Yer Out
Some good friends were banned from Eschaton, and I am sad about that. I've emailed them that I want to discuss this, and emailed Atrios about it. Barndog and Woody Guthrie's Guitar both made statements that were considered threatening violence to public figures, and Atrios does not want that at his site, and says he does not want to have to babysit his comments.
Over the several years I have been commenting at Eschaton, Barndog and Woody have been present, and their comments show that they are caring and generous people. They both are ex-servicemen, and sometimes their comments are pretty strong, and sometimes I don't care for them. But their character has always been good, and their values are the kind I respect. While I have met Woody out in Albuquerque, I haven't actually met Barndog, but have emailed with both of them.
The other commenters at Eschaton know me as a political activist, as some one who wants to make the world better. I am not inclined to violence, and I don't encourage it. I do not see the posts that Barndog and Woody have put up as particularly offensive. And I would like your comments about that.
I would like to ask Eschaton to let the two commenters he has banned back into our company. And I would like your comments about that, too.
I feel my life is better with them in it. And your comments about that are welcome.
Over the several years I have been commenting at Eschaton, Barndog and Woody have been present, and their comments show that they are caring and generous people. They both are ex-servicemen, and sometimes their comments are pretty strong, and sometimes I don't care for them. But their character has always been good, and their values are the kind I respect. While I have met Woody out in Albuquerque, I haven't actually met Barndog, but have emailed with both of them.
The other commenters at Eschaton know me as a political activist, as some one who wants to make the world better. I am not inclined to violence, and I don't encourage it. I do not see the posts that Barndog and Woody have put up as particularly offensive. And I would like your comments about that.
I would like to ask Eschaton to let the two commenters he has banned back into our company. And I would like your comments about that, too.
I feel my life is better with them in it. And your comments about that are welcome.
Labels: Life
posted by Ruth at 5:12 AM
36 Comments:
I don't think WGG was purposely banned (haloscan't blocking tool is a cudgel, not a scalpel, and more likely another troll was the intended target, as it has happened sever times before), and he's been unresponsive to my outreach to try to help him get MultiProxy runnin' (I have no experience with the software, but...).
.
Barndog and Woody Guthrie's Guitar both made statements that were considered threatening violence to public figures, and Atrios does not want that at his site, and says he does not want to have to babysit his comments.
Ruth, did Atrios confirm that this is the reason for the bannings?
I didn't know that this was why Woody was banned (and I didn't even know that Barndog was banned). I don't know what the specific comments were, but I do know that a lot of folks have made violent comments. Though I usually bracket it with some sort of qualifier so folks know I don't mean it literally, I have made comments wishing certain people would get shot in the face.
Though Woody has made violent comments that have made me uncomfortable (not because I fear he'll act just 'cause they can be rather detailed), I agree with your assessment of his character. I enjoy his company at Atrios's house. That said, it is Atrios's house, so he has to do what makes him feel comfortable (how's that for straddling the fence!)
The 4 yo has been asking lately, "What's your favoritest, favoritest bug?" The correct answer, I've learned from her, is "Dragonflies. 'Cause they eat mosquitoes." Woody is a dragonfly. It's okay with me if he eats mosquitoes.
Atrios did not specifically mention WGG or Barndog, but did state what I quoted. And at Tom Tancredo's website, Woody's comment leads off the roll of comments about Falwell's death.
I think I saw Barndog comment there just in the last couple of days. I miss Woody terribly. I haven't met him, but I just picture him as a loveable ol' curmudgeon with a salty vocab. I hope Atrios will relent/fix the glitch/let him back in.
nuncamas
I wasn't aware Barndog had been banned, and I'm pleased to see that if he was, he's back now.
When one spends only a limited time at Eschaton (I haven't been able to access at work since last year because of blog-blocking software), it's hard to be sure of exactly what's going on. I've heard, and continue to hear, conflicting stories on whether Woody was specifically banned, or whether he was accidently locked out due to a technical fluke.
However, judging by some highly sanctimonious and supercilious comments made by Atriots I characterize as "commissars", it appears that Woody was indeed specifically banned for allegedly making inappropriate comments. It's worth noting that Eschaton does have its cliques, with "inner" or "outer" visitors, and that one of the frustrating things is that one can't tell if the commissars are self-appointed or if they're actually in communication with Atrios and write with his approval or tacit encouragement.
While there are many instances of Secret Service or other "Homeland Security" agencies hassling citizens (especially bloggers) over making allegedly violent or threatening expressions, on the whole I think this is a canard. There are lots of potentially risky comments made on Eschaton which are not even remarked upon. For instance, after this latest "JFK Terrorist Plot", there have been many discussions in which regulars have offered hypothetical alternative plans for sabotage, i.e., "If they really wanted to do a lot of damage, all they would have to do is..."
Now, I'm sure the commissar or pro-banning enthusiast would reply that such comments don't advocate violence against a specific person the way Woody allegedly did, or has on occasion. But I'm not persuaded that this distinction is dispositive. That is, IMO it's just as likely that law enforcement would target Atrios for such mass-violence speculations as for allegedly threatening a government official. (Although I gather-- never having seen the offending comment(s), that Woody was banned after writing about Jerry Falwell, after Falwell's death! If that's true, the ban is definitely bogus.)
In short-- now that it appears that Barndog has been re-admitted to the site-- Woody is indeed a most worthy and valuable Atriot who ought to be able to comment at Eschaton. I think there is some unacknowleged animosity or hostility towards him, and that the apparent decision to ban him for unrepentant use of immoderate language is, at least in part, pretextual.
Even more aggravating is the amazingly smug and supercilious contempt for the "Woody Fan Club", and the equally obnoxious suggestion that if Woody humbly pleads to be reinstated, and promises to censor himself in accordance with the implied wishes of Atrios and the stated wishes of the commissars, he may be graciously permitted to return. Oh, please!
I certainly miss Woody, mi hermano mayor, because he is indeed often a caustic independent critic of both the Tweedledum and Tweedledee Parties. In fact, I'm not sure it's coincidence that he was banned just after the Great Democratic Collapse on the war funding legislation-- which gadfly Woody predicted from the get-go.
All of the high-minded statements about "respect for the host" (sucking up is always welcome, I find) and the "community" mean squat if an endless procession of serial threadlice are permitted to trash any comment thread they choose to spam.
Yes, it's Atrios' house-- but if worthy contributors like Woody are banished and scapegoated, it's going to become more like a frat house. Or a moderate/progressive Democratic pep-squad echo chamber. After all, graphic lewdness and unfettered troll-baiting are encouraged.
Turning Woody into Eschaton's "Ward Churchill" and shunning him instead of the trolls is getting it backwards. What is wrong with this picture? Free Woody!
PS: Pardon my length, but it's worth noting that I've been simmering about this for days. One of the unfortunate chilling effects of censorship on Eschaton is a fear of criticizing or even implicitly confronting the host, lest one meet Woody's fate.
I think the value of WGG's contributions far outweigh the nuisance of some odd violent talk--which I don't recall seeing in this instance, as a matter of fact.
Turning Woody into Eschaton's "Ward Churchill" and shunning him instead of the trolls is getting it backwards. What is wrong with this picture? Free Woody!
LittleBrother said...
What LittleBrother said...
If one can tolerate the likes of analannie, et al, it makes no sense to bar a commenter such as WGG. None at all. Tapdance all you want, far more offensive comments are posted by that ilk.
...at Tom Tancredo's website, Woody's comment leads off the roll of comments about Falwell's death.
You know, I looked for that and couldn't find it. Can you direct me?
I think it sucks that Woody can't get on, but Scumbag Allen Butler brings his socketpuppet theater in to annoy and disrupt.
...at Tom Tancredo's website, Woody's comment leads off the roll of comments about Falwell's death.
Who the hell cares about Falwell?
This is a piece of garbage who said that people like us caused 9-11-01!
Besides, he's dead.
And screw Tancredo!
The rest of the world might forgive the US if we convicted, and hung him. Leaving his carcass up on the gallows for the crows to pick clean, would help.
Doug | 06.10.07 - 1:36 pm | #
Not to belabor the point-- OK, maybe a little-- here's a comment that just fell into my lap. So is Doug cruisin' for a bannin'?
A problematic policy is not improved by capricious enforcement.
'Sup gang?
Black posted some time during the day this past week that both WGG and BD had been banned for "threatening violence against public figures" and that he was annoyed that 'regulars' should know better (or some such).
Someone posted that they had met WGG and that he was a genuinely nice person to which Black responded that he didn't care if someone was a nice person just "how they acted in his house".
Little Bro, love you post.
Commissars. heh.
sorry, I have seen the comments on Tancredo's post, but now only recall it was RIP, Jerry Falwell. And can't find it.
Pls, keep comments coming. I think the A-man is a rational person, and capable of re-assessing.
So is Doug cruisin' for a bannin'?
Since he's advocating a lawful conviction and a punishment derived from the law being enforced, no.
One of the unfortunate chilling effects of censorship on Eschaton is a fear of criticizing or even implicitly confronting the host, lest one meet Woody's fate.
Please identify one such person "banned" for that reason.
I have seen the comments on Tancredo's post, but now only recall it was RIP, Jerry Falwell. And can't find it.
So I gotta go back there and look? Oy!
That's one racist son-of-a-bitch...
ql in ny says
Sorry, it's Atrios' blog and he gets to make the rules. He is exceedingly generous with allowing,all sorts of blog whoring and really the place is almost like a free-for-all. There are times when not even the first 20 posts are on topic. There appears to be one ground rule. This is not the first time Woody has crossed the line and been banned. I too have met Woody and think he is a great guy. So what. Barndog is one of my particular favorites. I've conversed more with him in the early morning hours than I have with my husband. He's a doll. But again, so what.
With the thousands of people who visit Eschacon every day and and ever rotating group of regulars, if Atrios tried to please them all, he would wind up pleasing none.
Thinking this does not mean I am a member of a clique nor am I commisar or an elitist. It would be nice to have the discussion sans name calling.
Please identify one such person "banned" for that reason.
Dave, perhaps you misunderstand what I mean by "chilling effect". The possibility that one might be banned for anything that pisses off the host creates a chilling effect. The question of whether there's any "evidence" that Atrios would ban someone from mere spite or caprice is interesting. During the years I've visited Eschaton, I've witnessed some unexplained top-down administrative decisions that seem to arise from hostility. And how would any of us know if less well-known visitors were disappeared? (After all, Rummy clued us in to absence of evidence not being evidence of absence...)
Of course, this leads us right back to the conflict or difference of opinion that created this rift. Apparently there are some who accept the basic premise that banning Woody or anyone else is justified and reasonable; all visitors are tolerated by a blogger on sufferance, and Woody clearly "crossed a line" that he knew or should have known would get him banned. It's that simple! End of story. Nothing to see here; move along!
I'm not going to restate the reasons I don't buy this superficial, cut-and-dried view. I will say that I fully expect that people who are OK with the above-stated simplistic analysis will be able to parse or otherwise carefully explain away seeming inconsistencies in the dubious policy, or alternatively offer the oddly libertarian argument that a blogger can open or slam the door to the "house" as he or she pleases, and will simply reject out of hand the assertion that there is something troubling or wrong about hammering people like Barndog and Woody. It makes sense only if you focus on the gnarly tree(s) instead of the forest.
I don't see it as a simple matter of "Woody trashed Atrios' house. And it wasn't his house." Gee, where have we heard that line before?
ql, what you call "name calling" I consider description. I'm hardly the only one who has noticed that some regulars invariably respond to certain controversies as if they were Eschaton bouncers.
Whoops, I guess you'll see "bouncers" as another name. I think it's useful to raise this point, even though it's sticky and uncomfortable, because I've always wondered why these persons always take it upon themselves to defend the blog status quo or attack strangers who get off on the wrong foot as trolls.
It's even more annoying when they archly imply that they know more than the rest of us about what Atrios is up to.
I admit that I can't abide censorship, even would-be benevolent censorship. And I have yet to see the "smoking gun" that justifies banning Woody when so many other disruptive and irresponsible visitors are given unlimited access.
ql in ny
lb - you won't see it caused it's probably been scrubbed.
And since it's not the government banning wgg or bd it's not censorship. Again, I repeat. It's atrios's place and he gets to make the rules. I don't think I've said ten words to Atrios and certainly would never be presumptuous enough to try and speak for him.
I'm getting the impression that the WGG bad is to be permanent? Is that the case? Or, does anyone know?
WGG is a valuable voice on the blog.
jawbone
I've been a lurker at Atrios' site for a few years now. I like WGG's posts as well - and I hope he returns - although for good contrarian content, I preferred SWR, though he could be a real pissy, presumptuous pain-in-the-ass at times. [I have no idea which one of the two is brighter - nor do I care - but I found SWR's posts to be thoughtful, and often linked to back-up references. Anyhoo...]
For all the grand speechifying I see on the policies someone else implements on his own personal weblog, I don't see any real names associated with said speeches. Dr. Black, on the other hand, is now quite well known, and whether it's fair or not (I think the latter), he will be assigned ownership of whatever is posted in his comments. To the extent his income, job prospects, and even personal security are dependent on dissociating himself from violent intent expressed in his comments,* he simply cannot ignore such matters.
(*And really, even if such comments come from people who are nice in person, how the hell are readers supposed to divine that?)
For those incapable of understanding what I've written above, please post your real names and an address where you might be contacted, and I will try to explain it to you directly. Thanks in advance...
Steve-MD/DC, Commisar Lurker (and yes, you now know more about me than I probably do about you)
I was banned for a few days, then - a Haloscam glitch caused it to not recognize the IP ban.
Of course, a couple of comments this weekend, and the good Dr's ego took over again - and alas, I am no longer able to be a part of the community.
As I have previously stated - I don't have time in my life to compete with egos.
I think that since everybody is putting their nose into this it might well be forcing the continued banning, if that is what it is. Although I enjoyed WGG's and Barndog's contributions, it cannot be denied that sometimes it was over the edge and made me nervous. I prefer that they be reinstated but it isn't my call- or yours. The constant bitching about it is annoying to me so I wonder how the blogowner feels. This isn't going to help I am certain.
To the best of my knowledge, Atrios hasn't commented in any way shape or form about the bannings.
censorship is how fascism reigns...and apparently blogs are wholly owned and thus can be authoritarian/fascist, like all business
is this fair? atrios' posts usually are fairly lame and weak...i ONLY go there for commenting, if he bans me, so be it - i'll go elsewhere
i think it's based on trying to 'root' out radicals on the blog, but WGG is not a radical, he is a knowledgeable person with some history...his biting 'reality' can sting, i personally love it
is this fair? atrios' posts usually are fairly lame and weak...i ONLY go there for commenting, if he bans me, so be it - i'll go elsewhere
I vote for that. There must be a third grade blog somewhere.
Most of the excuses used for ostricizing WGG simply don't hold up, IMO. If Atrios is in fact looking for a gig, then what someone wrote on a comment thread will not be the reason Atrios isn't successful. It may be the excuse, but not the reason; and like excuses, if not this one, then the next. Also, it IS, in fact, Atrios' place, but people come there for the COMMENTS, not for whom Atrios designates as WotD. And sure, Atrios has a right to be as ignorant as he wants; as banning WGG will not obliterate ignorance. And that is the point I'd like to make (convoluted that it may be). What WGG brings to the party is strategy. He's nearly ancient, he's been in war, he knows what peoples' motives are. His collective experience is valuable. I've read him before as everyone, including Atrios, was all disheveled over some absurd turd in the punch-bowl, cautioning everyone "It's a Red Herring". As the political situation shifts to the Democratic Flavor of Ass, it is very important to have a resource like WGG who is suspicious of Everyone, and whose cynicism is in fact reality-based. I mean folks, we're not going to get anywhere except used if we are not constantly in the faces of the future Democratic politicians. WGG provides this service, and it is more valuable than many of us realize.
Oh, come on. It's not as if Woody's been kicked off the Web. Go to Fire Dog Lake and read any of the comments threads -- you'll find him there. (Though it'll be interesting to see how long he lasts there -- FDL's more tightly "censored" than Eschaton could ever hope to be.)
As for banning people who threaten violence or death against others, you'll find that a lot of websites have that policy, Will Bunch's Attytood being the most notable.
Frankly, I'm rather agnostic about this issue, mainly because I have yet to see the "offending" comment. No one seems willing to reproduce it, or even link to it.
Oddly enough, there's nary a mention of this whole kerfuffle at any of Woody's three blogs.
...perhaps you misunderstand what I mean by "chilling effect". The possibility that one might be banned for anything that pisses off the host creates a chilling effect.
I've never felt any "chill" before anything I've ever posted there.
However, it's common knowledge that the surest way to get the FBI on your ass is to threated to blow the head off a political figure. Has been for as long as I can remember (which is long, long before Al invented the intertubes).
Yo, WGG CAN POST, does post
and is posting - just not on Eschaton. Who knows, he may just be in a baby blue boycotting mode (I suspect that is barndog's main gig here).
I have the fuzzy memory of WGG being empowered by all of this negative attention has I have observed that he has swung out of his depression into major bursts of creativity (he would love having folks come to visit his new blogs, god bless).
Why bitch about where people posting as long as liberals are keeping the fires alive! I hope people move off of the fighting and onto the future. Clearly Atrios may have his rules in his house. Clearly WGG knew those rules and clearly he is not entirely bent out of shape about the direction he is traveling.
"i can't tolerate people who wish violence on public figures.
That my regulars fail to understand this is very annoying.
Atrios
"
"Woody and Barndog. Atrios is implying they wished violent things on public figures. It seems that that happens a *lot* around here, what with all the sideways chainsaw fucking. But what do I know.
Halfdan
Woody did tend to do that, but in what I took to be a wordy tongue in cheek thing.
"
"Didn't see it either, but it is stupid of people to push the envelope.
pie
guess I just have trouble imagining Barndog crossing that line. (WGG, not so much, god bless him.)
Halfdan
"
"This is Atrios' house and guests need to act like guests instead of breaking the furniture.
"
"
Seriously, maybe he should periodically post a FAQ so people know these things.
I have never avocate harm to public officals but did not know it was a banning offence. Maybe it seems obvious?
agave
We really shouldn't post things that will get Atrios and/or Mrs. Atrios in trouble. He gives us the forum to post on. Let's honor his wishes.
Monica_A:Black & Crusading
"
"I'm just honored to be here...so I'm not gonna piss in the bosses coffee.
But, as much as I love this place, I think that some take it pretty seriously...for better or worse.
Zap Rowsdower |
It's common fucking sense. And Woody's been through this before--if he refuses to learn, he can hang out at his pond and engage in violent rhetoric there.
NTodd,
"
Even though Little Brother thinks there are thought police-commissars, I just think that people are looking after the place they love by insisting that the merest protocol is followed.
(and yes, who knew I am so anal-retentive to have bothered to document some of this, I care too!)
Just to finish out the file, FYI:
"A question and then a comment.
Q. Is banning for life?
C. I think we should respect Atrios' wishes because he pretty much knows everything about us (e-mail address, IP address). If someone (Secret Service) pays him a visit, he either has to give up the information or go directly to jail. He obviously doesn't want to do either so he is simply asking us not write such provacative statements.
Monica_A:Black & Crusading
there's a subject for discussion! when I say, "fuck 'em up the ass with a rusty mace!" I generally mean it even though I would never commit violence myself nor would I want to see others do this awful thing - but the murdering and lying and MSM participation in same can move me to levels of frustration that causes me to say intempererate things - things I do not mean but are common venacular of the day (lots of revenge speak in news tv and movies) - so when do I get banned?
next month will be bloodiest
was thinking that, too, and discussions about what would be a great terraiss target make me a whole lot more uncomfortable than wishful thinking. But it ain't my joint.
V for Virginia | 06.05.07 - 1:21 pm | #
" so when do I get banned?
After you've taunted fate a few times. Go ahead and try an experiment. Then you can blog about the results at your own place.
NTodd, OB
IIRC, the offense involved shooting someone. A little more realistic than offending an orifice with a chainsaw.
But, it's not my place.
Zap Rowsdower
the difference between cartoon and metaphorical violence and actual violence is generally clear, though at times people should tone down the former as well.
Atrios "
"So banning is for life.
Monica_A:Black & Crusading
Maybe Atrios can grant them a pardon.
Gimlet |
I wonder if Tommy Chong knew his crime was almost as bad.
Gilly Gonzylon
It's not like we need Bob Dylan to play a goddamned Free Woody The Hurricane Concert.
But ya gotta admit that would be way cool.
Toonscribe
Interesting, isn't it, how seriously people take the intertubes? I had always thought Woody was banned because of some computer glitch. If he was banned for making intemperate comments, though, I think Atrios could have at least told him he was banned purposefully and why. Hell, I never knew there was some kind of rule about what you could post over there. However, it does stand to reason that you wouldn't threaten physical violence to an elected official on there. But I will agree with Little Brother in that I have read many regulars saying some pretty nasty things at times and they don't seem to get banned. Heck, sometimes NTodd can be really, really vicious to people and he never, ever gets a ban. The seething after Falwell's death did perturb Atrios, though, and I seem to remember some across-the-board chastisement for the commentors from him.
As for Little Brother's idea of Atrios commissars (which made that Falco song run through my head), while I do see that there are some posters there who think they own the joint, I rather doubt they are "employed" by Atrios in that mode--they just assume it.
It's a pity WGG and Barndog are out, but if they wanted to, I bet they could come back in...they would have to play by the rules, though.
Unfortunately(if you look at it that way), it's Atrios' house and he gets to make the rules.
That being said, yes there are "cliques" and yes there are "commissars", I don't even enjoy posting there anymore. it's all "I'm right and you're wrong" 24/7, even with the lighter cultural discussions. I shudder to think how toxic the atmosphere will be like there in 2008.
Hey, I miss you Blakno1!!!
I usually ignore the idiotry from self-appointed baby blue commissaristas. Look, If NTodd was "all that" in the A-man's book, he would have a set of keys.
He finally got a blog roll linkee as NToddler, nuff said.
Hey, I miss you Blakno1!!!
Aw, thank you so much, that's very kind.
Post a Comment
<< Home