SCARY BUT TRUE INFORMATION: THE CONSEQUENCES OF DISOBEDIENCE TO LAWS OF PERSONAL PURITY

So – my mother, who is prone to providing unwanted advice, pressed this into my hand after dinner on Sunday. She wanted me to give it to my son. I think, instead, I’ll post it for your bemusement. The following is verbatim. Imagine the impact this might have on a teen who is, for various reasons, lacking alternative sources of information. I won’t bother refuting all the inaccurate or misleading statements – who has time?


SCARY BUT TRUE INFORMATION: THE CONSEQUENCES OF DISOBEDIENCE TO LAWS OF PERSONAL PURITY
“Choose you this day, whom you will serve.”

The usual feelings of invincibility possessed by teenagers, lead them to believe
It won’t happen to me.” As a matter of fact, these things happen with alarming regularity.

Media
92% of LDS teens say they have seen at least 1 “R” rated movie in the last year. A common statement is: “There was just a little bit of bad stuff in it.” SO: If you had a bowl of delicious soup with just a little cockroach in it, would you eat it?

Teens say “Media does not affect me.” Of course it does. Nike sales soared 378% when Michael Jordan said to wear them, and Nike paid him 27 million dollars to say it.

57% of high school kids do not list parents, relatives, historical figures, literary figures, religious leaders (including Christ) as their heroes. They list, in order, movie stars, rock stars and athletes.

The internet has become a pernicious in-home source of animalized sex which installs itself on out computers.

In interviewing 14 year olds who had seen a very popular PG rated movie no less than 5 times, (they were considered “experts”), they were asked if the movie contained any four letter words. They said they thought there were three or four. Actually, there were101. Asked if there were any sexual overtones in the film, they said “no”. Actually there were 7 sexual conversations and one sexual scene.

In 1991, the most common four-letter work in “R” rated movies was the F word. The #2 word was the SH word. All thigh school kids list those same two words as the most common profanity at school. The use of profanity has increased 650% among high school kids since the motion picture industry changed its code in the 1960’s to allow vulgar language.

When a movie star went on TV to encourage women to start smoking a specific cigarette, the sales to women of that particular cigarette increased 312%.

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES (STD’S)
Epidemic world wide. Used to be only two major sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea and syphilis) Now there are over 50. Some are incurable (Herpes and AIDS) and some cause death (AIDS).

No 1 communicable disease in the world is gonorrhea (now possibly CMV)
40-50% of infected women are under age 20.
15-19 is the peak age for occurrence in women
20-24 is the peak age for occurrence in men
It is sexist. 50-60% of the infected women do not know they have it until it has caused pelvic inflammatory disease, which is one of the leading causes of infertility. After only one infection 20% are sterile. After three infections, 75% are sterile, because of blocked fallopian tubes and scarring.

12,000 high school kids every DAY become infected with a sexually transmitted disease. Some are infected with a disease which lasts a whole lifetime, and they are capable of transmitting that disease for life. Teen pregnancy can only occur during 72 hours of every month, and affects only 50% of the population (girls). However, STD’s can happen any time to either sex.

Once a person has had a sexual encounter with anyone besides a disease-free spouse, it will require 4 chaste years before that person can be sure he is not going to turn up with something awful. Some diseases take that long to manifest themselves.

Some of the most beautiful words in the English language are the names of some of the worst diseases – and some create horrible problems for unborn babies. Listeria monocytogenes, Chlamydia, cytomegalovirus are examples.

Chlamydia: One in two people in the US has it, so you have a 50% chance of contracting this awful bacteria which is the most common STD in the US right now. Like gonorrhea, which is also “curable” it leaves 20-25% of women sterile after only one infections. Transmission to a baby during bright causes serious infections in the infant.

HPV (human papillo virus) There is no cure for this one. It causes venereal warts which last a lifetime. These increase the risk of uterine and certical cancer, and cancer of the penis in men. There is no such thing as “safe sex”. 300,000 of these little viral critters fit into the period at the end of this sentence. How much accidental contact is it going to take to cause an infection? It’s a virus. It will infect everybody it comes into contact with.

Herpes: Both Herpes Type 1 and Type 2 are on the increase and are no longer limited to just the lips, or just the genital area. Both types are found in both places. If is uncurable and results in repeated outbreaks of not one, but dozens of fever-blister-like sores in the most private of places. A mother who has an active case of herpes must have her baby by Ceserean section because if she has a vaginal biurth, the baby bears a 50% chance of contracting herpes, and 50% of the babies who get it, die, in spite of treatment.

TEEN PREGNANCY
This is the number 1 public health problem in the nation, although the rate is going down every week between 70 and 120 Utah teens gets pregnancy.

In 1989, one in every 4-5 babies born in the US was born to a single mother. By 1995, if was 1 in 3.

1/3 of all abortions are performed on teenagers. In Utah in 1991, 18% of pregnant teens chose abortion. Very few chose adoption.

Pregnancy before agte 18:
Increases the risk of birth injury to the baby 5 times.
Doubles the risk of toxemia (pregnancy-induced hypertension)
Doubles the risk of the baby dying.
Increases the divorce rate for pregnant couples who marry 3 times.
Only 6% of teen fathers take any responsibility financially or any other way for their babies.
It costs the government $68.5 million a day to help families whose first child was born during the teen years or without marriage.

Over 90% who do not abort the pregnancy, keep the babies and raise them in poverty. A high percentage of our nation’s children are being raised by uneducated, single mothers, living in poverty. Some children are abused or neglected by mothers too young to understand their responsibility. And those mothers have given up their youth, their proms, their high school graduation, etc. And they have a baby not sealed in the covenant.

Guys will give “love” in order to get sex. Girls will give sex in order to get “love”. Sex is not love and is a shabby substitution for it. A girl or guy needs to “prove their love” like a moose needs a hatrack. No definition of “love” includes exploitation of the other person, or insisting upon destroying that person physically, emotionally, financially, educationally, or spiritually. True love is protective.

BIRTH DEFECTS
Most birth defects are not controllable. Some are. A baby is born with a birth defect every 2 minutes. The most common question in the delivery room is: “Doctor, is my baby alright?” In one out of every 13 cases, the answer is “no.”

The saddest birth defects that our nations children have to live with are those 100% preventable defects caused by their parents.

Fetal alcohol syndrome (leading cause of mental retardation in the U.S.)
Prematurity due to sexually transmitted disease, or teen mother.
Small for gestational age babies because of maternal smoking
Addicted babies born to addicted mothers.

One neonatologist calls these behaviors ‘the earliest forms of child abuse’.

Sado-porn

So, I rented Hard Candy last night. Interesting movie – a “tables turned” scenario in which the predatory pedophile photographer becomes the victim of the protagonist fourteen-year-old putative victim. She tortures him, subjects him to a pseudo-castration, and eventually coerces him into suicide. She’s the hero.

And it struck me – this is the essence of sado-porn. Anything is acceptable, given the right context. We’re supposed to be cheering for the young heroine, as she drugs the adult man, ties him down, plays out what he believes is a castration surgery, and then pretends to dispose of his testicles in the garbage disposal. Watching this movie, it’s apparent that any act, no matter how grotesque, sadistic, or violent can be not only acceptable, but laudable. The audience, horrified at the depravity of the victim, is supposed to cheer.

More overtly horrifying examples of contextual manipulation come to mind. The Sharon Tate murder, for example, or the social milieu that must have made Auschwitz possible, or perhaps the gassing of the Kurds, or Pol Pot’s antics in Cambodia; horrifying acts deemed laudable within a carefully created context.

Any given act can be considered socially desirable, given the right context: the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, the nuclear incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Oklahoma City or the World Trade Center.

The destruction of Iraq, the corrosive impact of the Homeland Security Act, or the election of a petty, brutal little man to the highest office of the most powerful country in the world.

What separates the heroes and the villains? When does is an act of sadistic aggression, or wholesale destruction, become unacceptable, regardless of provocation? Apparently, the answer is never. When pushed sufficiently to the edge, any act becomes acceptable.

If this premise is accepted by a sufficiently large group of people, then they are fodder for manipulation. So long as there is a sufficiently persuasive despot who can instill a sufficient degree of fear and paranoia, any act of aggression can be recast as an act of self-defense.

The protagonist in Hard Candy is afforded the license of the righteous victim, and we identify with her.

A movie is such a little thing, isn’t it? A contrived scenario, whose purpose is to titillate, or entertain. This is just one little piece of sado-porn: extreme dehumanization of a dehumanizing villain. But this is the same phenomenon that promotes genocide – we only find the impulse laudable, because of the context from which we are viewing it.

This is the point on which there is no separation between the political right and the political left – no-one questions the process, only the context in which the impulse to objectify and destroy the villain is employed. Both parties condone vigilante justice, so long as they can identify with their respective victims, and the context in which victimization is viewed can be manipulated to justify a like response.

And until we recognize this, the substantive differences between political philosophies amount to so much window-dressing.

Link to long Switters thread on Wag.

81 Replies!

Well, maybe half of those are mine, but still!

Here.

Anon and "Misterioso" were priceless. Thanks guys! [Shaking head in wonder]

The end of my dream.

I’ve lost a day or two. Life has been unusually stressful, and I’ve regressed – found ways to distract myself from things that (urgently) need doing. In the mean time – mom’s chemotherapy (insulin-potentiated – lower doses of the same drugs, but not covered by insurance or Medicare, because it’s “experimental”) has left her so anemic her doc is urgently pressing for a blood transfusion. (She refuses – doesn’t trust the blood supply. We might be able to talk her into family donations, once we all figure out what our blood types are.)

So, I’ve been finding increasingly creative ways to keep from doing my work, but still not sleeping much, of course. And tonight I fell asleep in front of my computer.

And had a prolonged dream – I remember it was so vivid (that’s the nicotine patches giving a shout-out I’m sure – the damn things really throw slumberland into Technicolor). I can’t remember most of it, except it’s intensity.

But I remember the end of my dream. I’m leaving my house – not the one I just moved out of, or the one I just moved into, but the one we lived in before; The one where the memories were good - twelve or thirteen years of good memories. We were usually broke, and we faced real challenges – my daughter’s infant health problems, the years of fertility treatments, the majority of my graduate school. But we had good times, too – my wife and I playing “Mickey’s World of Illusion” until late into the night, after we’d bought the Genesis for my son, or the Canasta marathons, or twelve thousand showings of The Brave Little Toaster, my son’s favorite movie.

My wife threw me a surprise birthday party in that house once – invited my faculty mentors, my friends from graduate school, and my family. She threw some Halloween parties there too – games for the kids and their parents (like, donuts hanging from the ceiling, and couples vying to be first to eat theirs – with their hands ties behind their back). I miss her, the way she was back then. I miss her air of openness, and innocence, and playfulness.

But that was before the hardest years – the years when she was missing, much of the time. I’d get the call from my son, first once or twice a week, then every day, and later, her absence was communicated in silent commentary. First she’d call and say she was on her way home (but never arrive), then she’d say she was going out for “ a little while”, and later, she quit calling altogether. I remember sitting with my son, in the cab of the U-haul truck, after we’d moved her into an apartment, saying “She’s excited” with a confused, hurt look on his face.

I remember how he resisted, when she asked to come home again. I was more conflicted, but I was also afraid she’d be dead soon, if I didn’t take her back. I remember how hard it was to try to put all of the hurt behind us, and heal the parts of our relationship that’d suffered so much. And I remembered how it felt, when she projected base motives on my attempts to reconcile, and my gradual acquiescence into the role of a eunuch martyr – no wants, no desires, and no real self.

The end of my dream: I’m leaving my house, in the afternoon. My wife is sad, but not talking about it much. My daughter is out back, sitting on a hammock we never had, acting peculiarly calm, but with that sadness I can always feel under the surface. I play the father role, saying goodbye to her – telling her I’ll miss her, but that I’ll be seeing her often. And I maintain it until I get around the hedge (which I tore out about our third year there – replaced with a chain-link fence I put up myself), and as I approached my car, I started to sob – quietly, at first, but then louder. I couldn’t stop. I just kept sobbing until I woke up.

That’s what I’ve been running away from this last two days – God, I miss her, my beautiful, compassionate, spitfire of a little girl. And I’ll miss my petite, energetically idiosyncratic and otherworldly mother. I miss my wife, before shame (both old and new) transformed her fierce love for her children, and husband, into brittle anger, and stifled whatever openness she’d managed to hold on to. I miss my son, when he was innocent, and his wounds were more obvious – less buried under the guise of teenage sarcasm and angst. I miss all those things we shared together as a family – the sense of shared purpose, and care for each other. I kept our family together for years and years. It nearly killed me. And I nearly never noticed.

Thank God I woke up, but waking up also means noticing how much I’ve lost – how much we've all lost.

I just nodded off there for a day or two – too sad to acknowledge it. But now I’m back.

Some last observations on my little Kos incursion.

Out of 207 comments showing, I can read 73 of them. While logged in, I can no-longer see the poll I put up, though it reappears when I’m logged out (the number of visible comments remains the same). The results are below:

Does troll-rating stifle meaningful discourse?

Yes 11 votes - 19 %
No 25 votes - 43 %
Depends on the troll 13 votes - 22 %
What, you mean like now? 8 votes - 14 %

57 Total Votes

Only 43% of users indicated that troll-rating has no deleterious impact on discussions at kos. 22% indicate that the impact is situational, depending on the person being rated. 19% state it has, presumably, a uniform negative impact on the quality of discussion, while 14% indicated it was having a negative impact on discussion in the post I wrote. I intended both the “now” and “Yes” categories to be counted as “yes”, though in retrospect, some of those might have viewed the impact as situational. In any interpretation, over half of those responding acknowledge at least some negative impact exerted by troll rating. I’d love to go back and follow up, querying about the significance of the impact, but I can’t – I’ve joined Switters in the camp of users banned by Kos. I can no longer even comment, let alone write posts of my own.

Scanning the comments I am able to read, however, and comparing them to the poll results is informative. Why, do you suppose, doesn’t the directionality of the comments reflect the results of the poll? I’m left to conclude that either people are afraid to state an unpopular opinion out loud, or that those opinions were immediately troll-rated, and therefore invisible to me. Impossible for me to know, not having trusted user status, though this does bring up a point – if there is anyone reading this who is a trusted user, I would greatly appreciate an email with the copied comments included in their entirety (fieldingbandolier@hotmail.com). It would be helpful for me to see the obviously continuing discussions occurring which were invisible to me.

I won’t identify you, of course.

Many of my own comments are also invisible to me. I wish I could remember how many I wrote (I composed them there, rather than on a word processing program, saving each one). If I had to do it over again, I’d save what I wrote. It never occurred to me that my own comments might become invisible to me – the person who wrote them.

Switters lasted much longer than I did, because he rarely responded to comments. For me to get banned, all it took was one post on an unpopular topic, written in a manner that was intended to be inoffensive (debatable, I’m sure – though not by me! ;-)), and my attempt to respond to as many comments as I could, without rancor.

The vast majority of the criticisms I faced were essentially ad hominem attacks – I was accused of being a troll, or a sock-puppet. Objections based on the content fall into a couple of categories: Switters wasn’t funny, Switters was offensive, most of his posts were movie reviews – not appropriate for the site, and finally, that my motives were suspect (on the site to “defend the honor of Switters”, rather than to engage in honest dialogue).

Of all arguments, only the last would seem (to me) to have any validity. I attempted to counter this by steering the discussion back to the content of my original post – the deleterious impact of censorship on discussion, and how it seems incongruent for this to be occurring at kos. I never really had the chance to discuss this much, however.

Of those offended by the content of Switters diary, the most vocal was “Eternal Hope.” I attempted to engage her in a discussion about the value of parody, which she then attempted to misdirect by comparing Switters to a KKK propagandist, and then accusing me of being him. This latter, she attempted to support by providing a mangled quote by Switters on the Wag blog [her version: “'Teanciousk (sic) will have the last word.”]. When I responded with the accurate quote ["And leave it to TenaciousK to have the final word."], she troll-rated my response and it disappeared. Eternal Hope is a trusted user. [I don’t know what criteria they are using to determine what users are trusted, but it is obviously, seriously flawed.]

Rita in DC, another trusted user, provided misinformation to support the contention I was a sockpuppet; “The Switters sockpuppet family was smaller than some people surmised, according to Kos in a brief reply to my report a while back. However, a couple of the suspected user names were indeed Switters sockpuppets--previously banned, IIRC--and Kos did some more banning. Yawn. I'll send him another report.” Difficult for me to imagine there is an iota of truth to this – all of the people I am aware of, posting at kos, have been posting as themselves, and no-one else [exception being ZB, posting under DawnCoyote’s nic because he didn’t want to wait for his own, and Ender’s diary, which included (correctly attributed) posts written by other people].

I had one user leave a positive comment – that I seemed unusually sane for someone from Utah, and that the diary was interesting. One user initially supported my position (Robokos), but later reversed himself, and accused me of being an academic (?!?). Another user stated only that she or he was not like the people active on the thread – no more.

Some last comments from the thread, to illustrate the theme:

What the hell (1+ / 0-)

does Your charge of Groupthink have anything to do with THIS diary or the diarist "switters"?

maybe up comment -- but my comment was directly addressing the Diary -- 'switters' is a waste of bits -- and it has nothing at all to do with 'groupthink'

end the war in Iraq

by josephk on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 03:17:27 PM MST

· You misunderstood my comment. (0 / 0)

The groupthink charge is in the response to Switters.

As far as dialectics go, I was referring to the distressing parallels between the enforced conformity and censorship here, the enforced conformity and suppression of opinion in both national political parties, and the enforced conformity and careful control of information/dialogue maintained by the current administration.

Dialectics are one way of talking about continuum on a single dimension. The national political dialogue is stuck - and has been carefully stuck there by a concerted effort by the party presently in the majority.

The comments here resemble a feeding frenzy. Go back and look at my post again. I was trying, carefully, to make a point.

Was I being inflammatory? Where?

All the charges of sockpuppetry, troll, etc. What do they have to do with what I actually wrote? It's eerily like being charged with being unpatriotic, because I was against the war.

Whether you agree with the content or not, the process I refer to is inherently problematic. That is my point.

Note how that point never really gets addressed. People were too busy fingerpointing to notice?

Did you notice where I corrected misinformation spouted by a "trusted user" above, and then she troll-rated my comment into oblivion? Her (inaccurate and unsupported) allegation now stands without challenge.

You don't find this to be distressing, from a process perspective?

Feel free to disagree with me, but all the name-calling is just insulting. And dishonest.

"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson

by tenaciousk on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 04:04:16 PM MST

o We've now reached the point where (0 / 0)

it's safe to say that any further discussion of switters and his pals is just trolling. Indeed, we reached that point a long time ago. If you think switters was done wrong by DKos, contact Kos or a frontpager and make your case. Beyond that, quit flooding this site with diaries and posts about switters. This blog isn't about switters and his pals. Get over it.

by Warren Terrer on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 06:00:33 PM MST

I don’t think there’s anything I can add.

TK/FB

Dear Mr. Koss,

I recently heard rumor about some distressing social dynamics over here - distressing to me, anyway, because this is a site with a mission I support.

I wrote what I hoped was a thoughtful, non-inflammatory post about it, and I attempted to respond to comments for as long as I could.

The result - many, many accusations of sockpuppetry, trusted users hiding my most effective defensive posts, and persistent attempts at misdirection. This is the very phenomenon I was expressing concern about.

While I realize I'm a new user here, I'm not really new to this type of forum. There are serious ramifications for the type of censorship being practiced by your trusted users. If contrary ideas are being silenced, rather than addressed, how well equipped are your participants to face real-world challenges, where censorship and collective stifling are not options?

There will always be times when censorship, no matter how distasteful, will be necessary to protect the integrity of the forum. I would urge you, however, to re-examine the process by which this occurs. Once a member has achieved trusted status, is there any feedback for that member about the appropriateness of their actions? Would you perhaps consider creating more explicit guidelines for when troll-rating is appropriate? This would at least improve the consistency in how standards are defined, and in their application. Finally, would you consider allowing an appeal for users who, believing they've acted in good faith, could plead their case?

I like the take from the Gospel According to Thomas: "The Kingdom of the Father is like a man who wanted to kill a powerful man. In his own house he drew his sword and stuck it into the wall in order to find out whether his hand would be firm enough. Then he slew the powerful man."

This is a marvelous place for people to come and test the strength of their hand, before they go out into the world and make it better. Removing walls rather undermines that possibility.

Thanks for you consideration.

TenaciousK

Kos comments, post-censors...

Here.

Maybe I'll copy them all over, later, once I'm sure the little old ladies with the big red pens are finished. I thought it humorous, and sad, that one missing is the one where I provide an actual quote that demonstrates 1) Switters was misquoted by someone using "his exact words", and 2) He never said he was me.

My favorite (currently standing - we'll see for how long) comment: "maybe time to go back your textbooks, schoolie?"

The only people who've ever criticized me for being educated, until now, have been ignorant, religious conservatives. This came from one of the only people who voiced any support for my argument (initially, anyway). Clearly, the gang brought him around.

Oh - and the results from my little poll changed significantly after I pointed out the results were supporting my position. Funny, that.

Consider - these are allegedly intelligent, liberal, activist Democrats; who just engaged, in miniature, in behavior worthy of the Bush administration.

The "trusted user" phenomenon is a disaster. Worse, I fear the social dynamics there mirror those at the Democratic National Committee.

Sane people will never re-establish themselves in government until they quit lowering themselves to the level of their opponents. This is insanity at the grass-roots level. No wonder I can't find a national political figure I can feel enthusiastic about supporting - it all starts here.

I do like my Democratic congressman, and my mayor. But Mitt Romney (for God's sake!) would beat any of the main presidential contenders currently in the field, I fear. Think of it as an exercise in collectively attempting to save face. The US public just elected a stupid, ignorant, dangerous (and dangerously corrupt) man to the highest office in the land. Twice! There is more resistance than Democrats are acknowledging to a collective admission they (we) were wrong. Twice! Why do you think the persistance of opinion about WMD's, and Iraqi involvement in 9/11? Nobody wants to be wrong.

If the Democrats put themselves in a position where people have to admit they were wrong while voting for them, the Democrats will lose. Again! But the Democrats also have their own face-saving problems they aren't dealing with - that they (we) also initially supported the war (at best, duped), that they want to "cut and run like we did in Vietnam", not to mention the unenviable task of being the bearer of bad news on issues like global warming, the economy, and the sctual implications of world events. Republicans have been succesful in placing them on the defensive (defining the continuum on which they'll be judged). Not the users at Kos - their attacks had little to do with anything I actually said in my post. Sound familiar? We see it every election cycle - just substitute the political issue of your choice for censorship, and imagine I just posted on a conservative forum.

What I'm afraid will happen is Democrats will not figure out how to allow the American public to save face on Iraq, the economy and environment and still vote for them. Right now, to cross lines in their direction is an admission they were stupid or misguided in the last election. It's a big problem.

At Kos too - people just can't stand admitting they were wrong; particularly in a closed group, where there are significant social repercussions (anonymously imposed?) for nonconformity. We're supposed to be the good guys - the educated, thoughtful, inclusory, understanding folks who can see a broad enough perspective to make better decisions. What happened? We forgot about integrity. Until we remember what that means, we will continue to lose. Until we remember how to gracefully admit our failings, and use our ability to self-correct as evidence of a desirable characteristic, we continue in our failure to model*, for the American public, how to save face in the inevitable circumstance where we were wrong. Just like at Kos.

But I'm afraid I do have something besides my political leanings in common with the members of Daily Kos - damn small consolation being "right", when you're powerless to influence outcome.



*A viable model also has to be someone the public wants to identify with (preferably emulate, on some dimension). Fail to take that into consideration, and the whole process backfires. Bush won, in part, because Americans like to see themselves as tough, folksy etc. Romney, who looks and sounds damn presidential, has got every one of the Democratic candidates currently in the field whipped on this dimension. And, he appears to have values. We're in big trouble, if the best opponent we can muster against him is Hillary Clinton. Think about what identifying with her means, to the stereotypic American.

My Kos adventure (comments on last post, at Kos)

Poll
Does troll-rating stifle meaningful discourse?
· Yes 17%
· No 41%
· Depends on the troll 23%
· What, you mean like now? 17%
Votes: 17
Results :: Other Polls
Tags: Troll diary (all tags)


· You know it's hard to tell sometimes (0 / 0)
...some people do snark a lot better than others.
If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his rear end.
by InsultComicDog on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:12:06 PM MST
[ Reply to This | Recommend ]

· we got the jokes (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Elise, trashablanca
he wasn't funny. and his language was often offensive.
© 2006 "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream will never die." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, 12 August 1980
by Turkana on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:12:14 PM MST
[ Reply to This | Recommend ]

o Offensive language... (0 / 0)
was one of the most frequently cited rationalizations for censorship where I grew up.
I find the parallel distressing.
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:15:03 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

§ sorry to distress you (6+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
dmsilev, rockhound, ChiGirl88, sbdenmon, trashablanca
but racist and bigoted language rubs a lot of us the wrong way.
© 2006 "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream will never die." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, 12 August 1980
by Turkana on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:17:42 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ An honest question (0 / 0)
would you ban Lenny Bruce? A white version of Richard Pryor?
by robokos on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:29:31 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ they were funny (4+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
SeattleLiberal, Elise, trashablanca, robokos
and their offensive language was used with wit, wisdom, and insight. switters was a twit, his "jokes" weren't funny, and his offensive language was nothing but offensive.
© 2006 "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream will never die." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, 12 August 1980
by Turkana on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:33:48 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ Your opinion. (0 / 0)
The majority of people in the US found Lenny Bruce offensive - not funny.
Are those the people you want to emulate?
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:35:13 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

§ lol (0 / 0)
lenny bruce built a solid audience. switters didn't build any. he wasn't funny, he was offensive, and the only people who defended him were sockpuppets such as yourself.
© 2006 "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream will never die." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, 12 August 1980
by Turkana on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:41:18 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ I find it interesting that one positive comment.. (0 / 0)
on this thread also voices fear about being labelled a "troll."
Calling people trolls and sockpuppets - what impact do you suppose this has on honest discourse?
Please - look at the process at work here.
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:43:37 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

§ you are here for one purpose (6+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Ahianne, Eternal Hope, SeattleLiberal, Elise, sbdenmon, trashablanca
and that's to defend switters. this is a political blog, it's not a blog about switters. you are not here for honest discourse.
© 2006 "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream will never die." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, 12 August 1980
by Turkana on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:48:52 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ I find it interesting (5+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Ahianne, Elise, Turkana, Bouwerie Boy, trashablanca
how people calling you sockpuppets and trolls are doing so because it is true. You are trolling the site. You know this, I know this, we all know this.
This whole trainwreck of an experiment says more about you than it does us.
by SeattleLiberal on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:56:32 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ Show me in the FAQ (6+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Ahianne, SCFrog, Turkana, Bouwerie Boy, sbdenmon, trashablanca
where this is supposed to be the DailySwitters.
I don't know what in the fuck you all think you are accomplishing here. This is a site to work on getting Democrats elected. Are you all spamming knitting blogs complaining that they aren't giving switters a forum to give crappy movie reviews? Try the fucking Onion. Although, quite frankly, I think they would tell him to keep his day job like we did.
Switters writing wasn't even the biggest part in the banning - it was the annoying supporters, i.e. YOU that kept spamming the place and playing your childish game. You folks probably hurt his image more than anything.
I don't know which one you were but I am 99% certain you have been banned as well and as a banned user you will be again.
by SeattleLiberal on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:53:48 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ Well, then you're 99% wrong. (0 / 0)
How about reading the post and addressing the point?
Do you think that Republican success in alienating the (unfortunately) minority viewpoint has anything to do with success electing Democrats?
The process at work here is important. It's worth calling attention to. It mirrors a problematic phenemonen elsewhere.
It doesn't bother me a bit that others don't find Switters funny. We might disagree about our musical tastes as well.
It's the reception that's the problem - how he's been dealt with.
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:08:55 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

§ You are not here to argue in good faith (3+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Ahianne, Turkana, trashablanca
There are some of the answers you are asking in the comment above. The banning issue had very little to do with his abilities.
You answer my questions and I'll think about continuing this. I'm not holding my breath.
by SeattleLiberal on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:19:32 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ And with your UID (5+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Ahianne, ek hornbeck, Turkana, Bouwerie Boy, trashablanca
you are either a banned user or they just recruited you at the Slate site to do their bidding. I am considering that the same thing.
by SeattleLiberal on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:20:56 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ Well gotta disagree with you there (0 / 0)
Not that he was always witty, wise or insightful, but that lacking those are a basis for being banned--cause I have days when I lack those features myself.
by robokos on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:41:25 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ well (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
trashablanca, robokos
you're forgetting the part about his being offensive. and that is a basis for being banned.
© 2006 "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream will never die." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, 12 August 1980
by Turkana on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:47:21 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ Yeah, but see (0 / 0)
the other stuff is subjective, so you're using subjective criteria to make the decision to ban. I would think if you are going to ban, it can't be based on wit, wisdom, insight, but must be based on the sheer offensiveness of the statement.
Personally, I tend to think its easier to just ignore someone or call them out then to ban them. If he truly lacks wit, calling him out and kicking his butt with a comment shouldn't be too difficult. That's actually my philosophy with most trolls. I never troll rate, but I will go right after a troll in a comment.
by robokos on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:52:55 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ again (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
trashablanca, robokos
he offended a lot of people. that was why he was banned.
© 2006 "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream will never die." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, 12 August 1980
by Turkana on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:56:04 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

· Good conversation. (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Turkana
I'll make an effort to go back and look what s/he wrote and let you know what I think, if this hasn't scrolled off by then.
by robokos on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:58:16 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

· Well, looked at Switters last three diaries (0 / 0)
quickly and, frankly, not seeing it. If you have a particularly offensive thing to cite to it, appreciate it if you could direct me to it.
by robokos on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:17:22 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

o to be honest (0 / 0)
i'm not going to waste my time. i do remember him making anti-semitic comments, in an apparent attempt at irony- which fell flat, and left only the stench of anti-semitism. he also used a vile term for gays- another attempt at humor that simply wasn't funny.
© 2006 "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream will never die." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, 12 August 1980
by Turkana on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:21:35 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ I guess I have to assume the people who have the (0 / 0)
power to make a decision saw them.
Maybe the diarist can help me?
by robokos on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:25:09 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ don't waste your time (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
trashablanca, robokos
the diarist is just here to defend switters. he's not here for any other purpose. a sockpuppet troll.
© 2006 "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream will never die." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, 12 August 1980
by Turkana on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:28:57 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ Yeah, got it. (4+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Eternal Hope, SeattleLiberal, Turkana, BobzCat
I apologize. The diarist/Switters does not appear to be sincere/serious. Actually almost sociopathic. Perhaps in some other context we can carry on this conversation in an aduit manner.
by robokos on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:31:37 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ This is more than just the offensiveness (6+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Ahianne, Eternal Hope, Turkana, Bouwerie Boy, sbdenmon, trashablanca, BobzCat
it was the spamming and the effort that a group of people, including switters, pulled over a period of a week or two and with this diary now, three.
They all met at another site and planned this little childish prank. I had a link I don't want to dig up that contained the thread. It was at Slate's forum.
Switters, if he would have taken some constructive criticism and worked on improving his writing instead of trying to force us all to change, may have actually gotten better at one of the most difficult forms of writing to do well - satire.
Instead of realizing he read his audience wrong and adapting, we get spammed by multiple "fans" telling us how brilliant switters is.
If it was just switters and none of his "fans" he would probably still be here. He wouldn't be the most popular person on the site, but he'd still be here.
by SeattleLiberal on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:05:59 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ You misunderstand. (0 / 0)
A group of liberals at another site became aware of a distressing dynamic among a group we consider to be philosophical and political allies.
I'm as concerned as anyone about electing sane politicians. What impact does suppression ideas have on that process?
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:15:08 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

§ Be frank, TK. (0 / 0)
Are you playing a game, or are you sincere? What other site are you talking about? Are you acting in good faith?
by robokos on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:21:44 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]
· Good faith. (0 / 0)

The liberal element at Slate's Fray (that would be very nearly everybody).
Not everybody likes Switters there, either. The idea he would be banned from posting, however, is rather universally offensive.
It has led to some interesting discussions about the impact a trusted users group has on dialogue. This is the primary concern - that rigid enforcement of an artificial conformity exerts an undeniably deleterious impact on free discourse. It's the people who disagree with me that I learn the most from.
Though I do like Switters. But really, that's immaterial.
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:39:20 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

o Sounds like B.S. to me (0 / 0)
maybe time to go back your textbooks, schoolie?
by robokos on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:43:29 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]
§ I'm sorry I'm not better at making my point. (0 / 0)
The country is in trouble, and this is an important point.
BTW - my (soon to be ex) inlaws decided, as a group, that the problem with me was that I was too educated - that this is why I had lost my religious faith. Again, your comment mirrors a local sentiment in a way I find most distressing.
Why did you back down so quickly in your defense of Switters?
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:54:54 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

· Oh, if you ever visit... (0 / 0)
I also post there under the nic Fieldingbandolier. I am on a voluntary vacation from posting there, however - supporting a friend, and breaking a compulsive cycle.
On the plus side, I probably never would've bothered coming over here if I'd continued to be so immersed over there. This is an interesting site. I'm very serious about my concern, however.
Since Gingrich's "Majority of the Majority", and the active censure of dissenting opinions within parties, there has been a clear decline in productive discourse, and an even clearer decline in the quality of decisions made in such a forum.
Narrowness of perspective is deadly - regardless of which political party you're talking about. I would argue the Democratic party has allowed the level of discourse to be dictated by extremists in the opposing party.
What impact does a minority of "trusted users" who are out on the tails of opinion exert on dialogue here?
We're supposed to be the folks who know better.
I anticipate I'll be banned. I hope not, though - it's a lousy way to prove a point, and I'd much rather come over here and chat with likeminded people who might be interested in what I have to say.
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:47:28 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

· Utah is the reddest of red states (0 / 0)
It also gave us Glenn Beck.
Skiing is the best there, I only go to Utah skiing nowdays. I drive from Los Angeles once a year.
But when I go there, I do not talk politics because I think most Utahns are deranged when it comes to politics.
It is good to know there are Utahns with common sense.
Interesting diary, thanks.
Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. -1.75 -7.23
by Shockwave on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:16:46 PM MST
[ Reply to This | Recommend ]

o Utah also gave us (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Shockwave
the Sundance film festival, and Provo gave us Poe and Mark Danielewski (siblings who admittedly moved before they became famous, but hey - we take what we can).
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:25:04 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

· And which one of his banned buddies are you? (6+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Ahianne, dmsilev, SeattleLiberal, Turkana, trashablanca, BobzCat
It's so difficult to keep track of all the zombies.
"I will make a bargain with the Republicans. If they will stop telling lies about Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." -- Adlai Stevenson
by sbdenmon on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:17:44 PM MST
[ Reply to This | Recommend ]

o this is his first diary (0 / 0)
and his only previous comments were on a switters diary.
© 2006 "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream will never die." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, 12 August 1980
by Turkana on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:23:31 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

o switters *twitters* sucked, his sockpuppets (4+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Ahianne, SeattleLiberal, Turkana, Bouwerie Boy
are tattered and moldy and lame. Frying donuts right now. Bon appetit, monotony.
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." John Lennon
by trashablanca on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:56:21 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

· Has s/he actually been banned? (0 / 0)
Cause the diaries are still there. Frankly, at the risk of being trolled, I liked a lot of Switters stuff. I did not read ones that contained racist or bigoted, just some screwball movie reviews. I guess I would have to judge for myself if they were over the line. If they were, then I think the remedy was appropriate.
by robokos on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:28:12 PM MST
[ Reply to This | Recommend ]

o Banning does not remove diaries. n/t (3+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Turkana, Bouwerie Boy, trashablanca
Who you gonna call?
by Ahianne on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:48:55 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

o you won't get TR'd n/t (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
sbdenmon
© 2006 "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream will never die." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, 12 August 1980
by Turkana on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:52:01 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

· *Another* sockpuppet? (6+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Rita in DC, SeattleLiberal, Turkana, sbdenmon, trashablanca, BobzCat
Isn't this getting kind of repetitive?
-dms
Having trouble finding stuff on Daily Kos? This page has some handy hints and tricks.
by dmsilev on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:36:55 PM MST
[ Reply to This | Recommend ]

o They were kind of cute (5+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
dmsilev, johnnygunn, Turkana, trashablanca
at the beginning, but now they're like the last guests at a party: babbling incoherently, getting on everyone's nerves, and refusing to leave.
"I will make a bargain with the Republicans. If they will stop telling lies about Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." -- Adlai Stevenson
by sbdenmon on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:39:40 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

· Switters - he banned (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Ahianne, Turkana
a penny for the old troll.
Most Profound Man in Iraq: farmer in a remote area who, when asked by Marines if he had seen any foreign fighters in the area, replied "Yes, you."
by johnny rotten on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:59:15 PM MST
[ Reply to This | Recommend ]

· The Switters Club (7+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Ahianne, Eternal Hope, SCFrog, SeattleLiberal, Turkana, Bouwerie Boy, robokos
is 100% troll-worthy. They have no real interest in progressive politics or Democratic goals. These clowns are not here to engage with constructively with this community. They're here to fuck with us. They have this little club going on at another site, they've set up multiple accounts with numerous sockpuppets, and they come here for no purpose other than disrupt and annoy people.
This is their "performance art project" about which they get together elsewhere and giggle about how much they annoyed folks here. In their minds, this is a fun and intellectually superior thing to do. Go figure. Maybe they didn't get enough attention at some point in their lives.
There is no good will in their postings, no sincerity. It's all BS, an act intended to piss people off while feigning innocence and expressing "concern" for free expression.
No more discussion. I'm troll-rating every one of these assholes whenever they show up.
"...." -- Harpo Marx
by BobzCat on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:45:11 PM MST
[ Reply to This | Recommend ]

o Meanwhile, back at the ranch, (5+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Rita in DC, Eternal Hope, SeattleLiberal, BobzCat, Pager
..errr, rather, way down the comments thread on switters' last diary, tenaciousk enthusiastically greeted new user hipparchia. It looks like switters' twits are still bent on coming in and wasting bandwidth. threadkiller may also be a member of their happy little club.
Who you gonna call?
by Ahianne on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:12:32 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ Good catch, Ahianne. (0 / 0)
Threadkiller gives him his only uprating, to date in that same thread.
by Pager on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:34:08 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ Thanks. I'll mention those handles in my report (0 / 0)
to Kos.
Click to contribute to the netroots candidates at ActBlue!
by Rita in DC on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:34:20 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

· Sorry: (3+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Ahianne, SCFrog, Turkana
But switters published a diary blaming the victim for being hit on by Mark Foley. That is simply not an appropriate thing to joke about.
Let's say you start a blog about civil rights. Is it OK for me to come in and start spouting KKK propaganda?
Conservatism is Dead!
by Eternal Hope on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:56:28 PM MST
[ Reply to This | Recommend ]

o Not as a parody? (0 / 0)
Spouting KKK propaganda as a means of highlighting the offensive and ludicrous nature of KKK philosophy seems entirely appropriate.
And discussion-worthy, as a vehicle for identifying all of the weak points in an argument that's proven sadly persuasive to a distressing number of people.
The thankfully defunct American Nazi (or whatever) encampment was just a few hours north of here, BTW. I've seen the leaflets.
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:06:51 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

§ Don't play dumb. (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Ahianne
What if a real KKK guy came to your website and started spouting his hate speech? Would he be welcome there?
Conservatism is Dead!
by Eternal Hope on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:08:45 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ I'm not all that sure he's playing. n/t (4+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Rita in DC, Ahianne, SeattleLiberal, BobzCat
by Pager on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:12:19 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ Do you mean to tell me... (0 / 0)
you thought Switters was posting in seriousness?
You ever read "A Modest Proposal"? You think Swift was serious?
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:15:35 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

§ So, you would allow a KKK member on your site. (0 / 0)
How tolerant.
How generous of you.
Fine by me. We don't need your vote this election.
Conservatism is Dead!
by Eternal Hope on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:17:24 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]
§ [sigh...] (0 / 0)
I'm afraid you do - my vote, and everybody else's.
I'm still in shock over Bush's second term. Aren't you?
If you read my reply, I said parody, not genuine article.
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:26:03 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

§ I asked about the genuine article. (0 / 0)
You would allow the genuine article on your site. So we don't need your vote. The KKK hates Bush with a passion.
Conservatism is Dead!
by Eternal Hope on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:28:31 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ Favorite Republican debate strategy. (0 / 0)
Answer the question in your head, not what was asked.
Please direct me to where I said sincere KKK propaganda would be tolerated.
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:40:13 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

§ * [new] So, you wouldn't. (0 / 0)
You would remove it from the site. So, why would you even tolerate joking about blaming the victim or spouting KKK propaganda?
Conservatism is Dead!
by Eternal Hope on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:54:31 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ Nope. (0 / 0)
He'd be castigated.
So, are you really saying Switters was being sincere in that vein? Or do you concede it was parody?
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:34:07 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

§ Exactly: (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Rita in DC
As we are castigating you, Switters.
There are some things you simply don't joke about. You would not make a bomb threat and call it a joke. And you would not joke about being a racist, so you should not joke about blaming the victim for being exploited.
Conservatism is Dead!
by Eternal Hope on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:40:00 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

· The Switters sockpuppet family was smaller than (4+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Ahianne, Eternal Hope, SeattleLiberal, BobzCat
some people surmised, according to Kos in a brief reply to my report a while back. However, a couple of the suspected user names were indeed Switters sockpuppets--previously banned, IIRC--and Kos did some more banning.
Yawn. I'll send him another report.
Yo, diarist! This passage from the dKosopedia is linked to in the FAQ. See if you can grasp it:
Banned Users
. . . The thing about it is this: banning is permanent. You don't get to come back under a different name. Many people try, and are surprised when their accounts are again yanked pretty much as soon as someone bothers to look for them. If you've been banned, go to a different site and contribute there instead.
Click to contribute to the netroots candidates at ActBlue!
by Rita in DC on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:15:25 PM MST
[ Reply to This | Recommend ]

o I've never posted here before. (0 / 0)
I'm sure the site manager can check my IP.
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:17:20 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

§ Busted: (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Rita in DC
Switters specifically said he was coming back as you.
Conservatism is Dead!
by Eternal Hope on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:18:49 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ LOL! (0 / 0)
Link please?
Amazing - you just made that whole-cloth.
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:27:31 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

§ Right here, Switters: (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Rita in DC
Busted.
Conservatism is Dead!
by Eternal Hope on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:29:49 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ Uhm, that was a compliment (to me). (0+ / 1-)
Trollrated by:
Eternal Hope
Where do you get, from that comment, that Switters was posting under this nic?
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:37:15 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

§ He said it himself. (0 / 0)
Conservatism is Dead!
by Eternal Hope on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:41:13 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ Where? (0 / 0)
Please include the quote in your reply.
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:43:44 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

§ 'Teanciousk will have the last word.' (0 / 0)
His exact words.
Conservatism is Dead!
by Eternal Hope on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:47:05 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

· "And leave it to TenaciousK to have the final... (0 / 0)
word."
You should be more conscientious about "exact words."
His comment was made after my response.
Feel free to check time/date, if you're motivated enough to be accurate.
Fascinating, the way you warped reality to prove a point.
Thanks for supporting mine.
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:52:17 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

o * [new] Whatever. (0 / 0)
Even if you are not switters, the rule is that you don't joke about blaming the victim or being a KKK member. End of story.
Conservatism is Dead!
by Eternal Hope on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:58:18 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ Look up thread or use the link (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Rita in DC, Eternal Hope
Eternal provided.
Listen, I don't know if you are Switters. I actually got the impression that you were not him but rather the latest part of the calvary to swoop in and save Switter's honor by posting an identical diary here and over at Slate (you know, as in "the last word...")
Either way, I don't give a fuck who you are. Your motives for being here are disingenuous. You know it, we know it and you've got plenty of fodder now for your grand follow-up diary over at Slate.
Have at it. Don't let us keep you.
by Pager on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:49:39 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

· * [new] I'm on a posting vacation at slate... (0 / 0)
until March.
I do hope I don't get banned. You might even find I have some worthwhile things to say.
[sigh...] but I'm not getting anywhere tonight.
Look at my poll. The first and last categories both constitute "yes." The third is "sometimes."
I'm not alone in seeing this.
Goodnight and best wishes - hope I get to visit here again.
"Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much, much better." Laurie Anderson
by tenaciousk on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:01:07 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

§ Aw, man, don't you have *any* integrity? (n/t) (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
SeattleLiberal
Click to contribute to the netroots candidates at ActBlue!
by Rita in DC on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:23:56 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ Thanks for dropping kos a line (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Rita in DC, Eternal Hope
when I talked to him there wasn't any sign of sockpuppets. I feel redeemed for having him check.
by SeattleLiberal on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:31:11 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

§ Well (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Rita in DC, Eternal Hope
you probably will be soon.
So don't ya'all come back now, ya hear.
We'll miss you.
by SeattleLiberal on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:29:37 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend ]

· * [new] Jeez. How did I miss this diary? (0 / 0)
What with the fucking elections in 3 weeks and all.
Thanks to all who caught it.
What IS it with you guys? Switters for senator? For president in 2008?
For councilman/woman?
For anything but a supposedly misunderstood satirist who is so aching
to be accepted here...?
Oh, hell.
Do ANY of you switterish posters actually READ this site when it isn't
some trolly thingie you post?
WTF. (Am sure that's redundant now but had to say it.)
Bush takes the "tort" out of torture (homage to pb)
by begone on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:39:26 PM MST
[ Reply to This | Recommend ]
Permalink | 107 comments | Post A Comment | Edit Story

The Suppression of Switters

Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. — Nietzsche

Utah is such a beautiful place – the diversity of landscape, and natural wonders is nearly unparalleled in the continental united states. Oddly enough, the diversity of political opinion is nearly as extreme – the same state that foists Bill Bennett, Orrin Hatch and Karl Rove on the American political system produced one of the only mayors with temerity enough to protest the president of the United States when he visited Salt Lake City (our very own Rocky Anderson ). The extremity of contrast is a little disorienting, and the polarization between the conservatives (the majority of which are members of the LDS church) and the liberals (a few of whom are also members of the majority faith, though most are made up of more pedestrian Catholics, Episcopalians, Unitarians and University educated folks. Utah is home to one of the most antagonistic college sports rivalries in the country as well – with BYU blue to the South, and U of U red to the north. Attending the University of Utah itself is an interesting exercise in culture clash, as over half the student body is LDS, and the vast majority of the faculty are gentiles from out of state (and the vast majority of tenured faculty have been around long enough for some real resentment of the political and cultural influence of the LDS church to take root and fester).

One plus, of course, is that it’s so easy to feel morally superior when surrounded by such obvious bigots and loons.

I grew up in Provo Utah which, despite the reputation of our State capitol, is actually the heart of the LDS church. My gradual alienation from Mormonism revolved around the rather obvious (and obviously distressing) examples of insanity that only an intolerant majority can produce. One of the seminary teachers affiliated with my high school gained a level or local stature, and notoriety, for his persuasive lectures about Satanism in modern music (seminary is voluntary religious instruction students can elect to enroll in, in lieu of a class period, tramping across the parking lot to a church-owned building and back again – or routinely using as an excuse to take a long lunch, or sleep in an extra hour). There were organized album-burnings at some of the local high schools – Judas Priest, Black Sabbath, and AC/DC were prominently featured. The cultural landscape would’ve been much more improved if they’d been burning Osmond albums.

Though Utah has stumbled a step or two out of the dark ages, there are still incredible examples of intolerance to be found. Utah has one of the most efficient (and, to local political figures, terrifying) lobbying groups in the country – the Utah branch of The Eagle Forum.

Their willingness to utilize their frighteningly efficient telephone tree (run by shriveled old conservative women, as nearly as I can tell) to bully state legislators and other elected officials is legendary. The Utah Eagle Forum is headed by Gayle Ruzicka – perhaps the most highly motivated brittle, intolerant and unpleasant person on the face of the planet.

When you live in Utah, as a member of the political minority, you become sensitized to intolerance. It becomes painfully (and repeatedly) obvious how the lack of dialogue and collaboration between the political parties damages the integrity of the political system. I’ve been horrified at the ease and rapidity with which the Republican majority, beginning with Gingrich, has been able to alienate and isolate the minority party. Even unlikely political figures from the past have voiced alarm at the utter lack of collegiality between members of opposing parties – cross-aisle collaboration is seen as evidence of disloyalty. Punishments are meted out if members vote against their party. In short, the integrity of our political system has been gravely undermined by the subjugation of broader national interests to narrow party politics.

So, I’m sensitive to the role dialogue between people of differing perspectives plays in facilitating more favorable outcomes. I’ve watched with horror as bigots of various stripes have successfully marginalized, then silenced contrary perspectives, and seen the withering effect of homogenized viewpoints where individual differences to disagree are not only not respected, but are actively condemned.

So I’ve been disheartened to see these elements active in liberal communities as well, most particularly at Daily Kos.

Satire has been a particularly potent form of social commentary for as long as people have been commenting on social interaction. It’s no accident that Jon Stewart (and now Adam Colbert) and Bill Maher are afforded a greater level of credibility than “more serious” journalists – satirists are afforded a degree of latitude we don’t allow more serious commentators. The same was true of court jesters – the jester had license to criticize even the king (so long as it was kept lighthearted). Even Utah has Saturday’s Voyeur.

And Kos has Switters. Or had Switters, anyway – he’s apparently been banned from posting.

I thought about making this a more academic piece – talking about the dynamics of coalition formation, the impact impermeable boundaries have on the qualities of/interactions between elements within the system contained therein, enantiodromia as a phenomena in today’s political system (creating enemies in the service of making us safer, for example), the importance of free speech from a systemic perspective, the perils of projection, or the ludicrous ineffectiveness of teachers who cannot comprehend a student’s perspective. But I won’t. I’d just like to invite the people who are most adament in their repression of ideas to take a long look in the mirror.

If you don’t recognize the person staring back at you, perhaps it’s time to reconsider the manner in which you respond to otherness. Please. The country (the world, really) can’t afford your arrogant disregard for people who don’t conform to your narrow view of what constitutes appropriate behavior, any more than we can afford the parallel intolerance of our current Republican leadership.

Lighten up, Kos. Even if you don’t get the jokes, or don’t appreciate the language, that doesn’t make Switters any less an artist, or serious commentator, than it made Geddy Lee a servant of the Devil, in mid-80’s Provo Utah. Don’t be the secular, Democratic analogue of Provo, Utah. The world deserves better of you.

[sigh...]

I'll begin posting soon.