I think what some people object to is the "some animals are more equal than others" aspect of the bannings.
Jim called one person an "asswipe." He went out of his way to attack others. When they responded, they were banned.
I'm not sure if it's a calculated plan to purge Rudy supporters or just blind, stupid hypocrisy. Either way, it stinks.
Rules should apply to everyone, not just those we disagree with.
I think it's simply a transition time for this site. While we all like to think that freedom of speech somehow extends to this site, or that our opinions are more valuable than others', or that our contributions or tenure entitle us to continue posting, it just isn't so.
This site has been so divided as of late that it's unable to accomplish much of anything. Jim clearly has a vision for its future, and he likely felt that the only way to achieve it is to articulate his philosophy and remove those who insist on subverting it. Note that I said "subverting" - not merely disagreeing respectfully and honestly.
Let's fave facts: the folks who are now gone understood Jim's vision and decided to actively work counter to it. On his own site. Who would we think he has an obligation to allow them to continue that behavior?
The person that Jim called an ‘asswipe’ was quidnunc.
Maybe you should read his posts to find out why, and why he was banned.
I agree with you that some objection is to the double-standard. I don’t defend the double-standard, but as I said several times earlier, two wrongs don’t make a right, and no person can justify bad behavior by saying that others are doing it. And the fact that one person is bad and doesn’t get banned doesn’t mean it is WRONG to ban someone else for being bad.
I wish nobody would call anybody any names. The official rules of the site say nobody should personally attack other freepers, and I think that’s a good rule, even for obnoxious people. That’s what the abuse button is for, so you don’t have to get into a personal attack battle.
Obviously the abuse button won’t help if you are being “abused” by the owner of the site. But a smart person would realise that and not launch personal attacks at the owner. You come into my house, and call me names, my reaction might be a little different than if you do it on the street corner.
I don’t want anybody banned, but if someone IS going to get banned, and there are two people who are equally offensive, and you have to choose one to ban, I would agree that we should choose the one who is being offensive to conservatives in support of a liberal, rather than the other way around.
It’s a double-standard, but if you are going to have one that’s the way it should be on a conservative site like this.
I hope the bans turn into simply suspensions, but frankly I think a lot of the “banned” have been planning this for a while, have been agitating to get banned, have been complaining for weeks that a “purge” was coming so that they could claim to be attacked for their support, because tehy all want to go somewhere they dont have to defend their statements.
That’s just a personal opinion, and I hope it is wrong.
All things are not equal on this conservative forum. If you espouse liberal ideas, promote liberal candidates, and/or attack conservative ideas and candidates, you're probably not going to be around here very long. If you're distracting from or disrupting the actual mission of this forum (yes, it has a mission - go look it up) then you're asking for trouble.