moderates like me, you'll continue to lose.

Enjoy it. I wish you well, and I hope DKos continues to fall off the left cliff into obscurity if this is the way they'll treat people who actually want to address ideas.

Kitebro: That's precisely the point—not once did I "assault the mother of a man who gave his life for our country." My entire conversation was about the ideas she espouses.

There is an inherent contradiction in the idea that a mother who lost a son has a philosophy that is unimpeachable. Why? Because what do you do when you put two such mothers together who hold diametrically opposed views?

If I refrained from discussing her personally, or her personal life, or anything beyond the views that she has publicly supported, then you HAVE to engage that. She's not right just because her son died—her ideas still have to be logically defensible.

Now what dirt that I dug up is despicable? If she said these things, why are they off-limits?

Seriously, why is she right and I'm wrong. And if the only reason you can give is that her son died, then good luck convincing the public. (And even if you do, then you should be ashamed, because that's bullshit politics.)

Irina Tsukerman said...

Bravo, I agree with you completely. And I think it's a sign of cowardice and narrow-mindedness when people choose to restrict their intellectual circle only to those who think a like. That's herd mentality, and I don't think it's even worth being bitter over. I think there's a number of much better left-wing sides that are at least willing to listen to their side if not rethink their own positions.

Irina Tsukerman said...

By the way, in case anyone left-wing is reading this, exactly the same thing goes for similar right-wing groups.