Open Thread (11/16/06)

i think you should ask ben grosser. he's smart, liberal, and really nice. he won't throw f-bombs or anything else at people who disagree with him. you should ask him.

Kansas lost to Oral Roberts last night.

Too many ironies to even list, but you guys go ahead...

Too many ironies to even list, but you guys go ahead”¦

Sorry, I'm still laughing too hard.

This thread is really funny.

"Hi, we're from IMC/Wobblies/Progressive/etc. and we're here to help you become more tolerant at Illini Pundit. Now we don't tolerate open posting at IMC and we censor the hell (oops, meant edit) out of posts for various and sundry reasons, but that's because we progressives are for truth, justice, and the amerikkkan way. So let us exercise free speech and tell you who should post, the subjects of which you should post, and the etiquette for posting, i.e., what we say is truth and beauty and what you unethical, corporate, fascist, neo-con, lackey theocrats post is nothing but sexist, homophobic, racist ad hominem attacks on the masses."

Waaaay to funny..........

Um, actually we DO have open posting. However, we generally don't have "Open Thread" posts like Illinipundit does. As far as your site, I recognize that you can post whatever you want, and I'm not going to try to tell you what your editorial policies should be. That's the decision of whoever is paying for Illinipundit. However, there were some posts about UCIMC, and as one of the UCIMC editors, I'm responding.

One of the other editors and I are pushing for a less zealous approach to removing posts and a clearer definition of what acceptable behavior means. Realistically, there are certain kinds of posts that both Illinipundit and UCIMC have to remove (e.g., harassment), but people should be allowed to express opposing points of view.

Yeah, I was aware of Jack Ryan, but less concerned about him than one of the other editors may have been. I did delete some of the more invidious posts, but wasn't convinced that every right-wing post came from him. Ultimately, I concluded that we should look only at a post's content; trying to guess the author was a fool's errand. Right-wing posts on UCIMC don't really bother me, but I'd like to see us provide a setting where people (on both sides) can express their opinions without worrying about being attacked. I realize that this doesn't mean, "Users should be able to say whatever pops into their heads without checking facts, and expect that nobody will disagree with them." But trolls do disrupt online communities, and can even destroy them. The challenge will be balancing our ability to survive with the goal of supporting freedom of expression.

let's call for freedom of speech no maater what the site

Gordy, have you thought of using the Captcha stuff? The UCIMC site was getting a similar level of spam, and changing our software really reduced the problem. We also save IPs of known spambots and set up our server to ignore them.

IP and UCIMC hand in hand, a rare sight

"Another poster was called a mental invalid. None of these posts (by conservative commenters) were erased."

Actually, I believe Jonah Goldberg was called a mental invalid by a liberal poster. My thread - not deleted.

JCMA,

"this site has refused to publish a bunch of comments from a variety of posters, and not just because of swearing or harassment."
- Considering that RSW was called a closet racist in the very first comment of that thread: "Spoken line a true closet racist.", and it was never removed contradicts your claim of intentional or one-sided censorship.

RSWB, that's really bad, I hope you are just making an honest mistake:

I replied to and quoted John:
Because that's the only defense you can voice for affirmative action? Calling people racists”¦ Every time you do that, you commit the intellectual equivalent of a lynching. No one believes racism exists anymore because people use it as bomb-throwing in a debate to shut down debate. It's called crying wolf. The next time black kids get harassed on Bradley just because they're black, reasonable people who would care are less likely to notice because they don't have time to discern the difference between childish retorts from mental invalids and legitimate complaints.

I responded teasing John for his use of the term:
Just be careful, Jonah Goldberg is certainly a “mental invalid” when it comes to an understanding of issues of race. His arguments are lacking the nuances that an elementary understanding of such issues would grant him. Don't you think that there are many of us who are slapping our heads at his idiocy?

I placed it in quotes, and said "Just be careful" meaning "I can't believe that you used this term". Then I demonstrated how Goldberg can look like an idiot if you view him from a different perspective.

It was beyond low for you to misconstrue my statement and attack it for using a term that I despise and was attacking the use of in the first place.

You are usually a very polite, cordial person, so I assume that this must have been a simple misunderstanding. I can't make you do anything, but it would be a class move at this stage to apologize.

I truly did miss your reference - I saw the quotes but breezed thru the JB post too fast to notice it in there. I have gathered from earlier writings that you don't much care much for Mr. Goldberg, so I didn't think it was a huge stretch that you think he's a mental invalid in the area of race.

My apologies for my misread.

and thanks for considering me usually cordial and polite - I do try