• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Tone it down, please

Come on, guys; could we stick to arguing the issues instead of just hurling vile insults? There's plenty of snark in the blogosphere without us adding to it. I've been leaving the threads alone, even though it got pretty rough on a couple of them. Somebody was bound to go too far, even by today's online standards, and now somebody has. I've removed the comment from Christopher Swing purporting to be a Tweet from Tim Zank's daughter. Even if you're going to taunt each other like kids in the schoolyard, let's not be  dragging any 15-year-old girls into it, OK?

Comments

Christopher Swing
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 12:08pm

You mean a link to a publicly-accessible Twitter page indexed by Google, Leo.

If you don't want these kind of things to happen, moderate your comments when people first cross the line. Tim Zank and John B. Kalb started in with the Google-search harassment and dragging people not even involved into their smear campaign.

You let it go on.

But I suppose you have to protect your friends like Tim Zank, don't you?

Leo Morris
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 2:12pm

"They started it" isn't the best defense there is, and the fact that something is publicly accessible through Google is meaningless; so are a lot of things I wouldn't want to see here. I won't deny "protecting my friends like Tim Zank," although I wouldn't put it that way, since we've never met. But we are likely to agree on poltical views, and all of us have a tendency to overlook things in our allies that we notice in our opponents. I've tried to err on the side of robust debate here rather than politeness and decorum. That means that deciding when something has gone too far is purely a subjective call based on my own particular baggage. I'd appreciate any thoughts any of you have about where to draw the line between inclusiveness and taste.

Christopher Swing
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 2:20pm

Bullshit, Leo. It's not about who started it and never was.

I pointed out that you've shown yourself to be OK with online harassment of people in these threads, until your pet gets hit back. You don't get to sit there and tell people to stop hitting back when you allow the hitting to occur in the first place.

Since when is Tim Zank google-stalking people in an effort to shut them up "robust debate?" How is his constantly dragging people's uninvolved friends into his accusations any form of debate? You care to explain that Leo?

john b. kalb
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 6:25pm

Leo - Personally I would hope that this Chris Swing would crawl back into the hole that he came out of and leave you (and the rest of us) alone! But, that's just not going to happen, so I approve of shutting his "tweeting" off. Just MHO.

Christopher Swing
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 6:48pm

Ah, John, one of the primary instigators of "I'm looking for you offline" for information to use against a commenter he doesn't like.

You realize your last sentence reveals you don't even know what "tweeting" is, don't you?

Corey D. McLaughlin
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 7:31pm

Personally, I think Christopher Swing suffered enough abuse on these threads to justify his retaliation. As a forum moderator myself, I can sympathize with Leo's dilemma, too - although I believe it is quite a stretch to call harrassment "robust debate".

It's funny, this. We have the opportunity for REAL dialogue here, and yet when opposing opinions are offered all I see is a flurry of ad hominem attacks and obfuscation. It is a sad reflection on the community, friends.

Switching gears, can anyone explain to me why nobody chooses to discuss the issue that Occupy has brought to the table - namely, the corrupting influence of money in American politics? All I ever hear discussed are the distractions - pavilion fees, pseudonyms, socialism, take a bath, get a job, etc.

So I ask: why won't conservatives address the issue before them?

john b. kalb
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 11:06pm

The "old-fashioned" tweeting is done by birds - not by humans. And, Swing, if you will look back, my comment about "not finding" you was in response to your's about others not wanting to meet you face-to-face when pointing out where you were thinking poorly - so you could take some physical action. Bring it on, buddy - you know where I live.

Christopher Swing
Tue, 11/29/2011 - 12:44am

"Tim Zank, I like how you still think calling people names is a valid debate technique, at least as long as you

Christopher Swing
Tue, 11/29/2011 - 1:29pm

(Corey - there was a delay in your post appearing. Thank you.)

gadfly
Wed, 11/30/2011 - 1:00am

Corey:

It may have been a new thought for you that corruption and money are related, but us old farts have known it for what seems like always.

As Baron John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton wrote in 1887:

""Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

Now if we could only end the corruption that is driving the Occupy crowd, and get back to the rule of law, we may yet have enough agreement to end the senseless dismantling of of our economy by our elected politicians. That bit of civilized consideration is really all that the 53% of Americans paying taxes want to see happen.

Christopher Swing
Wed, 11/30/2011 - 2:32am

Gadfly: You realize that "53%" meme is a myth, right?

"But the founding principles of the tumblr and the

Corey D. McLaughlin
Wed, 11/30/2011 - 8:25am

Oh, Gadfly.
You presume too much about my age / experience.

I am not referencing the a general sense of corruption that wealth may or may not bring. I am referring specifically to the corrupting influence of money in American politics.

The framers knew about the dangers. In Federalist 51, Madison speaks to this when he said "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition...This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public."

A few paragraphs later, Madison continued, "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens."

THIS is what I'm talking about, gadfly.

The framers put into place a number of checks and balances, not only between branches of Federal government, but between classes of citizens. Over time, these checks and balances have been eroded by the ambitions of the wealthy class. If we do not correct course and rebalance our systems, the masses will eventually rise up in protest, which is their natural right, according to John Locke.

I am urging that we correct course BEFORE the fit hits the shan. I am urging that we reign in the influence of corporations and the wealthiest Americans because things have grown dangerously out of balance. Witness the Citizens United case, the repeal of the Glas-Steagall act, the rise of the K Street lobbyists influence in policy formation, or the intentional "dumbing down" of Congress when Newt was Speaker.

There is still time to fix this; kneejerk defensive posturing from within an ideological bubble (liberal OR conservative) won't help, though.

Christopher Swing
Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:09pm

BTW, Leo, still waiting:

Since when is Tim Zank google-stalking people in an effort to shut them up

Christopher Swing
Mon, 01/09/2012 - 2:50am

Oh hey, I'm reminded that you've still forgotten (I'm sure you just forgot) to answer a question, Leo:

Since when is Tim Zank google-stalking people in an effort to shut them up

Quantcast