Very good interview, looking forward to more episodes.

Great interview, Spincycle, and not just because I love Christopher's answers. :-)

Thanks for all the work you do, Christopher. You are really a huge part of making this site great.

Navel-gazing at its deepest.

"and the need to maintain the site's neutrality"

This coming form Mr. Rose? Rich.....very very....rich.


But then again, considering I have yet to be banned despite Mr. Roses numerous veiled and unveiled threats to do so, maybe there is someone among the BC editors that is actually earnestly committed to objectivity.

Without me and perhaps a very small number of others who are not quite as vocal or persistent about exposing the neverending tide of hypocrisy and horseshit coming form the left, BC would bejust another Daily Kos or Moveon.org.

Ya know, Arch, there are other sections that don't discuss politics.

Chris has an unenviable job responsibility, and the line on comments is where Chris says it is, even though I probably would draw a different fault line. Thankfully I don't have to.

The blogs at Gawker only allow commenters if they are invited by an editor or another commenter. Yes, it excludes the casual reader, but it actually ups the quality and potency of how people are discussing and bantering, knowing what's acceptable and what won't fly.

But ultimately the job comes down to the commenter. Would you say half the shit on the Internet to a stranger standing in line with you at the bank? Lately I've tried to act the same in both the real world (by which I mean the Internet -- THESE ARE MY FRIENDS!!!!1!) and the world outside the computer.

"Would you say half the shit on the Internet to a stranger standing in line with you at the bank?"

Of course, he wouldn't because he is a c#nt, which is an acceptable thing to call someone according to him.

"Would you say half the shit on the Internet to a stranger standing in line with you at the bank?"

Of course not. Most people are constrained by other considerations in the real world that do not exist on the internet. For that reason I think the stuff that people post on BC is more true to what they actually think and feel. I mean if I have a boss that's a major liberal asshole I'm not going to tell himher that for fear of losing my job but on BC if I call a liberal asshole a liberal asshole who is helping to ruin this country with all of his bullshit beliefs what I have I really got to lose?

"Ya know, Arch, there are other sections that don't discuss politics."

I'm aware of that and the few posts in those sections I have read have been unbearable. A recent example was a post I read in the culture section by that couple, Dan and Jennifer, that gives the dating and relationship advice. The post was advising thirty year old men on how to approach and talk to women. I'm sorry but if your a thirty something year old guy and you need a website to instruct you on how to make contact with a woman you're interested in then you're a lost cause. The next time I waste my time looking at a Dan and Jennifer article there better be pictures of Dan and Jennifer in full bondage regalia, holding paddles and riding crops, whilst standing over one of their better looking female BC fans that has been stripped, hog tied and has a ball gag in her mouth.

Until then I think I'll just stick to the politics.

Chris;
I thought for sure you'd say the best part about being comments editor would be the nightmares about chickenhawks and Max Cleland...

Temple - but what a cute navel!

Arch - You're turning into quite the stuck record. Pay attention now and try and take all this on board:- I've never tried to ban you ever; I've argued against banning you and others; I wouldn't need permission to ban you if I decided it was necessary. Got it yet?

Matt - everyone has their own lines. I'm not sure mine is where you think it is!

Roger - lol!

Arch - tell me this, is there anybody you disagree with that you actually have any respect for or is it simply that you hate everybody that disagrees with you?

MCH - Fortunately I've yet to dream about BC at all.

Arch - tell me this, is there anybody you disagree with that you actually have any respect for or is it simply that you hate everybody that disagrees with you?"

That's a pretty fair question Christopher. I guess when it comes to the direction that my nation is going to take and the shaping of the culture I do hate everyone with a far left agenda and have absolutely no respect for them at all. And by far left agenda here are some of the things II am referring to:

-absolute and gleeful support of abortion in every possible imaginable situation and the use of outright lies to support this position
-the coddling of illegals to the point where they are treated with more concern and respect than real Americans
-the support of open borders and the view that we must be global citizens first and americans second and therefore American soveriegnty and national defense must be subject to and approved by the international community
-the advancement of an ever expanding, socialist like welfare state and the ubiquitous opposition to all forms of capitalism and business
-the culture of moral relativity...the equating of alll behaviors as equally acceptable and allowable not matter how aggregious
-the constant interjection of race into every issue for political gain which of course includes calling all republicans and conservatives racists while people like hillary don insulting dummed down southern accents that are more reminisceent of black exploitation culture from the 20's and 30's than of todays black people in america
-the attack on all forms of expression of christianity in our society
-the refusal to take the threat of islamiofascist terrorism seriously
-the eco-hypocrites like Al Gore that tell Americans we must drastically alter our lifestyles to reduce global warming but then fly around in wasteful private jets and live in huge energy inefficient homes
-the attitude that America is an empirialist nation to be blamed for all of the world's problems
-the militant feminism that is nothing but a toll for leftist ideology and does nothing to empower women as they idolize men like bill clinton who has most likely single handedly sexually harassed more women than all of the other men in arkansas combined
-The valuing of political correcntess more than intellectual honesty
-the indoctrination of young people with far left anti american ideology on our campuses


All of these things are what the far left in America stands for Christopher and as I said I hate the people that believe in these things and have absolutely no respect for any of them and never will.

It may make perfect sense to you Christopher for one to give creedence to and show respect for those whose beliefs one abhors and who seek to ruin one's nation through their agenda, but I think that is just plain dumb. Not all people deserve respect or civility.

Arch - take a deep breath - I oppose all those things too. I also oppose right wing extremism in all its varied forms.

As to your final sentence above, it's certainly true that not all people deserve respect or civility but this site requires it. Either obey the house rules or you will be ejected permanently. On the other hand, follow the minimalist guidelines and you can make all the political observations you want.

Now, are you yet prepared to either apologise for or withdraw the inaccurate remarks you've directed my way, both here and on other BC pages? Or do you lack the integrity?

Chris,

I was prepared to let this whole article go with nary a peep. After all, interviews are supposed to make the interviewee look good and air-brush the less pretty parts out of the picture. I'm a good boy and generally prepared to play along with the game...

But then Bing wrote,

"I do hate...

-absolute and gleeful support of abortion in every possible imaginable situation and the use of outright lies to support this position
-the coddling of illegals to the point where they are treated with more concern and respect than real Americans
-the support of open borders and the view that we must be global citizens first and Americans second and therefore American sovereignty and national defense must be subject to and approved by the international community
-the advancement of an ever expanding, socialist like welfare state and the ubiquitous opposition to all forms of capitalism and business
-the culture of moral relativity...the equating of all behaviors as equally acceptable and allowable not matter how egregious
-the constant interjection of race into every issue for political gain which of course includes calling all republicans and conservatives racists while people like Hillary don insulting dumbed down southern accents that are more reminiscent of black exploitation culture from the 20's and 30's than of todays black people in America
-the attack on all forms of expression of Christianity in our society
-the refusal to take the threat of Islamo-fascist terrorism seriously
-the eco-hypocrites like Al Gore that tell Americans we must drastically alter our lifestyles to reduce global warming but then fly around in wasteful private jets and live in huge energy inefficient homes
-the attitude that America is an imperialist nation to be blamed for all of the world's problems
-the militant feminism that is nothing but a toll for leftist ideology and does nothing to empower women as they idolize men like bill Clinton who has most likely single handedly sexually harassed more women than all of the other men in Arkansas combined
-The valuing of political correctness more than intellectual honesty
-the indoctrination of young people with far left anti-American ideology on our campuses"

and you responded:

"take a deep breath - I oppose all those things too...." Then you gave poor Bing a lecture on civility, etc (not that he didn't need one).

Now all the above is Bing's agenda (I tried to fix some of the spelling errors - I just couldn't stand all those words underlined in red - but some of the stuff was just unfixable), not mine, so we'll not fight over things he believes in.

But you oppose "the attack on all forms of expression of Christianity in our society?"

Chris, you are the fellow who calls every version of faith or religion poison in society, a cruel con job that prevents people from seeing reality, etc... That is the Chris Rose I have come to know at this site.

I'm not trying to misrepresent your views, and I'm not interested in debating them here, but you can't oppose "the attack on all forms of expression of Christianity in our society" and condemn Christianity (and all other forms of religion) as a poison to society all at once and at the same time.

My point here is not what you believe in. My point is that none of us likes to be patted on the head like "good little boys" because with rare exceptions, none of us are good little boys. We are sentient (hopefully) adults attempting to express our points of view. Which means we expect someone who says "I agree with all of the above," when talking about our heart-felt beliefs, to mean it. Which means that he actually has to read through it.

'Nuff said?

Strange words from Archie, as usual. How do you feel about the politics of the Political Editor, Archie? Too leftist for you?

Ruvy, I'm not at all surprised that you have chimed in here for you share the same lack of nuance as Arch.

I can indeed

oppose the attack on all forms of expression of Christianity in our society" and condemn Christianity (and all other forms of religion) as a poison to society all at once and at the same time.

Oh yeah, interviews are NOT supposed to make the interviewee look good, they're supposed to inform. I am committed to honesty and openness as far as is practical, unlike idealogues...

"I can indeed oppose the attack on all forms of expression of Christianity in our society" and condemn Christianity (and all other forms of religion) as a poison to society all at once and at the same time.

I believe that faithism is an understandable but false set of ideas, mostly these days based around the naive monotheist dogma. I also believe it harms us all.

I don't think people should be forbidden to believe it so I would oppose attacks on the expression of the view. Got it? I hope so..."

Well, bless you, Chris. You have managed doublethink, that creation of Eric Blair in his novel, 1984.

Mazel Tov!!

That's not doublethink, Ruvy, though I can understand why it suits you to think so.

What it is is recognising the difference between my opinions and the general rights of others. You should try it sometime...

jesus christ, ruvy. you're going a little nuts again.

if chris said, "i support the right of others to have an abortion, but i wouldn't like my child aborted," is that doublespeak?

of course not.

so why can't he believe that christians have a right to speak (within the limits that we all do) about the things they believe, even if he thinks those beliefs are dangerous and really fucking silly at the same time?

the "really fucking silly" was mine, not his. obviously.

Thank you, zinger, yer a gent and a scholar, you fucker! :-)

oh boy.

-absolute and gleeful support of abortion in every possible imaginable situation and the use of outright lies to support this position


that's just stupid. no one is like that.


-the coddling of illegals to the point where they are treated with more concern and respect than real Americans


nope. just want to respect them as human beings.


-the support of open borders and the view that we must be global citizens first and americans second and therefore American soveriegnty and national defense must be subject to and approved by the international community


"america" really doesn't exist, it's just lines on a map. we live in a global economy. we should think of ourselves as citizens of the globe. when american "soveriegnty" oversteps its political boundaries... like when we confuse "national defense" with "aggressive war." whatever.


-the advancement of an ever expanding, socialist like welfare state and the ubiquitous opposition to all forms of capitalism and business


oh, we leftists hate capitalism and business. i'm going to starbucks for my soy fucking latte now. wearing my chucks and my levis and listening to my chicago/atlanta indie rock cds...


-the culture of moral relativity...the equating of alll behaviors as equally acceptable and allowable not matter how aggregious

"aggregious?" "aggregious" to who? you? your morals offend me sometimes. but they are just your morals. that's why morality is relative. you see no problem with several hundred thousand dead muslims. i do. i see no problem with gay marriage. some people do.


-the constant interjection of race into every issue for political gain which of course includes calling all republicans and conservatives racists while people like hillary don insulting dummed down southern accents that are more reminisceent of black exploitation culture from the 20's and 30's than of todays black people in america


race is political. there are lots of racial problems in this country. what are the biggest issues in america right now? oh, the cockroach mexicans and the savage a-rabs, right? right? right?!

-the attack on all forms of expression of christianity in our society

already gone over this... 1,000 times...


-the refusal to take the threat of islamiofascist terrorism seriously

i've never seen an "islamiofascist." as far as terrorism goes, yeah it's a problem. has been forever. it's not that we don't take it as a serious threat, we just think that going about killing more people does not stop "terror." now does it?


-the eco-hypocrites like Al Gore that tell Americans we must drastically alter our lifestyles to reduce global warming but then fly around in wasteful private jets and live in huge energy inefficient homes

gore does his part. you know, we know it. we'll see about the rest.

-the attitude that America is an empirialist nation to be blamed for all of the world's problems

empirialist! wow. takes me back. my underwear is made out of straw. we do overstep our bounds now and again (like in iraq). and the world is rightfully afraid that we'll do it again. we are the world's bad daddy. we aren't to blame for the world's problems, but we aren't helping them either.


-the militant feminism that is nothing but a toll for leftist ideology and does nothing to empower women as they idolize men like bill clinton who has most likely single handedly sexually harassed more women than all of the other men in arkansas combined

ok. whatever. are you talking about feminazis? straight-up bull-dyke man-haters? riot grrls? and bill clinton...


-The valuing of political correcntess more than intellectual honesty

i don't think anyone would agree to that.


-the indoctrination of young people with far left anti american ideology on our campuses

yes! yes! i came out of my southern state college with a far-left anti-american ideology! and here i thought it was a liberal arts degree. we've gone over this 1,000 times as well. i don't see it. no one but the far righties see it.

you forgot about the media. that's why this whole nation is so far left wing. we can't escape it in college, then we get it in the news papers! and on the television! it's all around! the vast left-wing conspiracy to indoctrinate us all against ourselves! HATE YOURSELF! HATE YOURSELF! it's all we get day and night...

"when american "soveriegnty" oversteps its political boundaries... like when we confuse "national defense" with "aggressive war." whatever."

ok... trailed off there. i mean to add that when we confuse "national defense" with "aggressive war," we do need to be reigned in by the rest of the world. going to iraq, especially without a way back out, was certainly stupid. it was also not about national defense. "preemptive war?" a war so that we don't have a war? what, if we are going to have a war, might as well have a war now? right in the middle of another war? fuck it, eh?

Just for the record Ruvy. They're not spelling errors, they're typing errors.

Arch - re #11, I'm still waiting for your response...

"Now, are you yet prepared to either apologize for or withdraw the inaccurate remarks you've directed my way, both here and on other BC pages? Or do you lack the integrity?"

Is that what you're referring to?

Here are the comments verbatim that you posted the other day after I went on my little tirade about the Romney revolution and the evils of all things left wing.........

"If I see one more occurrence of you doing that, I am going to ask the bosses how they feel about your persistent crass vulgarity and rudeness.

I hope in that scenario they will see that you are incapable of behaving with a basic level of civility and will have to be banned. I also hope you won't force the issue but the matter is in your own hands. For the moment..."

Technically you did not threaten to ban me but you did say you hoped I would be banned. Not so very far from what I said.

So yes I stand corrected....you did not threaten to ban me in that instance. I apologize for misconstruing your sentiments and words although they were pretty much tantamount to what I said they were. I will try to be more accurate in my

As for this one...which I said earlier:

"and the need to maintain the site's neutrality"

This coming form Mr. Rose? Rich.....very very....rich."

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for an apology on that one. I do not believe you're objective...many others on this site agree with me and I don't think stating the fact that I think an editor is not objective is either crass, vulgar or violates the BC policy.

in my time here, i've only known of a few people getting banned from the site (or put on "vacation"). those have been richard brodie (who is a flat out racist), justoneman (who is a conservative, and an ass), and moonraven (who is a liberal, and an ass).

i suppose you could say that chris (if indeed it was chris that started the ball rolling on those bans,) has shown consistency, have banned one conservative and one liberal. richard brodie is barely human, so he doesn't count.

if there is anyone else who was banned, etc. let me know.

i guess that anthony grande character was banned, but wasn't that because he actually threatened to do something to a fellow commentor? it was before my time anyway.

any others?

i suppose that chris could have tried to ban dave nalle for the v.p. fiasco. but he didn't. his edited my comments quite often. i have a dirty mouth. my fingers smell funny.

chris may not agree with you politically, archie, but in his role as the comments editor, he doesn't seem to follow any political lines, as far as i can tell. if you have a different opinion than me on that subject, well, i wouldn't be surprised.

you pompous worm. lalala.

Actually, I'm amazed at C Rose's patience with commentors that have nothing, apparently, to contribute except cuss words and lurid sex demands.

"in my time here, i've only known of a few people getting banned from the site (or put on "vacation"). those have been richard brodie (who is a flat out racist), justoneman (who is a conservative, and an ass), and moonraven (who is a liberal, and an ass)."

Yes, and don't forget Mac Diva and RJ Elliott. Several years ago, RJ was temporarily banned for personal attacks against Mac Diva (although he kept posting using false pseudonyms, like "Reggie," "anonymous," etc.); whom herself was later permanently banned for making an allegation against E.O.

"everyone has their own lines. I'm not sure mine is where you think it is!"

I'd be shocked if they were equal, that's all.

My view on the point of view of people like Richard Brodie is that we should let them comment, so we never forget how vile their ideas are. And Moonraven's little holiday ... I think she's back, anyway. I suspect anyhow she was just having a little sport at our expense, as someone on another website who claims to have worked with her says she can be prickly, but is nothing like her cyber/BC persona in the flesh.

I reckon Chris does a great job of ensuring a modicum of decorum on this site, although I suspect that like the English cricket team, it's often largely a matter of good luck luck rather than good management :)

Arch, I see now that one of your issues is that you can't actually see things for what they are because you're so dogmatic.

I didn't say that I hoped you would be banned, I said that if you continue to ignore the house rules, I'll reluctantly have to ban you. I also specifically said "I also hope you won't force the issue but the matter is in your own hands." So it was in fact exactly what I said and not your own massively subjective interpretation of it.

I haven't claimed to be objective, indeed absolute objectivity is a very very hard thing to do. However, I am aware of my own biases and try very hard not to let them make me overstep the mark.

You, on the other hand, are always so willing to accuse others, myself amongst them, of holding views they don't actually have. That is what you should apologise for.

My opinion is that you don't have the integrity to be truthful about any of these matters as you are in the grip of a strong set of prejudices that actually blind you to the truth. We shall see.

Finally Arch, please take on board this:- there are three fucking dots in an ellipsis, THREE!

"I didn't say that I hoped you would be banned"

Yes you did. I cut and paste those very words from one of your posts.

" I hope in that scenario they will see that you are incapable of behaving with a basic level of civility and will have to be banned"

Maybe it's time you stop playing semantic games and own up to the things which you have said CHristopher.

Arch, you're so comprehension challenged it's kind of embarrassing.

Please contrast and compare:-

1. I hope you are banned.

2. If I see one more occurrence of you doing that, I am going to ask the bosses how they feel about your persistent crass vulgarity and rudeness.

I hope in that scenario they will see that you are incapable of behaving with a basic level of civility and will have to be banned. I also hope you won't force the issue but the matter is in your own hands. For the moment...

The first is a statement.

The second is a conditional argument based upon responses to your own future behaviour.

You just took out a part of what I said and then misrepresented its meaning.

Finally, I don't need permission to ban you if I decide it's necessary. I just like to keep the troika on board.

Frankly, they're far less patient with you than I am and you would have been banned already if I hadn't spoken against it, as I also did with other recent bannings...

" I hope in that scenario they will see that you are incapable of behaving with a basic level of civility and will have to be banned"

That's what you said Christopher.

I didn't misrepresent it's meaning at all.

Anyone can clearly see that the meaning of that sentence is

A. That you hope the editors see that I am incapable of behaving civilly

B. You hope I get banned because of the editors seeing this.

You're the only one guilty of misrepresenting anything around here Christopher.

Arch, I'm not going back and forth with you on this any more. You're clearly incapable of believing anything outside of your fixed idea set, even when it's right there in front of you. Have a nice illusory life.

And Moonraven's little holiday ... I think she's back, anyway. I suspect anyhow she was just having a little sport at our expense, as someone on another website who claims to have worked with her says she can be prickly, but is nothing like her cyber/BC persona in the flesh.

NOTHING like her cyber/BC persona? You mean she has faculties of reason in real life? That would be refreshing.

Don't waste time with Archie: he's totally self-involved and has nothing to contribute.

You have a tricky job, Chris. You can't please everybody and I think the line you take, of firmly reminding people of the guidelines when necessary, is the fairest way to go.

We should all respect the idea of free speech but also that this site is privately owned and the owners have the right to make house rules. You don't visit someone's house and crap on the carpet because you don't like the other guests.

I'm all for the occasional insult or cuss word - when used judiciously they can add spice and wit to an argument. However, Arch doesn't understand the norms of civilized discourse. He doesn't see that his constant use of insults, aggression and foul language are both antisocial and detrimental to his own arguments being taken seriously. If he behaved that way in a spoken - as opposed to virtual - debate, he'd be thrown out in a heartbeat.

When he does refrain from those tactics - which isn't often - he's actually quite stimulating to argue with and I'd hate to see him banned. But I'd understand completely why.

"However, Arch doesn't understand the norms of civilized discourse. He doesn't see that his constant use of insults, aggression and foul language are both antisocial and detrimental to his own arguments being taken seriously. If he behaved that way in a spoken - as opposed to virtual - debate, he'd be thrown out in a heartbeat."

What you may fail to realize is that I see the refusal of a bunch of leftists to take me seriously as no great loss Dreadful. Posting on BC is very cathartic for me. The opportunity to vent here is sometimes the only thing that keeps me from running every moonbat I see that still has a Kerry Edwards bumper sticker still on their auto right off the road!

Arch Conservative, next time you have a thought - just let it go. [Personal attack deleted] And if you want to run over leftists - go ahead man. You know dimwit I don't mind sacrificing a leftist brother so that you remain in jail for the rest of your sorry life. [Personal attack deleted]

Oh, no ... please, tell me it ain't true: not two Archies on BC, at polar opposites of the political spectrum. Heaven help us.

Arch Conservative is nothing but a nasty little conservative [Personal attack deleted]. [Personal attack deleted]

And STM - I am a conservative. It is just I need to use a name to give [Personal attack deleted] the Arch Conservative - [Personal attack deleted] who can only straw man the left because they are too intellectually inferior to do anything else - a little jolt of reality.

Chris - Ban this guy. He is begging for it. He will beg for it everyday and then when you do ban him he will cry wolf - oh my god another leftist site banned me. Yeah bro, because you don't have a civilized bone in your jacket. [Personal attack deleted]