The ruckus came from me explaining that Santorum's wish "to fight" abortion, same-sex "marriage," and the legalization of marijuana wasn't a "theocracy."
I later asked why my post was getting such a response. A Red State moderator helped me understand.
So in other words don't correct or question what's written in the article especially if the piece is written by the editor.
A post of mine was deleted as well since I guess I was "being an on-line ass" to others. My post, in a cheeky manner, responded, "Did you think of that yourself?" or something to that effect; I cannot remember exactly.
It was ultimately a stupid question since it was implying that I was supporting Santorum's process of legalizing his social views. No where did I say that he was right in his efforts. What Santorum wants to do isn't a "religious dogmatic view" (though the editors and others on Red State think it is, or else why the writer's frame Santorum in such a way) since such views can also be perfectly and soundly be held on a secular stance.
Another post was wiped out of existence because it spoke ill of libertarians even though the post I was responding to also did, but that post wasn't deleted.
From what has happened as detailed above tells me the editors of Red State aren't too high on people who may be a little sympathetic to candidates that aren't be triumphed in a given article.
Others have noted this issue as well when denouncing any "theocracy" accusation (I get the feeling that social conservatives who aren't on the whole "let the state choose their own morality" wagon are immensely unpopular among the Red State editors). See below.
Okay, I read 1689's comment. I don't see anything "passive aggressive" or rude or inconsiderate. Wait, he questioned the "theocracy" usage which was written by the editor. He wrote this: "All would be better than some free-wheeling, do-whatever-you-want small-government! society." Nevermind. He also "attacked the site" by writing, "NR has enough authors trying to fundamentally transform what it means to be a conservative. Apparently the problem is not limited to NR." Bill S. won't have that. On the "blacklist" you shall go.
The overall tone of Bill S.'s reasons on banning fall apart when he turns to the "you're mean" reason. The whole "keeping the peace" is talk because it's him really saying, "We don't want conservatives who have different opinions - who cannot form their opinions with the most softest snow so not to harm the feelings of the editors - to share their thoughts." It's such a cop-out move.
I learned that another has-been poster was also banned, back in 2012. The comments on his article that explained his disdain of the ban got the trolls out of the wood work. I'm not sure of the politics of those that mock him, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were socially "progressive" libertarians or douchebag liberals. It seems like that the day he wrote it those that were aware of the ban took advantaged of the moment - they maybe Red State posters who agreed with the moderators.
Here's what Calvin and another has-been poster said:
I remember reading that Red State doesn't tolerate birthers, truthers and Palin haters and for good reason: They're idiots. But why ban people who "attack" the editors regarding the content of which they post? This tells me they're cowards, and assholes.
3 comments :
Your comment about NR changing conservative identity is spot on, and I think explains a lot about my discussion with Mr. Wright. In point of fact, I was the conservative in that discussion, in every sense of the word. My position was shared by the majority of the founding fathers including, at least, our first president, and possibly several afterward.
So Mr. Wright doesn't want conservatism at all. He wanted liberalism with the right coat of paint over it. Now, most of his *specific positions* I support (e.g. anti-gay marriage, anti-euthanasia, anti-abortion), but he's trying to justifty them under a broken system.
Conservatism works. Liberalism does not. And history bears this out consistently. The NR, and Mr. Wright, both know this, but neither wants to give up any of the supposed advantages classical liberalism has given them, and their solution is to make it synonymous with conservatism...which makes no sense for obvious reasons.
@ malcolm:
It was poster "1689" who said those things about NR, not me.
I will guess that when you speak of Mr. Wright you are referring to John C. Wright, correct? If so, I am not up-to-date with your conversations with him, though I am aware that you had some disagreements with him about fiction writing, or something of that sort. But please, tell me about your latest discussion.
I remember a post, I forget which article it was on his site, that asked Wright whether or not he was an orthodox Catholic attending the Latin Mass. It was a seemingly innocent question and, to me, highly interesting (because I also wanted to know) but Wright took offense to it. It was strange. The poster quickly apologized (which he shouldn't have, it should've been the other way around). Granted Wight is relatively new to Catholicism I sorta of understand his confusion and ignorance on the matter. Now, if I asked Ed Feser that question I would think he'd give a more rational answer than blowing a temple vein. I mean, "Do you, Mr. Wright attend Latin Mass?" It's a fucking simple yes or no answer.
Ah, yeah. This took me into, like, five posts on my own blog, and Mr. Wright viciously insulting me several times, but it was a discussion about the validity of monarchs.
The long story is this: Mr. Wright said that he would die before doffing his hat to the king, I said that this seemed bizarre and counter-intuitive...and then we were off. The long and short of it is that, though I am not a monarchist, I believe that monarchs can be valid authorities we owe legitimate respect. If we lived under a monarchy it would be right and proper to tip your hat to that legitimate authority.
Mr. Wright believed that, literally, *all* monarchs were tyrants by virtue of being monarchs (I can quote him if you'd like - He would not deny this), and kept claiming that because he had the ability to vote - that is, had a 1 in however many millions say in how the government was won - he was, in fact, equal in rank to a king. He absolutely refused to take any writings from the Church or even Bible into account. When I asked him how, then, we had king and emperor Saints and Blesseds, he responded that it was the same way we had rich people in Heaven...which makes no sense, since the position is INHERENTLY immoral (according to him), and being rich is not.
The whole discussion was really bizarre. Both of us kept making comments we thought were obvious and which the other side thought absurd. Eventually he apologized to me for his treatment of me, and I move on with no animosity - but it was eye-opening. Classical liberalism, as it turns out, really is liberalism. I am a conservative. The two are not the same.
Post a Comment