Not supporting Hillary Clinton Verboten on Daily Kos.

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

dailykos.com/story/2016/03/0 … on-footing

So, I knew they were a left-leaning site, which is fine. But I didn’t know they were a de facto extension of the DNC. Is this normal behavior from them, to officially declare that all support for non-Hillary candidates is a bannable offense after March 15th?

To me there’s a difference between being ideological and being partisan. Can somebody give me a comparative example on the right, where a conservative news outlet (or whatever you want to call the Kos) declares that their writers, editors, and commenting readers are compelled to adopt a particular stance to affect an election?

2

Lol, that article is an example of liberal hypocrasy at it’s finest.

The article says it advocates for American voting rights, yet at the bottom of the page it says it will ban anyone who does not agree with their views or support their candidate.

What a schism.

3

Here is the Huff Post take on it: huffingtonpost.com/entry/dai … 0de404c3af

And I can well understand why some on the left might feel compelled to go in this direction. Myself included.

I have absolutely no illusions that Bernie Sanders would ever be allowed to translate his rhetoric into reality if by some miracle he was elected. But some on the left fear that his nomination might actually result in the election of someone like Trump or Cruz. They fear he will become another George McGovern and that this might impact elections further downstream.

Their whole frame of mind revolves around preventing the reactionaries from gaining control of Capital Hill, the Supreme Court [b][u]and[/u][/b] the White House.

What is at stake here [particularly in regard to “social issues”] can’t possibly be underestimated for many on the left.

As for the equivalent on the right, though Fox News and the Talk Radio gang might not actually go that far “officially”, they really don’t have to. It is just understood that you would not be an anchor or a host unless you embraced at least one of the reactionaries running.

4

But you aren’t on the left, remember? You went to great pains to explain to me how enlightened you were and how you transcended all that.

I’m not really concerned with what you imagine to be the case. I’m looking for a concrete example of the right doing this. You and others have said for a while that both sides are just as bad, so put up or shut up. If Fox News (or whomever) has declared that ‘anybody who doesn’t support the GOP front runner isn’t allowed to comment on our websites or write for us’, then show me.

5

With regard to many issues I am on the left. I just don’t have any illusions that this is not embedded existentially in the life that I have lived:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion [like premarital sex] was a sin. Big time. Both in and out of church.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

Nor do I have any illusions that the positions of those on the left are necessarily more rational or virtuous than the positions of those on the right.

Again, as you recall, I am embedded in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

What I then ask for from objectivists of your ilk is an argument that demonstrates why this is not applicable to them.

Please, by all means, give it a shot.

Right, as though noting this makes the point that I raised any less true.

Just out of curiosity, since I don’t watch Fox News very often, does the network have the equivalent of a Joe Scarborough?

I do remember when they once pitted Hannity against Colmes, but that was years ago.

6

These comparisons are so pointless. Who the fuck is going to remember a specific quotable instance like this? People on both sides have argued the sentiment that you should support the front runner over the trailing candidates for the sake of solidarity and defeating the opposition. It’s part of the reason many Republicans hate Trump, because he said he would run even if he lost the nomination. That’s not very different from this person explicitly saying they would ban someone with a different preference. I mean what’s your point? Republicans are better people because no one can find a newspaper with some dick saying a slightly more obvious variation of an incredibly common perspective?

How would the logic of your argument look? This is classic jumping to a conclusion because of the inherent difficulty in proving a negative.

For all Republicans in the entire country of which there are literally millions, there are zero who want to censor voters preference in candidates.
I asked a group of 10 people on a forum and 0 could come up with a contradiction.
Therefore Republicans don’t censor.

There is one example of a Democrat censoring a group of people.
Thus we can assume all Democrats by association are guilty of censorship. (This isn’t explicitly said in your post but it looks like that’s your point right?)
Therefore Republicans are better than Democrats.

Is that what this bullshit is?

7

Yes, people. Typically these people are running political campaigns. That’s what I’m asking- is it an accepted truth that the Daily Kos is a part of the DNC, and their primary concern as a blog is to publish stories and allow commentary that helps the DNC win elections, and to censor articles and comments that might hurt the DNC frontrunner? Because that’s what they’ve declared with this article- that whatever happens on March 15th, if it makes Hillary look bad, you won’t hear about it on the DailyKos, and if you try to talk about it on the DailyKos, you will be banned from the site.

Are lefties happy with this behavior from their news sources? Do they consider it typical? I’m curious!

This person? You mean the person who controls what seems to be the most popular left-leaning political blog on the planet?

It’s only been a few minutes, maybe somebody will find such a paper. You seem to be missing the point though. Some guy or even an editorial saying “We should rally around the front runner” is nothing at all like an editor saying “This paper will censor all articles and commentary that stray from rallying around the front runner”.

No, that’s the bullshit that your reply to this thread is.

8

Ah yes. So you have transcended simple partisanship with your enlightened view of morality and epistemology, but at the end of the day you still get to talk like a leftist, believe like a leftists, propagandize like a leftist, vote like a leftist and in general be indescernable from your typical leftist because blah blah blah blah. Why am I not surprised.

9

Good call Ucci!!!

Of course the right is charged with no governance!!

Even of themselves!!!

In total, this is actually not left that you’re critising, the problem here is that the left is the right on the most serious issues

Remember, you’re talking to a guy who’s been banned from almost every message board online!!

The pope (right) doesn’t even have an email address!!!

At least the left have those!!!

10

It is a pretty obvious undercurrent at least that people push out trailing candidates and don’t publish negative things about the candidates they favor. It has been since the beginning of the country, since the early days of ancient government, since the beginning of politics I’m sure. To take the next step and say “You’re not welcome on my blog” is so trivial an addition. I don’t know what small minds you think you’re blowing but it shouldn’t be any.

Yeah some condescending remark that singles out lefties makes it sound like lefties are the only people who have to deal with it. That’s not the situation. If you were to tally the amount of “coverage” any media does, positive vs negative, any news outlet, Fox, MSNBC, CNN are all obviously going to have more good information about their guy and more bad information about the opposition. Are lefties happy with the behavior suggests that there’s something inherent in leftist ideology that exposes specifically them to this shit. The question should be how concerned are you with quality and accuracy in media, but my hunch is that few people here would fucking know what quality is anyway. If you’re willing to settle for shitty opinion pieces as your source for “truth” and express your bias with forum posts you’re not concerned with discovering the “truth”. You’re concerned with shitting on the opposition. So are leftiest happy with this? I don’t know what the fuck you’re asking. Are righties happy with the terrible quality of this forum? “I’m curious!”

This is rhetorical obviously. And I know I have to explain this because it sounds like I’m being biased and you’ll get butt hurt. My point is you’re asking the wrong questions and it’s going to give you shitty answers. So dig in. I’ve got plenty of dumb shit to say.

Is this person not a person?

Why would it matter? If that’s your argument it’s completely flawed anyway.

It’s very similar. They’re both forms of censorship. One is just more explicit than another. One you use social pressure. One you write in a blog. What other differences are there?

11

I disagree. I think most publications of an ideological bent might object to candidates of the opposite ideological bent, but to declare that writers, commenters and etc. will be banned for critcizing the front runner even from an ideologically friendly angle is quite a dramatic step.

But then, I don’t read many liberal blogs and such. Maybe this is par for the course for the left. I’m asking.

OK, good. So you are comfortable with your political blogs banning all criticism of their favored parties’ front runner during an election. That’s precisely the kind of thing I wanted to know.

Well, YOU are apparently a lefty, and YOU seem to think it’s par for the course in the publications YOU read. I personally wouldn’t stand for it as a conservative.

Well, I’m waiting to see evidence that other sources, conservative or liberal, do this sort of thing. I don’t consider ‘having a slant’ to be the same thing as ‘banning dissent’, at all.

This one isn’t. Honest question, honest answer. How fucking hard was that?

If it doesn’t matter to you, then fine. That’s precisely the kind of thing I wanted to know.

12

Come on, what this this really have to do with the points that I raised above? Points that you refuse even to properly address let alone respond to intelligently and at length.

I have not “transcended” partisanship, I have situated my current political prejudices over the course of the life that I have actually lived. Just as, no doubt, your own is embedded in one.

And I certainly do not insist that my own narrative here reflects an “enlightened” point of view. It merely reflects what seems reasonable to me here and now. Indeed, that’s why I ask objectivists like you to note how the manner in which I construe these relationships is not applicable to them.

13

The reason I made the point I made about the pope, is that there a 2 billion Catholics … The entire “right” is a pandering to them!!! That’s the whole platform of the right!! The head of the Catholics has no email address that hundreds of assistants can even filter and read.

Obama has an email address !!!

The right censor more than the left!!!

You found that the left is going right, that’s all you uncovered Uccisore !

You’re really criticizing your own party by criticizing the left here !!

14

I want to be clear here !!!

Everywhere on earth, “right” means pandering to the pope, and “left” means disagreeing with the pope, the Vatican structure.

But the left in many very important ways are “papists”, they pander to the pope as well.

Part of the propaganda in this world is that the pope is not a big deal in politics, however, in every country on earth , right and left is defined by pope and non pope!!

The left are increasingly becoming right, and that’s somewhat scary considering they are already, very right!!

15

I had a good laugh at this. Thanks.

16

It doesn’t matter if you disagree. There are dozens of articles about the outsiders running as third party candidates and the problems it will cause the establishment. So disagree all you want. The fact is, people know this is a strategy and it has been for thousands of years.

I’ve conceded that they are typically more coy about their bias but not in any meaningful way. Repeating that isn’t proving anything.

Didn’t say that. I don’t read daily kos. I read fact checkers and academic studies of the impacts of political promises. I don’t give a shit what the bloggers, or talk show hosts with no education have to say. I’m mostly interested in accuracy and data driven analysis.

Didn’t say that either. Like I said, I’m mostly interested in accuracy. Assuming I’m in opposition to everything the right stands for simply because I have a problem with how you have framed your question is a really bad way to assess a situation.

How are people supposed to find evidence of a thing if they don’t read the shit? Do you expect leftists to start researching 30 years of Breitbart or Limbaugh to contradict your point? And if not are you stupid enough to pretend that the lack of evidence is proof enough that it doesn’t exist? I don’t think you are, but I think you’ll enjoy this dumb victory a little too much and someone should remind you how hollow it is. You’re not going to find a real answer doing this.

What is the effective difference of bashing the opposition so frequently they refuse to come on a show and banning them from the show? Having the “integrity” to not outright claim you have banned them from the show, while making insults and basically threatening to destroy their career if they make an appearance isn’t evidence of a superior moral character. Like I said, who gives a shit?

I was being facetious. My point was biased questions aren’t attempts to find real answers.

No real answers, as made apparent by your quick assumptions. You’re not looking for an answer. You’re looking for a reason to continue making flawed judgments of the left.

17

Yes, it is a political strategy. The question is, is it ok for the Daily Kos to base their editorial policy and comment section enforcement policy around being an extension of HIllary’s election campaign? And, as a follow up question, how common is this on the right, and elsewhere on the left?

So why are you replying to the thread if you have no perspective on the subject or the questions I’m asking? So your stance is, it’s no big deal for the Daily Kos to be censoring ciriticism of Hillary Clinton, but for completely unrelated reasons, you would never read the Daily Kos. Got it.

Then you should be highly critical of what the Daily Kos is doing, instead of being inexplicably mad at me for pointing it out.

They aren’t. If you don’t read this shit, don’t care about this shit, and have no interest in looking into this shit, then what the fuck are you doing in this thread? Why has me pointing out that the Kos did something terrible enraged you so?

I think there are plenty of leftists doing that exact thing constantly. I think there are websites devoted to it, and I think many of them bill themselves as ‘fact checker’ websites, so you probably allready know that because you read them yourself. SO yeah, maybe some leftist who knows about this stuff will see this thread and respond. Why not?

Why are you so certain that no such evidence will be forthcoming?

We’re not talking about banning people from a show. Again, you should probably read the link this thread is about. We’re talking about a ‘news’ outlet forbidding it’s writers from criticizing a political candidate, and forbidding it’s readers from making negative comments about a political candidate. If you find those two things morally equivalent, then ok.

Not you, apparently. That’s fine. I wonder how many other leftists won’t give a shit that the Daily Kos is doing this. We shall see.

Flawed? So the Daily Kos isn’t really doing this thing they have proclaimed they are doing?

18

I agree that people from the right are generally better but Trump becoming a GOP frontrunner have certainly made a dent on that perception.

He lowered both of the standard of the GOP candidates and their debate as well. All this melodrama and below the belt personal hits are generally associated with leftists, but now GOP also has Trump.

With love,
Sanjay

19

What does your opinion of Donald Trump have to do with the decision of the Daily Kos’ editorial board?

20

Nothing.

I was replying to the point what cba made, not you. I should have quote his post to avoid the confusion.

With love,
Sanjay