Eclipsed from the headlines by the ongoing carnage, there is an active
civil resistance in Iraq that opposes the occupation, the torture regime
it protects, and the jihadi and Ba'athist 'resistance' alike.
Submitted by Gabriel Ash on Tue, 08/16/2005 - 07:44.
So, are all you supposed lefties who think this AIPAC stuff is so earth-shaking (note implicit Jew-baiting in final paragraph of the Dreyfuss story) going to take any responsibility for the noxious flies your rhetoric attracts?
You see, this is the inherent problem with bloggery and open posting. Do I just let my website turn into a forum for Nazi scum, or do I delete this noise, and then be accused of censorship?
Reading these two appeals together, I note an interesting thing. Open comments invite trolls, and you'd rather that writers "take responsibility for the noxious flies", which means what? not talking about AIPAC? Pretending it doesn't matter to keep the trolls away? Include a disclaimer? bullet proof the rhetoric by qualifying every sentence until the writing becomes unreadable just so that no troll could possibly misunderstand it (a futile quest anyway)?
What is more important? The trolls, or our own honesty? What is more disturbing to you, to ""censor" trolls or to censor ourselves so that we don't attract trolls? Should we fashion our rhetoric to fit the trolls, or should we fashion it to converse with each other?
Yes, I'm against open comments. I think conversations without ground rules are pointless. I think it is the job of the editor or editing body to establish and enforce ground rules and exclude those who refuse or can't live with them.
And by the way, I take offense at the "supposed lefties". I am a leftist, i.e. I analyse society based on class conflict. When I see splits in the elites, I think it is both intellectually important and potentially actionnable. If you disagree with an analysis, you're welcome to argue to the matter instead of attacking the "authenticity" of the speaker. Maybe it's hard for your ego to accept it, but yours isn't the only valuable perspective.
The inconvenient facts and unanswered questions surrounding the attacks are legion, but the endemic sloppiness of the self-styled "researchers" is delegitimizing the entire project of critiquing the "official version." The ostentatiously named "Truth movement" is not clearing the air, but muddying the water.
WW4 Report pamphlets
WAR AT THE CROSSROADS
An Historical Guide Through the Balkan Labyrinth
The Balkan region is intensely multicultural - a point of crossroads and clash for some of the world's major religions, cultural spheres, and economic systems. While there have been vicious wars in Balkan history, these have taken place in the context of manipulation by imperial powers and the self-serving local leaders who cater to them.
opensource technology and the people of May First
readers vs. writers
So, are all you supposed lefties who think this AIPAC stuff is so earth-shaking (note implicit Jew-baiting in final paragraph of the Dreyfuss story) going to take any responsibility for the noxious flies your rhetoric attracts?
You see, this is the inherent problem with bloggery and open posting. Do I just let my website turn into a forum for Nazi scum, or do I delete this noise, and then be accused of censorship?
Reading these two appeals together, I note an interesting thing. Open comments invite trolls, and you'd rather that writers "take responsibility for the noxious flies", which means what? not talking about AIPAC? Pretending it doesn't matter to keep the trolls away? Include a disclaimer? bullet proof the rhetoric by qualifying every sentence until the writing becomes unreadable just so that no troll could possibly misunderstand it (a futile quest anyway)?
What is more important? The trolls, or our own honesty? What is more disturbing to you, to ""censor" trolls or to censor ourselves so that we don't attract trolls? Should we fashion our rhetoric to fit the trolls, or should we fashion it to converse with each other?
Yes, I'm against open comments. I think conversations without ground rules are pointless. I think it is the job of the editor or editing body to establish and enforce ground rules and exclude those who refuse or can't live with them.
And by the way, I take offense at the "supposed lefties". I am a leftist, i.e. I analyse society based on class conflict. When I see splits in the elites, I think it is both intellectually important and potentially actionnable. If you disagree with an analysis, you're welcome to argue to the matter instead of attacking the "authenticity" of the speaker. Maybe it's hard for your ego to accept it, but yours isn't the only valuable perspective.