A place for me to pour out my rants without clogging the inboxes of my friends and family. Also a place to give info on myself and Mary, our family news and events.
I’m not afraid of opposing views, why should anyone else be?
Published on September 6, 2005 By Rightwinger In Blogging
This has been said before, but I’ll say it again:

Too many people here use the blacklist option simply to silence the opposition. It’s just that simple, and it’s just that sad.
It seems that, if they meet up with someone they don’t like or who slams them particularly hard on some point or points or other, they will just slap a gag across that person’s mouth, silencing them by keeping them from posting on their articles.
I’ve noticed a strange thing, though; most of the blacklisters, or at least as I’ve noticed, are very often some of the most excessively loud advocates of liberal ideals and perspectives, and will often react as if burned with a hot poker when confronted with opposing ideas and/or points of view.
Yes, it’s quite often the liberals here, those staunch defenders of free speech and expression, often profusely reprimanding us conservatives for our repressive ways and our oppressive means, who employ the blacklist to deny their opponents the opportunity for unfettered expression and speech.
In this, they act like the worst Nazi Gestapo agent or Soviet or Chinese Commie bureaucrat; they mimic the most petty, egotistical, insignificant, mustachioed, mirrored-sunglassed, be-medalled, cheap-uniformed, tinpot banana republic dictator. (deep breath)
“We must speak and not be opposed in our views, as we know that our views are the correct ones!”, they seem to declare.
So, when some conservative once too often challenges their facts or figures, offering other facts and figures in refutation, off into Siberia they go, languishing in the blacklist gulag, unable to post on the blacklister‘s articles.

This is patently unfair. Now, there are some I’ve seen in my year on JU who have deserved blacklisting, and even probationary banning, but too often the blacklist is simply used by posters as a weapon instead of a punishment, as it should be.

I oppose blacklisting; if you don’t agree with me, that’s cool. I might think you’re a tree-hugging moron or some kinda Pencil Neck Geek (“Classy Freddy” Blassy, remember him?), but that’s your problem. I’ll accept any opposing views, and will answer them as best I can. Sometimes I can’t, and that’s okay, too. After all, “a man’s got to know his limitations.” (“Dirty” Harry Callahan--Magnum Force--1973)
Others here need to do the same, instead of simply killing the messenger.

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Sep 06, 2005
"Although, since it's your site, you have the right more than anyone else does to decide what is and isn't worthy of posting. Still, they do have a right to be heard, no matter what."


They can be heard. Unless they are banned from the site completely, they can post what they like on their own blog. When I eject someone from my living room, I am not limiting their ability to express themselves, I have just excercised my right to decide how people should behave under my roof.

I think I know who you are talking about with this article, and I agree that it is childish. If it is who I think it is, she has me blacklisted as well. Still, I have to support her right to say who can and can't post on her blog. That right also prevents her from telling ME what I have to allow, and that is well worth it.
on Sep 06, 2005

When I eject someone from my living room, I am not limiting their ability to express themselves, I have just excercised my right to decide how people should behave under my roof.

Exactly!

on Sep 06, 2005
my blacklist is again at zero as MM the peacemaker tries again.
on Sep 07, 2005
If it is who I think it is, she has me blacklisted as well.
---Baker

It probably is, and that fact doesn't surprise me one bit.

Still, I have to support her right to say who can and can't post on her blog
---Baker


But what I'm saying is....we're not having these people over for a polite brunch of tea and crumpets; we're posting articles that reflect our beliefs and ideas, and there are people out there who won't agree with them, sometimes vehemently. These people have a right to voice their opinions on your thread, within the bounds of decorum, of course.
on Sep 07, 2005
nah, there are people that disagree with me on 99% of what I say, and basically think my ethos is a threat to the world, and yet I look forward to them posting. I link most of them on my page.

On the other hand, not when wastes of skin wander on to every other blog and say "Bush is an A**H*LE" whether the subject touches on politics or Bush or not, though. I have written blogs that barely touched on politics and had them come on and paste their usual paragraph in from wherever they are issued their propaganda.

No, quite frankly, no one has the right to voice their opinions on my thread. They have the priviledge. Just like being on JU at all. So far, only about two people have permanently lost that right in the years that I have been here. Not bad, considering the dangerously fluctuating ass levels around here.
on Sep 07, 2005
No, quite frankly, no one has the right to voice their opinions on my thread


No, I have to disagree with you here, Holmes....if you're going to voice opinions, you should be ready to hear it, and defend it as best you can, from the opposition. Especially when dealing with politics and social issues.
on Sep 07, 2005
More invention of rights . I get tired of the "everything that is not expressly forbidden is a right" junk. People are rights nuts in the US, and few people understand them.

No one has the right to post on my blog but me. That's why I have a blacklist button, and that's why I can close it to comments altogether. You can make up some sort of moral value that says people SHOULD be able to post on my blog, but you can't impose it, and it is silly to pretend your values are universal.

Evidently, Brad and the architects at JU didn't believe posting on other people's blogs was a right, or they wouldn't have given us the tools to deny them the ability. Rights are spelled out. Your right to free speech can't be hampered by the government. No where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to impose your views in a privately-managed venue.

If that were so, anyone who gave a public speech would be legally bound to sit and listen to anyone who wanted to offer retort. Instead, we can say "No more questions" and walk off. Even better, we can decide who to take questions from.
on Sep 07, 2005
Fine, fine....do as you want. I'm not going to argue anymore with you; neither one of us is going to convince the other, anyway. If you come to my thread, though, you can be certain to have your full say, as no matter what. Well, as long as you don't get too foulmouthed or blockheaded.
on Sep 07, 2005
Freedom of Speech is a guarantee in the consitution, however one can't go around yelling fire in a theater. One can peacefully protest and bring about a peacefull parade, as long as you get the proper permissions from the local government and the agreements and paperwork. In Joe User you're dealing with instead of the public you're dealing with indivisuals and some will be easy going and say, free to disagree go ahead and post, some will be more close minded and only amicable towards their own opinion.
on Sep 07, 2005
mgosh: we are guarenteed that the government can't stifle our speech by the constitution. We have no rights whatsoever when dealing with one another. If a network TV program wants to censor someone, they can, and do all the time.
on Sep 07, 2005
20 by BakerStreet
Wednesday, September 07, 2005


nah, there are people that disagree with me on 99% of what I say, a


just 99% hmmmmmmmm the truth is I agree with 99% of what you say.
on Sep 07, 2005
Blacklisting is for cowards

Site Owners any chance we could view who currently has us Blacklisted?
Good for a laugh
on Sep 07, 2005
Site Owners any chance we could view who currently has us Blacklisted?
Good for a laugh


And that would be good how?
on Sep 11, 2005
i'm not even sure how to to get back to the mass ranting about the red cross i found, but i wanted to give you a link. it wouldn't let me post there so i hope you find this.

www.post-gazette.com/pg/05246/565143.stm
on Sep 12, 2005
middleman:

That would have been on my thread, I suppose. It was titled "Red Cross workers turned away", but because of the "aside" I put in at the bottom, it turned into a free-for-all melee in which I was repeatedly accused of racism and ended up hurting the feelings of a blogger I admired. I'd like to be done with that one, if you don't mind, but thanks for posting here.

Thanks for the link, though....I'll take it over and add it onto my thread.

Are you a Pittsburgher? If so-----GO STEELERS! 34-7, baby! O, YEEEEAW! Git'em Big Ben! Run, Willie, Run!
3 Pages1 2 3