If I delete your comment, you'll get a note saying why. If it's held for moderation immediately after posting, that's an automatic function of the spam filter, over which I have no control except to fish things out. So if your comment is held for moderation, don't assume that this is some plot on my part; assume I haven't seen it. If it stays in the junk pile too long, email me, and I'll rescue it.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I'm sure you try.
But given how liberal your comment acceptance criteria ARE, I'd be surprised if most of the people whose comments you delete had the gumption to give you a functional email address.
But given how liberal your comment acceptance criteria ARE,
...right.
So is it not weird for supposed libertarians to be constantly censoring/advocating censoring comments? I mean, for a bunch of people who supposedly want to maximize freedom, you all sure do want to break out the big eraser an awful lot.
Freddie writes: "I mean, for a bunch of people who supposedly want to maximize freedom, you all sure do want to break out the big eraser an awful lot."
That's when they're not clamoring for teenagers to be locked up for decades for minor assaults committed in racially polarized circumstances.
I don't think this is the "Braveheart" standard of "FREEDOM." It's more like the Rudy Giuliani version.
So is it not weird for supposed libertarians to be constantly censoring/advocating censoring comments? I mean, for a bunch of people who supposedly want to maximize freedom, you all sure do want to break out the big eraser an awful lot.
What is the deal with this mixup between government censoring and private censoring? She can censor your butt (or anything else you might have hanging out) on her own page, but she has no say over what you say on yours. Whereas, with government censors we have a few hundred elected morons deciding on what both of you may say and not say. I'm sure Ms. McArdle is perfectly happy to know that you have the ability to broadcast idiotic statements, but that doesn't mean she has to broadcast them for you.
I'd be surprised if most of the people whose comments you delete had the gumption to give you a functional email address.
I suspect the note Ms. McA. is referring to is the "deleted for rampant trolling" one she's put up in place of deleted comments. You don't really believe she's going to e-mail everyone she feels she has to delete, do you? Although you might, since you seem to believe that "gumption" means guts, or courage. Of course, not much can be expected of someone w/ a MySpace page.
What is the deal with this mixup between government censoring and private censoring?
Okay, so censorship is the wrong word. The principal remains the same. And, look, what she-- and all of you-- really don't like is being disagreed with. Time after time after time here, people will post serious, adult, trenchant criticisms of MegArdle, and her supporters say, "Ah, it's just a troll." Maybe if you guys did a better job of actually recognizing and responding to intelligent criticism, instead of constantly playing the role of the aggrieved minority, I'd be a little more sympathetic to your utterly inconsistent pursuit of personal freedoms.
Or, perhaps, I'm being unfair.
I'm working on it.
"Maybe if you guys did a better job of actually recognizing and responding to intelligent criticism, instead of constantly playing the role of the aggrieved minority, I'd be a little more sympathetic to your utterly inconsistent pursuit of personal freedoms."
Come on, Freddie. A lot of these people are full of expletives and insults, but have nothing substantial to say about public policy. If the topic is health care they say "Libertarians want to kill the sick." If its taxes they say "Republican don't give a !$#@ about the poor." It's really tiresome.
Gee, Isocrates, it's almost as if Megan isn't welcome here, innit?
This is only the magazine that printed "Letter from a Birmingham Jail". "Jail the Jena 6" is a perfect continuation of that tradition, and wasn't based on a lack of a basic clue at all.
Seriously, Meg. Do basic research before writing, unless you want to put us out of business. Are you in a race to see how fast you can be fired?
Gee, I didn't realize Martin Luther King Jr. landed in the Birmingham jail because he and five other black guys beat up some white guy ...
Gee, I didn't realize Martin Luther King Jr. landed in the Birmingham jail because he and five other black guys beat up some white guy ...
Do you even know that a black student was beaten by white attackers and only one person was charged, with a misdemeanor? Do you even care about the most basic facts?
Freddie, are you really saying that vigilantism is ok if the vigilante has a legitimate gripe? Or is it that the vigilante with a gripe has to be black before you think vigilantism is ok?
How about "two wrongs don't make a right" - is that an acceptable position on this entire horrendous episode?
Freddie, are you really saying that vigilantism is ok if the vigilante has a legitimate gripe? Or is it that the vigilante with a gripe has to be black before you think vigilantism is ok?
Jesus God.
Honestly, why do people who clearly do not have the most basic grasp of the facts bother to comment on something at all?
I am not endorsing vigilantism. There has been no vigilantism whatsoever in this whole imbroglio in Jena. It's a question of equitable justice, where for similar crimes, two groups of people received wildly different charges, with the black group being the recipients of inappropriately harsh charges and the white group being the recipients of inappropriately light ones. This is happening in the context of a district attorney's office with a long history of racial discrimination. That is the issue, equitable punishment vs. racially discriminatory legal pressure.
I mean honestly, do a little homework.
Why do you assume that others don't have the facts just because they don't agree with you?
Why do you assume that others don't have the facts just because they don't agree with you?
When they fail to mention the salient details of the situation, and submit laughably biased accounts of the events-- of the kind "some black people beat up a white guy"-- than they are either ignorant of the facts or they are being intentionally obtuse. I went with the more charitable of the two.
Freddie, you have no clue what I have read about this case. Your arrogance is astounding. Freddie-thought is not the only correct thought. Otherws may look at the same facts and come to somewhat different conclusions - especially those of us who have legal training and sort of understand how the process works. Life isn't always fair, but the correct response to an unjust charging decision by a prosecutor isn't to insist on another unjust charging decision simply to even things up. The word for that is "asinine." Or "childish," as in "Freddie stamps his foot and screams because the world does'nt work the way he wants it to."
Well, Freddie made a few points, and a couple of you others did too. However, the condescending attitude displayed by '...those of us who have legal training..." tends to choke the relevant reasoning right off at the throat.
Why do that intentionally? I assume its intentional because the poster must be intelligent since it was so boldly stated about having legal training. Obviously, the rest of you peons who haven't had any, well, it's nothing but pasta being flipped on the wall, and as inconsequential.
Please, Face, when you shoot your little harpoons its hard for your target not to fire back, and it may be with a bigger calibre than yours is.
Oh, by the way, it has not made much difference to me, but the report (from 3 sources) is that the Jenna area DA is black. Anyone verify that?
No, beneficial, I made that reference because Mr Freddie assumed that anyone who disagreed with him obviously was ill-informed. That wasn't the case. And it's worth pointing out occasionally that those who think they are experts on everything better damn well make sure that they know what they are talking about.
Which isn't to say you need a law degree to have an opinion - reading about what happened and having some idea how the process works is more or less enough. But it doesn't follow that if you have some knowledge of the facts and the process, that you must agree with Freddie.
There are any number of possible reasons for disparate charging decisions, some of which are traceable to race and others not. Even if one assumes racial disparity, it doesn't follow that the second defendant, who is black, should get a slap on the wrist simply because an earlier white defendant did. That's nuts. That's encouraging vigilantism, as I said earlier. What it does mean is there arguably should be an investigation into the first charging decision, and consequences for any racially-informed decisions. Now, whether the second decision was correct or not turns on a bunch of other facts. Would you like a couple of different views on that?
Start with Jeralynn Merritt of TalkLeft.com, who has given this case a very very careful reading (she is a criminal defense lawyer, and yes, I regard that as relevant expertise). She has plenty to say about facts and context. And then turn to Patterico, who is a prosecutor and thus makes charging decisions all the time. You might actually see something resembling "complexity."
People like Freddie, who shoot from the hip and then spew bile at others, would be well advised to inform themselves. A bit of reading helps, Freddie - you should read stuff from both sides of the aisle and not cocoon yourself in your little echo chamber.
beneficial writes: "Oh, by the way, it has not made much difference to me, but the report (from 3 sources) is that the Jenna area DA is black. Anyone verify that?"
He looked quite white on TV. Perhaps you're mixing him up with the public defender.
boldface writes: "Which isn't to say you need a law degree to have an opinion - reading about what happened and having some idea how the process works is more or less enough. But it doesn't follow that if you have some knowledge of the facts and the process, that you must agree with Freddie.
There are any number of possible reasons for disparate charging decisions, some of which are traceable to race and others not. Even if one assumes racial disparity, it doesn't follow that the second defendant, who is black, should get a slap on the wrist simply because an earlier white defendant did. That's nuts. That's encouraging vigilantism, as I said earlier. What it does mean is there arguably should be an investigation into the first charging decision, and consequences for any racially-informed decisions. Now, whether the second decision was correct or not turns on a bunch of other facts. Would you like a couple of different views on that?
Start with Jeralynn Merritt of TalkLeft.com, who has given this case a very very careful reading (she is a criminal defense lawyer, and yes, I regard that as relevant expertise). She has plenty to say about facts and context. And then turn to Patterico, who is a prosecutor and thus makes charging decisions all the time. You might actually see something resembling "complexity." "
I have a law degree and I'd say boldface is full of bovine by-product. Merritt says the charges against the 6 are an obvious case of overcharging, and she's right. Patterico is a demented right-wing nutjob who thinks the Terri Schiavo intervention by the Repiglicans was a good idea.
From the revealed facts exactly one of the 6 should see any prison time at all, and he has already received some. The other 5 should be looking at probationary terms of varying lengths at the court's discretion.
Okay, so censorship is the wrong word. The principal remains the same.
YM "principle," and it doesn't remain the same. Libertarianism is about the relationship between government and citizens, not between magazine editors and citizens.
I am not endorsing vigilantism. There has been no vigilantism whatsoever in this whole imbroglio in Jena. It's a question of equitable justice, where for similar crimes, two groups of people received wildly different charges, with the black group being the recipients of inappropriately harsh charges and the white group being the recipients of inappropriately light ones.
Well, there are clear differences between the crimes:
1. One happened on school property, and one didn't; the former are generally treated as more serious. (Witness those moronic "drug free school zones" and "gun free school zones.")
2. One involved a person with a significant criminal record, and one did not.
3. One involved much more serious injuries than the other.
Hey, Mr Three Stooges, choosing one source as reliable and dismissing the other without consideration, which is what you did, doesn't make me full of bovine by-product. It makes you an ideologue who picks and chooses the set of facts that fits your own preconceived notions.
I see a number of comments that are deleted because they where replies to deleted comments. Is that something that's done as a matter of course or is it only done if it quotes the part of the deleted comment that caused it to get deleted?
Also - "Remember personal info", doesn't seem to work. (I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.7)
People who use constructions like "Repiglicans" (or "Rethuglicans" or "Demoncrats" or "Democraps") probably shouldn't also use phrases like "demented [x]-wing nutjobs". The former makes the latter look like psychological projection.