This should be interesting, is this going to be like obscenity with the "I know it when I see it" standard?

On a lighter note, how 'bout this motto? "Blogcritics, if you're looking for sympathy, try the dicionary ... between shit and syphilis."

I think it's touchy. We need sensability training. Meaning how to not be so sensetive about every damned thing.

You're gonna be one busy guy, Eric.

Might I suggest the polling take place elsewhere, on a restricted page or something, so that the whole world doesn't see the bickering.

Also, is there a one-and-done rule or a three-strikes-and-you're-out rule when it comes to getting banned?

I hear where people are coming from when they get frustrated with each other, and I understand that you're tired of dealing with the back-and-forth, but I think this policy isn't a good idea. What will prevent it from becoming a group-blog popularity contest?

Even though I tire of the personal attacks in the comments and posts, I'm not one for voting people off the island, so I probably won't vote in one of these polls.

COUPLA POINTS:

Any complaints other than from MacDiva? Just curious.

Seems like the rational 'contributors' get outweighed by volume, both numerically and decibel-wise when it comes to what fires you're asked to put out around here.

At some point, the kid on the playground who constantly runs to the teacher to complain needs a swift whack on the ass with an Ignore Stick. (Well, either that or placement in a 'special' school.)

Frankly, Eric, I don't know how or why you put up with it; today alone, she's tried to manipulate you, insult you, light a fire under you so you'll 'ban' me, bb, and al barger--- posted a "story" that is nothing more than a personal tirade against Barger---and it's not even noon yet!

(BTW: Big Al and I are about as far apart politically as two people can get, but we both agree that MD is a... ...um, okay, nevermind. But hey, she's a "uniter!")


ALSO: Banning any *kind of speech is a mistake, imho. (*other than blatantly illegal)

As I've said before, hard to believe *WRITERS would be so quick to call for censorship.


*professionals never would.

What the heck is hate speech? Unless the KKK is attacking people personally, or something like that, I don't think the concept applies.

If the only requirement is that people write and spell coherently, and refrain from excessive profanity, that should filter out most "haters."


I don't see where there's a problem. Did I miss a meeting?

Mike, I fucking swear all the fucking time. But I'm a god damned lover, not a pissant hater.

I'm just crude, as my mother says.

This is why I welcome all comments on the matter, including whether we should implement such a policy at all.

The voting would be private by email.

I am personally against censorship of this kind, other than by vehement criticism, which has worked pretty well thus far.

I do not support banning any sort of speech for any reason. The solution to bad speech (if you want to term it hate speech, feel free) is more speech. And, if someone is so universally offensive to you that you can't bear to see another word they write, then don't read it. But it's better they expose themselves than to be made a martyr (as my grandfather told me a number of times, "It's better to have people wonder if you're a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt").

I also agree with Joe; how can this possibly be defined? Other than Stewart's I-know-it-when-I-see-it approach, there's nothing that works. Take a word like "honky." To some, it's offensive. So it should never be used, not even once? Even as a quote to point out an offensive event?

not that this policy is a "slippery slope" or anything...but i will weep on the day that the words assplow and fuckknuckle are banned from blogcritics.

;-)

Free speech!! If something is blatently offiensive then it is. If you are worried about that, you should have a disclaimer. ( I think you have one now)

but i will weep on the day that the words assplow and fuckknuckle are banned from blogcritics.

LOL!

Assplow alone would get Dawn banned, so I think that one is safe!

No, we are just talking about "hate speech." Should that be banned?

Define Hate. I get sick of people who want to censor or tell me what is proper to say. I hate no one. I may strongly dislike or disagree with someone or something but I don't hate. Hate is very strong and is something that eventually will consume you and take control of your mind.

Shark - professional writers don't always exercise common sense. This is another reason there are editors. What you are calling censorship, somebody else could reasonably define as common sense moderation.

I applaud your success in the playwriting business, but you know darn well that there are lines in the sand. The literary license only extends so far. I'm sure we'd both agree that hate speech is illegal.

I think this policy is a good one, though I think it has already been in place. In the seven months or so that I've frequented and contributed to this site, I've only witnessed *two* instances where I think this policy could have been utilyzed in a real world situation.

One instance was so obvious that no official policy was even necessary, the other was a bit more vague and probably open to way too much speculation to have a fair and impartial outcome, even by an authenticated email vote.

I think the much greater problem of this website than misdiagnosed hate speech, or people being hypersensitive, is making the site so that this is a profitable enterprise. I am much more concerned by this concept because I like this site and want it to be profitable for Eric and company and hey, if a few bones for my contributions came my direction I certainly wouldn't turn it away.

I have submitted some of the same blogcritics reviews to epinions, and there I have made to date a pittance of 19 cents. However, that's 19 cents more than I've made for my contributions here in less amount of time ;)

For those who didn't read what Eric wrote here it is again:

Our sources of income, such as they are, are a small referral fee on items we sell through Amazon, and advertising - the combination of the two do not together even cover operating expenses. This is a deficit operation. My hope is that someday our traffic will be high enough that the Amazon and advertising actually generate profit beyond operating expenses, and/or that someone will buy into the site and/or hire me to run it for them.

A group of white people who sit by silent while racists dominate the site, claiming they don't see a problem. Sorry to interrupt. Return to patting yourselves on the back.

There's goes that grouping thing again :(

I think if there were concrete examples of which posts and posters were racist we could evaluate the severity of the problem, right now it just seems like parania.

Yes. And, it is white people doing the grouping -- as usual. Y'all as a group aren't being directly insulted by Barger, Blog Bloke, Shark, etc.'s racism because you are not members of the groups it is directed at. Yet, in the arrogance that comes with being members of the dominant group, you believe you have the right to tell me my perceptions don't count. But, no one is racist here, right?

Again, what are some concrete examples of racism and what you find offensive.

you can't cure the disease without first seeing the signs.

Look at your own effing blog. It is replete with racist posts and a contingent of Aryan Nations types inhabits your comments. And, don't forget the three pages attacking Mac Diva as an uppity nigger you have up.

There's no problem with Hate Speech on this site; there is, however, a problem with Stupid Speech. For example, Al Barger. But Stupid Speech is inevitable in any open forum.

An open forum is like a mosh pit; it's rough and tumble, but in the end everybody goes home with (most) of their limbs attached.

If I may be direct, the problem here at question is Mac Diva. I don't feel qualified to take her inventory, but she's obviously agitated with life and carefully doing everything she can to foment dissent and hatred here. There's really just no other good way to understand it.

The question then, what to do about the Diva? I have made numerous efforts at making nice, but she's not having it. She has made it abundantly clear that she has no desire to do anything but rant and rave against all us "racists." She will not relent, she will not try to get along. Period.

At some point, the question for Eric is whether to simply ban her from the site entirely. With Diva (as with me in a hopefully considerably friendlier manner), you pretty much have to let her go and accept her ongoing behavior, or kick her off the playground.

Myself, I would vote to tolerate her. She's just venting. Her behavior is unfortunate and creates lots of unnecessary friction. I can understand people wanting her gone, but if venting on me makes her feel better, I can accept that.

Diva, cuss me to your heart's content if it makes you feel better.

And Mr Larkin- Please elucidate about my "stupid" speech. I stand ready for correction. Thanks.

She's not venting, she is attacking good upstanding people in a vile and ruthless way that is without merit.

I said it elsewhere and I will say it here, either shut the hell up with the pointless attacks and stop calling people cowards or go the fuck away. I AM SICK OF IT. And clearly, so is everyone else.

I tried to make nice and be sympathetic and even begged Mac to come back when she threatened to leave a while back.

Fool me once.

MD:
I never used the word "Nigger" on my site. I never even knew or cared about the color of your skin until YOU broght it up.

Read my site, if you point to a specific post and specific passage I'll address it.

Until then I will take your accusations against me as just typical left wing accusations and name calling of conservative points of view.

And I don't think Mac Diva should be banned. No one should be banned. Free speech is not about banning people. Everyone has a right to speak their mind. I would be dissapointed if she were asked to leave, or was banned.

Look at the product of your, good upstanding person, Tom Mapp. Go ahead, look well. This is what you are defending. Read the racist post. Count the number of times the word 'nigger' appears in the comments. If you think that is good, there is something wrong with you.

Must I be clear Mac, I am talking about Eric, the person who I procreated with, you know, the person whom I know really well, and yes, he is an upstanding person and not A FUCKING COWARD or anything else you hope to imply, in fact I will go so far as to say that you paint people with such a broad brush that maybe you are 100% wrong about everyone you call a racist. Uh, oh, now I am going to be called a racist right?

Please, just stop it already. I am so bored with this, aren't you?

Let people say what they want. You can say anything about me that you want. Personally I find the flaming characters on Will&Grace and that other Queer show to be offensive so I just don't watch the damn stuff. Oh no!!! I said the word Queer I must hate. NBC and their homosexual freinds can say Queer but if anyone else uses it they are speaking hate. Please explain that.

OH, I didn't see the commments.

I can't be resonsible for content spammers.

Dammit.

I don't believe she should be banned either, and I join those asking for a specific definition of what constitutes speech that merits banning.

Also, I read the post to which MD linked. Yes, it's bonechillingly awful to say the least. But an author isn't responsible for the words tossed around by others in the comments, even if his or her thoughts inspired them. Tom, however vile I find his ideas, didn't put a gun to their heads and force them to use the N word. What, specifically, I would like to see is a link to Tom using the N word to describe MD.

Finally, this is all about money? That chills the bones too, especially when Amazon-dot-crap is involved. But that is my personal peeve.

Ok, I closed the comments.

I don't really like doing that because I believe people should speak their mind, and should have no limit on feedback. But, I guess I'll have to start looking for comment spammers.

I apologize if anyone was offended by that. I really should do a better job looking over feedback from older posts.

Dawn, read Eric's long list of insults directed at me. When he apologizes, I will. But, I retract nothing I've said about Barger, Mapp and their ilk. The posts at their sites and some of what they drag in here is racist, sexist, anti-gay and sickening. Surely, folks who are both better writers and not so far removed from basic human decency could be found to people the site. It is not normal for so much of that kind of attitude and material to be present in a relatively small space.

If Eric is a good husband, great. There are not enough good husbands in the world. But, that is not my area of interest. I am angry because he had an opportunity to finally curtail the nasty people who have come to dominate this site in some ways and he didn't. That's all. I wish he had stood up to them.

The comments are disgusting - so I left my own.

As for Barger, well other than his unwillingness to apologize for introducing that vermin Yeagley to my delicate sensibilities, I have yet to come to the conclusion that he is a racist. A goofball perhaps, but a hateful,racist? Truly doubtful.

Mac, my issue is with your increasingly harsh and baseless attacks on Eric. If you want to take issue with specific things posted that you deem racist, fine, but just because someone doesn't do exactly what you think they should do, does NOT make them racist. It just doesn't.

If this isn't hate then what is?

Natalie writes:
Finally, this is all about money? That chills the bones too, especially when Amazon-dot-crap is involved. But that is my personal peeve.

Hello Natalie - As I'm sure you know, through the history on the web it eventually always becomes about the money.

Lycos closed down their longstanding community forums recently. Why? Money. AOL is offering a competitive dialup service, why? Money. Blogshares was turned off, but then turned back on, why? Money.

I am concerned because from the emails I've read there is clearly a focus on traffic increase but that along with that increase, the profitability is publically being identified as insufficient.

In respect to me spending my time at a site that I like and want to see stick around, I would like to try and do my part in helping a future for this website exists.

If that offends the beliefs of those who think everything on the web should be free, when the reality is it is not, then so be it.

If this also means that Amazon is given the boot in favor of a more lucrative sponsor, or other ideas which would make this site not operate in a "deficit" then I'd likely add my support.

At the end of the day, for those that really, really care about this site, then part of that caring has to be based on the realistic financial obligations to keeping it running (bandwith, hosting, legal concerns, etc), not some ego-driven Bloggie award or an increase in raw traffic numbers.

Eric - I do have some practical ideas and suggestions on the technical, business side of things but I hesitate to post them here because it seems like this might not be the appropriate time and/or place. If you'd like me to contact you privately about these ideas/suggestions, just let me know and I will be happy to do so.

Thank you.

Did anyone read my article about pet adoption, surely that isn't argumentative?

:(

For anybody to imply that I am a racist is over the top and a reflection of neurosis. All that I did was intervene where MD was abusing others with her contemptible nonsense and suddenly I'm being tarnished by her VILE, filthy mouth. Nor will I sit idly by and be soiled by her. It is no longer a decision between sooner than later. A decision about her has to be made or BC will lose good Blogcritics.

If stupidity was a crime. . . .

et tu Brutus???

Actually, I am not one who believes everything should be free. I have serious problems with Amazon-dot-crap, however, and I have serious problems with the profitability-über-alles philosophy. But again, that's just me. The discussion of that is not germane here.

Don't forget to see Bumbling Buffoon in all his deluded glory.

MacAttack: "If Eric is a good husband, great. There are not enough good husbands in the world. But, that is not my area of interest."


Lemme guess: All men are 'racist'...

Doh!

Cheeese. Is this immature or what? MD I did sharpen my pencil so please take a look over here.

I went cruising through posts and comments and there's a simple rule that, had it been used, would have eliminated most of the problems:

Never call anyone a name (including political labels).

If someone calls you a name, ignore it.

Eric - no answer to the last paragraph in #35? Thanks.

Hal - the sticks and stones thing and taking the high ground works the first couple of times and with playground-style names. I don't think it works with habitual abuse with certain unfounded allegations. There's a big difference there.

TD, yes, please do contact me, always looking to improve situation. Running behind as usual, missed the last paragraph yesterday. Sorry.

What the heck is a donkey punch? I love all animals, and I don't believe in pitbull fighting, rodeos, bull fights, or beating up on any of our four legged friends! Is this some kind of new underground thing or what?

Bricklayer,You really do not want to know what"Donkey Punching"is. I can tell
you with certainty is has NOTHING to do
with Donkeys though.....

I thought it was a communal fraternity party drink - where did you see it anyway?

1)Maybe you're thinking of "Jungle Juice" Eric ???
2)"Donkey Punching"is when a "Man",after uh,having
relations with a woman in the Doggy style position
punches her in the back of the head at the point
of his climax.VERRRRRRRRRRY F***ing Sick!!!!!!!!!!
I know this via my brother in law who is a member
of an anti-gang unit on a police force in a large
SW city. See,I told y'all ya didn't wanna know!

TDavid:

I think it would work with most people here. I can immediately think of four who might slip, but if they didn't get the message, this discussion could be revisited.

I do agree that it's going to happen, but how about when one person attacks another everyone else stays out of it rather than piling on, as seems to happen ? My experience is that being ignored drives these types nuts.

Personally, I find it curiously weak-minded to see people attacked when they state an opinion. If calling someone a name is the best you can do, you might want to consider retraining.

There's always a way to disagree with an idea without personalizing it (even if you do think the person stating it is a stupid fuck).

"the sticks and stones thing and taking the high ground works the first couple of times and with playground-style names. I don't think it works with habitual abuse with certain unfounded allegations. There's a big difference there."

Eric please make note - TD is absolutely correct. There has to be a line drawn with serious consequences for habitual offenders. Perhaps a three-strike rule or something along those lines? Without consequences, not unlike children, some around here will continue to mock and snub their nose in our collective face.

Hey all! I am writing a speech for my debate team on how stupid hate speech accusations have become and I would like some input! If you have any examples of accusations that are utterly stupid please include name and dates. Thanks OH yeah keep up the fighting words. Personally I think people should be allowed to say what they want except for libel and threats. Beyond that people have a choice to be offended or not.

This topic brings back memories of the big Mac Diva censorship discussion. It was fairly disgusting how certain individuals used the term "hate speech" against Mac Diva to characterize her attitude, taking the phrase completely out of context (especially knowing the issues she was most concerned with).

Amy, what high school do you debate for? Sounds like a great topic. Check out a book edited by Georgetown law professor Mari Matsuda entitled "Words that Wound" about hate speech and the 1st Amendment. And a book by Stanley Fish entitled "There's No Such Thing as Free Speech."

I ultimately disagree with the conclusions of most of the scholars in these books -- I think speech that is not threatening violence of physical intimidation should be protected. And we should use more free speech to challenge the views of racists and bigots.

That is all.