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.
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.