Blogcritics: Comments on The Struggle For Free Speech

Comment by BB

Wed, 30 Jun 2004 03:30:14 EDT

Good Grief! Still business as usual around here. Bye...

Comment by Mac Diva

Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:24:10 EDT

This is in response to Phillip Winn's claim I violated his silly rules by calling 'Boom' Steve. I am posting it because it is a new height of ridiculousness for P.W.
[personal attack and reposting of private email deleted]

Comment by Phillip Winn

Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:43:56 EDT

MD, you're simply wrong. Your statements are hotly-debated, not dismissed, and that is just one example.

Comment by Mac Diva

Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:45:26 EDT

Comment 133: Well, a white woman said it, so it must be true-:). Further proof of exactly the point I've tried to make. Anything not emanating from someone white is dismissable around here. It doesn't matter that the person making the assertion is much better informed about the topic than the would-be dismisser. bhw wants to believe that the article written by a silly attention seeking white boy, which appears to be mainly made up, is some great monument to free speech. The evidence says it is not. But, we are to ignore the evidence because Ms. Anne says so. Such a typical white privilege attitude. Comment 131: Either Shark lies about his age or those old memory holes that lead him to make foolish statements about things are spreading. Nor do I believe he was gone for a a week of his own volition. Committed, maybe.

Comment by bhw

Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:57:07 EDT

Seemed like a good comment thread to me until #59 started the usual divisiveness. So I would call only the second half of the thread bullshit.

Comment by CW Fisher

Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:26:04 EDT

Obviously speech is free, just looking at the way y'all throw it around. RJ writes a paragraph and you write him a book. Worse, his paragraph makes no sense unless and until you check out the links -- which is what I call doing his work -- and even after all that, his assessment remains breezy and incomplete. RJ, you are a fraud, my friend. Paragraphs aren't posts, but they're enough to get you one the "leaderboard." As if that's leadership. Lazy lazy lazy. Writing, blogging, editing, posting -- it's hard work and there is dignity to it. Playing in the comments section is work too, but without the dignity. Calling each other names night after night -- get laid instead. Has no one ever told you the power of words? They can hurt, they can kill, they can destroy a good site. But the worst sin that any writer can commit is to BORE. Folks, you need a whuppin. Bullshit's bullshit, and this is bullshit. There's a difference between ideology and idiocy but not much. We need to grow past black/white left/right bigotry. And the labels, good Christ, the labels. It's embarrassing and shameful and it pours out of us like water. Every commentator on this thread is a good writer with decent values. If we are self-policing, then, as Rickie Nelson said, you've got to police yourself.

Comment by Shark

Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:35:38 EDT

MacDemon: "...I do not support a nasty old white man from Texas who was has the values of a member of the White Citizens Council circa 1960 or so. (They believed they were liberal because the Ku Klux Klan was more violent.) Shark's attitudes are stuck in that time regardless of what he calls himself. He was already in his 30s when the civil rights laws of 1964 and 1965 were passed. He never made it past white supremacy. He showed up at Blogcritics, learned I was a bright woman of color and began harassing me from his very first post. (After all, he knows what my place is supposed to be.) Following me from thread to thread spewing abuse. Something like 70 or 75 percent of his comments are probably attacks on me." Just for the record: 1) I was a very young child in 1964. 2) My "values" are based on honesty, responsibility, and personal integrity above all else. 3) I'm non-violent, as far left as one can get, and think "white supremacy" is despicable; (I do think MacDiva is a lying, weasel of a Liberal Facist, tho.) 4) I initially criticized MadDiva for her pathetic writing. I didn't know she was a "smart woman of color" until she told me. 5) I haven't participated in BC in over a week, but here she is still yakkin' about me. Who is obsessed with who? 6) MacDiva is the sole reason SHARK has decided to reduce his interest and participation in Blogcritics from a deluge to a trickle. I'm really sick of this... um, what was the word RJ used...?

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:03:34 EDT

Fine, fine. Natalie Davis is kinda cogent too. I didn't really know what your politics were. And I've converted her. Everyone happy now? RJ: See how nicely I distract things from your controversy, bro? The funny thing is that you're not the even one who's at the center of most of the recent "disputes" on this site. Enough bickering. That is all.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:21:25 EDT

BAB: You are the only cogent liberal on BC? That's news. And yes, ignoring the annoying works very well, but only if you stick to it, even if that person tries to goad you into responding. Once you decide to ignore someone, make a clean break -- to you, that individual no longer exists, no matter what.

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:31:57 EDT

Oh, and Tek: Ignoring each other works fine for me. Don't talk about me in third person, ok? Thanks. I'm no longer going to address anything you say, so there's no need to discuss me on your Yahoo thing either. Send Phillip my love -- he's such a sweety.

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:29:10 EDT

Oh, my apologies, MacDiva. I read that wrong. He did say Tek. That wouldn't surprise me in the least, nor do your comments about the racists and neo-cons surprise me. Thanks for the background.

Comment by Mac Diva

Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:28:29 EDT

Oh, I refused to join the Yahoo site. It is another of Phillip Winn's bad ideas like too much frippery on the site. One place for people to show their arses is enough.

Comment by Mac Diva

Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:23:11 EDT

I believe you are confusing me with Ms. Tek, Bob. I haven't said anything about you that hasn't appeared here. However, the words you refer to came from RJ Elliott, so I would need proof to accept them about Ms. Tek. She is a reasonable person most of the time. As is bhw. What you are seeing is references to things that occurred before you arrived. They included an overlong visit from a 'scientific' racist who says people of African descent are not really human and posted a picture depicting Janet Jackson as a gorilla on his blog. Al Barger invited David Yeagley over to Blogcritics. I guess the most simple way to explain this background is to say that BC was a gathering place for ultra Right Wing white men. Reactionaries, really. People who believe there are Commies under the bed and we need to return to the gold standard. When diversity turned up and was rather outspoken, quite a few of them became irate. Most of those who dominated comments pretended to be bloggers, but really weren't. (By which I mean they might start a blog and throw up a purloined news story on it from time to time.) The diverse and 'Left' voices are mainly people who consistently blog. More grounds for resentment. There is also an age difference. Several of the most hysterical Right Wingers threatened by women and uppity darkies are elderly white men. It is a long story. If you want to know more, email me.

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:03:43 EDT

I have no idea what any of you are talking about with your nerdy Yahoo business or your "plots." I'm honored, really, but it's not my fault you're such bitter people and that some of you have nothing interesting to say. I'm a little surprised that MacDiva would consider me an enemy since I'm the only cogent liberal on here, but I wouldn't put such irrationality past any of you. I'd read it for myself, but I don't know the web address for your Yahoo thing since I can barely find this site. Tek: I know it hurts your feelings that I won't write for your website or be a part of your empty life, but give it a break. I don't care what you think. Tell it to your shrink and go get some more ugly tattoos to deal with your crippling emotional pain and cover up the trauma that was your childhood. Or post some more ridiculously simplistic political blogs about Bush, ok? There just aren't enough of those on the web. Look, I think this discussion has degenerated and become too personal. I think it's become a matter of diminishing returns to engage in any of these discussions (even the pop culture ones). Other than Sam Vaknin, who doesn't engage in most of these discussions and finds 90% of his thoughtful posts unread or uncommented upon, I find very little original thought or commentary taking place. If you do have a thought about something, you get accused of being an Ivory Tower grad student elitist or being full of BS just because you don't like crappy music or dare to refer to a book on a serious topic like race relations. I honestly feel like most of the regular commenters/posters (all 10 of you) write just for the sake of writing and not to engage in any actual dialogue or debate. For some reason, a true engagement of issues scares you. Hence the endless one-upsmanship. You can have your little right-wing Dungeons and Dragons white male community with your token wacked out computer nerd minority chicks and white soccer moms if you want. Make all the shallow comments you want, feel free to be completely wrong about politics or culture, have fun making internet "friends" and "enemies." I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore about silly, petty stuff nor am I going to respond to personal attacks. Grow up. Stop being childish. No one cares about your insecurities. That is all.

Comment by Ms. Tek

Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:52:00 EDT

Thats right RJ. It is UNACCEPTABLE for you to be calling people cunts and whores in discussion. Period. And that being censorship of freedom of speech is a load of horseshit. But we'll see- If Eric wants to allow his site to be full of Cunts and Whores thrown at women... well that says a lot about him and this site, doesn't it? Grow the fuck up already. As far as the "formulate a plot" bullshit... I said people should just ignore him as I now do. Interestingly enough... people are doing just that... so it's no "plot". You on the other hand should be flat out banned. Period. As I said, grow the fuck up RJ. BTW... if you are saying all your bullshit about leftists... What does you calling women "cunts and whores" or being overly obesses about how many people women sleep with and the size of their partners penises say about the right? I think you need to go make nicey-nicey with the taliban since you really do seem to have a lot in common with them.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sun, 27 Jun 2004 18:20:42 EDT

Ah, the irony of this post continues. Tek is now demanding in the BC Yahoo group that I be permanently banned from BlogCritics. (By the way, she is also attempting to formulate a plot to make Bob A. Booey "go away.") All over one little word. One little word that has been arbitrarily deemed by society to be "profane" even though the exact definition of the term was quite apropos in the context of my usage of it. The endless personal attacks and defamatory claims of others are expected to be ignored. But one little R-rated insult is apparently grounds for not mere censorship, but actual expulsion. I think my point about some on the extreme-Left has been proven. Thanks for playing along.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sun, 27 Jun 2004 09:59:05 EDT

Public nudity is different than speech, legally. I know. It probably wasn't the best analogy. It wasn't so much a comparison to speech as it was to wearing a robe, which had been decided on this board, constituted speech. It was a stretch, but the point is in there somewhere. :-)

Comment by bhw

Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:38:47 EDT

We also shouldn't pretend that there is such a thing as an objective curriculum. Excellent point. Unfortunately, I don't remember any curricula not being presented as objective until college. Before that, there was no questioning, analysis, etc. I would much rather have had cultural/historical context and biases [including how the "canon" got to be the "canon"] brought into the discussion in public school. Maybe things are different now in public schools, but I'm not so sure.

Comment by bhw

Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:10:07 EDT

When it comes to the harm done minorities under the cover of free speech, she is in bed with a particularly gruesome Neanderthal, RJ Elliott. The Bill of Rights makes strange bedfellows, doesn't it? The situation is an example of why many people of color don't really trust most white liberals. Just when you think you can, out comes the equivalent of a knife in your back, ie., support of the most retrograde of white people. Yes, white liberals really just pretend to support things like Affirmative Action. When push comes to shove, we're only interested in banding together with other whites and maintaining the white status quo. We're white, and that's all it ever boils down to for us. White. White. White. I support the First Amendment. If you can't see the difference between supporting a right and supporting the messages that some people use that right to spread, MD, then that's your problem. I won't walk away from my position on this matter or any other simply because it doesn't fit the liberal talking points.

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:06:43 EDT

BHW has a good point about critical thinking in the classroom. I highly doubt that anyone teaches a political writer as "correct" in a dogmatic way; rather, a good teacher would teach it as worthy of interest and analysis. We also shouldn't pretend that there is such a thing as an objective curriculum. There's been so much written in the debate about the literary canon, but all pedagogy is shaded by the assumptions and prejudices of administrators, teachers, and texts. The answer isn't to shut out debate or to pander to the silliest forms of inclusion (like letting students waste time debating creationism in a biology class), but rather to teach critical thinking skills so students can seek more information on their own and make up their own minds. That kid might be right in saying he has a poor teacher, given her reaction to those events. Rigidity and reductionism in ideas often leads to similarly sweeping, broad critiques without nuance. I'm not really interested in the legal discussion or the kid's actual case itself, though, as you can tell. That is all.

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:00:17 EDT

Who's Shark, by the way?

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Sun, 27 Jun 2004 07:59:48 EDT

"When I heard about it, I told him how stupid it was for a Polish kid to make Hitler jokes and I didn't hear much about that kind of crap after that." That's where I meant to imply that I told my dumb jock acquaintance to stop. I think with all young people, you can't just say something's forbidden or just say stop without giving a reason or they'll be more attracted to what you prohibit. Being an extreme shock value conservative is fun and easy, just like being the future Elf King of Indiana. I don't know which link you're talking about, MacDiva. It's lost in the gazillion comments on this topic. If you re-post it, I'll read it. I'll have to read that link and some of the boring substantive, legalistic discussion later. There's a reason I didn't want to become a lawyer. For what it's worth, I'm less tolerant of racial slurs and injurious words of that sort that carry a historical legacy with them than I am commonly offensive speech like RJ employed. I absolutely don't think politically controversial speech by right-wing Neanderthals (or left-wing, broken-wing) should be censored. I do support the rights of the most retrogade white people to offer their viewpoints. I can't imagine a scenario where I wouldn't, as long as it's an honest perspective and not a blatant attempt to incite hatred. We are already seeing examples of censorship of the left and privacy violations of left-wing activists and these incidents will only increase with today's cultural climate -- I think the old "slippery slope" caution might actually be true today. Public nudity is different than speech, legally. I'm not as up on the legal challenges to peformance art, but that might be the only situation where your example would make sense. How on Earth would one begin to have the state censor abusive speech in the home? I do empathize with that experience, but I don't think it's the government's job to monitor speech constantly. I'm really hungry. It seems like you people had quite an exciting Saturday night :) That is all.

Comment by Mac Diva

Sun, 27 Jun 2004 03:51:23 EDT

Well, bhw has made one thing clear: When it comes to the harm done minorities under the cover of free speech, she is in bed with a particularly gruesome Neanderthal, RJ Elliott. The situation is an example of why many people of color don't really trust most white liberals. Just when you think you can, out comes the equivalent of a knife in your back, ie., support of the most retrograde of white people. And, no, I do not support a nasty old white man from Texas who was has the values of a member of the White Citizens Council circa 1960 or so. (They believed they were liberal because the Ku Klux Klan was more violent.) Shark's attitudes are stuck in that time regardless of what he calls himself. He was already in his 30s when the civil rights laws of 1964 and 1965 were passed. He never made it past white supremacy. He showed up at Blogcritics, learned I was a bright woman of color and began harassing me from his very first post. (After all, he knows what my place is supposed to be.) Following me from thread to thread spewing abuse. Something like 70 or 75 percent of his comments are probably attacks on me. I have absolutely no empathy for him. To borrow Bob's phrase, 'That is all.'

Comment by bhw

Sun, 27 Jun 2004 02:49:34 EDT

DEFINITELY time to crash, given all the typos in my posts tonight.

Comment by bhw

Sun, 27 Jun 2004 02:48:23 EDT

Boom, sometimes I wonder who has more stamina in this discussion, me or you. Every time I think you and I have done the wrap-up, one of us comes back with something new. Anyway, good point about multiple rights being exercised in parades/protests, as well as the prepration. Time to crash....