Why Kos was Right to Ban My Sorry Ass.

There but before the grace of Kos go I.

I'm not being sarcastic, I believe I've had a revelation about this.

This is not an open forum where 1st ammendment rules apply and everyone should be given the right to say what ever they like and the rest of us should defend to the death your right to say it.

It's a club. It's a club for progressives who are interested in forwarding the progressive cause.

In any club there are rules.

I wasn't following them.

I got banned. End of story.

I think that I, along with many others mistook the fact that anyone can contribute here with the right to contribute here.

I wrongfully assumed that a democratic forum should be under strict guidelines to follow democratic priciples and grant immunity to any and all forms of language.

I wrongly assumed that just because Markos may have had a certain ideal for this forum, that the audience had taken it to a new realm, beyond the owners control.

In short, I inflicted my own ideal for this forum onto everyone else and demanded compliance. I urged others to my side in order to further my agenda onto this forum.

There is a word for that.

Mutiny.

Perhaps the most difficult thing in life for humanity is finding the strength to put the shoe on the other foot. I was jolted into doing that yesterday and realized that If were in Markos shoes I very likely might have done the same thing.

Markos created this. It is ultimately his.

Probably the main thing I overlooked when applying my democratic ideals onto this forum was another democratic ideal: The right to build what you want, where you want and apply some rules (within limits) to allowing the use of it.

What I and others have attempted to do with Markos' creation is to cite eminent domain over Markos' intellectual property.

Had I not gotten banned, I likely would have never been forced to explore my own hypocrisy. So I thank Markos for that. I was sent a message that could not be delivered in words.

I took a look over at redstate.org this morning to see if they made mention of the Kos Purge.
I didn't see any but I did see that they are enacting a purge of their own.

And they have every right to do that.

Anarchy is not democracy. And Vice Versa.

•  I am glad

  that Markos  gave me a day to think things over before leting me back in. If he had let me back yesterday I would be cringing over the childish lashing out that I would have written.

  by Brian Nowhere on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 10:26:32 AM PDT

  •  Welcome back. n/t

    by x on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 10:30:57 AM PDT

  •  Brian

    Yes, Kos'purge was noticed and applauded yesterday at Red State.  Was in a comment, not a diary.  Several Red Staters lurk here.  I missed your diary that got you purged.  That's okay!  Don't repost it just for me.  ;>

    by elveta on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 11:32:14 AM PDT

    •  the Red State purge is underway

      And though I am ambivalent about what Kos did, I think the Red State purge will turn it from lively discussion to a repetitive echo chamber.  Time will tell.

      by Fabian on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 12:59:11 PM PDT

•  ride your sorry ass back in here

  I hope I am not offending anyone but am reminded of the old joke about Mary riding Joseph's sorry ass all the way to Bethlehem.

  ha ha I hope.

  by seesdifferent on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 10:31:46 AM PDT

•  Well...

  ...I really do need to bust out with my DKos Constitutional Monarchy concept. I think we're very wrong to assume that this is Kos' site - anytime a community forms, nobody can claim authorship or ownership over it. All Kos owns is the software and hardware. Nothing else.

  That having been said, you're absolutely right about communities needing to have and enforce rules. I think banning members is perfectly fine if they have violated community standards. All I ask is that those standards be reached democratically, and enforced by democratically-elected folks (or, in the case of Kos, the monarch...hopefully the outlines of my Constitutional Monarchy concept are becoming clear).

  by eugene on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 10:34:28 AM PDT

  •  Where's that diary

    about Constitutional Monarchy you've been hinting at?  I'd be open to taxation (subscription) if we had more representation.

    by Rusty Pipes on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 11:44:27 AM PDT

    •  Heh

      He hasn't written it yet that I know of, but I wish he would because I'm thinking a Constitutional Monarch is exactly what I support.

      In so far as whose site this is, yes it's what the community makes of it in large part, but the owner gets to decide if unproven, bad information isn't dragging his/her site down to an intolerable place that he/she cannot abide.

      by Cathy on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 12:45:44 PM PDT

•  Yes, welcome back

  by Sunqueen212 on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 10:34:48 AM PDT

•  My ass is sorry too...

  (-6.75, -3.85)

  by mapKY on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 10:44:49 AM PDT

  •  Actually,...

    ...I've heard that you've got a great ass.  ;-)

    by boran2 on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 12:48:39 PM PDT

•  Oh, dear:

  I just had to follow your sorry link over to the Redstate purge...

  where I read, verbatim...

  Do not assume you can win an argument with Known Facts. Many things that Kossacks consider to be Known Facts are considered to be Known Lies on this side of The Big Ditch. Reciting Known Facts is another quick way to meet the bouncer. Ordinary facts are welcome, but Known Facts are considered to be evidence of hostile intent. "Bush lied" is an example of a Known Fact.

  Certainly, you can't win an argument with a Redstater using facts; so I have no quibble with the first sentence.  As for the rest of the paragraph, I'm stunned that they consider there to be a difference between "Bush lied" and "ordinary facts".  Apparently the difference is that ordinary facts are facts they don't mind being true.

  by osterizer on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 10:46:37 AM PDT

  •  I hate to defend redstate

    And the shoddy phrasing of the above is pretty indefensible, but at the heart of what they are saying I think is the same thing Markos is trying to impress upon us.

    The gist is that if you are going ot engage in discourse with someone, you should be armed with some sources to back yourself up. Speculation and innuendo can only devolve into a Crossfire type exchange.

    We all know how productive that show was.
    

    by Brian Nowhere on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 10:59:08 AM PDT

    •  I'm not convinced...

      You write,

      The gist is that if you are going ot engage in discourse with someone, you should be armed with some sources to back yourself up.

       

      I don't think that's Redstate's intent at all.  Further down the page that I cited in my earlier comment, they give the example of not being willing to deal with the "Reagan called a tomato a vegetable" assertion.  (Of all the wrong things Reagan ever did, this one is the most inconsequential, IMO, but it's not my example.)  

      There are plenty of sources for that particular assertion, and the truth of that assertion ought to be beyond dispute.  It's an assertion that -- like the equally indisputable "Bush lied" -- cannot be spun into a positive for the Republicans, so it's an inadmissible "Known Fact".  

      Suggesting that Redstate's motivation is that of Markos's -- that unpopular statementss need to be supported with sources -- doesn't jibe with Redstate's own tomato example.

      by osterizer on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 01:16:14 PM PDT

  •  Oh, I read that article.

    The article is rude because it make ridiculous assumptions about people from the other side of the Ditch and if it is the way Red State really thinks about Dems or Indpendents, Red State is going to become yet another echo chamber.

    I checked out the Dark Syde experience and one other person who went over and got banned.  It is weird over there.  Sure if you over with the intent of getting in their faces, you are asking to get banned.  But Red State has a chip on their shoulder which isn't really helped when people from Daily Kos make a circus out of their experiences there.  So they get bent out of shape when they think people are posting with intent to ridicule.  Even if people are trying hard to have an honest conversation, being a kos poster makes them automatically suspect.

    That's sad because I'd like to go over there and lurk with intent to post sometime.  I'd like to go over there honestly with this username.  But it would be ridiculous for me to have to put up with the "You're just some troll from dKos who wants to mock us." attitude every time I comment.  I haven't decided what I'll do yet.  Perhaps I'll slink over under an assumed identity.

    by Fabian on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 11:57:00 AM PDT

    •  Hell, no, I wouldn't.

      I feel very strongly about my political beliefs; I feel just as strongly about the accuracy of my sources.  Of course Bush has lied -- we've seen it over and over again.  For example, in the 2004 debates he claimed not to have ever said he "wasn't worried" about bin Laden.  How can a Redstater look at the video of what he said, and what he claimed not to have ever said and then not say he lied?  

      I can't bring myself to participate in an environment where I'm having to self-censor or risk expulsion.  (And, in fact, I once left a job over my refusal to self-censor about my sexual orientation.  "You can be gay and work here, but for god's sake, don't let our clients find out!")  Redstate's "warning" is an insurance policy against the site ever blossoming into a true exchange of ideas.

      by osterizer on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 01:10:08 PM PDT

      •  Damn, Integrity is burden!

        Which is why the Presidency weighs so lightly on Bush's shoulder.

        You on the other hand, carry your cross proudly!

        by Fabian on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 01:35:24 PM PDT

•  congratulations!

  it's always good to see things come to a healthy resolution and understanding.  glad to have you back.  and i wish to god there was a way to inject your graciousness and cluefulness into the pea brains with the "no i won't delete my two-sentence diary.  too bad that you don't like it!" approach to dkos.

  thank you and welcome back to the fold!

  one note about why kos has every right to ban and why it is, at the end of the day, about him more than the community:

  he has a professional reputation as a writer to maintain.  now, of course people can understand the fact that if kos didn't write it, it doesn't necessarily reflect his opinions.  but we all know that such nuance has a habit of escaping the red tide, so...

  by Cedwyn on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 11:06:16 AM PDT

•  if you build it

  Probably the main thing I overlooked when applying my democratic ideals onto this forum was another democratic ideal: The right to build what you want, where you want and apply some rules (within limits) to allowing the use of it.

  Well said.  This is an important shared value of the progressive community.

  Anyone who isn't happy about it is welcome to start his or her own blog, and if it grows exponentially and starts to scare the pants off the Republican party, they too can watch people try to hijack it away from its original intent.  I hope they enjoy the experience.

  Thanks for coming back.

  by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 11:14:21 AM PDT

•  Yes

  Really, there is only one principled and progressive approach to participation at dKos--unless you are thyunderously applauding and seconding the wisdom of the Great Leader and the Dear Leader (DHinMI and Armando), then you'd otherwise best shut your fucking piehole, or you deserve to be banned.

  Good to see the anti-Kos wreckers coming forward to admit their thoughtcrimes, like the chickens in Animal Farm that voluntarily came forward to admit their treason of stealing corn and hiding eggs.Fortunately those traitor chickens were ripped to pieces by Napoleon's dogs, and such wayuward Kossacks deserve no less.

  by Dancing Larry on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 11:33:20 AM PDT

  •  TCOCL

    You paranoid, pareidoliac, allusion-happy Chicken Littles become more ridiculous, desparate, and pathetic by the day. If you think DK is getting Stalinist you have an ability no Russia had under Stalin's rule, you can leave.

    by Addison on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 11:40:48 AM PDT

    •  Well,

      the loudest martyrs are always the least oppressed.

      This is all about high school...popularity still matter most to those with the smallest minds.

      Selfishness and entitlement are the real values these people are trying to protect under the gleaming banner of freedom and democratic principles.

      Stupid.

      by Calishfornia on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 11:45:58 AM PDT

    •  Wow..

      you used "pareidoliac" what an intellect.

      Animal Farm does not equal "Stalinist". It is a fictional story which is open to many innterpretations, nit.
      

      by assyrian64 on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 12:11:20 PM PDT

      •  Shows how much you know

        You pathetically insult me for using a "big word" -- deploying a risible anti-intellectualism -- and then you further your disdain for the truth by disregarding the clear allegory Orwell was using in Animal Farm. Yes it can be applied broadly, but it was based on Stalin's use of propaganda, lies, and paranoia (of Trotskyites) to keep control of a revolutionized populace.

        by Addison on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 12:39:44 PM PDT

        •  I love you, Addison --

          Following up assyrian64's critique of the word "paredoliac" with a post containing the word "risible" is brilliant, subdolous snark.

          by osterizer on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 01:35:13 PM PDT

  •  But, but...

    its Mr. Kos's Farm. He has the right to ban those of us who arrogantly wandered onto his farm thinking this it was an area for open debate among progressives and did not obey the farm rules, ie,  "fealty to the Democratic Party over principle", etc.

    I confess! I am interested in hearing different points of view, even those deemed "wacko conspiracy theories" by the farm elders! I confess I believe I have the right and ability to define what is "wacko" and what is not without approval from farm elders.  I shall send myself off to the Siberia of DU!

    by assyrian64 on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 11:59:39 AM PDT

    •  I'm

      interested in hearing different points of vew as well.  

      But it's a big world (and internet) out there, with free will to boot.

      To sit here and cry martyr over this issue is like stamping your feet and bitching at the owner of your nearest and most favorite deli because they stopped selling "your brand" of prosciutto.

      And now you may have to make (gasp!)2 stops and walk a few extra blocks to fulfill your needs.  

      The horror.

      I can't see how this is about anything more than laziness, selfishness and popularity issues.

      by Calishfornia on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 12:10:42 PM PDT

      •  True, true

        but nonetheless, many of us who dont like the idea of "purging" have been around here for a long time, have contributed a lot to the the popularity of this site and really have enjoy the format and opinions.

        You make the mistake I see many on this site make: you quickly paint with too broad of a brush. Many of those you are now telling to pack up and go are not "conspiracy theorists" but are simply liberals and progressives who don't like the idea of "purging". And BTW, we are not "crying", we are not calling people "Stalinist" as the jerk above claims. We are however very disappointed that a site we have come to love over the last few years is changing so radically.

        Of course it is Kos's site however and you are right, we have the ability to leave. But you who are so eager to tell those of us who have been here for years to "take a walk" are simply not appreciating how the different voices have helped make this site what it is. It will be both your loss and ours, if we choose to stay around.

        by assyrian64 on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 12:33:06 PM PDT

        •  40,000 Leagues Under The Truth

          You just are committed to plumbing the depths of ignorance, aren't you. You honestly think people haven't been called "Stalinist" on Daily Kos over this purging business?

          by Addison on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 12:41:16 PM PDT

          •  plumbing the depths of ignorance

            evidently equals any dialogue you're involved in.

            read your posts on this thread. they suck.

            by RabidNation on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 01:27:54 PM PDT

            •  From you that comment is Manna.

              by Addison on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 02:15:42 PM PDT

  •  You're Just Pissed About the Rubber Truncheons

    That and the fact that I killed your family, stole your farm, appropriated all your livestock, burned your church, took away your ability to worship publically, and worst of all, imposed rationing on hyperbole.  

    by DHinMI on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 12:43:31 PM PDT

  •  Oh, Nice Job Sticking to the Talking Points

    I see today's talking points for your pathetic little group include calling people "Stalinists."  

    When it comes to looking sad and pathetic, you guys never fail to disappoint.

    by DHinMI on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 12:46:18 PM PDT

    •  There are options

      Well, the talking points are to either accuse people of being Stalinists OR to claim that no one is calling anyone Stalinists...

      by Addison on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 02:16:43 PM PDT

      •  Multi-Purpose Sosphistry

        I'm impressed...

        by DHinMI on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 02:43:12 PM PDT

  •  Heh

    When do I get to ban markos, who contradicted me on Miller?

    For that matter, when do I get to ban you, Madman, et al?

    The irony of your comment, as always, boggles the mind.

    Here's what you should, change LSF to scoop and be THAt forum you demand.

    by Armando on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 02:44:27 PM PDT

•  Purges...

   Kos is not running a government or a country; he's running his own weblog. He can do anything he wants with it. But I love the give and take, the critical reading that goes on here, and I hope that Kos is not becoming like the establishment democratics I talk to who have no interest in anything but the most moderate discourse, devoid of conspiracy theories or anything else that might rock the boat.
    I mean really, with the layers and layers of lies and deceits and crimes coming out of the Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld governing combine, could we or should we ever be concerned about the quality of our discourse?

  by el maso on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 12:35:34 PM PDT

•  so...

  once you've confessed to thoughtcrime, they shoot you, don't they?

  seriously: glad yer sticking around. don't necessarily agree with your take on things, but that's cool.

  by RabidNation on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 01:29:51 PM PDT

•  Pretty funny

  Cuz I disagree with him.

  ButI support the censorship approach - delete offending diaries.

  by Armando on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 02:40:17 PM PDT