We've hit a couple of impasses on comments policy at this site in the last two years. Now we're at another. As the site has grown more popular, we've gotten more enthusiastic debate, but also more invective, profanity, and racism and anti-Semitism, all of which drive off reasonable people. We bounced a couple of commenters in the last week, and we're going to be doing more policing in days to come.
Also, we want to knock down the number of trolls at the site and have adjusted our comments policy to reflect that concern. Wikipedia defines trolling as "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response," and while that means making judgments about someone's intentions, the definition is good enough for us. We hope our comment section can feature an engaged and free flowing debate, but we are not interested in commenters whose only aim is to disrupt or sabotage the discussion.
And maybe you noticed, but right now everyone's comments are being moderated, as we try to figure this out. Needless to say, neither of us regards moderating comments as the best use of our time. But right now we don't know what the alternative is.
Does “invective” apply to those who respond with harsh language to a bigot or a racist? (Rhetorical).
But, what about veiled bigotry or veiled anti-Semitism? How will the moderator distinguish between the implied, insinuated and the overt?
And what about sarcasm? Will we have to use tags to make certain that our posts are not misunderstood by the moderator?
What counts as anti-Semitism?
What counts as profanity?
Guide lines for these would be helpful.
A follow-up question, do not all historians, at least sometimes, especially those with wonderful story-telling—narrative weaving, generalize? Barbara Tuchman, for example? When does generalization dissolve from keen analyis of competing factions into intentional or unintentional propaganda?
“Tuchman’s Law,” is a reference to a description of how recorded information can tend to distort actual events; it is described this way in Tuchman’s A Distant Mirror:
“The fact of being reported multiplies the apparent extent of any deplorable development by five- to tenfold. Disaster is rarely as pervasive as it seems from recorded accounts. The fact of being on the record makes it appear continuous and ubiquitous whereas it is more likely to have been sporadic both in time and place. Besides, persistence of the normal is usually greater than the effect of the disturbance, as we know from our own times. After absorbing the news of today, one expects to face a world consisting entirely of strikes, crimes, power failures, broken water mains, stalled trains, school shutdowns, muggers, drug addicts, neo-Nazis, and rapists. The fact is that one can come home in the evening, on a lucky day, without having encountered more than one or two of these phenomena”
Excellent point. It would be nice to have a one sentence definition of antisemitism particularly.
Right now, its kind of like Israel’s borders.
I suggest:
anti-semitism = denigration of semitic peoples, open calls for hostile action against same
[not only jews are semites as the term relates to a related set of languages and cultures]
anti-jewish expressions = to express hatred or advocating negative action against jews
hate-speech = to make declarative statements full of invective and hostility without citing facts and without the intent to illuminate a point or set of points within a discussion
I’d say it’s no different that any of the other “isms” to do with discrimination: to ascribe a grouping of people characteristics that belong to only a portion of that group. That’s a clumsy way of phrasing it but that’s the essence of it for me.
It’s not racist to say white people are white, but it’s racist to say white people are all imperial colonialists. Some are, some aren’t. Very few generalisations are actually provable. Even the ‘white people are white’ gets tricky where you have people with mixed heritage > which is practically everybody.
I reject the obviously political definition the EU currently has of anti-semitism, parts of which are clearly about shielding Israel from criticism, and not about protecting jews from discrimination.
It’s Phil’s blog, and he can pretty much do as he pleases with it. He can even write “the Times” when he means the NYT, allow posts that have no capital letters, and even permit people to write “different than”. (All far more offensive than my occasional robust Australianisms.)
But I do have some requests.
If we are to be rapped on the knuckles for anti-Semitism (what ever it turns out to be) can Phil also take a firm line against those who throw the accusation around at anyone who does not kiss Israel’s [coarse Australianism deleted]?
And can Mooser be totally unmoderated?
hi roha, you’re right, but it’s american corrupt usage; do you like different to or different from? phil
“do you like different to or different from? phil”
‘Different to’ sounds even worse than ‘different than’..but I’m no expert (if I may)..
“Different to” is Australian corrupt usage. “Different from” is correct.
Mooser?
yes yes, mooser totally unmoderated!
What happened to mooser?
“What happened to mooser?”
Mooser has a confession to make. He’s a phony. Wait a minute, is that a confession or a boast? Anyway, you might remember the ecreable “Donald” saying I was an anti-Zionist, which of course, I am not. Not in any sense that makes it useful or honest to continue commenting here.
As a young Jewish American man in the late sixties and seventies, when I first became old enough to understand these things, I drew the only possible conclusion I could from what I knew of Zionism, and you’ve heard me articulate many times: “There is no magic “Jewish” way to colonise a country, you have to do it the old fashioned way, you steal it, by political minipulation, violence, and support of a reigning power” That, everything I saw around me told me, should be taken for granted.
But what could be observed directly (I’d be damned if I was going there) hwere in the US is what Zionism did to American Jews. And that I wanted no part of. And took no part of, deriving my conception of how to be an American Jew, or even a Jew in America, from a different place. And I had no family pressure, no inheritance I wouldn’t get by not being an enthusiastic Zionist, so I gave Zionism the old miss-in-baulk, and never regretted it. In fact, I was sort of proud of it.
The Gaza attack by Israel brought Zionism and all that back to my mind. So I began checking up on my thirty-five year old conclusions, to see what was up. And what do you know:
1)Israel was still a lousy idea, the source of a million problems, and the solving of none that couldn’t be solved by a couple of Holy Land resorts or campgrounds.
2) Zionism ruins a Jew as a person. You don’t need my word on that, you’ve got Witty and all the rest on down to prove it to you.
So nothing has changed with Zionism, things have gotten worse, and I feel sort of smug I doped it out pretty good when I was so young and stupid. But it was pretty simple to me: I didn’t want to fight for Uncle Sam against the Vietnamese, and I didn’t want to fight anybody for Uncle Hymie, either.
A crisis (of sorts) came when I realised I was using Mondoweiss to avoid practising.
My love and best wishes to
all the commenters doing the heavy lifting, and I hope Mondoweiss plays a big part in changing the US relationship with Israel.
And I love the way he makes it “cough”!
just saw this, mooser. Glad you’re back, here and elsewhere.
Great post
Avi,
Aren’t you kind of the textbook definition of “troll?”
I mean, not for nothing, but you seem to deliberately misconstrue people’s words a lot; or maybe its just me
It’s just you, actually.
Avi has made more contribution than most here. I haven’t
seen any insight from Dan Crowther ever.
it’s you dan. avi is one of my favorite posters.
i’m especially looking forward to phil and adam evicting the trolls. i’ve long suspected (as walt mentions in his response to lee smiths inflammatory article in tablet) there are plants among us making inflammatory statements to slander the site. i put nothing past the enemies of this site.
Avi is one of the sharpest pencils around, Dano Crowthero.
Yes he’s fiercely well-informed and relentless in the persuit of his argument.
But I kinda love and admire that about him.
I’ve yet to see ANYONE win a debate against him.
Avi is, well, simply brilliant!
there are plants among us making inflammatory statements to slander the site.
annie, one of the recent plants had commented upon how jews were very unattractive, not like the nordic looking people with strong jaws. You even commented ‘weido’ and then the next day he was back to his zionist talking points. Sad that they are so desperate to avoid discussions, but this is the situation today. When you aint got a leg to stand on, blow you enemies legs off!
Gee, maybe we should take a Mondo loyalty oath or be banished from the site . . . like Liberman and the Knesset are proposing.
“it’s you dan. avi is one of my favorite posters.”
Amen to that. I value Avi’s contributions enormously and look forward to everything he has to say.
I hate to single out any commenter for praise, because to name anyone is to leave out others, and I could never name them all.
But there are so many, some with personal involvement in the area, and some with heavy factual knowledge. And some combine both with an almost eeirie patience.
But I’m sorry, that argument with Donald did me in. I decided a while back that most of the “anti-Semitic” things I read here were just a clumsiness of expression. As if anybody could be deft enough and knowledgeable enough to comment on this situation without offending. But the emotions they expressed were real enough and were valid enough to overlook most of the slight anti-Semitic tropes.
If the Israelis can kill or injure with impunity, but all those who would change that are hobbled by linguistic indictments, anti-Zionism will never get anywhere.
I just saw this.
Anti-semitism is the anti-Zionism of fools. There’s no good reason to tolerate it, though it’s easy to come up with bad ones. It hurts the anti-Zionist cause to link it with anti-semitism, which is why Zionists try so hard to make the connection. Some people apparently want to make it easy for them.
And regarding your earlier post, the “ecreable” Donald thinks you meant “execrable”. Am I to understand your delicate feelings were hurt by my sarcastic response to your sarcasm? Was I supposed to just argue in earnest good faith while you typed the zingers? Sorry I forgot my role.
“Am I to understand your delicate feelings were hurt by my sarcastic response to your sarcasm?”
First of all sorry about the spelling mistake. I should have made a quick spelchek. It’s the least I can do, and I have a life-long commitment to do that.
Look, I gave Zionism up as bad joo-joo a long time ago. About Gaza shoot time, I thought I would check in and see what’s going on. I did. What do you know, Zionism, and Zionists have not disappointed me! In fact, with the usual modern Jewish striving for excellence, they have exceeded my every expectation!
So that job is done.
As far as my anti-Zionism goes, anti-Zionism will do fine without me. I firmly believe that Zionism includes its own destruction, which will be managed in such a way to enrich or at least allow some Zionists to evade responsibility or indictment, and a whole lot of moderately innocent Jewish schlimazels will get the shaft.
So that’s what it comes down to, huh Donald? If anyone talks bad about Jews, anti-Zionism comes to a dead halt while we teach them to talk right? If you are so goddam sensitive about how people talk, what happens when Jewish settlers are kicked out of their homes? Which they will gladly get their children or even themselves killed to forestall?
Let me tell you something Donald, it’s not like I haven’t learned something from reading Mondoweiss: Zionism will either destroy itself, or be destroyed! To expect the Jews to dismantle it is a fond hope.
Thanks Adam. This is a long time overdue although the worst offenders have been picked off slowly but surely during the last three months.
Substantial contribution is the order of the day. The only really new policy here is no more profanity. I think that’s a fair rule.
What certain commenters fail to grasp is that disingenuous sophistry can also get you hard moderated. Phil and Adam are smart enough to see through any given commenter’s ruses over time. There is one person who has been given a pass for reasons of “family friendship”. But even he’s now been relegated to the moderation bin over time.
As I’ve said before, commenting at Mondoweiss is a privilege not a right. This is not a free for all. Those who are looking for one should look elsewhere.
alec,
I’m not responding in order to turn this into an issue. But, I sense that a clarification is in order. My aim was to provoke (in a positive sense) some thought; the moderators are bound at some point to have conflicting priorities between streamlining the approval of comments and investing their time in other tasks like writing articles or gathering information.
Furthermore, if each comment is to be moderated then there’s bound to be some delay in the responses. By the time one poster responded to another, two more could have submitted posts which won’t appear until later.
Perhaps this entire post of mine is unwarranted, but it’s something to keep in mind, or perhaps such challenges as mentioned in the previous paragraph are something to proactively prepare for.
I know that both Adam and Phil are quite astute and wise. Nonetheless, it’s important to identify some of the disadvantages inherent to such a process.
Personally, I’m ambivalent as I see both the pros and the cons. Needless to say, my opinion is just that, my opinion. I do not own this blog and I understand perfectly well that as guests here we must abide by the rules. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we all agree on that, understand that and respect that.
Thank you for sharing your perspective.
Alec, I’ve missed you. Where you been?
Fair enough. It’s like a post-it saying “THINK before you type, please” put up on your monitor. Maybe not so bad.
Gotta do — what you gotta do.
This is a welcome change (I think) though I’ve been guilty of invective at times.
Avi raised some good questions which I won’t repeat.
And what happens when someone repeatedly raises an issue and ignores substantive responses and then pops back up again (sometimes in the same thread) and raises the same issue as though there hadn’t been any response? I’d call that trolling. And yeah, I have a particular person in mind.
“And yeah, I have a particular person in mind.”
Just one Donald? I have a couple, though I agree about the one you are alluding to.
“I’ve been guilty of invective at times.”
“And yeah, I have a particular person in mind.”
Moi aussi x 2!
Well, whatever it takes.
In the short term I’m relieved, I had been wondering why my comments had suddenly become moderated. I hope moderating doesn’t take up too much time.
Maybe after a period you can take blanket moderation off. A workable solution might be to actually warn people publicly (in the comments) if you believe their statements cross the line, with a ’3 strikes and you’re out’ policy. Not only are the offenders warned publicly but everyone else sees it, and gets a reminder to behave and/or cool their temper. On a parallel track I always enjoy reading interaction in the comments section between post authors and other MW’ers.
I like this idea. leave the post and mark up til 3 strikes. I imagine there are exceptions. we should be able to see why they are struck.
Phil, this is an inevitable result of the progress of the dialogue on the I/P situation — what Mondoweiss refers to as the War of Ideas in the Middle East. Jeffrey Goldberg is agitating for war on Iran, the Emergency Committee for Israel is attacking American politicians for principled stands, we have a dead American from the Gaza Flotilla and good people are no longer remaining silent. Tensions are mounting. Mondo is at the forefront of this conflict. Man, you and Adam should be proud of your achievements. I’m grateful to be part of this spirited community.
Well, it’s a relief to find out that my relatively innocuous comments are not being “moderated” due to any content of the comments themselves. On the other hand, methinks you have gone overboard on this issue. Having ignored comment after comment in obvious direct violation of your comments policy, you now decide to crack down on everyone due to “excesses” which you have ignored in the past. Perhaps it would have been more expedient for you to have dealt with the specific excesses, than to penalize all of us.
Careful, careful, careful. Some of your problem is of your own doing. Had I been allowed to comment freely in the past, I may have countered some of the vicious slurs that I was subjected to by a new commentator. Alas, his insults remained while my response was cut. In this case, less moderation would have been more appropriate. Given the relatively high level of commentators on this website, one approach would be to eliminate the obvious garbage while relying upon the regular commenters to respond to the borderline comments.
I support this. I would hate to see this site derailed by bad comments
This is going to be off topic:
ABC, in heeding one of the comments, decided to change the article and edit it to open with the phrase that makes it clear that the suspected serial killer is an “Israeli-Arab”.
link to abcnews.go.com
Isn’t that laughable?
When was the last time the media made such distinctions? Was Samuel Sheinbein referred to as an “Israeli-Jew” when he butchered his friend?
How about Madoff, was he called an “American-Jew” when he was identified by the media as the con man of the century?
Can the weasels in the media get any more obvious with their in-your-face bigotry?
and, shouldn’t this be a hate crime if 15 of 18 men targeted were black? On CNN their expert said it likely would not be. Oh, but now I see how it works. silly me.
It’s good to know that hate crimes can be applied when it’s suitable to the hangmen.
Chu,
I suppose it depends on the community in which he lived. If it was 99% black, then I can see where the police are coming from. But, if he committed the murders across several states, then that assumption goes out the window. I’m not sure of the specifics of the case. I was kind of focused on the Israeli/Palestinian aspect and the media’s treatment of that.
Avi, it could be the case regarding hate crimes. If it were 99% or 83%, that may be for a jury to decide. Not sure if serial killers fall into hate-crime category, but Dahmer may have gotten a few extra decades to think about his actions in prison, if hate crimes were law. At any rate, he will be serving a long sentence.
But yeah, I caught the Arab-Israeli thing. Next week he’ll morph into a American-hating Arab that happened to live in Israel. :o
Every article I’ve read in the MSM on the black guy never directly mentioned he was black, nor that the 8 fellow employees he shot were
all white. Some of the articles mentioned that he had complained in the past about racism at work. He was disgruntled he never got promoted and he was caught on video tape stealing product.
Does this mean you’re banning Witty? I’m sick of him going around and making the Palestinians all out to be violent savages who have no rights to their own homes, and then calling me an anti-Semite for pointing out facts, then painting Arab democracy as neo-Nazism, and then appealing to you guys as fellow Jews, nudge-nudge wink-wink and the whole cycle goes on ad infinitum.
Oh. So is Witty your close family friend, or isn’t he?
Chaos, this is the sort of comment that isn’t helpful and harms the site. Some people here have obsessions with other posters and conduct what amounts to harrassment.
And how would you characterise Witty’s actions?
Not to criticize Glenn Greenwald, who I mostly like, but on the topic of comments – Every once in a while he would ban someone for “anti-semitism.” I’m white and have listened to many, many people over the years say mean things about black people. The handyman I hired when we first moved to this house telling me how the lime green in that bathroom was the kind of color black people like! Its a fact of life and all white people know it and probably black people make mean remarks about white people. And thats just the way it is. They are not going to go do anything to hurt someone and we all know that. So what if they’re prejudiced? The antisemitism/racism sensitivity, in my opinion, is a pretence of daintiness. Plus, its SO misused.
There was also a Salon poster, London Lad, who thought, as I do, that the evidence against the official version of 9/11 is overwhelming and he’d write comments about that. How, how, how can 9/11 be off topic while we kvetch about these wars and government undermining civil liberties and the Constitution, all of which would never have happened without the official version of 9/11? Talk about elephants in the room.
Personally, I like seeing outrageous commenters. I feel safer knowing they’re out there, still posting. If they are banned, how will we know the government or other nefarious agents didn’t whisk them away? I’m serious.
And just as Goldberg’s article comes out…. Hmm. N49.
Thanks for the clarification.
One of the difficulties of the moderation of comments in this lively give and take, is that comments get posted much later than the comments they are responding to and sometimes look irrelevant or malevolent in retrospect.
There was the appearance earlier that the comments were selectively moderated, rather than globally, which I’m sure irritated many.
I like Lareine’s comments very much. Many sites have a “review post” button before posting. It probably could be a required step.
I just read that Avi was complaining that he was newly put on “moderation status”.
I wondered if you had selective screens. That you now apparently did, and apparently with some basis on political perspective, strikes me as less than laudatory.
There we go, yet another ad hominem aimed at Phil Weiss and company.
I don’t know what should disgust me more. That the people who own this blog don’t confront Witty for the troll that he is, or that apparently Zionism really is COMPLETELY full of vicious misanthropes who literally hunger to make personal attacks.
Chaos – your comment strikes me as more ad hominem than Witty’s.
I think censure is against freedom of speech. The report abuse button was doing a good job.
I disagree aparisan.
The report abuse button is not immediate enough. word of inflatamtory comments and anti Semitism can make it half way around the world before it is addressed.
This blog must protect it’s reputation at all costs. I’d say given the imporatace of the matter, and vilatility of the subject, that it’s credibility is even more imporatant that freedom of speech.
“This blog must protect it’s reputation at all costs. I’d say given the imporatace of the matter, and vilatility of the subject, that it’s credibility is even more imporatant that freedom of speech.”
ROTFLMSJAO!!!!!! I would have thought the two were related somehow, but that’s just me.
this is an important decision. You’ve had some people here justifying pogroms against Polish Jews after WWII since too many Jews were communists, and all sorts of vile stuff that has nothing to do with critiques of Zionism. If you want to create a space for more open criticism of Jewish and Israeli privilege there have to be some lines drawn. So bravo.
Tom P, please give us some examples of past comments here justifying as you assert. I do not remember any such comments. Does any regular here remember what Tom P asserts here?
“[Helen] Thomas neglected to mention that Jews went back to Poland after WW2 and the Poles killed them.”
Citizen: “some Poles had noticed many Jews were leaders of Communism’s competitive attempt to take over Poland before Hitler invaded. ”
link to mondoweiss.net
Thar post was from “Julian” an over the top gung ho zionist. That was a troll baiting. That sort of thing is exactly what reduces the credibility of this site. Julian is an invasive creature. That is the only time I read about Jews going back to Poland and I have been following this site for some time, not that I read every post every day. Trolls like Julian are not taken seriously around here. I don’t bother to read their distraction. Good riddance.
Tom P: I fail to see the following comments as vile comments justifying Poles killing Jews (on a thread about canning HT because she said the Israelis should go back to where they came from, including Poland:
“Julian June 9, 2010 at 11:00 am
Thomas neglected to mention that Jews went back to Poland after WW2 and the Poles killed them.
REPORT ABUSE
12 seafoid June 9, 2010 at 1:29 pm
It was the cheapest easiest and laziest thing to do to shunt the problem on to the Palestinians. The Soviets wanted the land and they didn’t care about the rest. Gaza is just WW2 continued.
REPORT ABUSE
13 Citizen June 9, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Yes, Julian, some Poles did just that (just as some Poles risked their lives and their family’s lives hiding Jews), either due to drinking in anti-semitism with their mother’s milk and/or because some Poles had noticed many Jews were leaders of Communism’s competitive attempt to take over Poland before Hitler invaded. Here’s a Jewish site that covers this sore:
link to radziejow.blogspot.com“
@Citizen, I’ve seem posts that refer to roots of modern antisemitism that deal with factual history, but nothing to justify the slaughter of the holocaust. If I point out that all the big guns at the Federal Reserve Bank are Jews am I antisemitic. Or if I say Jews rather than Jewish, is that antisemitic?
Jimby, yes, I’ve seen the comments refering to factual history of the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath, and affect on Germans growing up during the Weimar Era and the rise of the Nazi movement.
Your take is similar to mine.
Citizen ~ It depends really on the attitude of the poster.
You can say “that’s why Germans turned on the jews in WW2″ in a number of different ways. You can say it in a neutral or matter-of-fact way, or you can say it in a way that carries the subtext “..and it was a rational act to do so” – which I have seen here, and which I do not agree with.
Citizen, this arc connecting Polish/Rusian vs German Jews vs communism vs anti-semitism is sometimes used as a favorite false flag operation by zionist trolls. The subject may well be of very legitimate interest to students of the earlier 20th century, but it’s turned into a bit of a taboo, because the Nazis did use the alarm caused by the communist take-over of Russia and the rise of internal communist/socialist ideas as another tool to smear the Jews with. Therefore, winding forward 70-80 years, the mere mention of “Jewish” in connection with “communism” gets knowing suspicious looks from some, lots of “report abuse” for suspected anti-semitism from others and, most often, the discussion gets side-tracked, with some being annoyed that the topic is taboo and others malvolenty and intentionally fanning the flames so they can point out the “anti-semitic” flavor.I have long ago concluded that the mere mention of this period of history – often unconnected to the topic at hand – is indeed a provocation tool used by zio-trolls. Which is why so many people choose to stay far and away from it.
is indeed a provocation tool used by zio-trolls.
i agree. and w/the false flag part too.
Not a bad move, it is supposed to a discussion of on topic information. This may help to keep us off being routed from the subject, having it devolve to issues that are not germane to the post. Lets see how it works.
Trolling and flaming are highly counterproductive to a positive on-line experience. I think any trolling or flaming on either side of the argument should not be tolerated. Veiled bigotry or other forms of subtle racism or hatred can be called out, requiring the poster of said comments to explain him/herself.
This leads me to suggest another criterion: Posters who do nothing but post irrelevant or rhetorical questions or (dis-)information, and those who refuse to answer direct questions in a direct manner, ought to be banned. Discussions are not furthered by their actions.
It would be altogether unreasonable to require people to answer questions. One should always be free to say nothing, especially since questions can be trap question.
Unless one makes reading this blog a full-time job, it is practically impossible to keep up with discussions/answering replies to one’s own comments. My email notifications got turned off suddenly (I am not aware of having stopped notification, though I might have accidentally) and I can’t get them back on.
It would be helpful if one could select to be notified of replies to one’s comments only, to cut down on the number of notifications
Proper software allows posters to see replies to their own posts, no need for email notification.
Proper software? Explain. For Mac-users
>> It would be altogether unreasonable to require people to answer questions. One should always be free to say nothing, especially since questions can be trap question.
What’s the point of a discussion – preferably a sincere one – if one party consistently asks questions but refuses to provide direct answers? Where’s the accountability? Am I allowed to make any statements I want, to put forth any arguments, to say anything I want and not once have to answer for my comments? That doesn’t seem right…
sorry, only eljay’s ‘criterion’ is supposed to be in blockquote above.
“highly counterproductive to a positive on-line experience.”
Does anyone know how to get vomit off a keyboard?
I hope this has nothing to do with neocon pressure on progressive blogs over the attitudes of certain of their commenters.
If antisemites comment here, let it be so. No one is calling on The Jerusalem Post to censor its Jewish supremacist or racist commenters.
As for the trolls, it’s healthy that contrarian commenters should express their opinions, even if it’s to irk those of us who agree with the contents of the blog. To block them out would make this site less lively.
Lee Smith at Hudson Institute
I wondered something like that too, Hasbara Buster: if the word had gone out from some central some-place in cyberspace, to blogrunners like Phil, that “big brother is watching you; big brother is not amused.”
I read the first paragraph or so of the Lee Smith item that you linked. He twists the phenomenon in a typically zionist fashion: “all them bad people saying nasty things about sweet little us, bad things that we us-es are completely innocent of and should not be held to account for (you’ll pardon my preposition).
Smith might be well advised to approach the phenomenon of what he calls antisemitism using an economic model: certain forward-thinking blogrunners are providing an outlet, or supply, for a pent-up demand, as people awaken to the realities of zionism.
To get the debate out in the open is essential and healthy — far more healthy than quashing it and forcing into the basements and dank dens of disaffected but armed — armed with and unfortunate mix of ignorance, Beckian talking points, and guns — and therefore dangerous shadow characters.
Sometimes the envelope gets pushed a little to far and sensitive toes get stepped on. As Rahm would counsel, turn it into an opportunity: create a market in steel-toed shoes. Eventually, we’ll all find ourselves marching together, having gotten past screaming our fears and misinformation at each other, and recognizing that we all want the same things. Hey, ain’t makeup sex the best?
Good points, PG. Yes, it’s unavoidable that “real” anti-semites will pop in here now and then. But they can – and have been – dealt with by the regular commenters just fine, IMO. I happen to think that the anti-semitic “phenomenon” is not so much of a phenom as it is a rallying cry by those who would rather shut down the discourse, and divert prejudice towards the “islamics”. But then you know all that.
I am sure Phil and Adam are getting some pressure because of the free-wheeling discussions here, for which there’s really no other better place. let it all come out in the wash I say.
But then I haver low tolerance of obscenities myself. Vestiges of prudity, I suspect.
Lee Smith shows that blogs like Mondo are making progress. Why else would he create a list of Jew baiting techniques? People should be questioning the ‘one who condemns’ and look at his own words. He is no better.
from above link: Jew-baiting (he implies Walt, Mondo, Sullivan are guilty of) is simply one way that the new old media and old new media are trying to find their collective footing in a changing press environment and a bad economy.
-see his list of Jew baiting techniques. And by following his list, it really makes it impossible to critique Israel. If he can try and pen an article on how it’s ok to criticize Israel, I would be interested. So far he’s only offered the negative, let’s see the positive aspects of critique, Lee Smith.
If he can try and pen an article on how it’s ok to criticize Israel, I would be interested.
The first and foremost rule is to that you have to be Jewish to criticize Israel. Just see Tony Judt’s example; before his article on the anachronistic Israel was printed, his publisher asked him: “You are Jewish, right?” We can all imagine the fate of the very same article had the author answered in the negative.
I’m guilty of using profanity.
And I’m reforming my behavior, Phil, going to word-doctor to fix my mouth some.
But seriously, thanks Phil and Adam for your great site – I especially want to thank your friend who’s been helping you moderate, putting up with having to read all kindsa hair-raising, tongue-twisting shi–, I mean: manure :-)
I just love love love Mondoweiss!
Don’t want to be alarmist, but I hope you haven’t been victim of a cyber attack – it has already apparently happened to Richard Silverstein’s blog, with a DOS.
i feel positive about this change.
You’re right, Phil, this site is growing in importance and is going to attract larger numbers of disruptive posters, but the site is too valuable to allow them to be constantly disrupting discussion. It’s not that hard to identify a troll whose only purpose is disruption.
perhaps you could deputize someone like Witty, and he can determine who can advance the discussion.
Seriously, often during Israel’s summer kill fests, much of the language is often more heated out of pure disgust at what we witness from our special ally.
And, Avi mentions sarcasm. Will that be an issue, since it’s difficult for some of us to be without it?
Hey Phil-
I think it would be interesting to read examples of the comments that rose (or descended?) to the level of trolldome. How about posting a collection of the worse of the worse?
Matthew
Phil,
Stimulated by this comment, here is an idea for handling the over-the-top comments after you become tired of your new procedure that involves editing them. Simply put them in a special place, perhaps “Outrageous Comments.” When we want to see them, we can go look at them. However, no one can respond to them. Each of these comments will have resulted in a dead end. If someone wants to revise their comment into a normal comment that continues the discussion, they can go back to the original post and insert their more moderate comment.
Fantastic suggestion, HPH!
Yet remains the time old query: WHOSE STANDARD of ‘outrage’ shall we all adhere to?
HPH – super idea. DailyKos has something like this – once a week DK posts the hate-mail bag – typically rants from rightists. people can vote for the worst offenders. But then, this takes time and more volunteers.
Great idea, HPH.
A very wise descision Phil.
As someone who is guilty of invective, I among the worst offenders, and I’m not proud of it, but the profile of this blog has grown rapidly and in order to protect it’s reputation and credibility, it needs to be monitored.
Shingo, have you had any luck getting your handle reinstated by Walt? I did send him an e-mail BTW pointing out that the topic for which you were banned is the one subject to lively discussions among old and new historians in Israel. It’s only in the US that the mere mention that some think biblical accounts of the house of David are exaggerated, is a banning offense. But then, you got picked out (or picked on) by that lee smith character (whoever he is).
Shingo, I’m less offended by your language or perspectives — they’re folklore here at Mondo. It’s really your *spellcheck* that offends me!
Danaa,
I haven’t looked into it or bothred to follow it up. I did read your post and was most apprciate of your eloquence and support, but there’s no point in me making an issue of it. If I were to be honest, I have crossed the line on a number of occasions and it was a wake up call for me to lift my game. I could easily have made my argument without resorting that particular meme.
IN any case, it’s easy enough for me to create a new account under a new name. ;-)
Oscar, I hear you. I am embarassed by my typos, but I am so pressed for time and stupidly enough, post too often from my Iphone.
I want to see what is really considered anti semitic..we all know what profane and vulgar is.
I think maybe I have seen what I consider anti semitic maybe once or twice…you know, “All” jews are this, that and the other, etc..
But if it is considered anti semitic to say things like a small cabal of dedicated Jews in and out of government constantly try to push Israel’s interest ahead of the US’s then I might as well pack up and go because it is true and self evident to anyone paying attention.
link to reference.com
If we agree a cabal is different than a faction, is the difference primarily that a faction declares and describes its core agenda honestly, while a cabal does not? And ditto for the operating members of each? An example of a clear faction would be the Gun Lobby. Or the Choice versus Pro-Life lobbies. Has there ever been more than one lobby/coalition described as “the transparent cabal?” Back in the day, for example, everybody knew about the China Lobby and its members were easily detected because it was an upfront faction & the MSM never hesitated to call it “the China Lobby.”
Huummmm…I’am thinking. ..and I’am not famous for being precise 100% of the time anyway.
Cabal?- group?- lobby?, transparent? , not transparent?…. it might be easier to just make up a word.
Maybe ‘fraternity’.
I don’t know…I mostly ridicule and mimic the hasbara crowd and the witty’s who want to and seem to re write the English langauge anyway cause e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g offends them. If they keep on we won’t have any words left to use. Maybe that’s the idea.
You know though, I sort of like ‘cabal’ as a description because it does carry a certain negative that some groups deserve.
Cabal – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A cabal is a number of people greater than two together in some close design, usually to promote their private views and interests in a church, state, …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal
Wall Street cabal seen derailing serious swap reform | Reuters
Mar 31, 2010 … NEW YORK (Reuters) – A major crisis is building in the derivatives market yet a cabal on Wall Street is blocking the formation of a clearing …
link to reuters.com
From a strict intellectual point of view I find it questionable to ban comments with sincere but racist thinking. Some people will disagree. It does mean that it should be allowed to express antisemitic thoughts, so it’s a radical claim.
From a pragmatic point of view, if you have a site like this that has many jewish posters, then I can see it’s pretty demanding to have to live through a stream of perceived and real antisemitism and focus on the challenge of the I/P conflict at the same time. At the same time there is the concern that the site is tainted with antisemitism. It’s too many challenges at once. It would effectively chase many people away. So I see Phil and Adam’s policy as a compromise but I accept it. It’s realistic. Easy for me to say of course, last time I checked I wasn’t jewish(and not black, or gay, or…).
the nytimes has a report section where you can report a comment based on 5 items: vulgar, inflammatory, personal attack, spam or off-topic. Using this system may help save time moderating.
Assuming I haven’t been banned, I’ve got two points on the anti-Arab racism and anti-semitism question.
On the anti-semitism problem, I’ve complained about that myself. Sometimes comments are pretty clearly anti-semitic. A few people talk about “Jews” in general and when complaining about Zionism act as though there was something uniquely Jewish about ethnocentric nationalism, when many or most nationalisms tend to turn toxic. There are also a few who argue that because Jews have often been persecuted, they must be bad to earn everyone’s hatred. It’s one thing to say the history might be more complex than a simple good vs. evil morality play might make it seem, but it’s definitely anti-semitic to argue that Jews have earned their persecution.
As for anti-Arab racism, sometimes it’s blatant and sometimes it’s veiled. I think on both sides when people justify or whitewash the killing of civilians done against the other side there’s some veiled prejudice involved, or at the very least a toxic ideology that says mass murder is evil when one side does it, but justified when the other does it. I don’t think that behavior should be banned, but it’s hard to respond to it without using harsh language.
I am curious as to what constitutes antisemitism and what falls under political correctness. I suspect a lot of confusion is there.
… I am curious as to what constitutes antisemitism …
Me too, Phil.
Why, just the other day you yourself were accused of exactly that by Lee Smith in a piece at Tablet.
Don’t you remember? :-)
One man’s antisemitism, it seems, is another man’s constructive criticism. I think you can use other criteria to weed out wreckers. I would even be wary of chucking out the rabid zionists. I would hate to speculate on what might happen if they had to keep all that bottled up. :-)
They need an outlet for their frustration. And besides if they couldn’t contribute their erudite discussions then readers might think you are making all this stuff about them up.
P.S. Apologies to all the grammer nazis out there for that split infinitive on the last line. :-)
I am curious as to what constitutes antisemitism and what falls under political correctness.
This would be a useful definition. I prefer Jeffrey Blankfort’s for it’s simplicity, rigor, and moral suasion. You’ll have to get it from him.
Trolls, like the courts said, are like pornography, you know them when you read them. Trolls are sadistic and destructive. I would not be surprised if they are also the instigators of anti-Semitism.
Good for you, they make online discussion unbearable.
I think this is the public section of the blog, and it really shouldn’t be interfered with except in cases of spam, direct threats or disclosing of personal information. We are all mature here and can deal with opinions we find obnoxious. The scroll key is a remarkable invention, it allows you to skip over stuff you don’t want to read. Phil should be happy that people out here are taking the time to read his posts and comment.
I actually didn’t like registering to comment here. It would be like if you had to show ID to join a conversation in a coffeehouse or hardware store. All these rules scare a lot more people off than you realize. Just let people give their honest opinions and ask hard questions and let the chips fall where they may.
Alright, Phil, from here on I’m gonna swap the F-word with the word ‘intercourse’.
Example: I’m fed up with israel intercoursing with Palestinian rights!
:-)
i’m intercoursin’ fed up w/the occupation taxi!
There are widely understood euphemisms for the f-word. “Freaking” is one–Battlestar Galactica (which had a great season that was a thinly disguised version of the Iraq War, with the “good guy” humans resorting to suicide bombing against collaborators, though not everyone agreed) used the term “fracking” to get past television censors.
MadTV also had a nice go at Iraq War, and after..
link to youtube.com
At home we use codes sometimes. code19, code 24 .. They can mean anything. Eg you can have a number code for pass the bread please’ and another number code for ‘Someone should shove a missile up his derriere and send him up in the air’ :)
However, I also know a site that does provide a serious set of codes: link to debonocode.org .
I welcome the updated comments policy. Just like other commentators, I can become enraged at the news from the Mideast, and the fact that much of it will never appear in the mainstream U.S. press. Most recently, I found it infuriating that Jeffrey Goldberg can turned a distinguished old magazine, The Atlantic, into a mouthpiece for the Israeli government’s efforts to provoke the United States into an attack on Iran — a policy that would cause death and destruction for Iranians, Americans, Palestinians, and Israelis alike.
My first pulse is to let loose a stream of invective. But then I reflect.
I think about the Palestinians I saw on the Occupied West Bank, holding their tongues as Israeli soldiers half their age looked them over at checkpoints, recognizing that was not the place for effective resistance. And I think about Palestinians in both the Mideast and in the West, who regularly show patience at the most simple-minded and insulting questions, because they recognize that many people simply have not been exposed to the truth, and may be open to persuasion.
And so I reflect that a stream of rage would be self-indulgent.
“I found it infuriating that Jeffrey Goldberg can turned a distinguished old magazine, The Atlantic, into a mouthpiece f”
Slightly OT, but it’s been a long time since the Atlantic ever had a soul. They have decent articles sometimes, but it’s been a magazine for the well-read imperialist American for a long time. They had a pro-torture article in the period between 9/11 and Abu Ghraib, hired Christopher Hitchens, calling him an “honest honorable man of the left” right after 9/11, when he turned on his former allies and joined the Bushies. They also have people like Roger Kaplan (sp?) working for them–I remember one article where he praised US policy in El Salvador. Goldberg is a natural for the Atlantic.
It’s now been over three hours since the most recent comments I made on this forum, comments that do not have streams of invective, have been withheld, awaiting moderation.
I think about Palestinians in both the Mideast and in the West, who regularly show patience at the most simple-minded and insulting questions, because they recognize that many people simply have not been exposed to the truth
i know. i should try to be more like this. i honestly don’t know how i’d handle it being a palestinian in the west bank or gaza. i probably wouldn’t have survived very long.
Amen to that, JN.
that’s one perspective, James North: that for we the comfortable to express rage would be self-indulgent.
Another perspective is that we the comfortable have the obligation to express rage on behalf of the oppressed who cannot do so safely. We have to make noise and call attention and try to make people understand that an evil thing is taking place, and the people to whom it is happening are not able to make themselves heard.
Absolutely Right.
Rage against injustice is good.
We need more popular rage not less about a whole lot of things.
Personally I think it is “uncivilized” to not rage against evil and unjust things.
Phil and Adam are going to review each comment before posting? That is the new policy? Or just an interim policy? This is unnecessary and destructive. I whole heartedly agree that profanity should be minimized, but is appropriate in many contexts. I wholeheartedly agree that spammers, trolls, and imposters should be banned. I agree that racist comments should be scrutinized carefully, however given that race and/or ethnicity are regular topics of discussion the delete button should be employed judiciously. But if I understand the new policy correctly, imposing a screening process for each and every comment, this strikes me as ‘giving in to the terrorists’, so to speak. The beauty of this site is that it has opened up a space for a frank conversation, a space that didn’t exist in my social life. And now the conversation is being degraded to the spotty quality of a cell phone system in some backwater, the natural flow killed by a few dolts.
I don’t think it’ll be nearly as bad as you think Marc B. Wait and see?
As long as the delays on moderating aren’t hours and hours the flow of conversation shouldn’t be interrupted too badly. It’s likely to effect those of us in time zones distant to the US more though, where US night is our day.
I read these comments over, and it really is astounding to me how people are so willing to give up the freedom to say something that an authority figure may find offensive-not only that, but they applaud the decision to restrict their freedom.
joer ~ come on, that’s a bit OTT.
Posting at Mondoweiss (or not) isn’t a civil rights issue. MW isn’t government property or tax-payer funded, well, that i know of ;-) It’s Phil and Adam’s domain, and they can do whatever they wish. Anybody who is unhappy about being booted or moderated can start their own blog and say what they want, and earn their own following – as MW has.
Think of it as the free market of ideas.
“I read these comments over, and it really is astounding to me how people are so willing to give up the freedom to say something that an authority figure may find offensive-not only that, but they applaud the decision to restrict their freedom”
You n’ me both, joer, you and me both.
Well, I think this is long overdue. Violations of the comment policy were so common as to render it meaningless.
In my experience, you must either moderate everyone or no one. What you cannot do is moderate people based on their political opinion; that’s unfair, though all too common in the blogosphere. Complete moderation will bring down your comment totals, though.
Too often, the blogosphere acts mostly a tool for people to organize themselves into smug little self-congratulatory groups and engage in intellectual circle jerks. I read this blog mostly because I find the alternate points of view interesting and comment where I think people are wrong. I profound disagree with Phil Weiss’s worldview, obviously. But I’m well aware that it’s far from unique, and that Phil speaks for a part of the Jewish community that is very disillusioned right now.
Mostly I comment here and on Israpundit, where I give them as hard a time over their dogma as I give you over yours. Right now, I’m defending the Cordoba Initiative against the collection of people over there who think it means the end of American civilization.
The best blogs are those where there is actually a debate or a discussion going on. If people like Witty and me weren’t here, you’d all be very bored.
Having to correct the same repeated falsehoods over and over and over again is not “debate.” Having people deny war crimes and human rights is not “debate.” Being labeled an anti-Semite is not “debate.”
You guys have some pretty ridiculous notions about what constitutes debate.
Furthermore, the accusations that Phil Weiss has been stifling Zionist conversation out of political agenda isn’t just repugnant, it’s absurd. I have my complaints about what Mr. Weiss lets happen on this blog, and about his even-handedness in responding to what has caused the tenor of conversation here to go out of tilt, but this idea that he’s oppression Zionist opinion is abject falsehood. And borderline libel, really.
“The best blogs are those where there is actually a debate or a discussion going on. If people like Witty and me weren’t here, you’d all be very bored.”
I don’t think there is debate or discussion going on here with Witty. It’s rare anywhere–witness what happens on cable TV. A serious debate or discussion would involve people laying out their points and responding directly to the points made by their opponents and the pattern with RW is the following–
1. Richard states his talking points.
2. Some people yell, some respond with substance, some do both and some ignore. (I do both).
3. Richard ignores most of the substance if he can’t refute it. He then restates his position.
4. Repeat steps 1-3.
This isn’t debate or discussion.
I don’t have a good sense of the dynamic when you’re involved, since I’ve paid far more attention to RW for various uninteresting reasons.
90 percent of the comments here (including 90 percent of mine) could vanish without it doing any harm at all. I’ve seen other blogs (well, one, to be honest and I won’t give its name because I use my full name there) where there’s a culture that doesn’t tolerate slipperiness or racism of any form and where you even find people defending their opponents from unfair attacks. People can tell when an argument is just crap and they will call it out, even sometimes when they agree with the person’s basic position. That rarely happens here. But it rarely happens anywhere. Not that this other blog is perfect–one ideology dominates, but the commitment to serious if heated discussion is real and neither RW’s evasions nor the rudeness with which others sometimes respond, including me, would be tolerated for long. RW would not be banned, but he would be treated as a joke unless he responded to substantive refutations with substance. Insults about his family would be deleted and persons making them would come under heavy criticism by people on both sides.
So yeah, the comment section here could be greatly improved on all sides.
“I’ve seen other blogs (well, one, to be honest and I won’t give its name because I use my full name there) ”
I take that back–The Magnes Zionist also has a good comment section, but it’s sparsely populated, so Jerry doesn’t have that much to moderate. Richard Silverstein’s comment section is good, but has its problems.
I thought I did all the right things to be allowed to post at Magnes Zionist but can’t get on.
I like that Richard Silverstein’s blog allows a freestyle approach but comes to clean house on occasion if need be (and doing others the courtesy of explaining why the offending posts went bye-bye).
One person claims he was scrubbed because he bested/embarrassed Richard but I didn’t see any “there” there.
it’s probably sparsely moderated because that’s the way they like it. i’m sure the site gets a decent amount of traffic. some people don’t feel the need to host debates.
We need Zionists here, we don’t need trolls, or idiots copying out of The Boy’s Guide to Hasbara.
Yeah, there’s plenty of sites for the ‘Boys’ & Girls’ Hasbarado Campus.
They can go to yahoo comments section, huff post, FP, Salon, etc. They lay out the red carpet treatment for pesty zionist morons!
I have never ‘intercoursed’ with a zionist who wasn’t of the hasbara variety…are there any? Seriously.
Would love to actually ‘debate’ with a zionist “if’ he/she was sane and logical.
Once upon a time I thought I was talking to a sane one and I offered that I thought the claim and notion that Israel as a safe haven and escape place for Jews was crazy because in reality in the event of world anti semitism they would be sitting ducks in tiny Israel…..then he called me an anti semite for pointing that out…and ranted about how I was denying Jews their ‘peoplehood” and ‘self determination” by saying that.
are there any? Seriously.
not really. hasbara is by definition ‘explaining israel’ . that’s what zionists do. it isn’t mandatory to be hooked up to some giyus campaign to do that or working for the foreign ministry or attached to a identified campaign or be any kind of operative to be disseminating hasbara.
some people like to pretend accusations of hasbara is some kind of ‘code’ for accusing people of not being who they say they are, which is stupid. besides it doesn’t much matter if someone is working in some official capacity or not if they sound identical and most of them do because israels narrative has been so streamlined they (zionists) all (pretty much) use the same ‘logic’ regurgitated endlessly. same themes cycled over and over.
nothing changes the fact there’s a robust pysops campaign to sway israeli and global opinion and there’s a sense of ‘in unison-ness’ about the flow. ie when smith wrote the tablet report swiftly following was a theme coming from friedman et al all the way thru the comment sections on blogs attacking those of us who argue for palestinian rights that we’re ‘jew baiting’ and want to destroy the ‘jewish state’. they want to curtail our criticism. there’s no new or creative zionist rationale for zionism because it doesn’t exist. whereas pro p’s have an endless supply of new info because israel’s actions are constant. whether it’s the ethnic cleansing in the negev, or new home demolitions or arresting peace activists. but their counter arguments are always the same. rarely ever does one encounter a zionist on any internet thread w/an original approach to ‘explaining’ israel. recycled excuses and rational.
Hophmi, would you have defended or supported the movement to boot those Polish nuns from their spot adjacent Auschwitz? And how about that big cross that’s left there, or those graves nearby that were also removed?
I love this site, look forward to reading many enlightened, profound and
often funny comments., sometimes not so much. Was on another interactive
site earlier that was made totally useless by unregulated troll commentary,
MW seems to be pretty effective in self policing.
a new word: antsisemitism stuff that’s critical of Israel or advocates for Israel that ruffles the feathers of said Israel advocates.
Right now I’m feeling very antsisemitic toward Jeremy ben Ami of J Street.
He sent out an email blast starting out with the theme, “Why not?” Why not keep trying? Why not do what we tell out kids to do — get back on the bike when we fall off, keep trying . . .”
OK, Jeremy; you got my attention. I’m in.
then, ben Ami’s punch line: “That’s my thought for Mahmoud Abbas this weekend as he ponders whether to say yes or no to starting direct talks with Israel. Click here to read J Street’s statement from last week urging Abbas to enter direct negotiations.
counting to 10
@$#%#$&%$*
Jeremy, instead of you displaying your arrogance and counseling Palestine what to do, why don’t you tend to your own knitting? sweep your own front step? clean your own house? TELL IT TO ISRAEL.
Tell Israel to stop killing people, plucking peace activists from their homes in the middle of the night, bulldozing entire villages. TELL IT TO ISRAEL.
One other facet of persistence in problem solving is that the actual problem has got to be addressed. Persistence in blaming the other is not the same thing.
Jeremy, TELL IT TO ISRAEL.
I rather regret the loss of spontaneity and of quick exchanges, which can both allow some humour into the discussion and also can often be quite revealing.
True, MHughes976. Part of the charm of this place is that sometimes the comments section becomes just as interesting and informative as the pieces posted, and sometimes it just goes a little loopy. Also, it seems to flow naturally out of the pieces themselves, partly because of the way it’s visually laid out – same font size and type as the original pieces, all contained on one page, etc. They did a really good job with that, and it’s conducive to making people feel part of the conversation, being relevant.
it makes the stream function on the right almost useless because there’s no way one can tell who’s on right now or even see all the comments coming on in real time which is unfortunate. it chops up the interaction.
I suppose I have complained more than once about the comments section and about the bloggers themselves, so even if Lee Smith is the proximate cause, I now have received just recompense for my ill wishes. This “wait for moderation” is quite dissimilar to the immediate gratification of the old system.
This “wait for moderation” is quite dissimilar to the immediate gratification of the old system.
please don’t reduce the ‘old system’ to the juvenile level of ‘immediate gratification’, along the lines of ‘impulse purchases’ and internet porn-assisted ejaculation. the ‘old system’, clunky as the comment stream can be, permitted as close as one can get to a democratic forum in this age. the pre-approval system is more similar to a lecture, with the headmaster setting the agenda and selecting responses from favored students.
I rather thought this new policy was brought on by maximalistNarrative’s tantrums, complaining continuously about being on moderation and then “escalating” by contacting the Nation Institute (Adam and Phil’s “supervisors”, as I think mN put it).
Poor mN, still thinking the whole word operates like the OPT’s, where his machine gun ensured nobody said “no” to him.
I suspect it had something to do with the latest Ken Davis spamming run yesterday.
On reflection, I guess rather than being one particular thing it’s more likely cumulative.
Some of this might have been the last straw, but if you remember what was posted by the authors above –
“We’ve hit a couple of impasses on comments policy at this site in the last two years. Now we’re at another.”
So, it looks like its been in contention for a while, building up over time. This is probably an attempt to avoid a wreck down the line, making the site unattractive – lets see what happens.
Kind of surprised by my two comments that didn’t make the cut. Flippant, but not offensive as far as I was concerned. I love Mondoweiss and tend to trust their sensibilities but am still surprised when I think I am in compliance and turn out not to be.
Glad to hear the place is getting so popular. Good sign. Have been sending people here in droves. Professor folks.
Thanks for all you folks do to promote truth and justice specifically on the I/P issue
thanks Kathleen, we need droves. We’ll try and measure up…
It’s your site.
There may be a more productive solution than yours, though: the American way. Meaning free speech. Meaning no censorship at all, no matter how ugly, or “provocative” or anti-this-or-that the message.
After all, all commenters are adult (or under parental authority), and it’s not up to you to cool their coffee before serving it. We are not (yet) (officially) in a dictatorship.
Finally, we are anyway submitted to the worst even while you do censor: the slimiest goons of the Zionist Propaganda Ministry are never absent.
Claiming someone is anti-Semitic has become so commonplace, people forget how deeply offensive that is to the accused. Jewish supporters of Israel’s occupation and ethnic cleansing call opponents anti-Semitic as if it were a throwaway line. When the issue arises, the moderators need to take care not to capitulate to them or simply to not take them seriously. When it is done carelessly by those who should know better, it is cruel.
As for racism, it gets mixed in with anti-Semitism. World War I era images of Eastern European Jews with yarmulke wearing men with big noses and ears, scowling expressions, and swarthy complexions were racist. Those same images in today’s media, but now with the men dressed as Middle Eastern mullahs, are just as racist. A racist image then of Jews and now of Arabs were and are necessary because the hate promoters’ intended audiences’ gross ignorance of Judaism and of the Muslim religion.
The only time it is necessary to have profanity in print media is in fiction where the dialogue portrays the characters.
Invective, like the use of the pejorative, is a standard of effective orators that belongs in the blogosphere media. I see nothing wrong with using vehement words to describe supporters of Operation Cast Lead.
One suggestion I have for making the moderation business a bit less of time consuming for the moderators: there are posters here who, based on past comment history, could – and probably should – have a get-out-of-jail pass without any risk to the guidelines or our collective sensibilities. Those are the ones who provide comments that always seem to add something to the discussion, engage with others on the points, are unfailingly respectful, even in the face of provocation and/or contribute facts and information from which we all benfit. I can think of at least 10 such without trying too hard (+ Mooser who we so don’t want to see moderated – violations or not). I am sure most here can guess who these are. There are probably quite a few more.
Of course, I have seen great comments from some who find it a bit harder to control the invective. I went on an emotional tirade myself now and then when it all gets to be too much. What’s a blog like this without the occasional venting anyways? after all, most of the time the topics addressed are difficult to deal with, much of the time bearing witness to wanton cruelty practiced by some humans against other humans. We all need a good rant, now and then – which, alas, makes it likely that here and there, even the most equanimous will stray from the straight and narrow. Still, I wouldn’t want to see all rants moderated, even if some are a bit raw. Can anyone read through seham’s collections without the occasional primal scream?
Then there are the relatively newer or less frequent commentators. Maybe there can be some algorithm to allow judging when to take them off moderation – like 5 strikes and you are in?
As for the grammar/spellcheck police, well, that’s another story (and one that’ll keep me in ‘moderation jail’ for a long stint). But that’ another story.
Danaa, all I can say is “thank you” for your kind words, and if you are not calling for me to be moderated or banned, you must not be reading my comments. Hopefully, you just see my name, go off into gales of laughter, and say, “Gee, what a funny guy”.
Israel can kill or injure with impunity and without repercussion, but the rest of us have to undergo a deconstruction and linguistic indictment before we can even say “ouch” Was that an anti-semetic “ouch”?
For Christs sake people, it’s not as if we don’t have a standard we can look to! When the language against Jews approaches on either side within a parsec of the crazy of both sides in the Civil Rights struggle, I’ll start worrying. As a Jew, I see no reason why I should be treated any better than a black person. Or any worse, for that matter.