The following is a comment from user Southern Bubba. I thought it was worth putting up as a seaperate post:
Southern Bubba said...
SouthernBubba here. The most ardent hater of censorship at HP or anywhere else you will ever find. Hope that you will spend time on this site and encourage others to do so. If you post regularly on HP and get censored for ridiculous reasons (and those are the only reasons for censorship), then start using using the term censormod2nit(s) every chance you get. Quite a bit of the time that term will make it through, I think because it shames some of them. Also, as often as possible, mention that posters hate HP for giving ANY poster the right to influence (don't use censor-deletion will surely follow) ANY other poster for ANY reason. Throw in the phrase Constitution/Free Speech Hater(s) in a quick post right after a pending and sometimes that will shame them into letting the original post go through. Another little trick: fan the posters that you do not like with the highest # of fans and that way when get you 'em with a zinger, there is a greater chance that more will see it.
This problem of censorship is a common crime against the Founding Fathers and does not have anything at all to do with which side of the aisle you are on. Let's hear some good ideas on how we can get this corrected on HP and make it truly as great as it was intended to be.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Seperating Church and Hate: But don't forget to Moderate
There was an interesting article published on Huffpo today: Separating Church and Hate: Irrationality and Anti-Muslim Stereotyping The following is an exchange I had with user Jan Allen McDaniel:
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jan Allen McDaniel 4 hours ago (6:05 PM)
"And you talk of Islamic terrorism as if it is something built into Islam or one sided on the part of them. In fact the number of people killed in the US and elsewhere due to Islamic terrorism is dwarfed by the number of Islamic people caused to die through US intervention in the mideast since 1950."
We could go on for some time about who did what to whom and not settle anything. I hope we can start from the agreement that a lot of Muslims want to kill us and we want to kill them. Given that, we can speculate on why this is true.
I believe that the struggle is over which system of law will survive the war, Islamic law or Western law like America's. Mybe you disagree.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RedDogBear 2 hours ago (7:29 PM)
"We could go on for some time about who did what to whom and not settle anything. I hope we can start from the agreement that a lot of Muslims want to kill us and we want to kill them. Given that, we can speculate on why this is true."
There isn't much speculation. Osama bin Laden has said why he wants to attack the west and most of his charges are true. Which doesn't mean I think he is any way justified. He is a criminal and a thug and the worst kind of theocratic would-be tyrant.
I can give you countless examples. The US has overthrown governments (Iran, Iraq), installed dictators who routinely practice torture (Iran), destroyed basic infrastructure resulting in wide spread civilian deaths (Iraq), shot down civilian airliners (Iran), and supported corrupt dictators (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan) through out the middle east. These aren't matters of speculation. They are facts.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jan Allen McDaniel 1 hour ago (8:21 PM)
Maybe your intent is to blame America for the situation we are in, and I will not join in that. If you want to talk about where we go from here, I'm game.
My reply was censored. Luckily I had a feeling it might be. Here it is:
I don't blame America any more than I blame Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq. I blame Ronald Reagan, George Bush (both of them), Osama bin Laden, .... I blame specific people who have committed crimes. I don't excuse either side for killing innocent people. Its never justified. As for going forward you can't go forward unless you admit the crimes that both sides have committed.
I think this is a very illustrative example. Even if you are a conservative libertarian I think you would agree that there was nothing obscene, personal, off topic or anything else that would contradict the supposed Huffington Post standards. The only reason to suppress this comment is that if expresses ideas that criticize our government and the right to criticize our government is an essential part of free speech and democracy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jan Allen McDaniel 4 hours ago (6:05 PM)
"And you talk of Islamic terrorism as if it is something built into Islam or one sided on the part of them. In fact the number of people killed in the US and elsewhere due to Islamic terrorism is dwarfed by the number of Islamic people caused to die through US intervention in the mideast since 1950."
We could go on for some time about who did what to whom and not settle anything. I hope we can start from the agreement that a lot of Muslims want to kill us and we want to kill them. Given that, we can speculate on why this is true.
I believe that the struggle is over which system of law will survive the war, Islamic law or Western law like America's. Mybe you disagree.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RedDogBear 2 hours ago (7:29 PM)
"We could go on for some time about who did what to whom and not settle anything. I hope we can start from the agreement that a lot of Muslims want to kill us and we want to kill them. Given that, we can speculate on why this is true."
There isn't much speculation. Osama bin Laden has said why he wants to attack the west and most of his charges are true. Which doesn't mean I think he is any way justified. He is a criminal and a thug and the worst kind of theocratic would-be tyrant.
I can give you countless examples. The US has overthrown governments (Iran, Iraq), installed dictators who routinely practice torture (Iran), destroyed basic infrastructure resulting in wide spread civilian deaths (Iraq), shot down civilian airliners (Iran), and supported corrupt dictators (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan) through out the middle east. These aren't matters of speculation. They are facts.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jan Allen McDaniel 1 hour ago (8:21 PM)
Maybe your intent is to blame America for the situation we are in, and I will not join in that. If you want to talk about where we go from here, I'm game.
My reply was censored. Luckily I had a feeling it might be. Here it is:
I don't blame America any more than I blame Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq. I blame Ronald Reagan, George Bush (both of them), Osama bin Laden, .... I blame specific people who have committed crimes. I don't excuse either side for killing innocent people. Its never justified. As for going forward you can't go forward unless you admit the crimes that both sides have committed.
I think this is a very illustrative example. Even if you are a conservative libertarian I think you would agree that there was nothing obscene, personal, off topic or anything else that would contradict the supposed Huffington Post standards. The only reason to suppress this comment is that if expresses ideas that criticize our government and the right to criticize our government is an essential part of free speech and democracy.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Remembering HumeSkeptic and CarlIV
There is a new article on the Huffington Post today mourning the loss of two users: HumSkeptic and CarlIV, both of whom died recently. First we would like to also express our sadness at their passing. We all had interesting discussions with both of them.
However, there is an interesting statistic glossed over in the article. The following statistics are from the Huffington Post as quoted in the article.
HumeSkeptic had a total of 116,966 comments. Of those 24,038 were censored! I.e. 20% of the comments of a user that the moderators praise as one of the most thoughtful commenters on the site were censored. Some other users have commented on this as well but no reply from the Huffpo moderators who wrote the article yet.
Click here if you can't see the comment box
However, there is an interesting statistic glossed over in the article. The following statistics are from the Huffington Post as quoted in the article.
HumeSkeptic had a total of 116,966 comments. Of those 24,038 were censored! I.e. 20% of the comments of a user that the moderators praise as one of the most thoughtful commenters on the site were censored. Some other users have commented on this as well but no reply from the Huffpo moderators who wrote the article yet.
Click here if you can't see the comment box
Saturday, July 17, 2010
New Facebook Group
There is a new group on Facebook called Banned from Huffpo
The threaded discussion capabilities on this blog are relatively limited. The Facebook group provides a way for us to have better discussions and also for other users to quickly post their own examples of censorship or other thoughts.
The threaded discussion capabilities on this blog are relatively limited. The Facebook group provides a way for us to have better discussions and also for other users to quickly post their own examples of censorship or other thoughts.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Dirty Little Secret: Criticism of 2 party system gets censored
Here is a recent post from a user this comment was censored from the article Dirty Little Secrets the Republicans Don't Want You to Know.
It was polite, on topic, and contained no profanity:
America's 2 party system is a joke! The neo-cons and neo-liberals all have dirty hands regarding the transfer of wealth from the middle class to transnational corporations and the banking cartel. We are in the middle of a economic war and America the Republic is losing.
It was polite, on topic, and contained no profanity:
America's 2 party system is a joke! The neo-cons and neo-liberals all have dirty hands regarding the transfer of wealth from the middle class to transnational corporations and the banking cartel. We are in the middle of a economic war and America the Republic is losing.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Another Deleted Comment
Here is another example where one of our members tried to respond to a comment from user MattBass83 only to find that the comment was deleted. The comment was captured below. Why it was deleted from a progressive blog is hard to imagine. This is yet another example of how arbitrary and capricious the censorship on Huffpo can be. (Click on the image to see a larger version).
Holy Boldness doesn't include bold enough to allow free speech
Here is an example from James Ballard of a long thread, an interesting discussion of religion that got censored for no apparent reason except perhaps the author of the main article on the Holy Boldness of Women disagreed with it:
If you are going to quote me please do not do so out of context. These blog threads are unwieldy enough as it is; no need to compound the problem.
Quote :
...""Since religions are not going away any time soon, they would certainly benefit if women were to take over..."
That's not only capitulation and defeatist, you are rationalizing to support your contention. The fact is, "religion" is going away, very quickly; notwithstanding all the woo and blustering in the so-called "spiritual' essays saturating this blog. You see in them the desperation and final gasps of the Boogeyman hoodoo/voodoo nonsense that has plagued humanity for centuries...Besides, neither my thinking nor my physical being is tied down to a "country"; another outdated notion.
The world has indeed joined the 21st century, notwithstanding the morons this "country" has been breeding with an impunity that is horrific to the rest of the world. If we continue to regress, our regression will be matched and countered simply by the rest of the planet ignoring us.
Can't leave an old joke in the bread box too long without expecting it to mold and be thrown away.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
4:50 PM CST
Hey Red Dog,
Last night I discovered whole chunks of dialogue were censored; this time I'm sure by the author, because they all made it past the moderators this past holiday weekend. Regardless who's doing it, censorship is censorship, and in this particular case I believe it is egregious. I did not copy the entire thread as I normally do; the posts WERE published and there was an entire dialogue going on between "llisa" and myself. They censored hers as well; my apologies to "IIisa" for not including her all of her replies, assuming she visits this blog...J.B.
Georgetown/On Faith: Holy Boldness of Women
..."Women seem to be better able to see that religion should contain good works and kind words and be used for good instead of for control...."
Sorry "IIisa" but this is absolute nonsense. Neither "good works" nor "kind words" are gender predestined. I'm fed up with hearing this abysmally failed "feminist" slant promulgating inane assumptions about men.
J.B.
7/2/10
@ "IIisa"
1:45 PM CST
"...And women were not allowed to be elders or deacons or preachers and girls were not allowed to light candles or ring the bell...This is still the way it is in too many religions. Women are subservient and do all the work, and men rule."...
Example : "...And women were not allowed to be elders or deacons..."
So what? No disappoint there. Why would you want to be recognized as such by ignorant people who choose to sustain a failed and oppressive way of life ?
Example : Gays are denied "marriage rites". So what ? Ditto to what I said above.
...(continued)...
Not sure about this new "partnership" bit; comes from a failed premise : No one is "equal" to anyone. Period. You can't expect human beings to behave like a bank portfolio. Deny or dummy down the uniqueness of one individual is destructive; regardless whether either member of the "partnership" is capable of recognizing this or not. "Partnership" is another Orwellian PC buzz word that ultimately means : Control.
And your fortunate upbringing seems to shatter the very premise of your initial statements; the fact that "the church" is and has been "controlling" is a no brainer. This does not translate that "most" men are "controlling", or that women in "religion" could make any improvements, at all, to a rigid outdated belief system.
They are and remain the masters of propaganda and brainwashing technique. Get to the children first. It will become the ultimate irony that had they not followed this centuries old practice, the RCC would never have been sustainable.
Get to the children first.
Other orthodoxies, (again, ironically) follow in their footsteps. But they are amateurs compared to the Roman Catholic Church.
Only until recently do we bear witness to the extremity of their corruption.
4:50 PM CST
Hey Red Dog,
Last night I discovered whole chunks of dialogue were censored; this time I'm sure by the author, because they all made it past the moderators this past holiday weekend. Regardless who's doing it, censorship is censorship, and in this particular case I believe it is egregious. I did not copy the entire thread as I normally do; the posts WERE published and there was an entire dialogue going on between "llisa" and myself. They censored hers as well; my apologies to "IIisa" for not including her all of her replies, assuming she visits this blog...J.B.
Georgetown/On Faith: Holy Boldness of Women
llisa 10:47 PM on 6/30/2010
179 Fans
Perhaps the best thing to happen to religion would be for the men to step down and let the women take over. Women seem to be better able to see that religion should contain good works and kind words and be used for good instead of for control.
@ "IIisa"12:00 PM CST
..."Women seem to be better able to see that religion should contain good works and kind words and be used for good instead of for control...."
If the men in your adult life are "controlling", it's because you want it that way. Takes two to twist.
No doubt you'd be quick to label yours truly "controlling"; a PC word that has virtually emasculated the American male.
I have no desire to "control"; I just won't be manipulated either. Plenty of men who aren't "controlling"; plenty of women who are "controlling"...you just have to look for one while avoiding the other, and forget the idiotic stereotypes that have been drilled into your brain for the past several decades.
J.B.
7/2/10
llisa 7/2/2010
Takes only one man to twist.
The man who twists alone is not telling you about the partners he is with.
[ The 2 replies above I adopt from memory...they were also censored; the rest of "llisa's" posts were censored as well ]
@ "IIisa"
1:45 PM CST
"...And women were not allowed to be elders or deacons or preachers and girls were not allowed to light candles or ring the bell...This is still the way it is in too many religions. Women are subservient and do all the work, and men rule."...
The "women" you speak of have been and, tragically, are "subservient" because they wanted to be and want to be. Otherwise, they would not have been "subservient", nor want to be. Sorry. It's that simple. It's called the line of least resistance, which all humans indulge in; not just women.
And this is the "way" with ALL religions. I'm happy that you were smarter than that, and left. The problem I have with today's American "feminists" as that they continue to fail to appreciate paradox; in fact, they chose to remain in denial over it.
Example : "...And women were not allowed to be elders or deacons..."
So what? No disappoint there. Why would you want to be recognized as such by ignorant people who choose to sustain a failed and oppressive way of life ?
Example : Gays are denied "marriage rites". So what ? Ditto to what I said above.
One answer : Do not ever, EVER circumscribe your life by the the dictates and stupidities of others, whether or not "others" means one individual or the culture at large.
...(continued)...
...(conclusion)...
Not sure about this new "partnership" bit; comes from a failed premise : No one is "equal" to anyone. Period. You can't expect human beings to behave like a bank portfolio. Deny or dummy down the uniqueness of one individual is destructive; regardless whether either member of the "partnership" is capable of recognizing this or not. "Partnership" is another Orwellian PC buzz word that ultimately means : Control.
And your fortunate upbringing seems to shatter the very premise of your initial statements; the fact that "the church" is and has been "controlling" is a no brainer. This does not translate that "most" men are "controlling", or that women in "religion" could make any improvements, at all, to a rigid outdated belief system.
J.B.
7/2/10
7/2/10
@ "IIisa"
2:10 PM CST
2:10 PM CST
Yes.
The RCC has been and remains among the worst oppressors of the human spirit. Over the centuries the RCC has pushed and polished the envelop of tyranny and cynical manipulation of language to such extremes as to defy all sense of logic or appearance of sanity.
They are and remain the masters of propaganda and brainwashing technique. Get to the children first. It will become the ultimate irony that had they not followed this centuries old practice, the RCC would never have been sustainable.
Get to the children first.
Other orthodoxies, (again, ironically) follow in their footsteps. But they are amateurs compared to the Roman Catholic Church.
Only until recently do we bear witness to the extremity of their corruption.
J.B.
7/2/10
7/2/10
@ "llisa"
4:25 PM CST
4:25 PM CST
If you are going to quote me please do not do so out of context. These blog threads are unwieldy enough as it is; no need to compound the problem.
Quote :
..."Men have always been in control of religion."...
...Not without the help of the women who enabled it.
Same line of "thinking" in the cliche :
"Men make war"...That's right...but not without the women who enable it. Passive-aggressively, I might add.
Quote :
..."Since religions are not going away any time soon, they would certainly benefit if women were to take over"...
You did not explicitly state : "Most men are controlling" True. You clearly implied it in your previous statements I quote above. Passive-aggressive methinks. No ?
You did not explicitly state : "Most men are controlling" True. You clearly implied it in your previous statements I quote above. Passive-aggressive methinks. No ?
...(continued)...
...(concluded)...
Quote :
...""Since religions are not going away any time soon, they would certainly benefit if women were to take over..."
That's not only capitulation and defeatist, you are rationalizing to support your contention. The fact is, "religion" is going away, very quickly; notwithstanding all the woo and blustering in the so-called "spiritual' essays saturating this blog. You see in them the desperation and final gasps of the Boogeyman hoodoo/voodoo nonsense that has plagued humanity for centuries...Besides, neither my thinking nor my physical being is tied down to a "country"; another outdated notion.
The world has indeed joined the 21st century, notwithstanding the morons this "country" has been breeding with an impunity that is horrific to the rest of the world. If we continue to regress, our regression will be matched and countered simply by the rest of the planet ignoring us.
Can't leave an old joke in the bread box too long without expecting it to mold and be thrown away.
J.B.
7/2/10
7/2/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
