Posted on 05/26/2007 1:49:34 PM PDT by Eurotwit
A few weeks ago – in between Hillary Clinton’s official entry into the presidential race and the first Republican primary debate of the cycle – the fiery online conservative forum Free Republic marked a decade in operation as one of the premier online forums for right-wing political discussion.
It also experienced one of the biggest internal battles to rock the site since the 2000 election of George W. Bush -- a tumultuous campaign year that nearly tore the site apart, as its founder and chief administrator first cleansed commenting ranks of Bush supporters, then, later, rallied to his support.
At the heart of the latest controversy: the fight over the conservative bona fides of Rudy Giuliani.
Over the past few weeks, chaos has reigned in the “Freeper” community as members sympathetic to the former mayor's candidacy claim to have suffered banishment from the site. They were victimized, they say, by a wave of purges designed to weed out any remaining support for the Giuliani campaign on the popular conservative web forum. Another significant chunk of commenters have migrated away from the controversial site over the action, according to a number of former site members and conservative bloggers who have been tracking the situation.
In a plaintive post on the blog “Sweetness & Light,” exiled commenter Steve Gilbert, who says he does not support the former mayor’s campaign, blasted the site’s new “anti-Giuliani, anti-abortion jihad.” Since George W. Bush was elected president, he wrote, “there haven’t been any large scale [Free Republic] purges to speak of – until now.”
The fight began one month ago, when site founder Jim Robinson posted an anti-Giuliani manifesto titled: “Giuliani as the GOP presidential nominee would be a dagger in the heart of the conservative movement.” Then the virtual ax started to swing. Longtime posters to the freewheeling discussion threads, used to serious no-holds-barred web etiquette, were still stunned by the intensity of the anti-Rudy activity; conservative blogs buzzed with the development.
“Jim Robinson has been going on a tear demonizing Rudy Giuliani, because Rudy (agreeing with the vast majority of Americans), is personally opposed to abortions on a moral level…” complained a user on the GOPUSA Web site. “Anyone who posts any support for Giuliani at the site, if it's at all forceful, will be banned.”
(“Normally, we don't allow complaints about other conservative forums,” chided the moderator, but “…because it is being discussed all over the Internet, I'll make an exception.”)
Just a few months ago, Rudy Giuliani placed second in an early Free Republic straw poll; now, his support on the site has been virtually eliminated. “After the ‘April Purge,’ I don't think there are any Rudybots left around here,” noted Free Republic commenter “upchuck” in one recent post. “And if there are, they're not posting pro-Rudy stuff :).”
The forums weren’t the only venue for the Free Republic’s new antagonism toward Mr. Giuliani, which coincided with a wave of comments expressing similar sentiments from other corners of the conservative movement. A few days after Mr. Giuliani’s equivocal Roe v. Wade comments at the Republican presidential debate on May 3, a new “STOP RUDY NOW News & Information Thread” was featured on the site, and a newly-created stand-alone category debuted via a link from the homepage: “The Giuliani Truth File.” (So far this campaign season, Mr. Giuliani is the only candidate – Republican or Democratic – to be singled out for that level of scrutiny from the Free Republic.)
Why Rudy? Why now? Some conservative bloggers and former commenters contacted for their view of the continuing controversy say they believe that site founder Jim Robinson holds ideologically middling Republicans like Mr. Giuliani responsible for the GOP’s congressional loss and current woes. (They asked that their names be kept out of this story for fear of antagonizing the famously frisky site regulars.)
Others claim that the former mayor’s top-tier status is spurring frantic site administrators into action. Finally, one popular theory holds that the Free Republic is secretly hoping for another Clinton presidency that would send its Alexa ratings soaring back to levels it hasn’t experienced since its halcyon days of the Clinton impeachment, when a since-soured relationship with blog pioneer Matt Drudge and overwhelming anti-Clinton sentiment in Republican ranks helped make Free Republic one of the hottest Web sites in the nation. It hasn't recovered that luster since the Bush administration took over.
“It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s an observation,” said one blogger, who describes himself as a half-hearted Mitt Romney supporter. “They’ve still got a brand name that means something, but they’re not what they were in terms of real-world impact. A Hillary presidency would get them there.”
Robinson himself could not be reached for comment, but his original post laid out his case against Mr. Giuliani – a graphics-heavy presentation of some of the former mayor’s most damning moderate quotes in mainstream media venues, along with a color-coded report card tracking his less-than-doctrinaire positions on abortion, immigration, gays and guns.
Robinson, it should be noted, famously blasted George W. Bush’s presidential candidacy back in 2000, before a dramatic late-campaign about-face that saw him emerge as one of the GOP ticket’s biggest supporters. But whether or not Free Republic experiences a similar election-year shift this cycle, the site’s current campaign is spreading a dangerous primary-season meme of Rudy Giuliani as big-city liberal – and turning one of the most influential web forums in conservatism into an exclusive gathering place for those who share that view.
Nobody is disputing that. However, we need to look at the obvious reality, there will be times in the future when there is a Democrat president.
Again, what do you mean by “Wormwood” manipulating Jim Robinson?
RA WAS NOT banned for the profanity to T’wit, he was suspended. He was allowed back and then banned for other reasons, perhaps Jim Robinson could give you a better explanation.
What I actually wrote was this:
"But there is another segment of people on these threads who, instead of asking these learned folks intelligent questions and thus expanding their knowledge and understanding, insist instead upon bludgeoning them with their ignorance, and questioning the patriotism, honesty, and intellect of people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of scientific knowledge."
IOW, I never said that ALL who doubt science in general and Evolutionary Theory in particular were "Purveyors of Unknowledge" -- just the ones who behaved in the manner I described in the essay. If you didn't behave that way, good for you; you're off the hook.
I hope that clarified my point.
**************
Are you referring to the Wormwood who has been banned/suspended? If not, what is the reference?
My reference is to Lord of the Rings. It’s a metaphor.
Interesting. I already thought the “get stuffed” comment was way out of character for RA. I have to confess that I thought you might have gotten that quote from another site that misquoted him, until I looked it up.
RA and I have talked about online tone - He’s a genuinely nice, generous, smart, good communicator who apparently really lost his online temper on April 5. That’s gonna happen sometimes. And he certainly wasn’t/isn’t the only one - it almost never happens in a vacuum.
As for science...
There are all kinds of topics that can be key to understanding the news of the day: law, history, religion, economics, medicine and science etc.
Non-science folk may feel as bored in the pure science threads as I feel when my wife tries to share a 50 page thread on some aspect of scrap booking.
But its really good for a news discussion forum to have folks around who are knowledgeable about key topics, particularly when they are open about their identity and we can check their credentials.
I don’t get involved in forum administration and I don’t know what went on privately in this case but I hope on a going forward basis we can appreciate the benefit when we get conservative experts in relevant fields.
I see. Thanks.
I was personally on the thread with RA and T’wit when RA made the statements.
I will say this on the subject. Anyone positing creationism(tm) as science is fundamentally anti-science. Or, at the very least, sufficiently anti-science to suspend all current scientific understanding, when supporting creationism. It's not the belief in Creationism that bothers me. It is the push for creationism and it's half-sister, ID, as science that is the issue. I have yet to see a credible fact based scientific arguement supporting creationism that does not involved warping and abusing current scientific understanding, distorting facts or outright "lying for the Lord." These superficial and misguided scientific rationals in favor of creationism, if taken seriously, would make someone less knowledgeable in those fields of science. To support creationism means to throw out all of biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, genetics, archeology, etc.,. That's where I take issue. That being said, as a philosophy, I have no contention with ID. But I know enough science to know that ID is different. It is a concept based in faith, not evidence and can never be empirically tested.
>>I was personally on the thread with RA and T’wit when RA made the statements.<<
Every time I feel like I’m being unduly skeptical of sources, I remember a wise man who said “Trust but verify.”
I’ve been informed that My reference to LOTR should have been Wormtongue instead of Wormwood. Not the first time I’ve misremembered a name.
good post!
Here it is:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1809596/posts?page=323#323
And before he got banned, he started to use the term “Reichsmordwoche” which was a Nazi term that meant, “Reich blood purge.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts?page=2399#2399
This is baloney, but thank you for proving my point by stating it. And in what seems darn near universal, it's always this garbage about YEC. No one believes YEC and anyone who does cannot possibly be a threat to you, or science as you define it, regardless of how many "wedge documents" exist. But again, the irrational fear to even discuss the notion of DESIGN IN LIFE is pervasive throughout academia and therefore any debate must be stamped out by those in academia. Do you deny this is what is happening? (No, you justify it with irrationality and claims of a scientific bogeyman) How is this science? I thought science is to be open to all possibilities? I guess it's open to all possibilities as long as mother nature does it and not some designer.
When I first started working post-college, I had to figure out why our product was having compass bearing problems. During part of my investigation, I ended up calculating the B fields generated by the electric lines near our compass alignment shack. Turns out, the high electricity lines were not enough to interfere with the alignment process, even though they were practically next to the compass shack where we did this process. Having done the calculations myself (although not exactly the same as this next inference), I had serious reservations as to how a 4.5 billion year old spinning, orbiting rock could still have a magnetic field. Fact is, earth cannot have one unless we assume the field strength increased (not decayed) throughout most of pre-history. How is this science? It's not, but it must be assumed because after all, life on earth created itself, on it's own, without any non-natural outside influence and all "scientists" know this. In fact, evolution is a proven theory and therefore, if you do not accept this, you cannot be a scientist, nor work in science.
Well, it's a darn good thing I am an engineer and my designs have to work in the real world, not in some computer simulation or doctorial degree textbook. I'm obviously not a scientist, since I think evolution a fairy tale.
Let me leave you with a serious question, one that even RA danced around. How is SETI a legitimate scientific endeavor when scientists believe all order and all complexity in life, as we witness it today, came about in a completely naturalistic and undirected manner? That all life came from a single simple original life form. Basically, the SETI scientists are saying that if we capture an ordered radio signal from outspace, it must have been created by intelligent life. Yet at the same time, these evolution beliving SETI scientists, turn around and suggest that the simplest life form we have found, which contains many times more programming source code and data arrays than a 10 minute Youtube video, came about purely through Darwinian evolution.
Our side may have more than it's fair share of "pathetics", but any scientist who accepts both evolution and SETI as valid science is a hypocrite. If evolution is true, you cannot assume that intelligent life created an organized signal from outspace any more than you can assume that life is a prosuct of design.
You did and it was wrong for me to assume otherwise. Thanks for the reply.
LOL - I'd been reading it as a biblical reference (Revelations), but wasn't quite sure where it fit in. Now since I don't know who Wormtongue was, I'm even more confused.
>>I’ve been informed that My reference to LOTR should have been Wormtongue instead of Wormwood. Not the first time I’ve misremembered a name.<<
Wow. When I read that the first thought was JRR Tolkein and “that kind of sounds like Wormtoungue” - followed by “I better keep quiet - that’s a pretty nerdy leap” :)
I think you mean to support your understanding of how creation should have happened. Have you guys implemented a Christian test in yur hiring pratices yet? I'm guessing it's an unspoken clause.
Please read my second to last paragraph in post 1154 and explain why both evolution and SETI are science?
T'wit, if you're a Christian/Jew/other, he should be forgiven and you should ask the Admin to reinstate his account. I'm not sure he'd come back, but forgiveness is an obligation if you are going to debate on the evo/creo threads.
Unfortunately, you are mistaken. I'd say most of the creationists we debate are YEC.
But again, the irrational fear to even discuss the notion of DESIGN IN LIFE is pervasive throughout academia and therefore any debate must be stamped out by those in academia. Do you deny this is what is happening?
I'm sensing bias. . . We have not found evidence of design. We have found plenty of evidence that complexity can evolve. We've also know that proposed irreducibly complex systems are not irreducibly complex. You're claiming evidence of design exists, but there is no evidence for that. The rule in science is to look for natural explanations. So far we have not run into anything that requires an unnatural explanation and suggests a supernatural designer.
I thought science is to be open to all possibilities?
Science is concerned with the observable. If we find something has no observable natural explanation, than that topic will fall outside the purview of science. We have not seen this to happen.
Having done the calculations myself (although not exactly the same as this next inference), I had serious reservations as to how a 4.5 billion year old spinning, orbiting rock could still have a magnetic field. Fact is, earth cannot have one unless we assume the field strength increased (not decayed) throughout most of pre-history.
First of all, earth is not a rock, secondly, the magnetic field has oscillated (switching directions) many many times in earth's history. I'm more interested in biology, so probably someone else could tell you more about that.
Well, it's a darn good thing I am an engineer
That's interesting. It's been noted that while many engineers are evolutionists, the scientists who are creationists are very frequently engineers, much more often than one would expect. I think there is an underlying personality trait, perhaps an interest in organization and design, that predisposes some people to both go into engineering and believe in a suopernatural designer.
Let me leave you with a serious question, one that even RA danced around.
To rephrase, you say that since life is complex and organized and is thought to have evolved, how can we assume a complex and organized signal from outer space is from an intelligent species rather than from a natural process.
I don't see how the two are analogous. Life is organized because organisms reproduce with variation, and natural selection weeds out certain phenotypes and promotes others. Since nonlife does not go through this process, we can't iteratively build a nonbiological complex signal from simpler ones.
Purely mechanical causes certainly are the first alternative considered (as science demands) when we note a signal from space. For instance, pulsars produce signals at regular intervals. The first pulsar was originally named LGM-1 for Little Green Men!
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.