« We need some smarter idiots | Main | 'Go for it' column »
Friday, 07 April 2006
'Mary' stands accused
I've decided to set before this "community" an interesting proposition. Buried deep among the record 108 comments on my lengthy March 26 column is the following, from fellow Unpartian (I think) Paul DeMarco:
Thanks for trying to keep the debate civil. Personal attacks simply demonstate that the attacker's argument won't stand on its own merit. Mary's "worthless piece of garbage" routine is tiresome and mitigates any impact the substance of her message might have. If I were Brad, I wouldn't stand for it. I'd warn her and her like and then ban them from the site if they continued. If not, I predict, the ugliness will only worsen.
As you can see, the Unparty -- assuming I'm right about Paul's affiliation -- is not for libertarians. We believe in the rule of law.
The thing is, the shifting community that has formed on this blog has no laws as yet. And we are still small enough that we have not formed a republic, therefore to the extent that we deliberate, we must do so through the "town-meeting" sort of direct democracy.
But now Citizen DeMarco has proposed not only a law, but presented its first test. He says that Mary Rosh's behavior is unacceptable in these virtual parts. He proposes a community standard, and a means of enforcement -- a warning, followed if necessary by excommunication.
This is fascinating. We are present at the birth of a society, however rudimentary it may be. I'd like to see where the group will take this. I expect a wide variety of viewpoints to be expressed, but I'm curious to see whether we can nevertheless move toward a consensus -- one way or the other, or in between somewhere.
Since I have a rather unique role in this society -- you might say I'm sort of a unitary executive in a very liberal (in the classic sense) democracy -- I'm not going to say what I think about Mary's case at this point.
Anyway, we have the bill before us. Let's debate it.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 06:20 PM in Blogosphere, Civility, Crime and Punishment, Feedback, In Our Time, Marketplace of ideas, Seeking advice, Words
Permalink
Comments
We would want to promote and support free speech at nearly all costs. So I would prefer that short of gross obscenity or slander, just about anything goes. The citizens of the virtual world need to hear the Mary Roshes so valid decisions can be made on the issues. A good example of how this can work for or against a person or issue was how effective the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were in the 04 election. I would never want to see voices on the left or right muzzled. The truth will out.
Posted by: Dave | Apr 7, 2006 8:13:32 PM
Blogs like this are wonderful, voluntary exercises in persuasive writing. Some people chose to persuade with vitriol; I don't have a problem with it. I might not respect their opinions very much, but that goes with the territory. I wouldn't ban anyone.
Or you can have fun with it. Your recent repair of the italics demonstrated your FontMaster powers; can you turn the angry entries red? The bizarre non-sequiters polka-dotted? Since you're birthing a society here (ouch) you should also be able to handle developing non-verbal cues for text-based communication!
Posted by: Uncle Elmer | Apr 7, 2006 8:26:46 PM
I also would not like to see anyone banned.
I made the mistake earlier of being too
confrontational in some of my posts with Capital A and addressed it offline. I am trying to focus on ideas and opinion and imagine the perceived level of vitriol would be significantly different if these conversations were held face-to-face....
but then I have been doing these types of online discussions since about 1984 (pre-Windows, pre-blogs, pre-AOL, but post-punchcards) mainly over sports topics. I once spent a very enjoyable evening at a Boston Celtics game with a guy with whom I had carried on an months-long war of words over the relative abilities of Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. It only took about 2 minutes of face to face contact before we both realized that having different opinions didn't mean we had to hate each other.
I find Mary's non-garbage comments to be passionate and well thought out. Hope she stays.
Posted by: doug | Apr 7, 2006 8:50:21 PM
Brad,
How about organizing a blog get together sometime in the summer? Maybe bag lunches in Finlay Park... we could all meet, shake hands, laugh, smoke cigarettes :-), and debate the issues of the day. I bet the level of negativity would drop considerably if we could associate a name and a face with the posts.
(If anyone cares to imagine Brad Pitt when they see "Doug", be my guest)
Posted by: Doug | Apr 7, 2006 8:59:55 PM
Mary seems to have dropped the "worthless piece of garbage" routine; the direction seems positive. But if someone engages in constant name-calling, labeling people (and that isn't always just Mary, as she pointed out), rather than actions, at some point I would zap their contribution, if it were my blog.
A person might have something worthwhile to say; just as important is learning how to say it. It is part of how a democratic society works. Some folks are turned on by vitriol, and respond in kind, which ultimately isn't helpful. Others are driven into a corner, and feel intimidated to speak their mind, which is equally not helpful. The framers of the Constitution maybe didn't put common courtesy into writing, but it was part of the value system that formed the context of its birth. Passion and zeal are good, but a degree of politeness is inherent in the practice of freedom of speech. It is the "glue" that holds it together.
Posted by: Herb | Apr 7, 2006 9:28:09 PM
Mary Mary Quite Contrary should stay. For one, she makes me look moderate, and I enjoy the "cooler head" role for a change. For two, she is consistent (read: honestly holding)in her beliefs which is more than I can say for some of her sparring dummies. For three, I love the irony of an estrogen assassin whose is more of a malcontent than even her testosterone toting targets.
Censorship of the type our host proposes on this blog would transmute this place into the type of vapid vapors symbolized by the postings in the blogs to which yours are linked. A whole lotta straw comments posted on those and no gold. This ain't the CrunchyRep., thank God!
Though their design skills do trump our host's, I'd say this "party" should favor substance over style.
I would draw the line at cursing. It's just too coarse and boorish. Maybe it's the Southern dandy in me...
I'd vote for never meeting each other also. I'd prefer to keep my carefully constructed mental images of those with like and unalike mind. To participate in such an event would only cloud our judgment in future bloggings. Since we would've met, we'd pull our punches and only go half moon.
Besides, if I'm not the most dashing and handsome rogue on this blog, sheer surprise would steal my sunshine.
Posted by: Capital A | Apr 7, 2006 9:38:58 PM
Brad, after you compelled us to see that latest picture of you, this group may find you guilty of the obscenity laws and as a result you could be overthrown and deported. Where would we deport you to? Mary would ship you off to Iraq for sure where you could be embedded with the new Iraqi forces. I see a Pullitzer in your future on that score.
Posted by: Dave | Apr 7, 2006 10:07:20 PM
Yes, once again you prove your hypocrisy and cowardice. You don't argue in support of your viewpoint, instead, you argue that anyone who disputes your opinion is unpatriotic. It isn't that we have used reason to come to a conclusion contrary to yours; it is that we "don't love our country enough."
You pretend to see nothing wrong with that behavior, just as you pretend to see nothing wrong with advocating a costly war when you do not, and are not willing to, shoulder any of the sacrifices that it causes. You sit on your sofa, watching Thomas Friedman on television and living off of handouts, and spinning out your racist fantasies. When the fantasies do not come to fruition, it is not your fault, somehow. It is not the fault of you and the other chickenhawks and freeloaders who talked about how this "experiment in democracy" was worth the deaths (not yours) that it would bring about, and the money (not yours) that would be wasted.
We predicted three years ago that this would lead to disaster, and it has. Yet somehow, you accept no blame yourself, but instead blame those of us who foresaw this disaster, and you blame the majority of the American public who have been persuaded by our arguments and their own observations that this war is a disaster.
We are to blame because we don't believe hard enough. We are unpatriotic. We have infected a majority of the American public with defeatism and despair.
You see the war as having no cost because it imposes no cost on you. Someone who (like you) doesn't contribute anything to the United States doesn't feel the loss when the resources (hunan and financial) of the United States are wasted.
As I've pointed out before, you and the other chickenhawks do everything you can to avoid addressing the argument and the facts as they are. Instead, you impugn our motives. We are, at various times, unpatriotic, defeatist, enemies of America, and when we take umbrage at your smears, you swoon, reaching for your smelling salts and decrying our "incivility."
I have put forward the proposition that you are a worthless piece of garbage, and I have backed it up pretty well. You are a liar, a coward, and a hypocrite, who avoids supporting your argument by impugning the patriotism of your detractors and hiding behind our soldiers. If that's not a worthless piece of garbage, I don't know what is.
If you want to ban me, why don't you first go a month without attacking the patriotism of those who oppose the Iraq war, or hiding your arguments behind our troops. Why don't you base your arguments exclusively on facts and reason, rather than taking the coardly position that opposition to your views is unpatriotic?
If you can do that, you probably won't need to ban me; I'll probably be struck speechless with astonishment.
If all you want is for me to quit calling you a worthless piece of garbage, the solution is simple.
Quit being one.
Dave, you bet I'd ship Warthen off to Iraq (and you too). But of course, it's a lot harder to support the war if you actually have to lift a finger to do it. It's a lot easier to "support" the war the way you do, by accusing 60% of Americans of treason for not clapping hard enough.
Posted by: Mary Rosh | Apr 7, 2006 10:39:30 PM
The truth is that we need people and viewpoints of all types to define ourselves. I wouldn't ship anyone off because it would simply be unAmerican.
Mr. Warthen (based this one viewpoint he's expressed)is a victim of his failed generation. Knave is simply a simpleton. We are all Americans.
Besides, won't it be a wonderful day when evil is overthrown and the rule of law is affirmed? V-I Day is coming, and we'll need an audience present to appreciate immodest gloating.
I'm not above such an act because it's been going-on-7-years of suffering the fooleD gladly.
Posted by: Capital A | Apr 7, 2006 11:57:27 PM
Capital A, shipping Warthen and Dave off to Iraq wouldn't be unAmerican. I'm not talking about deporting them. I'm talking about giving them an opportunity to take positive action in support of their (professed) beliefs.
Posted by: Mary Rosh | Apr 8, 2006 12:32:36 AM
Oh, in that case, don't forget Lee.
Posted by: Capital A | Apr 8, 2006 12:57:43 AM
Capital A - As Dick Cheney might say, you are a major league Clymer, so now we know what the A stands for. Even in our virtual village we cannot be deprived of our idiot, and you are the idiot. Major league idiot with a Capital A. I don't think I have seen one original thought from that idiot brain (or lack thereof) of yours. Your posts consists of attacks on or commentaries (mostly negative) on what others post. How about for once posing an original opinion on this blog, but, I realize it will be minimal with that pea sized brain you have.
Posted by: Dave | Apr 8, 2006 5:58:26 AM
Mary, I am proud of you, you are determined to hang onto your title of The Queen of Doom and Gloom. Disaster, disaster, disaster over and over. If you were around in 1776 you would have been picketing or verbally harassing (only verbal because you are a physical weakling with a sharp tongue) George Washington and his army because blood was being shed. Thankfully, for all of us who inherited the greatness of this nation, the founding fathers either ignored or pushed the weakminded aside, like you and Capital A, and the result is we have the greatest country to ever exist on this planet. Let's include the universe when we say that. But, keep it up, as in our little micro-world here, you represent the real life opinions of the Howard Deans, Nancy Pelosis, Ted Kennedy, Maxine Waters, Russ Feingold, and many others from the looney left. Free speech is great I say.
Posted by: Dave | Apr 8, 2006 6:07:19 AM
We need to remember the difference between "censor" and "censure". The former is unacceptable (except for very strict limits) under the First Amendment, the latter is perfectly in order for offenses such as use of profanity, repetitive name-calling, straw man arguments, and faith-based arguments that fly in the face of accumulated evidence. This is a forum, not a debating society, but showing restraint and good manners always makes a better impression than ranting. Fifty-six years of life experience have taught me the meaning of my grandfather's adage, "Never argue with a fool. People watching you may not be able to tell the difference."
Posted by: BLSaiken | Apr 8, 2006 8:18:49 AM
Look how quickly this thread devolved. Now you're going to have to ban everyone. ;)
Seriously, I say don't ban Mary. He can be obnoxious, even when I agree with him (I assume he's a guy - the original Mary Rosh was), but so what? Don't ban Dave either. I don't think you should ban anyone except spammers or people who post threats, and I haven't seen anything like that on this blog.
In my opinion, bloggers who ban and threaten to ban commenters wind up looking petulant and slightly ridiculous. You'd be a bigger man if you just let Mary's comments stand.
Posted by: kc | Apr 8, 2006 11:22:58 AM
kc, Warthen would have to complete a long uphill climb to look only slightly ridiculous.
You say that he would be a bigger man if he let my comments stand; I basically share that view, but I would put it in a slightly different way. My perspective is that by letting my comments stand, he would avoid being an even smaller man than he already is.
What would make him a bigger man would be if he took my comments to heart, and avoided arguing on the basis of casting his own viewpoint as the only legitimate one and impugning the patriotism of people who argue against his viewpoint
Oh, and you can avoid looking at his pictures by turning off images in your browser before going to his blog. For Netscape, you go to edit, and preferences, and privacy and security, and images.
Posted by: Mary Rosh | Apr 8, 2006 12:29:30 PM
Free speech comes to the website, Yippee. Did you hear the radio ads on the Glen Beck and Rush on April 7th? It seems a group of volunteers are putting their money where their mouths are today in promoting their favored Republican for president. From the buzz in national polls, Condi is at 20%, on the same level as McCain and Rudy. I went to their website and found interesting stuff, www.4Condi.com. Sharing information is a key factor with blogs, so this is great.
Thanks for allowing me to speak.
Posted by: Debbie Watson | Apr 8, 2006 1:08:36 PM
Debbie, welcome to the virtual world here from a fellow poster. I am a big Condi supporter too. She wins if she runs. It would be great to see her make history and further her record of being such a fantastic role model for all Americans, and especially minorities.
Posted by: Dave | Apr 8, 2006 4:02:48 PM
Dave, while I admire much about Condi (not least the depth of her musical knowledge (see a previous post on my blog to learn more) I disagree with you that "she wins if she runs." And it's the Republican Party that will prevent her...she has no chance of ever winning the nomination, for the following reasons:
1) she has not revealed much about her views on social issues, but I have a hunch they would be unacceptable to too much of the "base"...ditto Giuliani...
2) she is fundamentally an academic, an intellectual...Americans have traditionally distrusted intellectuals as Presidential candidates.
3)Even though I don't think her race would be the deciding factor, enough of the Republican strength in this country is based on subtle and not-so-subtle appeals to racism that any potential Republican gain among African-Americans by her candidacy would be offset partially by loss of votes among white males.
Still, #1 is the main reason.
Oh yeah, let Mary stay.
Posted by: Phillip | Apr 9, 2006 9:56:15 AM
No one HAS to read what anyone writes. Right? I always read everything some writers post, and I always pass on EVERYTHING certain others post. The latter would be "Bloody Mary", RTH and Bill.
Opinions are like "you know what". Everybody's got one.
Posted by: Spencer Gantt | Apr 9, 2006 1:43:50 PM
Your loss, Spencer.
Closed minds, like parachutes, don't function very well.
I read Dave and Lee because they remind me why this country elected a buffoon like the current Pres. and VP.
My current theory (explaining 2004) is the combination of rampant fear and epidemic stupidity.
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Apr 10, 2006 4:07:04 PM
Maybe Al shouldn't have invented the Internet afterall.It's like I told my late grandmother years ago-It's just a party-line(anyone remember those?)with a TV and a typewriter-only everybody in the world shares it-"Wow",she said,"Imagine the gossip."
Posted by: bill | Apr 10, 2006 4:28:29 PM
BTW, there seems to be an illogic to Demarco's complaint.
Demarco seems to say that he's stopped reading Mary's posts yet he wants them banned.
I suggest that you move the name of the poster to the beginning of the post. Also, I've seen other discussion sites where the individual can "block" certain individual's posts. The second option would shield sensitive folks from "offensive" posts without censoring everyone else's content.
Frankly, I've ceased reading Mary's posts because they're almost entirely ad hominem attacks.
OTOH, I like to season my posts with an ad hominem insult in return for the less colorful insults that Dave, Lee and others of their ilk like to drop casually.
Liberals in this country failed to take seriously the threat of regressive troglodytes like Dave and Lee for too long. We thought that accusing fellow Americans of being traitors was ip so facto proof that the accuser had no argument. It's taken us a while to understand that uber-patriots actually pose a very real threat in this hyper-polarized environment that Dear Leader has created.
When Dear Leader, your only hope for saving the country, tells his slavish followers that dissent is treason; if you're not with us then you're against us; and, laws are made for everyone else; then, it's quite obvious that his minions are dangerous.
I won't be caught in self-delusion like the German Jews in WW II.
Posted by: Ready to Hurl | Apr 10, 2006 4:36:48 PM
RTH - Funny but it is the liberals in this country who work tirelessly to disarm the US population, just like Adolf did to all Germans, except his own gang, pre-WW2. The Jews were in self delusion much like the liberals in America are today. Your home being invaded, you don't need a weapon, just call 911 and wait patiently for the police. Natural disaster, don't worry, your fellow citizens, if they are out of food, water, fuel, etc. won't trouble you or your family. Believe that? You shouldn't. Herb gets it. The punks and gang members and drug addicts will make short work of your food, fuel, water and whatever else they want. So remember that the next time Hillary and Chuckie Schumer wax on about how private citizens don't need any guns. That is our liberal mantra after all. As for your paranoia about conservatives and libertarians taking away your freedoms, that is nearly laughable. We are the ones who want government minimalized so it doesn't have the power to step on the citizenry and constitution. You, and your liberal pals, consistently vote for the government to get bigger and more controlling. Hopefully, you can see that.
Posted by: Dave | Apr 10, 2006 5:31:14 PM
Phillip - I agree Rice may have some unknowns but winning is everything. The country cannot afford a Kerry, Gore, or Clinton in the presidency. I may have to hold my nose for McCain but I would support him too. Rice I like.
Posted by: Dave | Apr 10, 2006 5:32:53 PM
