Not supporting Hillary Clinton Verboten on Daily Kos.

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
21

Is it ok in what context? It’s legal. It is more or less equivalent to what every other pundit does. There is a precedent for doing it in many other contexts. This forum I believe censors people right? Does it make for shit discussion? Yeah, but if they want to muddy their product, they are more than welcome. But that isn’t the point of your post. Your post is to smear the leftist ideology because of this right? So does any of that lead to your conclusion? No. So you can’t just frame it objectively after you’ve accused the left in general and be like “What? I didn’t do anything wrong.”

Technically they aren’t being inaccurate by censoring, they’re being incomplete. Or they’re being dicks.

Is it morally ambiguous? Yeah it appears so. I haven’t actually looked into the details. For all I know you could be exaggerating as is often the case. Is it out of the ordinary or shocking? Absolutely not.

I’m not enraged brah. I’m just telling you how I see it. You appeared to be making a biased claim, as stated in my first comment. You didn’t deny it. So I think it’s safe to assume I was right.

Is this website one of them? That’s why.

I guess we will wait but the point was more that regardless of evidence you started biased.

It was an example. A result of how networks discuss candidates. The point is news outlets frequently present candidates in a biased light. To say they outright forbade someone from doing something, when media outlets indirectly do it every day is in practice the same thing. If Fox news runs 1000 stories and only one of them has something nice to say about a Democrat are you really going to be like “Well their motive is better because they don’t have an ‘official’ statement claiming that’s how they run the business”? And this isn’t to say motives don’t matter because clearly the motive is the same. There just isn’t evidence for it until someone less lazy does some digging. How’s your digging going by the way? I’m sure you have hundreds of google searches going right now.

Flawed as in this isn’t evidence of a bias specific to leftists and that waiting for evidence to roll around to clear your bias is silly. But whatever. You do what you want man. I gotta do other shit. Take care.

22

Do you think it’s ethical journalistic behavior? Do you think it makes the blog more reliable, or less reliable? I dunno, you can pick a context, it was a pretty open question.

That’s something I’m still waiting for evidence for.

Not to ensure the success of a particular political campaign.

There’s no smear, the Daily Kos really did this. To my mind, it only impunges the leftist ideology if leftists generally don’t have a problem with it, or if leftists do this sort of thing out of proportion to rightists. Hence the questions.

What conclusion? The one you put in my mouth for me because it was easier to shoot down than anything I actually said? Why no, it doesn’t. The conclusion you put in my mouth is utterly unfounded. That’s why you put it there, remember?

What do you mean ‘for all you know’? Is this you admitting that you didn’t read the link I posted?

Yeah, I don’t like the left, so I created an article about the left doing something shitty. However, I left it wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide open for any leftist to condemn this practice, find any counter example of the right doing the same thing, or to explain why what the Kos is doing isn’t as bad as what it seems to be. Why aren’t you doing one of those things?

Of course they do. And when a news outlet presents a candidate consitently in a biased light, regardless of the reality of what’s actually going on, we tend to criticize them for it. The Daily Kos has declared their intention to do this in advance of how the campaign shakes out, has warned all their employees that they are required to follow suit, and has declared that any commenters on their website will be banned if they violate this mandate. It seems to me some rather strong criticism is in order, and it seems ot me that this is a stand out example- you raised the example of Breitbart. Breitbart has not, and I highly suspect will not, declare that if Trump is the front runner on march 15th, they will cease posting any articles critical of him, and will ban all negative comments about him.

Well, in a case like that, the comments section of the Fox website would be full of people calling them out for their bullshit. In order to be comparable to the Kos, they would have to ALSO go on to declare that not only are they only allowing negative coverage of Democrats, but that anybody who says anything positive about a Democrat on the comments section of their articles will be banned.

Yes, that’s how I found this article I’ve brought to you guys, after all.

23

That is pretty prejudice statement to make for someone who hasn’t studied the issue.

24

James you don’t have to study much to see that Ucc is probably the most politically biased person on the site. I mean…you know that right?

25

No this is more or less what every pundit does. You’re waiting for evidence of a specific thing a pundit may or may not do. But the general behavior is still in effect the same. You admit to this later.

The question is whether or not censorship is acceptable. The answer is in certain contexts it is expected at least and not abnormal or outrageous. You’ve left the same options on the table in your own rule set. That said, I don’t care what you do. It’s just a similarity that you’re intentionally ignoring to pretend you’re better than them. I personally don’t like dick head pundits but I’m not surprised after years of avoiding them that one would do some dick head thing. I’m not basing some pointless generalization on the shocking nature of it or anything.

The conclusion that this is somehow isolated to the left wing. If you read a thing that someone does and your instinct is to ask the question “Does only one political ideology do this very common human thing” when there is no reason to suspect it is a unique character flaw inherent to liberalism then you’re being biased. This isn’t some deep mysterious question that needs to be researched. It’s a flawed approach to discovering the motives of human behavior.

Where do you think I got the conclusion that I “put in your mouth?”

Your premise is that one side is better than the other until proven otherwise. And that’s so fucking ridiculous. To frame any discussion in the context of “How can I best make a generalization about a giant group of people using a single piece of information.” is a waste of time.

I already gave an explanation on why it’s flawed and I gave a bunch of examples on why it is acceptable. I don’t care either way. What I find more obnoxious is your approach to the problem. Because regardless of whether or not it is a problem, you think you’ve trapped liberals in some hypothetical contradiction over some trivial nonsense and as is typical would rather bask in the sad glory of proving a nonsense point than admit the basic issue is common to all humans. This is like finding a liberal baby and being like “Do only liberal babies poop? Let’s be annoying until a liberal can provide video evidence of a Republican baby pooping.” And when no one gives a shit enough to make the case you’re going to conclude “Well I guess only liberal babies are shitty.”

This is where you contradict the first point. And no. Very few people give pundits shit for being biased. They’ve built an entire industry around it. Good for Breitbart. I will guarantee Breitbart doesn’t end up on shows promoting Trump then even if they don’t explicitly say they’re not letting him on the show.

That practically happens already. Like I said, there is little difference between banning them explicitly and spending months ripping something apart without letting them have a say. This is like the third time I’ve repeated this point. I’m sure there will be a fourth.

Sure sure. I spent 10 seconds googling and found a bunch of articles on how Fox has a company policy banning gun control discussion. I’m sure that’s not specific enough to political campaigns for you to admit and I’m not going to make the argument based on likeness in censorship. Like I said, I don’t care what their policy is. You can read any of their bias based on the shit they put out to the public. I’m not going to do your research to prove that both sides take morally ambiguous stands on many things. This should be obvious.

26

What issue? Humanity? Because that’s what I’ve been talking about. Do you think this is a discussion on Daily Kos after I’ve said like 20 times I don’t care about daily kos? How do you need me to phrase the statement “I’m not talking about daily kos.” to explain I’m not talking about daily kos.

27

More or less every pundit doesn’t have editorial control over a major blog like this, and virtually none of them ban dissenting comments in their comments sections. Last time you said something like this, I opined that maybe this was normal for the sites that YOU read, but then you revealed you don’t actually read any, so I’m left to conclude that you’re simply making shit up. Seriously- if you don’t read sites like the Kos, what is your basis for telling me what they all do?

You have included such a huge variety of actual behaviors in your ‘the general behavior’ group specifically so you can avoid having to make a distinction between having an opinion and censorship.

No it isn’t. The question is whether or not this behavior is normal for the Daily Kos, and whether or not other similar sites do this kind of thing. You don’t decide what the question is in this thread I made about a topic I chose, remember? The answer you like to the question you made up has fuck all to do with anything.

I have concluded no such thing. I’m asking if it’s the case. You’re simply jumping to that conclusion yourself because you have this certainty that no counter examples will be forthcoming. Why, I don’t know. There are several people that post here that are fluent enough in political websites that if this sort of thing is ordinary, they can provide other examples of it.

Show me that it’s a very common thing.

Straight from your ass, that’s why it’s so foul.

Not at all. I’m challenging the position that both sides are equally guilty. Do you have any evidence other than your indignant rage?

Right, so that’s one leftist who doesn’t think what the Kos did here is problematic. NOTED.

Moving on.

I literally couldn’t care less what you think is obnoxious.

Brietbart ending up on shows? You know he’s been dead for four years right? If you mean random Breitbart editors and writers, I don’t know why they would ‘end up on shows’, but on their website they have plenty of articles both positive and negative about Trump, and more importantly, they allow their commenters to say anything they like- you aren’t banned from their website for criticizing Trump (or supporting him).

Show me. You just made a positive accusation of what Fox News is doing on their comments section. Is this a well-known behavior? Is it documented anywhere? Or are you just talking out your ass?

Depends. Is it Fox News claiming it themselves? If not, is it from a reputable source? If not, is it just form somebody pulling it out of their ass and likely making things up like you have several times in this reply?

Ah yes. Many people take ambiguous stands on many things. I was wondering just how fucking vague and abstract you’d have to make this for your desperate equivocation to work.

Meanwhile, the thing we’re actually talking about appears to be unique to the Kos.

28

Between this and the MSNBC story I put up, it’s fascinating how desperate some people are to talk about anything but the subject.

29

Not true. You framed it in the context of whether the right is “Just as bad” as the left. That is a moral judgment. So the point is the prove that the right is just as bad as the left. You’re own words.

Then how can you default to the position that one isn’t as bad as the other? I’m jumping to the conclusion because you’ve stated the question in a way that makes it evident you believe the left is inferior to the right. If you stated it in a way that was neutral ie, “Here’s an example of media bias. Can anyone find any other examples of media bias.” Without a left/right context, you would’ve been fine. That’s why I responded when I read that stupid shit. So don’t pretend like it’s coming from nowhere. The left right paradigm is idiotic in the same way all generalizations are idiotic. If we are going to make stupid generalizations like that why not bring up how the USA literally signed a law almost immediately upon its founding banning certain aspects of free speech and discuss whether or not all Americans are in favor of censorship? That would be stupid right? A real boring fucking conversation that would prove nothing besides what is already obvious.

Already have. Again repeating myself.

Ha. No. I will repeat myself for the nth time. I said there are understandable pros and predictable cons. If you can’t understand gray what the fuck are you doing on a philosophy forum?

Forgot he died. Substitute him for any other similar opinionated blowhard. The fact that I have to argue that media isn’t “fair and balance” and that you won’t admit that it is evidence of an internal bias, whether explicit or implicit is so fucking mind numbing especially when there have been literally hundreds of articles written about it.

Yes. Who cares if it is in practice either way? Irrelevant.

You’re really stuck on the smoking gun like a murderer needs to say they’re going to murder someone before they do it in order to consider it murder. I get that there’s a difference between degree of murder (which is still under investigation, and I’m not arguing that), but that doesn’t resurrect the dead body. Your question is something like, “Is murderer A worse than murderer B because murderer A said they would murder and murderer B just made a lot of preparations for decades but never put it on paper.” But you continue to pretend you never made a comparison between the two ideologies, even though the smoking gun that you did is in writing. Funny how that works right? I mean I can’t go vague to make the greater point that your thread is dumb but you can go vague to defend your bias when I’ve quoted it repeatedly and you’ve ignored it like I don’t have eyeballs or something.

30

K: as someone who actually read the article, I can say Uccisore is full of it. The article is quite clear about
what is going to happen if, IF, certain events happen. If Clinton clinches by March 15, Kos is not going to
rehash the Bernie meme and it will move on from that. It will not allow dick waving contest about trump or
any GOP candidate. The rules that KOS wants are simple basic rules that will allow KOS to move into
the general elections. Kos is assuming that Clinton will be the democratic choice and will wait for
the GOP candidate and in doing so, will want certain rules in regard to how comments are about
Clinton and that candidate. In fact, what KOS has done is basically keeping comments focused on
the present and future and not the past which what comments about Bernie would be, assuming Clinton
wins after 3/15 which she is very likely to do. The rules that have Ucc up in arms are basic rules meant
to keep the discussion moving forward and not to the past, I.E about how Bernie would be a better
candidate and the like. Of course, UCC didn’t actually bring up these points because he is
interested in making points instead of speaking the truth. Read the article honestly and you will
see, it is clear about what KOS is doing and why. The only untruth here is Ucci and his
take on the KOS matter.

Kropotkin

31

Ucc, since you’re like the ultra conservative dude here, will you make a thread about all the reasons to hate Hillary Clinton so that I can decide if I hate her or not? I know you’re good at finding the best stuff for hating on a liberal, and I wanna see what’s so bad about her and how bad it is. I mean I wanna hear about the Benghazi stuff, how she let Bill get head from an intern, bad wife, mother, shady real estate deals I mean all of it. You should make the thread man just do it.

32

As someone who also read it, that’s still a form of censorship. Telling people they can’t say bad things about someone because the purpose is no longer relevant is still censorship.

Plus it assumes people will treat the nomination like the end for Bernie which they probably won’t and according to democratic theory really they shouldn’t. They ideally would vote for the guy they want. But we all know the system is retarded and we all know the typical games people play. So they resort to this, as will every other network trying to organize support.

Organizing people often involves telling groups to shut the fuck up. People do it all the time, at parties, at restaurants, making dinner plans with a bunch of indecisive people, making a decision on a creative group project, at a movie theater, during a show, etc. etc. That is all censorship in a perfectly typical acceptable form and Ucci is treating it like no one in the history of humanity has ever told someone to stop talking about a thing they found offensive on their property. Or like it’s a discussion about the integrity of journalism like journalism has a lot of integrity to begin with. I don’t know what the fuck the point is. Who cares if you find an unremarkable piece of trash in a landfill? That’s what every normal human expects to find.

33

Probably not. Media/academic bias is a bigger focus for me than the ups and downs of any particular candidate.

34

Right, hence my question. Is a political blog basing it’s editorial and online comment policy around supporting the political strategy of a particular candidate normal and acceptable? I don’t read the Kos- is it a known thing that the Kos exists as a media extension of the DNC, or was it supposed to be a general leftist publication? This is an important distinction since, as I’m sure you know, there are shitloads of leftists that can’t stand Hillary, and will still be wanting to say why after March 15th.

OK, so that’s another lefty who thinks what the Daily Kos is doing here is just fine. This is exactly the kind of information I wanted. As I said before, I have never heard of a conservative source doing this, nor do I think conservatives would stand for it. All the conservative online outlets I am aware of will certainly be allowing “Trump sucks” (or Cruz sucks, or whomever the nominee) articles and comments on their sites all the way to November and beyond. Paints an interesting parallel in what you want out of your news.

On a related question- would you be ok with MSNBC doing the same thing?

35

The question is, is the Daily Kos the kind of place that people expect to be organizing folks in this way for this reason.

OK, you and PK think this is an acceptable thing to do. That’s what I wanted to know!

36

K: actually if you read me, I make no comment pro or con about KOS. I simple state what I think
KOS is aiming for which is to keep its site from becoming a war between the two different sides of the
demo’s which is one side pro Bernie and the other side pro Clinton. Once Clinton wins the nomination
and I am guessing she will, then KOS wants to keep the site on focus to Clinton and not the, Bernie would
have be a better candidate, meme. Personally, I favor Bernie, but have no problem with Clinton.
I can see why KOS would do this and I don’t actually think it is censorship. KOS simply wants
the focus to stay with the dem candidate, whomever it is, and not on what could or should have been.
When Clinton wins, KOS wants the focus on Clinton’s policies and not the past, which will be Bernie.

Kropotkin

37

Gotta love the hypocrisy in Uccisore. That he would intentionally ignore subtlety and misquote people to make himself feel better, while railing against dishonesty in media.

Meanwhile he’s pretending that he’s not anti liberal by arguing against what he thinks are liberals. This is the most cliche play in every biased media it’s amazing that he’s too dumb to see it.

There is a certain beauty in this though. Because if he does censor anyone in this thread he will be censoring something with regards to political campaigns. So logically speaking you could call him a dumb cunt all day and if he takes actions against you he provides his own evidence that he’s a fucktard.

38

Come on man. Just this one time. Plus the media bias thing has kinda gone out the window a bit with all the media outlets available these days. Hell, anyone can confirm any bias they want with a quick internet search. Academic bias…well, it’s not the left wing’s fault that they’re more in favor of education and therefore on average end up with more of it. Should be dumb down stuff so that everyone can get a trophy? Wait…is that socialism? I’m confused. Let’s just do the thread on why Hillary is a horrible choice for president. I don’t really like her that much. I probably wont vote. If she was black maybe, but she’s just another rich old lady who lives behind a gate in a neighborhood where I couldn’t even get a job blowing her leaves. So just make the thread man come on. I never ask you to do anything.

39

I didn’t say you were pro or con Kos. I said you were defending their behavior in this instance as an acceptable thing to do, and that’s precisely what you’re doing.

It would be the easiest thing for any lefty to condemn this- their cred as a progressive wouldn’t be at stake, manipulating the media is this way isn’t a liberal core value after all.

But apparently you’re fine with it.

40

I don’t care about any of those words you typed, I read like six of them, scattered throughout your paragraph.

What do you think of what the Daily Kos’ decision here?