Our latest comments policy also failed to work. It required that Adam Horowitz and I approve every comment before it was posted. This is too large a responsibility (when we are both unpaid and howling under the lash).
Comments are vital to the life of this site. Most of our commenters are great. Many of them bring insights to issues that the writers can't bring. We need to keep the comment section alive, in spite of the vandals who have sought to destroy it by impersonating people and trotting out profanity and racism.
Our new strategy is to adjust the Intense Debate software so that it functions socially: all comments will be posted, but if an offensive comment is reported by several other readers, it will be automatically stricken.
We need your help here. Many readers turn to the comment section regularly to speak out or to learn from others. Can you help us by reporting foul comments? Thanks.
I don't think the issue is how many times somebody posts comments. It's the nature of the comments. You are just much more nuanced than Witty, who for starters, always posts comments assuming the issue involves current equal power on both sides of the issue discussed. Witty's comments always thus assume an ignorance those he addresses do not have. Hence, he is always insulting, whether intentional or not. Arguing with Witty is like a Samisdat commenter arguing with a Pravda supporter who is pretending Old Pravda is not the oppressor of free thinking.
On a deeper level, though, LeaNder, you are a mirror image of Witty and for the same reason I just articulated. Whereas Witty is moved at core by Jewish supremacy (oh, the moral burden!), you are moved by German guilt (a version of the Stockholm Syndrome).
I=Citizen; who speaks for many here.
Because, Witty, you have no skin in the game. Don't bother to tell us of your in-laws who suffered in the Shoah. You yourself have done nothing but benefit from those whom you seek to separate yourself from here in the USA.
So, what's your point?
Can you give us a few examples of Joachim's lack of support for what he says, and his indulging in myth-making? I notice you have never commented on anything he says on this blog in terms of his support found on his blog which he makes reference to in order to send the reader to a more lengthy exposition. Should we compare your comments on history with the history expressed on his blog? Do you really think you know more than he does? If so, give us a couple of examples of your historical wisdom compared to his. Thanks mucho!
RE: "As harmless as the murder of Steven Johns?" $30 BILLION FOR ISRAEL OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS; BUT NO MONEY FOR BULLETPROOF VESTS FOR THE GUARDS AT THE HOLOCAUST MUSEUM! AND I DON’T GIVE A TINKER'S DAMN THAT THE GUARDS ARE TECHNICALLY EMPLOYED BY THE DANISH-OWNED WACKENHUT* CORP THAT CONTRACTED WITH THE MUSEUM. I ASSUME THAT THE ‘COST SAVINGS’ WERE DIVVIED UP. *THE EUROPEAN EQUIVALENT OF HALIBURTON / KBR / BLACKWATER! PS. SPARE ME THE CROCODILE TEARS!
I think the proof is in my recommendations for MUTUAL humanization that Phil has seemed to adopt. I am entirely FOR Phil being extremely effective in that goal, that will enhance his ability to tell and convey truth, to criticize wrongs in policy and practise, inform his readers, and affect the world as a whole for the better. I consider myself in somewhat of an un-mirrored dialog with Norman Finkelstein, who I observe constructs the prerequisite of condemnation as his basis of respect or agreement, not content.. And, I observe that Norman has a disciplining influence on the left in condemning any "weakness" on their part when they relax the tone of their criticism of Israel, even towards the same goal of 67 borders. I personally think that Norman has alienated more dissent than he has inspired, and largely by the condemnation model, condemning efforts and trashing people. I urge Phil to pursue the positive approach, identifying what different groups or positions are for, why, how.
Richard do you have any idea how the Zionist propagandists(Hasbara) have been using negative generalizing content on a massive scale against their opponents, most especially those who are Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims? Why do you think you shouldn't be getting a taste of your own Zionist like medicine so that you can know what it feels like to be on the receving end? I do know that many expansionist Zionists can and do often engage in a great deal of negativity. In settings where that brand of Zionism dominates, you'll find me on the informing side, describing the Nakba, describing the current conditions of Palestinians. That is NOT this place. You getting glee at seeing a "Zionist" take it, because you observe other Zionists giving it, is not a good ethical model, more a definition of persecution.
Citizen, If you regard that last post as "corrective", then you aren't exactly reading accurately.
"The first target for reporting is Richard Witty" On what basis at all? That I disagree with you?
Thats the only basis you think it is a bad idea?
"In settings where that brand of Zionism dominates, you'll find me on the informing side, describing the Nakba, describing the current conditions of Palestinians." That's good, but I bet you acknowledge the legitimate concerns of those ZIonists (such as the Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians) when you do. If you don't, then your chance of being effective with any of them is near zero. It may not be much above zero even if you did, but you might reach a few people. And your effectiveness here is also very low, because you focus almost exclusively on the crimes of Palestinians and say very little about the crimes of Israel and when you do acknowledge them, you tend to downplay them. You ought to rethink your strategy, though I suspect you really do see the Israeli crimes as being somewhat less serious than they actually are, and your posts here merely reflect that.
Why certainly, I shall be honoured to assist you if for no other reason than noblesse oblige. For those not of Aristocratic lineage, it is more commonly referred to by that perfectly frightful expression "the white man's burden". Of course, I shall not be of much assistance whilst my Weltsmertz is especially acute. Well now, I shall be on my way. Do have the pleasantest of evenings, Ladies and Gentlemen.
came across this piece by Richard Silverstein explaining why he migrated his blog from Typepad to WordPress http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2005... He makes pretty good arguments for making the switch, might be worth looking into. IMO, you might as well take a little time investing in a stable adaptive platform rather than installing tacked on hacks/fixes.
I actually focus on the hypocrisy of the too common manner of dissent. And, the corollary, some suggestion as to making dissent successful at improving the lives of Palestinians, rather than just vanity..
Agreed.
lovelyisraelis– I think you may have misunderstood the quotation. Chomsky doesn't stipulate that a debate is a "meeting of opposing camps with legitimate but irreconcilable differences who refuse to hear each other," but rather says that the point of a political debate is that the differences are deemed a priori irreconcilable, even though there is no logical reason for them to be so (marking the whole enterprise as irrational, much like right-wing political stands in general). Now, I don't think we can know if the people absurdly called "pro-Israel" are "willful, pathological liars." Many of them may think they're telling the truth. It's hard to know. They may simply be stupid. There's not a great deal of evidence to the contrary. The more intelligent ones are probably liars. They're also insane (in that, I agree with you).
I am sure you are right about Helena's blog not getting as much traffic. Still, the level of discourse does remain high, and when the people come along who attempt to lower the level of discourse they don't stay around long, maybe because they don't succeed well there. The best solution might be volunteer moderators, though even that is fraught with potential problems as everyone is likely to have different standards and different red lines. Still, moderation is in order. As`ad Abu Khalil refused to have his comment section moderated, and it finally turned into such a cesspool that he ended up closing it. Ra`ed Jarrar, one of the original Iraqi bloggers, closed his comment section years ago. I rarely contributed there because you had to wade through hundreds of piles of pure filth to find something worth reading, and it wasn't worth the time and energy. It would be a shame to let this comment section continue to deteriorate, and maybe an even bigger shame to have to close it. So, why not try the volunteer idea, and see how it goes? I say if the software supports it, give the volunteers the ability to hide or remove individual comments that violate policy. That way comments can appear immediately, but those that should not be allowed remain, will not. Someone can figure out how the volunteers will divide up responsibility. I also like the idea of giving only registered commenters the ability to post comments. That way habitual offenders can be warned, and if necessary unsubsribed. Don't know whether this software supports that, but I imagine it does. And of course, people can avoid contributing to the deterioration by simply ignoring the under-the-rock-dwellers. It saves so much time and energy!
i love adam horowitz! is that kosher?
Phosphorous was dumped on schools and playgrounds, so I am a shoddingly constructed imitation of a human being? Where have I ever stated that "I support" the application of state terror? You don't read, you imagine. Like I said, you've got balls that you use for idiocy.
"motivated at core by Jewish supremacy"?