Thursday, April 16, 2009

Metastatic Monomania or Why I Delete

As it's been a while since I went over my rules, and since I've had to add to them recently, I figgered I'd get a short post to clarify my rules. So let's get them on the page first:

Updated 10/10/08, as the blog has evolved some. Remember that I have freedom of speech on my blog, you have freedom of speech on your blog, and I reserve the right to be a benevolent dictator.

Self-explanatory. The freedom of speech allows a person to put their ideas out in a free market. But it does not allow another individual to come in and use another person's space they have created to push their viewpoint. That's a reason that I don't allow comments on my creative blogs, while trying to let this be as free as reasonable possible.

1. This is a discussion blog, not a place to bash or hype your candidate. Try to keep it about ideas, not ripping the politicians you hate, unless the subject of the post is those politicians. I will make an exception if it's funny enough.

I have, in the past, deleted people for tirades of essentially pure vulgarity. We're talking pure diatribes of anger, with no facts, or points, or anything of socially redeeming value. And for clarification, it doesn't matter who the verbal bashing is targeting. The last one I deleted called Obama everything but a black man.

2. There are no stupid ideas, only stupid people. Therefore, don't let your stupidity show through in your comments. If you post something wholly inane or irrelevant, it will be deleted. Or, even better, I will take your misspelled messages and make fun of you.

This one was originally for the Ron Paulistas. Essentially, they got onto blogs, maybe mentioned the subject, then went on for a page of one runon sentence. But it's also for people repeating the same information, restated, just to try to argue a point. An example was my need in yesterday's post to delete repetitive shit for brevity.

3. Here's my philosophy for language, just in case you're wondering what words I will delete you for using. In other words, when I get the mood, I'll make sailors blush.

Also self-fucking-explanatory. 'Nuff said.

4. Unless it is broached in the original post, any comment referring to abortion (or any response to it) will be summarily deleted, simply because the subject is a poison pill in any rational discussion.

This one was instituted after a troll started posting on the subject on every post. This was after I cut off the discussion on one post where the subject of the post disappeared when one person brought the banned subject up. What followed was a completely different discussion complete with the standard arguments.

I have, in the past, tackled the subject (click here for the big abortion post, and here for a followup if you want to know what I've said on it. ). And what I've found is that it too often degenerates into the two camps throwing the same talking points they always do. And while I am one of the few who still struggles with the subject, too many people struggle with discussing the subject (and forget to discuss the subject of the post in the process). So unless I broach the discussion on the subject, it's better for the world that the subject be tabled so that we can discuss the post of the day (and that includes this post).

So let's get some questions to help guide the discussion:

1. The Code Pinko question - Does free speech allow people to yell down a speaker if they don't like the subject or the speaker?

2. The SPD question - What constitutes an intelligent comment (disregarding ideology)?

3. The aborto-obsessive question (specifically for the troll) - Why do you have to continue to bring up the same subject, even if the rules of comment indicate you will be deleted and even though the discussion has never even approached the subject you are so hellbent on preaching about?

(note: other people can chime in as to why this troll does it, and any attempt to drop the a-bomb as a discussion item will be met with rapid deletion)


Satyavati devi dasi said...

1. The Code Pinko question: I imagine, sensu stricto, that free speech would allow you to yell down a speaker, but you're not going to get anywhere that way. It would seem to me at best to be a stall tactic versus a legitimate attempt to actually work to an intelligent conclusion. (And what's this got to do with pinkos, hmm?)

2. The SPD question - Premise, supporting argument, conclusion. If only I could actually be so brief about it.

3. The aborto-obsessive question (specifically for the troll) - This could also be termed the Fred Phelps question. I think this has a lot to do with an individual's worldview. If someone is seeing the universe in black, white and big red arrows, they are much more likely to believe that all A is B, all C leads to A and all the evils of mankind are, in reality, just mutations of their chosen subject of obsession and so can be equally replaced in a discussion with no problem. It can make for some bizarre conversation; if you've ever seen (or even read, but video is so much more glaring) an interview with the Phelps people, you know what I mean: they're so obsessive that NO MATTER WHAT the issue is, they can relate it in some way, shape, or form to homosexuality, logic be damned.

That's also the point at which they lose all their credibility; in the nonstop effort to never let go of the gay issue, they push away even the people who admit that homosexuality is spoken against in the Bible. So even the people that they might otherwise, with a less OCD approach, count on for support, end up turning away from them. In the end, it works against them to a great degree.

Beth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Name: Soapboxgod said...

1. If said speaker was given a forum/venue paid for by a private individual or entity, and code pinkies came to shout them down in said forum/venue, they ought to met with force. Any right (in this case we invoke one's First Amendment Right) which negates the right of another is not and cannot be a right. Surely, if a code pinkie is shouting over an invited speaker, the invited speaker's First Amendment Right is being squelched.

2.SPD?? I don't even know what the hell that is. But I would say what constitutes an intelligent comment is one that either A) challenges the premise of the initial subject of discussion with a degree of foundation as to why said premise is false; B) affirms the premise of the initial subject similarly; or C) poses a general question with respect to the initial subject so that the individual inquiring can better understand the initial subject.

3. For no other reason other than the fact that said individual(s) lack the intellect to embrace any and/or all of the aforementioned scenarios.

BB-Idaho said...

Er...I need my attorney to go over those rules. :)

Satyavati devi dasi said...

LOLOLOL... I had to ask what SPD was too.

The answer?

"Sane Political Discourse."

As in, this blog.

Patrick M said...

Satyavati: I like to rip the Code Pinkos simply because they're idiots. And they were actually one topic in my very first post. I think they were doing the bloody hands with Condi Rice in a congressional hearing if my memory serves.

Beth: I don't delete the comments for any particular point of view. I started deleting them because when Abortion is brought up, any other discussion ends and we get non-discussable comments like "Anyone who has an abortion is sick wrong and evil."

How do you discuss anything else after that?

(note, anyone who responds to the abortion comment will be deleted)

Soapster: Your answers are the stuff of pure accuracy. Almost like I wrote them, except without masturbatory or Star wars references.

BTW, I think Satavati is laughing at you for no knowing what SPD means. :)

BB: Is that a threat? :)

Shaw Kenawe said...

I had the Pro-Life troll come to my blog several times and comment on abortion in an unrelated post.

I asked her to stop. And she didn't, then became indignant when I continued to delete her comments that had nothing to do with my posts.

I reluctantly delete because I believe the answer to hate speech (or in this case typing) or any other disruptive commenting is MORE AND BETTER commenting. But unfortunately that doesn't seem to work in the blogsphere--all I got was more trolls.

I therefore adopted the policy of deleting comments that are not related to the post, or at the very least, to a comment in the post.

I think Patrick has a nice mix of conservative/liberal commenters, and most of us behave ourselves even when we're pissed at our host.

And he's an equal opportunity insulter. I've been honored with some of his best snark. ;-)

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"I believe the answer to hate speech..."While certainly words can be said with the intention to invoke a specific response (be it positive or negative), the words themselves are simply that.

The individual on the receiving has a choice as to how they will respond to what is being said.

The interpretation of the words are thus subjective to the receiver. The words themselves are not defined as hateful or non-hateful.

Case in point:

If a white male calls an African American the "N" word, the recipient might in fact deem it as hate speech.

Conversely, if another African American comes up to the same African American and utters the same word, the interpretation might be completely different.

The word, in and of itself, is Neutral (having neither a negative or positive effect).

John said...

Soapboxgod is correct, The first amendment includes being able to speak your mind about abortion or any other subject that you wish to.
You can parade in front of an abortion clinic or a Mormon Church, as you choose, ... You may be nauseated by such speech, but then your duty is to out-argue the people who disagree with you.
Freedom of speech also means that one can freely insult, harass, intimidate, and obstruct others. As long as they do it peacefully. You cannot ever be able to justify something like Speak Your Mind, but only say what I want you to say..

I hope I made that clear.

Pasadena Closet Conservative said...

I love rules.

No, wait, I hate rules.

Actually, I like your list.

The Saint said...

No new rules for the past 2 days? Wow that must be some sort of a record!

BB-Idaho said...

My attorney has gone over the rules. He wants to know what the definition of 'is' is....

Patrick M said...

Saint. I started over a year ago with three of them. I just felt the need to reiterate.

Of course I started shit last time I went to my rules.

BB: I've got a magazine rack that will probably fit up your lawyer's ass then (and 4 more after that).