I have finished my month as a guest poster at Unclaimed Territory. Glenn Greenwald thanked me graciously even though I snarked at some of his readers. But there’s something I want to follow up with here and get off my chest. This is not specifically about UT or its readers; rather, a couple of commenters at UT have goaded me into writing something I’ve been meaning to get to for a while.
Yesterday on UT I published a variation on the “Dear Media” post below, but with a simpler point — that our political culture is too fouled to support democratic political processes. I quoted this from Wikipedia:
Political competitors may disagree, but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge the legitimate and important roles that each play. The ground rules of the society must encourage tolerance and civility in public debate.
Two commenters went off on this quotation from opposite directions, but they both fell into the same fallacy, IMO, about what it is to “tolerate” political speech.
One guy, a frequent commenter I’ll call “PM,” clearly is on some kind of crusade against Daily Kos because he was banned from commenting there. I infer the ban came about because PM disagrees with Kos’s “crashing the gate” strategy of supporting Democratic candidates. If you’re not familiar with this, the basic idea is to simultaneously take power away from Republicans while impressing the Dems that the netroots are a force to be reckoned with. This, in turn, should enable the netroots to push the Dems in a more progressive direction in the future. I happen to think this is a sensible plan, but some disagree. As I understand it, PM thinks that Kos should be supporting the most progressive candidate regardless of party, which I think is a dead-end strategy.
Anyway, after posting some off-topic comments by way of continuing his vendetta against Daily Kos, PM wrote,
Barbara, are you for acknowledging the legitimacy of political opponents and tolerating their participation in public debate? Or are you for denying the legitimacy of political opponents and, literally, censoring any possible advocacy of them, no matter how polite said advocacy may be, simply because the advocacy comes in service of a party whose very legitimacy you deny?
You have to choose one or the other, Barbara. You can’t have both.
Yes I can have both, because I make a distinction between public tolerance and private tolerance. My respect for the free speech rights of others doesn’t translate into a personal obligation to provide a public venue for opinions with which I disagree.
Blogs are not public utilities. They are the personal creations and properties of bloggers. All of us who maintain blogs over a period of time have put an enormous amount of time and work into them, creating content and building traffic. Yes, I do it because I enjoy it, but it’s still a lot of time. Unpaid time, I might add. Further, I choose to pay for server space instead of using the free services in order to get better tech support and more bandwidth. Now the ads more than pay for the bandwidth, but that wasn’t true for most of The Mahablog’s history.
I launched The Mahablog to chronicle the ongoing atrocity known as the Bush Administration, and I occasionally wander into other topics that interest me. This blog is not a public bulletin board. I keep pretty tight control on comments (as explained here). If I had not been exercising discretion about what is allowed in comments, I believe this blog would have been swamped with rightie hate speech long ago, and the comments threads would be nothing but flames. But there are plenty of places to go on the web if you want to flame. I choose instead to maintain a place where progressives can discuss issues without being distracted by rightie flame-throwers.
Does this mean I am not encouraging “tolerance and civility in public debate.” Folks, this ain’t “public debate.” It’s private property. It’s private property anyone with Internet access can look at, but it is private nonetheless. Any participation here is provisional, and I’m the provision.
When I say I respect free speech rights, I mean that. Everybody has a right to say any damnfool thing they want, as long as it don’t scare the chickens, as we’d say back home. But you’re on your own to find a venue. Since there are countless venues on the Web for expressing just about any opinion known to mankind, that shouldn’t be a problem. But the First Amendment doesn’t give you a right to post signs on private property, nor does it mean privately owned publishers are obligated to publish what you write if they don’t want to.
In other words, if your magnum opus stinks out loud, and Random House rejects it, that is not a violation of your First Amendment rights.
Now, I believe Blogger still offers free blog space, so if someone out there is frustrated by being banned from other blogs, he is free to start his own bleeping blog. He might not get much traffic right away, but neither did The Mahablog until I put years of work into maintaining and promoting it. But I’m supposed to allow someone to piggyback on the work I did to build traffic in order to promote ideas I don’t buy into … why, exactly?
If, on the other hand, certain points of view were being censored from the Internets by the Gubmint — I don’t think that’s possible, but let’s pretend — that would be wrong. Even if I disagreed with the points of view, I support the right of citizens to express that point of view. Somewhere. Just not here. Also, I don’t go around demanding that other publishing venues only publish my point of view. If the newspaper carries pro-Bush letters to the editor, I don’t write to the newspaper demanding such letters be banned because I don’t like them. I don’t set fire to the offices of newspapers that publish views I don’t like, which is something that happens commonly in less tolerant places.
At the same time, I don’t approve of defacing or destroying bumper stickers or other expressions of personal opinion on other people’s property. If you want to plaster a pro-Bush bumper sticker on your car and advertise to the world you’re an idiot, be my guest. I don’t do to others what I wouldn’t like were it done to me. During the 2004 campaign righties whined a lot about nasty mean Democrats breaking their “Bush” signs and saying snarky things to them. I think it was wrong of Democrats to do that. But somehow the righties never noticed the number of news stories about Republicans breaking “Kerry” signs. Nor did they acknowledged that at least some Kerry voters in red states — they told me this personally — chose not to display Kerry signs for fear of, um reprisal. Like slashed tires, or bombs thrown through windows, or the family dog … well, you get the idea. That’s public intolerance, and I think that’s wrong.
In other words, while I am not obligated to publish opinions I don’t like, I do not have the right to prevent such opinions from being published elsewhere.
I hope that is clear.
The other UT commenter that irritated me was a rightie. This guy is an incessant commenter there, possibly a paid one, and I have read his opinions, and basically he’s a mouthpiece for everything Sean Hannity says. So he wrote a comment that argues, in effect, we lefties are supposed to tolerate the VRWC’s crapping on the Constitution and shredding of the Bill of Rights, because if we argue they shouldn’t do that we are being intolerant.
There is a distinction between being intolerant of opposing opinions and being intolerant of actively subverting American democracy and undermining civil liberty. There is a difference between accepting the results of a free and fair election and accepting the results of an election that was stolen by thugs who prevented minority citizens from voting. BIG difference.
As I said, this guy is essentially a Sean Hannity wannabee; I’ve yet to see him say anything original. I responded to some of his comments to my first UT post before I realized I was wasting my time. And on this thread I let him know I wouldn’t be wasting my time by responding to his comments. Notice I didn’t write to Glenn and demand the guy be banned (I have no reason to think Glenn would do that, anyway). I just said, in effect, your opinion doesn’t interest me, and I’m not going to respond to it.
Did I mention that this guy’s comments drip with contempt for lefties, yet he complains that other commenters (on a leftie blog!) are mean to him? Snark. Try being a leftie posting a comment on a rightie blog. The righties go way beyond the parameters of “mean.”
Anyway, he responded to my notice that I was ignoring him with:
Yet another example of how you recognize “the ground rules of the society must encourage tolerance and civility in public debate?”
You have just proven my point about your hypocrisy far better than I ever could have.
Nope. I support your right to express your own opinion, but that doesn’t mean I won’t think you’re an idiot. And I support your right to kick sand on a public beach, but if you kick it in my face we’ve got a problem. I’m not going to tolerate your kicking sand in anyone else’s face, either, and if I can stop you from doing that, I will.
Some people don’t understand what tolerance is. It doesn’t mean being a patsy, or not respecting personal parameters. Righties in particular seem to think that because liberals value “tolerance” we’re supposed to stand aside like grinning idiots and approve of everything they do. Some righties think “tolerance” confers on them a right not to be disagreed with.
No; tolerance of public speech means I must not stop someone else from expressing an opinion. But “tolerance” doesn’t mean I can’t express my opinion of his opinion. Tolerance of behavior as a rule means tolerating behavior that is chosen from free will and not harming anyone else. It doesn’t mean I should stand aside if behavior is harming someone else. I don’t know why so many righties can’t grasp that.
OK; I’ve vented. I feel better now.
In my not so humble opinion, you have one of the most intelligent and insightful blogs on the web. Just keep doing what you’re doing.
I agree with grayslady. Also, I have stuck around primarily because of your rules on comments. They have given those of us who comment some really good give and take and sharing of other points of view with respect and, of course, tolerance. To me, this is where I come for good writing, thoughtful commentary, and a some fun.
Whew! I feel better, too!
This is one of those things that the rightwing has in common with pseudoscience and fringe science people. I’ve seen this a lot in my critiquing a popular fringe science theory, as well as in dealing with assorted more whacko “science” ideas online. One is that pointing out the other guys’ mistakes, or showing where they did things like alter quotes or conclusions from researchers, is deemed an “attack”. The other is that a large number of these people feel that things like kill files, filters that let the user simply not see posts they don’t want to see, are “censorship”. These folks want not just the right to speak, but the right to not be ignored.
Right on! Righties can dish it out but can’t take it. It’s interesting that progressives expressing opinions (no smear language of any kind, just disagreement) is “hateful”, yet throwing around rhetoric like poisoning judges, unpatriotic, treason for media free speech, fragging Murtha, etc passes unchallenged for political discourse.
I agree with posts 1&2.
Keep it up Barbara, great job!
Bravo! From the standpoint of one who is not as eloquent (I always forget the punchline) as you, thank you for putting into words the growing frustration I felt in reading the comment section. There is a certain rhythm/energy that just seems to get going at UT when it’s hijacked by the self trumpeters. Anyway, thanks for the hard work over at Glenn’s.
Well now I have to agree with posts 1-6….
And I must admit I , for one, am glad to have you back in one piece from Greenwald,,,tell him he can’t use our blogger again..I am greedy.
All kidding aside, I think for the most part, you were very well liked there and will be missed… I hope some of Glenns readers will check out your blog. I was happy to see some comments yesterday that seemed to reflect that.
Thanks for the way things are run here.. please don’t ever change!
As for your first person that you spoke about: I noticed this same person referred to Kos as your”favorite blog” ,, I couldn’t help but giggle… Why on earth wouldn’t your own blog be your favorite?(just a guess on my part)… And “consider the source” when it comes to the second person person.When he moves out of his parents basement he will have a much clearer view of the world.Every village has an idiot…and if you notice for the most part his comments go ignored……
.
As for your first person that you spoke about: I noticed this same person referred to Kos as yourâ€favorite blog†,, I couldn’t help but giggle… Why on earth wouldn’t your own blog be your favorite?(just a guess on my part)…
I guess he assumes that the only reason I would agree with or defend Kos is that I am a Kos fan. Fact is, I don’t look at Daily Kos all that much. If somebody challenged me to name my favorite blogs, Daily Kos would not make the top five. Maybe not the top ten; I’d have to think about it. The top 20, OK.
And, anyway, I suspect I would have banned that guy even quicker than Kos did. What a one-note wonder!
You have every right to vent – especially since you tolerate my vent yesterday about some rightie blog whose followers are rather foul mouthed (it seems he encourages that) and who is blaming his behavior on the fact that his foul comments are not tolerated here. IMO – they should not be. BTW – I invited his crew to comment on Hamdan over at Angrybear. They don’t seem to have the courage.
I belive that proper snark dictates that you should have said “I’m the provisioner and I decide what participation to provision”
Barbara, I read your blog everyday because of your incisive writing and quick understanding of issues. You just be yourself – glad you are back full time!
Well said! But you have a gift for that. (or maybe it’s hard work to be that articulate) I have a blog and if anyone ever visits, I’m going to follow you rules.
Perhaps most of your audience is too young to remember, but there was a conservative commentator, William F. Buckley. If you remember his style, it was clear, and to the point and he was tole rent. Contrast him with Limbaudh and you have a picture of tolerance vs ambush style bashing.
Not meaning to be offensive, your philosophy is not far off from the protagonist in ‘Atlas Shrugged’, Reardon, who finally realizes his abilities are not a reason tolerate parasites who despise him for his talent.
The philosophy of a comfortable discussion environment is excellent – especially for liberal minds. Probably not nearly so for conservative ones. But for those who enjoy venturing out once in a while:
Ever thought that if the right abandoned all attacks on the left and focused on the logic behind their viewpoints they’d be able to vastly improve their rhetoric? Of course not, it’s obvious. But as it is, it’s all preaching, preaching, preaching talking points and silly rumors from their sanctioned experts and ever shrinking echo chambers. The reason why I like confronting these preacher trolls isn’t because I’m deluded about the possibility of persuading any of them of anything, it’s because I’m hopefully adding to the body of liberal knowledge which continues to grow daily. And knowledge is power, ain’t it Mr. Rove?
Just goes to show there are nonsensical thinkers on both the right and the left. I’ve never seen so much as one word by maha that “denies the legitimacy of political opponents.” That’s just gibberish. Anybody who wants a soapbox for their political candidate simply has to build their own.
And I won’t be able to respond to the commenter who compared maha to an Ayn Rand character, because I’ll be too busy taking an extremely hot shower with a wire brush. Yuck!
Maha,
I read you every day. Your ideas are well thought out and your writing is a pleasure to read. You are my #1 read on the web. Thank you.
maha,
Great post. For years I ran a listserve for antique cars. As with all such, we had our share of posters who wanted to turn it into their private ad agency or start a flame war for the joy of it. I consulted, I polled, I cajolled, but at the end of the day, the only person who could or would make a decision was me. No appeal, no “higher authority.”
Very few people realize that the internet[1] is not a democracy, it is a set of hierarchical dictatorships. If you piss off (or on) the dictator of one of the branches, they have an absolute right to cut off your access and there is no appeal.
I tried hard to hide the nature of the dictatorship by running polls, responding to complaints, etc. etc. and I think the proprietors of most nodes on the network also try to maintain the fiction of openness, democracy or even anarchy, but the iron fist remains no matter how velvet the glove.
[1] as a total side note…. when did we get a second (or more) internet? or is this just another instance of “the ATM machine?” A network is a group of connected computers. The internet is the (series of) connections between those networks. There can only be one internet, unless you have two or more groups of networks that are connected among themselves but not to each other (remember when ARPAnet, FIDOnet, and UUnet were separate networks and getting a piece of email from one to another meant hand-routing it through princeton or some other connection? Now those were “internets.”
well said and well done, maha. as i said on skippy about refusing certain blogads (which could be applied to commenters as well), there’s a sign in every greasy spoon that says “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”
our blogs are our own personal greasy spoons. i don’t have to take or tolerate ideas that i find abhorrent. i’m not the government, so it’s not ‘censorship.’ it’s freedom of choice.
I’m new to the internet, and Mahablog is usually the first place I visit.
Thanks
maha- Great! I loved it and love your writing. You have so many great points and you made me laugh when putting some of these people in their place.
apikoros — are you referring to the plural “internets”? That’s a joke — our dim bulb president spoke about the “internets” once.
Maha,
YUP! that’s what I was after 🙂 “Internets” started popping up on the blogs I read regularly and it was ugly! I missed the original and was left thinking, “What moron thought that up?” I retrospect it should have been obvious 🙂
maha –
A while back I wrote about being twit-filtered from hotair simply because I was identified as liberal. It bothered me for days. I also remember feeling perplexed at your lack of a response to my indignation. Now I get it. Also, I realized that trying to ‘reason’ with anybody at MM’s site is equivalent to repeatedly bashing my head against a wall and expecting a different result.
That had to feel about as good as having your back scratched when you itch where you can’t reach. Mmm…
Your post’s are alway’s like a cold beer and a shot of Tequila with lime and salt on Friday at 5:01pm.
Freedom of speach is not a licence for idiocy. One may write a
“Letter to the Editor,” but that doesn’t mean that it will be read or published.
‘Nuff said…
Keep up the great work. I love your site.
And remind some folks about why the 4th of July isn’t just about fireworks, BBQ and beer. Remind your friends, though, that if they decide to use fireworks to start their BBQ, they can always put the inferno out with the beer. What a waste of beer! Wait, it wouldn’t be if they decided to drink it first and then… Uhm, never mind. The whole house would be in flames by then.
Enjoy!!!
Have a great 4th!!!
I like skippy’s comment about ‘greasy spoons’ and their signs, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”
‘Cept, I think of the Mahablog as a place to get really nutritious food for thought, not necessarily ‘greasy spoon’ fare….. unless you count those little cafes rated by their number of calendars [Blue Highways] where real home cooking is available.
“This is one of those things that the rightwing has in common with pseudoscience and fringe science people.”
“Right on! Righties can dish it out but can’t take it. ”
Not to be a pendant, but the first step in elevating the culture is to at least get some terms more specific than “righties/lefties”, or “the right/the left”. I understand that its a quick and easy reference point, but I think that excessive use of generalities does interfere with clear thought.
While I choose to register Republican, like many/most people I stradle the line, which means that hardcore lefties call me “right” and hardcore righties call me “left”. According to the current ‘talking points’ I am both a jingoistic warmonger, and a pro-‘Al Queda’ traitor – but at least both agree I should be shot :).
Even as a “Rightie” I have more in common with a “moderate” leftie than with a Christian Conservative. As a “leftie” I have more in common with a moderate rightie than with almost any Anarchist or Socialist.
But if the moderates on each side have been conditioned to think of all the people on the “other side” as extremist stereotypes then they will naturally choose the extremists of their own side over those of the other. The only winners are the wingnuts who maintain their support out of hyped-up fear of possible doomsday alternatives.
Pingback: The Mahablog » Reactionaries
There’s an old saying about how, a free society is one where it’s safe to be unpopular. That’s something I agree with, strongly.
Do you have free speech if you can be harmed for speaking? No.
Does it really matter if that harm that comes is from the government or from others? No.
(Obviously, a person is not harmed by being unable to use private property/space, of course. Banning a person is not a violation of free speech.)
But there’s a more subtle issue as well… if someone were to attack the NY Times, would (ahem) certain people be able to say “That’s horrible! Look, I didn’t like the Times, but everyone who listened to me knew that I didn’t want anything like that to happen!”
Anyone who, if being honest, would have to say “Uh… no, I suppose not,” is not protecting free speech (well, the free press. You know what I mean!).
Tolerance of ideas, even abhorrent ideas, is the price of freedom. Those who love freedom pay that price proudly, if not always gladly.