The Guardian newspaper was caught with their pants down today viagra. This 'liberal' left newspaper, which has a dwindling readership of around 320,000 a day, down from its usual 440,000 of a few years ago, has much to answer for.
Readers may be aware that this half of Boaty & D follows the big 'Comment is Free' blog of the Guardian online cialis price. For those who don't know, 'Comment is Free' is a section of the Guardian Unlimited website that includes prominent and less prominent articles from a range of feature writers viagra.
Underneath each article is a comments section where readers may contribute to debate cialis. It is an enormously popular 'blog', and thousands of people flock there every day to pop their ideas down.
As the Guardian is a 'liberal' paper, you can expect to read some fairly left wing (in a contemporary sense) pieces, and many contributors are of the new wave of left wing thinkers. In other words, the sorts of people that Nick Cohen identified in his book 'What's Left?'
But don't be fooled. A huge number of contributors to this 'Comment is Free' site are from all over the political spectrum, left through to right, through to libertarian and all sorts. It is because of these people that I go to 'CIF', not to contribute, but to pay close attention to the very interesting debates that rage through the threads.
'Comment is Free' is run by a moderation team down there in Farringdon. The site is so huge, and the comments go up instantly, so there must obviously be some ground rules . Otherwise the place would descend into a pit of libel and abuse . That is their rationale, anyway viagra. And so what you can't do on there is call people cunts, accuse people of pedophilia, use the 'N' word or any other unacceptable form of ad hominem attack which tends to troll debate to a grinding halt.
However, today I came across quite a scoop .
You see, the other day I was following a thread on an article by 'G' author Andrew Green . The article is called 'How to tackle immigration'.
I am familiar with a number of regular contributors in 'CIF' debate, and low and behold, one such interesting fellow (I think it's a bloke) who I follow turned up on the discussion. The contributor, who I find immensely interesting and intelligent, is called 'dissident junk', or at least that was what this person was called - I don't know if he has decided to pack it all in and delete his account after this sorry sham.
'Dissident Junk' had posted several comments in the discussion voicing his opinion and personal perspective on the immigration debate. The comments were not rude, abusive, inflammatory or at all libelous. They were not against any individual or body, but rather an over view on immigration in the UK. The stuff of informative and constructive debate .
Boaty & D readers are fully aware of how much we despise racism, and how we detest the sly, sneaky methods people employ in order to attack those of different backgrounds and minorities.
There was nothing wrong in what 'Dissident Junk' said. I agreed with his comments, in the main, but even if I had not agreed, I still could not have argued that the comments breached the 'Comment is Free' rules.
What a grave shame, then, that this is not how the Guardian saw it.
Two people seen debating earlier on today on the Guardian's 'Comment is Free' pages - As you can see, there has been some minor editing, but this had to be done: they strayed from the accepted editorial line.I checked the thread a day after catching on to it, only to find all evidence of a number of 'Dissident Junk's' posts removed by the moderators.
"This does not make sense", I thought. "There are no plausible grounds for this utter outrage? This is wanton censorship".
Boaty & D readers know what passionate, stubborn defenders of free speech we are. Our readers know that we reject even the oft stated 'libertarian' mantra of 'their property, their rules' when it comes to free speech. People must be able to join a forum, and have the right to free speech.
Well, regardless of any private property issue, the rules imposed by 'CIF' themselves were clearly not infringed.
So, I decided to take the matter further. I tracked 'Dissident Junk' down on the internet, and I managed to get through to his email account. I asked 'Dissident Junk' a simple question, and to my delight, he responded.
I asked: "what the hell happened on that 'CIF' thread? I noticed your comments were deleted by the mods. Did you find out why?"
Here is a reproduction of his reply:
---
"Hi, Yes, I was a bit astonished by what happened on that CIF thread
With reference to your question, the first post they deleted was one in response to a point an earlier poster had made that "hating someone because they were different to you was primitive and pathetic".
I tend to step back and examine statements like this in the round. Difference can be found in a great many facets of life and I think such a statement as the one that poster stated is actually incredibly naive.
So I questioned whether that assertion could stand for every circumstance of 'difference', and queried whether it was reasonable to, say, hate someone who executed his wife because she couldn't bare a male heir, or who adopted children only to kill them and claim on insurance, or who would torture old women as witches, or who would tie fire brands to small creatures and watch them and laugh as they burned.
I said these examples would be of people who were dramatically 'different' to me and asked whether it be "primitive" and "pathetic" of me to hate them. I gave about five examples, all of which I purposefully chose from English history, because I was trying to make the point, somewhat subtly I admit, that many modern British people would find the attitudes and perspectives of historical English figures so different to theirs as to be repugnant, and were modern Brits to suddenly find themselves in 16th and 17th century England, they would find the "difference" between them and those people, in cultural and social attitude, to be so different to theirs that they would struggle not to loathe those people -- even though they were not of a different 'ethnic' culture to theirs.
I think this is a valid point. There are far too many unexamined general assertion of ideology on CIF and so many do not stand up to scrutiny. That said, there was abolsutely nothing in that post that was remotely offensive or rude or that contravened their community standards. The second post deletion is the one that most bothered me.
I wrote about some of the sectarian conflicts and tensions that my region is experiencing. I remember my introductory line: "over the last four years, we have seen serious race riots in my region". I went onto explain that we have had two incidences of riots between migrant groups (Hungarian vs Pakistani, Kurdish vs Pakistani) and these had been very serious and the weapons used has been lethal.
Then I wrote about an incident where a young Kurdish Muslim asylum seeker had been jumped and beaten so badly he was left with brain damage, because the certain elements in the area thought that because he was Kurish, he was, in some way, "anti-Iraqi" and "pro-western-intervention-in-the-Muslim-world". I also point out that his aggressors were not Iraqis, nor Arabs, nor Turks, nor anyone from a community that had direct historical animosities with the Kurdish peoples.
I then said that although neither black or white people in the region had been involved in these conflicts, they knew about them and it did colour how they felt about immigration and the success of the multiculturalist model.
To be honest, I can only see that CIF moderators deleted this comment because a) they do not want these sort of issues publicised and b) because they do not want these issues debated on their comment site. I felt that the deletion of my comments (which I do not think, in any way, contravened their community standards) constituted censorship.
What I feel is most important about this is that it is not a censorship of free speech -- in fact, I gave no personal opinions about the matter -- but, instead, censorship of incidents and events whose details are in the public domain and have been reported in the media.
In short, this was censorship of reported facts. This is what most bothered me about the deletion of my second comment -- that they deleted it because they did not want to publicise fact. The third deletion was a post I made asking why they had deleted the other two. I said it smelt of censorship, and within ten minutes that was gone too.
I hope I have answered your queries. It is always nice to know that other people notice your words and you are putting something out there when you post your perspectives into the blogosphere. By the way, I read your blog. You seem really hung up on private property rights. Why is that?"
----
I have put into bold the part of the email I want to particularly highlight. This is a very serious attack on free speech by the left's and the government's representative in the print media. They do not want certain things publicised or talked about.
In other words, Comment is not 'Free'. Speech and opinion and demonstration of simple fact is not 'free'. This is a massive transgression of liberty and the democratic right to speak freely. There is no justification in this.
I have not yet replied to 'Dissident Junk's' mail. When I do, I may well point out that he is not to be disheartened. This is how the left do 'free speech' and so long as people like Boaty & D are around, we'll ensure it is pointed out constantly and that wide publicity is given over to these shameful, hypocritical events.
'Dissident Junk' used to be a very popular, and well respected contributor to 'CIF' from my observations. He is too good for that fucking site. He might want to consider setting up his own blog, and firing away from there.
I wish Dissident Junk well, and I plead with our readers to give this story wider publicity. Because the more people realise what the bullshit liberals are doing to this country, to national debate and to journalism, the better.
Fuck 'CIF', fuck the Guardian, and fuck the bullshit pseudo-left wing 'liberal' weirdos. Those people who pretend they are about free speech, when in fact they couldn't give a mother fuck either way, so long as they get their ideas through the mechanisms of the state.
32 comments:
Today's intellectual left were high jacked by New Labour in their heyday of the late nineties and still remain under that "Third Way" spell, of which they don't seem to be able to cast aside. There's the story of when novelist Martin Amis went to question the then Prime Minister Blair at some get together of Continental leaders, and asked him whether they would be discussing the subject of immigration amongst the many other topics on the agenda.
Apparently Blair replied, with disarming honesty, "It’s a subterranean conversation". To which Amis replied: "We know what that means,” “The ethos of relativism finds the demographic question so saturated in revulsion's that it is rendered undiscussable.”
Nothings changed since that time. The Guardian, The BBC, and countless other left wing institutions refuse instinctively to discuss such concerns, and in that void of frustration emitted by these leftist institutions toward an ever more uneasy public, it gives ample opportunity to the Nick Griffins of this World, to fill in the dots and cross the dashes for his own political ideology of hate.
Comment was only free in the Guardian when the left ruled the roost, and were able to stage manage the topics of which the public were allowed to discuss. Now that those times are no more, and as with all Socialist entities when the birds come home to roost, comment is now highly censored, to avoid the topics that expose the shortcomings of their attempted "Third Way" utopia, which has now ultimately failed.
While we shouldn't be surprised that the Guardian is taking this view, I'm appalled that this has occurred.
The contempt for free speech has filtered down from the cabinet office, the troops are 'self policing'. Would the guardian editorial team think this was an acceptable way for the people of China to be treated?
A similar thing occurred a few months back when a Californian blogger Norcal casadora posted a series of comments on an animal rights pice published by Huffpo, none of here comments or mine asking for an explanation ever appeared on the site.
Both the guardian and Huffpo have an important role to play in the dissemination of ideas, sad that editorial bias has stifled free speech, even sadder that neither seem to offer a way to appeal or debate these decisions.
SBW
Here's the link
http://norcalcazadora.blogspot.com/2009/06/huffington-post-hsus-and-dissent.html
When comments which abide by the sites rules are removed or simply don't make it through the moderation one is left with the following (assuming comments are allowed in the first but that's another matter).
1. The comment is simply binned because it goes against the views/mantra of whatever site you are posting.
2. The mods are poorly educated.
3. The mods are just plain lazy and just bin comments randomly to 'look' as though they are doing their job.
l'm at a loss to know of any of the nationals that actually allow free speech. lndeed it goes further than that and filters down to your local newspapers where it seems anything remotely controversial the comments are heavily moderated ... or just comments are not allowed at all.
When comments are binned it is just so annoying. You've taken the time to write a reply, adherred to the rules and have a point to make. You hit send and wait for your comment to appear ... and wait .... and wait .... and wait.
You finally come to the conclusion that it is not going to appear and are left with:-
'What the fuck did l do?' (h/t The Wire)
With CIF it is pro-active, deliberate censorship. They see the comments they really don't want others to read, and they delete. You ask for an explanation for the deletion, and the explanation is deleted. Ad infinitum.
They are so utterly arrogant, they refuse to acknowledge your existence, instead hoping you'll go away and shut up.
This is why I plead with readers to give this publicity. This is surely a cause worth fighting for?
Unlike other papers online, CIF comments get posted instantly. With others, they don't and they get checked first.
Therefore with CIF, it takes somewhat of an active, roving eye to spot dissent and to smash it.
I sometimes post very critical comments on the Daily Mail site (which recently changed so that comments go up instantly). I'll be fair to them, they always keep them up. They might get panned with many negative arrows (readers get to vote), but I've not seen a deletion under the new regime.
Maybe they've listened and learned from the bad old days of picking and choosing what to put up.
Either way, this seems particularly bad at the Guardian and it's doubly worse because CIF is such a massive and well read blog which attracts a good degree of intellectual debate.
Well, that won't last if they carry on with the Pravda routine.
Forget Old bloody Holborn's puerile juvelinia. This is the sort of thing that needs talking about.
*the REQUEST for explanation is deleted. To amend my first para. Sorry for the mistake.
"hating someone because they were different to you was primitive and pathetic"
What a numpty! You 'like' particular people because, in one way or another, they are 'like' you. Resonance. The clue is in the etymology!
BTW, why on earth are you starting a flame war with OH? Dealing with censorship at the Grauniad isn't really addressing the extraordinary and unprecedented emergency in which Britain finds itself. You come across as 10 years behind the times. Britain has become such a fascist hellhole that I've fled to Canada. We still have habeas corpus and the rule of law, it's ace! (Well, if you forget about Harper proroguing parliament whenever it suits him, but that's for another time.)
'thousands of people flock there every day to pop their ideas down'
Like bees to the honey pot eh boys. You despise racism, yet you spew your racist bile here all the time.
CiF is censoring anyone who writes educated comments criticising the poor science at the basis of the highly-amplified AGW hypothesis. This has been picked up in the blogosphere.
Comments from people who write OTT nonsense are allowed in.
There appears to be an unfortunate invsasion of idiots to this thread.
An anonymous gutless snake said: "Like bees to the honey pot eh boys. You despise racism, yet you spew your racist bile here all the time."
Provide evidence of this utter libelous slur, you little worm.
'An anonymous gutless snake said: "Like bees to the honey pot eh boys. You despise racism, yet you spew your racist bile here all the time."
Provide evidence of this utter libelous slur, you little worm.'
I was wondering about that one too. Boaty and D are many things but racists?
SBW
Lunatic Arms, no one cares what you think, so fuck off.
(Freedom of speech fail)
I can see various points here, although I find Stan's "people getting what they deserve" comment slightly strange. Are you saying that, in law, the punishment given by a judge should be ten minutes being crushed with poles and bats until you suffer brain damage?
Where the fuck do we live, Yeman?
(Poor spelling and racist remark fail)
Twat
'My knowledge of Yemani law is irrelevant as far as it is vicious for all crimes'.
ie I know fuck all about fuck all, but because its 'foreign' in my head its therefore vicious, because somewhere in my conditioned mind I read that it was, it is fact.
FFS
Another anonymous OH shilling prick states that we have committed a freedom of speech 'fail'.
If that were the case, we'd have deleted the comment in question or barred the comment-maker. Which we haven't.
Telling someone to fuck off is not tantamount to restricting free speech.
You OH trolls need to try harder.
What about the racist remarks then ?
Horrible vicious Islamic States,and horrible foreign people over here giving punishment beating that go beyond 'our' laws.
Dripping with racist sentiment
I have no idea what you are on about or what you could be alluding to.
This doesn't remind me of anything I've written. You libelous troll.
How convenient!
Anon,
The comment thread from which you have lifted 'Yeman' out of context and was with I am Stan, is nothing to do with racism.
He said, or I took it as such, that he thought brutal punishments were good (he later clarified but hey). I asked where he thought we lived, Yeman (a country that uses brutal and harsh punishments). I could have used a range of countries, I picked one out of a hat
He then took it down a very Yemani based route talkign about precise Yemani issues, which I was not getting involved in as it was a throw away line, not a statement of my knowledge of Yemani law.
Nothing racist involved on any level.
"Horrible vicious Islamic States,and horrible foreign people over here giving punishment beating that go beyond 'our' laws."
That,very simply, is not what has been said. I have stated above and will state again, very clearly as you appear to have a low IQ, that I was referring to brutal punishments and used a country that uses them. At no point did I say anything about Muslims or Islam being horrible, let alone foreigners or even 'over here'.
And telling the Lunatic Arms (a racist BNP supporter) to fuck off, is not anythingto do with freedom of speech is it you total twat. if it was I wold have deleted his comment. I haven't, in fact he comments quite often here and we make it ver clear we do not support his views.
"but because its 'foreign' in my head its therefore vicious, because somewhere in my conditioned mind I read that it was, it is fact."
I hate to point this out, you cock, but Yeman is in fact foreign to the UK. Not in my head, on a map. And it is a pretty vicious country, I suggest you look it up. Not becaue it's foreign, but because it actually is, hence it's request for funding of its infrastructure to help beat terrorist extremists.
Twat.
We aren't racist, we have never said anything racist either in real life or on this blog. You are coming acriss like a complete prick and I fell quite sorry for you. You obviously read words in your own special way.
Oh hang on, that was racist! Foreign people rad words in different ways, and, like, I said you did so that must mean I hate Arabs and 'the foreigns'.
Dickhead.
Sorry for the spelling, I'm rattling off while I'm meant to be working.
rattle, oooh, sounds a bit racist!
"How convenient!"
convenient for whom? It is customary, when making accusations against an individual, to cite what it is the accusation is about and the evidence upon which it is based.
You do neither - so I'll assume that you haven't found any (because there isn't any) and that you are most likely an OH shilling troll.
How very very sad. You internet geeks are brilliant. Drag you out from behind your little keyboards and I'd love to see the look on your fucking faces.
No I must admit I do not have your ability to spin through hoops whilst trying to justify your racist remarks.
Boring now. Seriously, it's like you've got the day off from special school.
'Do you think we should have the punishments they do in Yeman'
That isn't racist numbnuts.
For slander to work the accusation has to be at least possible. What you are doing is deranged and just a little bit sad.
it's like you've got the day off from special school.
Jesus- you really have a sewer for a mind, who is next for your rapier wit
At the end of the day, it is their site. I oppose the stance my self but unless you buy the rag, humming and arhing won't change the mods.
To counter that, I use Digg quite a lot and if the article's mods won't allow my comment through, at least I have another venue to vent my anger (especially if it is in the Guardian).
I know Digg isn't the biggest thing but it does provide a good back-up.
JRjr
It has been interesting over the last few days to witness the level of intelligence of OH's fan club.
So they are the vanguard of the revolution? The establishment must be shaking in their boots.
Mr Rob sums up my entire position on the matter in 4 simple lines. I couldn't put it across better myself.
"a racist BNP supporter"
You're half right. As usual.
"if it was I would have deleted his comment. I haven't, in fact he comments quite often here and we make it very clear we do not support his views"
Thanks for not deleting my comments. But surely we agree on hating Labour?
Well, while I agree with everything you say re The Graun I can't let it be unsaid that my conversion to libertarianism is entirely thanks to cif. It was through their comments that I ended up reading the Devil's Kitchen, and, by a long and complicated route your blog. Ideas do get through their mods sometimes!
Oh, and wv= webarce. Bit apt I think, lol.
"But surely we agree on hating Labour?"
Of course.
I didn't think I was trolling. Thanks for ignoring me! Was my comment insufficiently intelligent or articulate? Never mind. I'll leave you to your pointless hateful bile. Last visit, I promise.
Good.
I wonder if the CIF contributors themselves get to have any say in the moderation of the threads beneath their own articles?
I rarely read the CIF comments, apart from those under Peter Tatchell's articles, as he always attracts a lively debate and often takes part in it himself. I somehow couldn't imagine him being happy with the sort of underhand goings on which you describe here.
good comment at 19:26
I'm a big fan of Tatchell.
Post a Comment