For the second time in as many weeks, the left wing blog, Daily Kos has gone and censored me from writing diaries and commenting on other diaries. A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog for them on the subject of the Coretta Scott King funeral in which political speeches by Jimmy Carter and Joe Lowery were given. I said at the time, that I thought such speech had no business at a funeral. I got almost 300 responses, many of which disagreed with me.
The next day, lo and behold, they took my diary writing abilities away from me. Last week, I again got on, after getting a new password, and username, and started a diary about the coming war between the DNC and the DLC. A couple of people called me a troll, but others agreed with my statement.
This morning, I went back to the website, and once again, they took away my activities. Why are they censoring me like this?? I follow the rules, only one diary a day, no profane language, and so on, so I don't understand why they censored me twice.
I can understand why Republicans would get censored, being a left wing website, but I am not a Republican. I am a moderate Democrat. I support Joe Lieberman and his reelction, and don't always agree with liberals. Is this grounds for censorship?? I have written Daily Kos several times to have them explain to me when they have taken this action, and I haven't gotten a response.
I thought liberals were supposed to have a tolerence for dissent? Isn't the liberal wing of the party supposed to be the "big tent" party? I know it's their website, and they can do what they want, but I don't have a clue why they are doing this. Can someone out there tell me why, without being snarky about it?? I appreciate it.

you are funny.

it was on the forum on which I was a moderator. Had nothing to do with content, but with an attempt to circumvent rules.

Having said that, you would be overwhelmingly disagreed with on the issue of what people can or cannot say at the funeral of a loved one. Most Republicans I know would disagree with you. After all, if they did not, it would be a little hypocritical considering Reagan's funeral, wouldn't it? Did you complain about those who politicized that funeral? I know his son did.

And no, I didn't complain about the those who politicized the funeral. I just stated that I thought a funeral was the wrong place to say what Carter and Lowery said. If that was politicizing the event, guilty, but I don't I did that!!

posts something negative about Daily Kos or Raw Story or the like.

Is this a new trend?

Oh, and welcome to the DU!:hi:

and thank you for the welcome.

Tell them that if they disagree they'll have to take that up with Thomas Jefferson.

...and I think it's a bad sign of an issue we shouldn't ignore (as the RW BushBots have for the last 5 years).

Everyone understands the clear difference between "Liberal" vs. "Conservative" view points. But there are often times when moderates (a voting block the Dems really need to have on their side) express view points to open up a discussion. To immediately pig pile on that person because their viewpoint doesn't seem "left enough" (note, I'm not saying a CLEAR hard core RW viewpoint - just not "left enough" of center) is counterproductive for the short term and destructive to our party's best interests in the long run.

If some jackass comes on the DU saying "Democrats are idiots!! Bush rulez!!" then by all means - delete that post and perhaps even the account. But if someone says, "Gee, you know, people talking politics at a funeral I find a little tacky," don't stifle that voice, work with it. Perhaps say in return, "I understand why you might feel that way, but look at it this way...." and then go on to explain why it's really not so unusual - she was a political figure - it was entirely appropriate - whatever else you want to bring up.

But for our party's sake, don't freak out. Don't weaken the party by pushing that person out - bring them in - play smart! If you don't have the patience to do that or don't feel like "baby sitting" then just don't say anything. It's a smarter move than to push someone out.

it is obvious that some people are not playing fair. The people anyone should be complaining to are the GOP Rovebots who spent years obfuscating the issues in all mixed boards. So the rules got tightened up. And there is a low thresh-hold for hearing GOP talking points.

Blame them.

They are the ones who would not get online and be their own dam selves. The enemy of a discussion forum is the people who log on to stop the flow of information. You don't like that Liberals and managers of liberal sites have set the bar higher? Complain to the very people who abused the system. Not the boards or the management of the boards themselves. They are just trying to cope - the best way they know how.

not bullshit.. I'm sure they will attend. But nobody likes to discuss the world with role-players and liars and myth-makers. So the GOP is going to have to make up their minds. Discuss the issues like adults - or get kicked out of a discussion board... or find that they have no access to vital discussion forums where the moderates, who they would like to discuss the issues with, are.

Week 5: Huffington Post Attacks Bush unfairly Week 6: Rude Pundit was ... well... Rude!!!

You call it censorship, but consider this: if you wrote an editorial supporting neo-conservative foreign policy and sent it to The Nation or The Progressive they would likely decline it. Likewise, praise for nationalizing or reregulating corporations is unlikely to receive an audience in the Wall Street Journal. Is that censorship or is it an appropriate editorial policy? Web sites like KOS are no different-- they too have editorial policies that reflect the interests and proclivities of their readers.

I presume you want to publish there because you want to present those readers with your opposing perspectives. An appropriate way to do this is to publish your view in a forum that shares your editorial viewpoint and allow readers to choose whether to go there or not, just as I choose which journals to buy at the news stand.

bashing the Democratic party, or being "Pro-Bush", he said he just thought that maybe it was in poor taste.

To try and equate the topic he brought up with submitting a Pro-NeoConservative article to The Nation is a false analogy. That would be an obvious attempt to REVERSE the position of the publication. It simply doesn't apply to this situation.

I saw the funeral ceremony - and the fact is that I agree 100% with the views spoken by EVERYONE at that event. However, the fact that they were speaking about such issues at her FUNERAL didn't sit comfortably with me. I also realize that it was OK'd by her family and probably abided by her Mrs. King's wishes, so the situation doesn't "upset" me. Even so, in that sense, I kind of agree with that guys point, but that doesn't make either one of us "Flamebaiters".

And to not be able to have a reasonable discussion about this issue without someone freaking out about it and suspecting you of being subversive disturbs me. I think it's a sign of weakness, not strength. It reminds me of the same attitude that leads to the arrests of people that wair anti-Bush T-shirts where he's speaking. It's draconian, undemocratic, and polarizing. Those are not trends we need to be seeing develop in our party nor our country (which it already has on the right).

But that's just my opinion. I don't intend for anyone to feel threatened by it or want to deliberatly piss people off, I just want to talk about it. So did this guy, is that so wrong?

I don't see any issue here. There was no impediment to talking about it-- it's just a topic that Kos evidently didn't want discussed on their site. Again, that's editorial policy, and no limitation on free speech. Folks can talk about whatever they want, but that doesn't compel everyone (or anyone) to offer them a free forum. Sometimes you even have to create your own forum to air your opinions. Again, that's not a limitation on anyone's right to discuss their ideas-- it's an exercise of the forum owner's right to have any editorial policy they want. Kos (or DU) can immediately bar anyone who brings up the topic of alligators if they wish. That doesn't prevent us from discussing alligators-- it simply requires that we do so elsewhere.

on edit-- here's a more personal example: I'm a very harsh critic of the U.S. military, and Skinner has asked me on a couple of occasions to tone down my criticisms on DU. I've done so-- sometimes biting my tongue rather sharply-- and do not consider Skinner's request or the various posts I've had removed to be any limitation of my first amendment rights. I can express those opinions elsewhere.

:thumbsup:

that will be more accepting of your "moderate" views.

Why would you want to post on a "left wing blog"?

complaining about the DU at Kos.

You are effing kidding me!

Please note:

Deep


Dark

:sarcasm:

want to know why I got kicked out of fweeperville? I said I thought the coultergueist was tacky. Hey, privately run sites get to do that; kick people off without explanation. What do your misadventures over at Kos have to do with the dem party?

I was just watching a thing on the History Channel about Tienanmen Square.

Did you know the Tienanmen Square events got started with some laying of wreathes for an old reformer who had died?

Martin and Coretta lived their lives opposing the right wing, and opposing right wing policies.

What better place than their funerals to bring that up?

...is that if the "masses" get unreasonably angry at your view and hundreds of posts result from YOUR post, then the logical fallacy of "appeal to popularity" will result. Meaning, since SO many people are disagreeing with you (1 person), the moderators conclude (some times fairly, sometimes unfairly) that you are just a "Flamebaiter" and either "lock" the post down or restrict your voice in some other fashion.

It's very undemocratic, which is the ironic part. The other thing that sucks is that often times the "rules" they claim you violate are ambiguous or open to interpretation (Kind of like the "you know it when you see it" rule of thumb). Like you said, it's their site, they can do what they want - but the internet is a HUGE place, keep looking and you'll find a place where your views will be welcomed, or at least not censored/restricted.

I know this, which is why I don't bother with sites wher I know my views would not be welcome. Why waste the time? It's sort of like going to the home of someone who didn't invite you and you know will ask you to leave as soon as you insult their grandmother or whatever.

It's not rocket science. The rightwing made their talking points very clear to their followers even as the funeral of Coretta Scott King was in progress, and went out of their way to attack yet another Democratic funeral service.

It's not like the poster was disagreeing about a democratic candidate. He/she was pushing an RNC talking point on a 'leftwing blog'! Sort of the same thing the media does ~

I just asked the poster for his/her opinion on the Reagan funeral ~ and the politicizing that went on for a full week as I recall. So far, I have received no answer to his/her opinion on whether he thought it was wrong to claim that Ronald Reagan was responsible for bringing down the Soviet Union, eg, at a funeral!! I would think that anyone so upset by the speakers at Coretta King's funeral, must have been appalled by the speakers at the Ronald Reagan funeral!! We shall see, I suppose ~

(that it's "their site, they can do what they like")...but as I said in a post I just wrote:

Post #18


Furthmore, just because there are parallels between someones view and a "Right-wing talking point" doesn't mean that the two are one-and-the-same. That would be like me saying "You know, Clinton really shouldn't have lied about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinski" and then labeling my view a RW talking point and me a "flamebaiter". Its a hasty generalization and completely off target. To railroad a discussion for that reason is disingenious and counterproductive.

we waited for someone, anyone to get the chance to let George Bush know what many of us think about his policies, I jumped for joy when he was forced, for the first time ever, to actually have to sit for six hours and hear from and about people he has deliberately shut out of the political process ~

Since Mrs. King's life's work had to do with telling the truth to those in power, and her husband was murdered for doing just that, I thought it was more than appropriate that, since her own voice is now silent, her representatives spoke for her and the POTUS, whose views on everything, particularly civil liberties, are so completely in conflict with hers.

That was the real reason for the RNC's anger at those who honored Mrs. King that day. In doing so, they insulted the man who was responsible for Katrina, for the destruction of the liberties so many have fought so hard to protect, in particular the woman whose funeral it was.

I doubt anyone would have cared that political issues were spoken about if Bush had nothing to be ashamed of. Imagine the exact same speeches being made had Clinton been president? Would there have been any reason for Clinton to have been upset? (Unless he had handled a major natural disaster the same way Bush did).

I saw nothing at all wrong with the speeches, they were directly related to the life of Mrs. King. That's what memorial services are for. The only problem was, they made this president look bad, and that, imo, is too bad.

Btw, asking the same question again, were you in disagreement with the speeches at the funeral and memorial services of Ronald Reagan? For the record, I was not, it was his funeral, even though much of what was said was a revision of history. I expected it to be as it was ~

background. It gave me satisfaction, big time.

In all actuality, my position changed from when I first saw the funeral (was uncomfortable with the idea of politics at a funeral) to the several days afterwards where I read (here at the DU) other people's arguments saying it was a good thing. Points reminding me of how important she was. And with this better informed, correct perspective, my feelings about it changed.

You're correct - when politics were spoken at Reagan's funeral, it seemed "expected". And there in lays the difference - "association". People like me who didn't follow much of Mrs. King's life work didn't associate her with politics - only her husband. So politics at her funeral seemed exploitive (to us ignorant ones). With Reagan it was an automatic association to politics for most people. So I think once people learned or were reminded of Mrs. Kings work - it made perfect sense, at least it did to me.

God I loved watching Chimpy wriggle in the background.:headbang:

given that this is not kos?

a post the other day on DU that wanted to impeach Bill Clinton. To me, these points distract you from what is really important.

You will probably get the same response here from some fellow DUers, but at least you won't get banned.

:eyes:

:banghead:

It is like talking about the need to find a cure for cancer at a funeral for someone who died from cancer. So totally inappropriate... :eyes:

Why don't you find a blog that suits your political views better? Progressive just don't respond well to all the idiotic and meaningless right-wing talking points.

...please read this post #23 and take it into consideration.

However, after seeing what Bush has done to this country...from the war, Katrina, environment, outsourcing, selling this country one port at a time, giving tax breaks to the rich while cutting veterans benefits and programs for the frail, poor, and needy, to the lies and corruption...any "Democrat" who would vote Republican because of a political speech at a funeral of a civil rights activist would have never voted for Democrats in the first place.

The right-wing extremists pushed the "talking politics at her funeral was so inappropriate" talking point relentlessly. There are so many more important issues than who said what at a funeral. However, it incensed them that their bubble boy had no choice but to listen to people who disagree with his policies and hear the truth. If they would have bashed Clinton or Carter at the funeral, right-wingers would be all happy about that.

I didn't feel uncomfortable watching the funeral. I felt uncomfortable when some "Democrats" did not stand up to the right-wing talking heads who were pushing that non-issue. Democrats have to get better in bringing the focus back to the important issues facing our country.

take offense to the political views presented. their opinions in this matter are the only ones that count, and, apparently, it didn't bother them.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...and I understand your point, but I have a bit of advice for you. Take it or leave it. :-)

First of all, for your Original Post for this thread, I have a couple of points I'd like to make. You need to be careful with the words you chose. People are reading your words - they can't hear "tones" of sincerity. Since your words are where the readers fill that "tone" in from, you must chose your words wisely.

Using concepts that even begin to compare bad characteristics of Republicans to the Democrats will provide a negative "tone". Not good. People will then begin to interpret the rest of your words through an "against us" prism (assuming you don't intend on that consequence). Other examples of that would be saying you "don't always agree with liberals". Again, Rush Limbaugh uses the word "Liberals" as a slur - so since this sentence follows the one that gave your readers the negative prism - now you are starting to sound like a "flamebaiter". That's not the kind of impression you want to give if you are trying to win "understanding" from your readers.

The end result is that people reading this here are going to now just assume (because there are no links to tell them otherwise) that the posts you put over at the KOS probably had the same negative "tone" as well. Hence, you are not "getting through" to the people. That may be the source of your frustration: the words/phrases you use and the "tone" they paint about you.

Like I said, if you look through my posts on this thread - I'v stepped up because I understand that feeling you have concerning the funeral, but you need to try and explain yourself in a way brings people in - not in a way that pushes them out. Trust me, I try very hard to explain the intricacies and nuances of "grey area" issues when I have them - and I get misunderstood ALL THE TIME. I've even had some of my posts deleted. It sucks. But don't give up. I've also had posts that people rally around. You win some, you lose some, just make sure you don't lose too badly. If you want to communicate to people through words, you have to always be trying to chose your words more carefully.

If Kos doesn't respond, go on with your life & find another political forum that shares your conservative views.

What is your purpose of posting on DU about your (troll?) experience at Kos?

Respect yourself & others will, too.

Mrs. King would have given them her blessing.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

my politics at my funeral. It's who I am and what I believe in. I'm a true-blue American.

but i'm aware of they're censoring Leftists, i suppose they'd censor RW postings too.

I'm curious as to why you thought it was important to make an issue of the Memorial? I mean, all things considered, why was THAT an issue above everything else?

In general, I consider complaints in the vein that you put it, as classic white supremacists Right Wing in nature.

You sure have the right talking points down pat, including some classics I've encountered on the 'internets' since '96.

Get this, freedom of sppech does not applly to a PRIVATE website, but you don't really care about that do you?

You just want to make a big stinko and call Kos a big liberal doody head instead, which is the real point of this retarded exercise.

This is DU. Different staff - different editorial policy.

If you have been to enough black peoples funerals you would know that they are vastly different from a white persons. Bush got what he deserved and Carter who has been to plenty of funerals for black leaders did exactly what he wanted. So while you might think that such speech has no business at a funeral, you need to look at it through the eyes of whose funeral it was. Ill say one thing though, the president is lucky he showed, or there would have been the mother of all sound bites, instead of the rather tame ones we got from Joe Lowery, et al. Also i think you use the word "censor" inartfully. Your words were there for everyone to see and comment on, they didnt tell you DONT write that OR we wont Publish that. They simply made a determination that your thoughts had been asked and answered. If they had never printed it then i would say you were censored. I think sometimes we still have to remember our comments are being hosted by someone else. I once lost my DU privaleges for 2 days simply for calling someone that downloads music a "thief". Maybe we have to suffer things like that sometime or what you went through for the right to read and say anything else. Thats my take on it anyhoo.

They tell me that they are an expert on warfare as they just returned from Iraq. That I should cowtow to their superior knowledge. That their unit just returned home. This was last August. I asked how they avoided the STOP LOSS order. ..... ............................. "Oh - I was injured!"

My time is not important. But it is a hell of a lot more important than discussing the issues with someone being paid by the hour & who either 1) so stupid that they believe what they are being told 2) know what they say is lies but enjoy being paid to diminish not only my personal politics but especially the personal politcis of the little shoots on the liberal sites.

celebrated her life, as well as MLK's. CSK was a woman of intense courage and her views were well defined.

By what right, does anyone have to accuse those there of having "political motives"? The Kings were political entities; they believed in changing social attitudes by non-violent means, this is exemplary behavior. Those that attended the funeral had every right to celebrate her memory in any way they chose. It is not up to the RW to dictate how a person's life is celebrated; personally, when I leave this earth, I hope people have a good time, and remember the things I did to change things. The last thing I would want is for people to mope around, and say, "yeah, he was a nice guy".

The perception that the celebration of a life should be done under somber circumstances is foolish IMO. It is up to each individual to decide how they look at the lives of those that they have been touched by. The RW did this during the Wellstone Memorial as well; rather than look at the Memorial as a time to see what Wellstone stood for, they felt that it should have been a time where people should shed tears until they drowned in their own sorrow. I shed a tear, but I was rejuvenated by seeing how those that respected Wellstone and Corretta moved forward with a new resolve to accomplish what they saw as a worth goal.

If this were bush's funeral/memorial, I would like to see anything that could be brought up as a "victory". I feel the RW would be very hard pressed to find anything positive to add to the eulogy. What could they say, "He helped the rich get richer"?

As I said, these people were political, politics is a given at their funerals. Reagan was seen politically at his funeral; Lincoln, Nixon; Huey Long; Teddy Roosevelt....the list is endless, were all politically motivated funerals. The RW likes to show a facade of caring, but they care little about those w/differing opinions. They politicized the event by by their hostile intentions. They refuse to see the good in people, they will be vile for as long as the people of nation permit them to be so.

is what has the GOP so scared. It seems our leaders are not allowed to be perceived as leaders. Even at their funeral - which is a representation of a person's life and passions and beliefs and legacy.

Legacy is only allowed for rich sons to go to college. Or for Ronald Reagan's funeral.

I agree that websites and discussion forums should be shutting down people who try and impose a set of rules on democractic behaviour that the GOP never follows themselves. Especially when those rules are human ones. And traditional.

It is completely normal for people to be inspired at the funeral of a leader. And for peer leaders to come out and speak to the meaning of that. That is as old as the hills.

At least on DU, there are a few of us of the moderate-conservative Democrat persuasion.

At KOS, he might start, then abort, a campaign to make you radioactive. Then sell a few books about it.