|
|
Posted on 01/07/2004 7:22:57 AM PST by Sabertooth
Edited on 01/07/2004 10:46:05 AM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
You may have observed the recent effort in the forum by the Lead Moderator to scrutinize and regulate the Illegal Alien threads, which started over here.
I’ve mixed it up a lot on these threads in the two-plus year I’ve been at FR, as I have some strong feelings about the subject of Illegal Aliens. While I like to think I’ve generally kept my cool, there have certainly been occasions when I haven’t.
That said, there have been plenty of occasions where I’ve attempted to engage sincere posters who did not share my opinions, only to have them jumped on by angry posters who did. In the past I’ve made posts on threads and requests by Freepmail requesting that the more aggressive posters cool their jets… to mixed results.
I’ve also seen posts suggesting that the borders be mined, which I think is stupid, hyperbolic spleen, or posts referring to the President as “Jorge Arbusto,” which stopped being funny years ago, and is now just antagonistic. It doesn’t matter that Vicente Fox once called him that in a friendly fashion, no one on the fence regarding Illegals is going to be persuaded by ad hominem rhetoric.
On the other hand, I’ve also observed a shifting coalition of posters who are less than sincere on the other side of the debate; who are prone to using Democrat talking points to smear posters who are concerned about Illegals as anti-immigrant and closet racists. When reading their posts, one half-wonders if they aren’t moles for the L.A. Times.
Their perceptions of “bigots, bigots everywhere” and posts in that vein have also been toxic to the Illegal Alien threads, and such was often the purpose of their baiting. Success was measured in flame wars, bannings, suspensions, and getting threads nuked or moved to the backroom.
It’s been my contention, and I’ve made the point to the Moderators on a number of occasions, that moving threads to the backroom only rewarded those who don’t want Illegals discussed in this forum, and encouraged their trolling behavior.
I’ll stipulate again that my own hands haven’t always been clean in picking fights and thread jumping. I’ll also reveal that about a year or so ago I attempted to organize a call, via Freepmail, for some self-restraint on these threads. Toward that end, I contacted eight fairly high-profile posters, not all of whom were regulars on the Illegal threads, and whose opinions varied widely on the issue, with the idea of some sort of joint letter. The response was uniformly positive, but the details proved to be unwieldy, however, and the effort died on the vine.
Since then I would come and go from the Illegal Alien threads, and observe the ebbs and flows of all of the behavior I saw above.
A few months ago, I took a different tack, and got into a running conversation over my concerns with the Lead Moderator, through Freepmail.
Last week an Illegal Alien thread was moved to the Backroom, in another episode of the process I described above. This irked me a little more than usual, given the imminence of President Bush’s announcement of a new direction in immigration policy, and I ranted a little more than usual to the Lead Mod.
He was receptive to some of my criticisms, and decided to try the new approach that is now the matter at hand. He posted his account last night (emphasis added)…
To: AllI just got a Freepmail. Without posting it or who it was from, the gist of it was as follows:1) That the timing of this effort was suspicious.
2) That this person feels the actions taken have shifted the emphasis of the forum from conservative oriented to party oriented.
I wanted to share with you my response:
I am being evenhanded on the matter. There have been those on one side of the issue have been warned about personal attacks and baiting. There have been those on the other side who have been warned about the same.That is all.There has been one suspension, of someone who decided he was going to repost things which had been pulled. He has no one to blame but himself.
There has been one banning, of a person who said that there was no way he was going to abide by the way things are going to be. Once again, it was his choice and if he changes his mind he can mail Jim and his account will be restored.
The timing, you can have whatever suspicions you want. The fact is that for months, someone who is mostly on your side of the issue tried to get me to do more on these threads, hating how they get pulled when they turn into flame wars and how they get backroomed when they turn into flame wars. He would point to examples of baiting. He would point to personal attacks. Sometimes I would point out the things going the other way. Finally, he convinced me and I decided to give this approach a try.
To be honest, I think it is hilarious that some think I had some idea that some policy was coming out of the White House. It is good to be thought of as that well connected, I guess, but it sadly has no basis in reality.
I am going to post my reply on the thread. I won't quote your mail or your name, although I will paraphrase it.
Regards, LM
262 posted on 01/06/2004 6:03:37 PM PST by Lead Moderator
So, if it’s not clear already, the Lead Moderator’s statements in this post are 100% accurate and legitimate. The timing of this effort was a direct result of my conversation with him, and was not the result of some conspiracy by Free Republic higher-ups, or Karl Rove, or Vicente Fox, or whatever current dark speculation is now popular.
Nor is there any overarching effort to censor a wide-ranging debate on Illegals, as far as I’ve seen. In the context of the current effort underway on the Illegal Alien threads, I haven’t received even the slightest hint that there are subjects that are off limits to me in this regard, nor have I been given the impression that there can’t be vigorous debate, and I’m hardly a party-liner in this.
Now, I’m certain that some will find it to be an abomination that I would cooperate with a Moderator, or he with me, but, as a friend of mine likes to say, there you have it.
As for the results, they’ve been a bit mixed so far, in my estimation. Not, however, because the Mods haven’t made an effort to be evenhanded. I’ve seen a few folks I warned to keep cool get swift warning when they didn’t, and I’ve seen some of the usual baiters get cease and desist orders. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that the effort to raise the tone of the debate on the Illegal Aliens isn’t sincere.
Are the Mods doing things exactly as I’d like? Nope, nor do I expect them to do so. I’ve got strong opinions and subjectivities here, so the standard of my assessment is the combined words and deeds of the Mods on these threads to correct all offenders. Things look promising thus far.
However, I do think that there are posters of diverse opinions who need to reconsider their ways, and take this effort to heart.
Perhaps there is not as much stuff pulled as people claim. Or perhaps there is less curiousity about it. Or perhaps most of those who would be curious never saw my offer.
Most likely, all three.
So I will make my offer a bit more open ended. I'll extend it a week (or until I decide that it is starting to be too much).
Regards
If I may be so bold, I think what he is getting at is that immigration reformers would do themselves a world of good if they would more often condemn the indefensible views of some who share their views on immigration reform.
That is an opinion I share.
Regards
|
|
|
|
This coming from the guy who does more tapdancing than you get in a double feature of Riverdance and Lord of the Dance...
Since you two are the ones making the implication, it is up to you to make the case.
The quote makes the case nicely; hchutch (and now, me) are asking if that is actually acceptable discourse on this issue. Up to this point, nobody was willing to give an honest answer.
No one else is obliged to make a case that is YOUR projection.
I didn't hold a gun to Sam Francis' head and make him write that.
(And you don't get to hold a gun to anyone's head, and force him to make Sam Francis his point of departure on discussing immigration reform.)
Of course, it's acceptable discourse.
Thank you. Between that statement, and the statement you made and got called on by rdb3 (that you now desperately seek to disown), you've said a lot about yourself.
(I haven't sought to disown anything, and never got called on anything by rdb3. You characters can scream "Gotcha!" all you want, but your hands are still empty. You are the desperate ones. You guys quote-chop, use guilt by association, censorship, persuasive definition, gang flaming, and screaming, "Help us, JimRob!" all in order to avoid debating ideas you oppose but are intellectually incapable of countering.)
You're trying to engage in censorship (but you won't admit to that, either), rather than debating Francis.
Censorship is GOVERNMENT prohibition of speech.
(Bull. If in a setting that is supposed to be for the debate of ideas, if someone says, "That is unacceptable discourse," in order to limit the discussion, that is censorship. As Alan Kors and Harvey Silverglate showed in The Shadow University, censorship happens in private university settings all the time. It also happens everyday in the media.)
Implying that certain positions are "unacceptable discourse" is a dodge, in order to sidestep discourse altogether.
Free Republic disagrees with you on that.
(That's just more of your cowardice showing. Now you're even trying to get JimRob to fight your battles for you, as evidenced by your having pinged him.)
If you are intellectually or morally incapable of debating ideas you disagree with, why do you hang around message boards at all?
I constantly debate ideas I disagree with. You, on the other hand, can't even admit to having said something when called on it.
If you can't own the remarks you posted, why do you hang around here?
I haven't sought to disown the remarks I made. You, the pathetic race-baiter rdb3, and at least one other poster have insisted on chopping up my remarks, and then insisting that you have reprinted them in toto. And then you prevaricating characters call me a liar! Your claim that you "constantly debate ideas" you disagree with, is just another lie. If you were willing to debate, this exchange wouldn't even be occurring, and you wouldn't be running to JimRob to bail you out. The only good fight is a fixed one, eh?
(Although I must admit that Trixie and her thread nannies do have a board devoted to conformity and censorship. Perhaps you are a Trixieite.)
Perhaps you should go to a message board that "lets it all hang out, man." Free Republic is not that kind of place. LibertyPost awaits you.
Again, you presume to speak for other people. You are not FreeRepublic! Only cowards hide behind collectives.
If I may be so bold, I think what he is getting at is that immigration reformers would do themselves a world of good if they would more often condemn the indefensible views of some who share their views on immigration reform.
That is an opinion I share.
Regards
Well, I think in the meantime that he has made his intention clear -- to control and censor all discussion of immigration reform.
Personally, I want to see a moratorium on immigration from all countries. (I'm tempted to make an exception for Switzerland, the only country that to my knowledge has a governmental system that approximates the one forseen in the U.S. Constitution, but I don't think many Swiss are interested in coming here.) As Milton Friedman said, You cannot have open borders and a welfare state. And he didn't even get into balkanizing, welfare-oriented institutions like bilingual education, which our political elites have no intention of eliminating, or problems such as dual citizenship and people whose allegiances are AGAINST the U.S.
Thanks again for your post and this thread!
Ditto!
"As Milton Friedman said, You cannot have open borders and a welfare state."
You cannot have open borders. And you cannot have a welfare state.
Probably, but a complete absence of censorship is probably not a good idea. There are things that we, Jim included, do not want on the forum.
I can't buy this. That tactic can succeed only if others take the bait. When I see someone, as the mod put it, "primed for a pissing contest", I retire wordlessly. That response is 100% guaranteed to render flame baiters ineffective. Who the hell wants to talk to an 8-year-old mind?
Probably, but a complete absence of censorship is probably not a good idea. There are things that we, Jim included, do not want on the forum.
|
My personal "ignore this doofus" filter works just fine. I must admit, though, that not having to wade through so many ignored posts would make life easier.
Not obliging anyone to make a case; just asking for a straight answer to a fairly simple question. You were the only one willing to actually make a simple declarative statement on the topic. That much is to your credit.
Between your statement that Francis' remark is acceptable discourse, and your statement that blacks are exempt from obeying the law, you've made quite a case. It may not be the case you wished to make. Tough. You chose the words, you hit post, and now you get to deal with the fact that other people will read your posts and draw conclusions about your thoughts from those posts.
(That's just more of your cowardice showing. Now you're even trying to get JimRob to fight your battles for you, as evidenced by your having pinged him.)
No, it was an opportunity to for him to correct any misstatement I might have made regarding Free Republic's stance on this topic. And that's the reason for the ping to Jim Robinson on this post, as well. Jim Robinson has made it clear that he doesn't want any links to VDARE on Free Republic. I am giving Mr. Robinson the opportunity to speak for himself on why that is.
I haven't sought to disown the remarks I made. You, the pathetic race-baiter rdb3, and at least one other poster have insisted on chopping up my remarks, and then insisting that you have reprinted them in toto.
DaughterofanIwoJimaVet reprinted the entire sentence in question. How much more would be needed to satisfy you that the remark was not taken out of context?
And then you prevaricating characters call me a liar!
I did not call you a liar. I merely indicated that you were tapdancing and backpedaling furiously, which is what your repeated statements on this topic look like to me.
Again, you presume to speak for other people. You are not FreeRepublic! Only cowards hide behind collectives.
Again, that is why I pinged Jim Robinson--to give him a chance to correct me.
Thank you.
That tactic can succeed only if others take the bait.
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.