Guest essay by Russell Cook
Upon seeing DailyKos’ 5/12/15 hit piece against prolific climate issue editorial writer Tom Harris, it reminded me of DailyKos’ hit against me just one day after my WUWT guest post detailing who was behind the smear of Dr Willie Soon. While the folks at DailyKos do all they can outside of their organization to portray critics of catastrophic human-induced global warming as corrupt, the one thing they excel at is suppressing dissent within their walls.
Witness the manner in which they did everything they could to prevent Harris’ rebuttal to the hit piece against him from appearing online at DailyKos, captured in screencaptures at Harris’ web site. When Harris was barred from posting comments at the hit piece against him, he asked others, including me, if we could comment on his behalf, suggesting that if we met the same blocked result, that we could protest to DailyKos’ HelpDesk just as he did. Sure enough, I signed up, attempted to comment but was blocked, and my questions about that appear as comments 17/18 at that HelpDesk link.
On 5/14/15, having not been banned as a DailyKos registered user, I thought I’d try my own experiment of placing a diary entry online there. Here’s a screencapture of the diary post in its entirety, and an archive link I immediately made after submitting the post, showing that its intro was viewable to the general public and not just logged-in users. But mere minutes after that, this screencapture shows that I as a registered user was not even permitted to view my own diary entry. Not long after that, as seen in the current link for my diary post, it all vanished.
For those interested in what was so critical to erase from all view, my diary post is verbatim below.
Meteorologist does “Psycho Analysis of A Climate Skeptic” – something he spaced out, though
Way back in 2009, Dan Satterfield, Chief Meteorologist for WHNT TV (CBS) in Huntsville Alabama, deftly explained at his web page why people like me belong to a “cult of deniers”.
Under his blog heading “Psycho Analysis of A Climate Skeptic”, he offers (boldface emphasis mine) this:
..let’s look at someone who has been convinced that doing something about climate change means a significant change in their lifestyle, wealth, or ability to drive their favorite vehicle. Understand here, that there is overwhelming evidence that this is not likely the case, but let’s assume our “someone” believes it wholeheartedly.
So, what’s most likely to happen when someone who believes this, encounters someone who says climate science is all wrong? They can choose to believe them, and not have to battle with their conscience about being selfish, or they can believe the nearly unanimous opinion of climate scientists that we are heading for a catastrophe.
Toward the end, Satterfield says:
…If I can introduce a reader to real science before they fall into the junk science cult, they will see very quickly how silly the material is on these sites. Perhaps the only way to convince the cult of deniers, is to convince them that their initial assumtion [sic] that doing something about climate change will require a dramatic change in lifestyle is wrong!
All this time I thought I was a guy who couldn’t get straight answers to simple questions, like those in my GelbspanFiles.com blog. But now it is crystal clear to me – among all the other sacrificial green things I do, I drive a 32mpg+ little car, I’ve been a recycler for decades, my utilities bill is so small it makes people gasp in envy, I turn on my A/C wen the temp goes above……… wait for it…………. 86° F, I harvest rainwater and grow tree saplings, and read at night under dim 60 watt bulbs. And I am petrified with the idea that to do my part to save the planet, I must retreat to the stone age!!
NOT. How about, Mr. Satterfield and all you other folks subscribing to that unsupportable talking point about ‘greedy deniers’, that you try this on for size: think of me as the Fox Mulder character from the X-Files TV series / movie, who wanted so desperately to believe in UFOs. Give me some kind, any kind of irrefutable proof showing big industry-inspired / industry-bought errors in the skeptics’ peer reviewed published reports, please hit me over the head with undeniable evidence of the lies skeptic scientists have told and what motivated them to do such shameful acts that are so easily exposed, please, please, please stagger me with point-by-point dissections of all these skeptic scientists’ junk science along with what precisely makes it junk and what evidence there is showing that junk was scripted and approved by industry executives.
If not for me, do this for your own self-preservation. Otherwise, if you keep putting all your eggs in two baskets – skeptics are all corrupted by illicit funding / ‘deniers’ fear change – you will have no position to retreat to when both of those are blown to smithereens. Don’t think of that as a hopeless prospect, though, look at it as one more among other reasons for an exercise in introspection that could very well open up a bright future for you that you’ve had your eyes closed to all this time.
Perhaps best encapsulating the entire situation of not only what goes on at the DailyKos, but also within the larger global warming believer community, was a pair of assertions in comment #20 at the HelpDesk page on Harris’ protest:
Comments that seem to “disappear” are not deleted. They can still be seen by trusted users. They just cannot be seen by people who are not trusted users. […] free speech does not apply.
In other words, Obey. Or risk being labeled ‘untrusted.’
Ranging from early efforts in the ’90s to brand skeptic scientists as ‘industry-corrupted’, to the infamous Phil Jones line “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?“, to what we see today, can there be a more damaging way to undermine core scientific claims about catastrophic human-induced global warming than efforts to suppress all criticism of those claims by any means possible?
“To silence criticism is to silence freedom”- Sidney Hook.
Read Kirsten Powers’ book, “The Silencing, How the Left is Killing Free Speech.” (Kirsten herself is a Democrat.)
“Kirsten herself is a Democrat.”
So she’s a right winger. She still might have a point.
I thought Democrats were left and Republicans were right
Or is it Republicans are right and Democrats are wrong
One by One, all fair-minded people are realizing that Kos is the online face of Fascism in the world today.
This is very typical of the Left wing loonies. They shout about their “rights” to say what they want but they certainly have no difficulty whatsoever removing the rights of others to have a differing opinion.
I came across similar in the old UK Indymedia sites – the Bristol Indymedia in particular.
Comments were deleted and proved to be deleted (the are not very bright when it comes things like audit trails) despite their saying that comments that broke their “rules” were NOT deleted but “hidden”.
These people would not know or recognise the Truth if it was biting them in the arse.
What WE have to do – is to keep biting.
It is obvious they do not like this and get angry with those that force reality upon them.
And whilst that is a good thing generally – it is good for them specifically as it is part of their growing up process which has been obviously delayed.
She might be an honest democrat. The questions is how long those will last. A democrat or ‘as a democrat’?
Just a few years after being his parties VP candidate, Leiberman was driven out of the party for the sin of not agreeing with the Kos kids on a single issue, the Iraq war.
Despite the fact that he had a long history as one of the most liberal Democrats in Washington, he failed the purity test.
Back in the 1960s, left wingers were always for free speech as they spoke out and demonstrated against the Vietnam War. But as they grew older and assumed power, they implemented political correctness, and did not grant the same freedom to speak out to the right wingers.
Consequently, right wingers in the U.S. are now more liberal in their approach to freedom of speech, and liberals are more conservative in their approach to freedom of speech.
Conservatives have never been in favor of censorship.
“I thought Democrats were left and Republicans were right”
No, Democrats are far right (well to the right of British Conservatives), and Republicans are even further right.
RoHa,
That’s how you folks see it. But in America, the Republican Party is a little left of center, and the Democrat Party is far to the left of the Republican Party.
But the Democrat rank-and-file who call the shots are far to the left of the Democrat Party, and the Republican rank-and-file (who usually don’t call the shots) are to the right of the Republican Party.
This is almost as confusing as UK politics. But not quite. ☺
Meh, I’d never bother with DailyKos, they’ve been close-minded on many other topics in the past.
The real description of the “KOS” is only one letter wrong instead of K it should have P
The girl in the video has her head up her assets. A blog that allows comments implicitly implies that the comments received will be printed — unless they violate certain listed rules already made known to the readership and continually restated to inform people new to the site.
Censorship comes about by the act of deleting comments that are not in violation of listed rules but displease the blog owners.
If the blog had a stated policy of not printing anything that the owners of the blog do not like then there is no censorship since they have informed those who wish to comment of how comments are selected and rejected.
Warmists blogs do not openly state that only comments pleasing to the blog owners will be published therefore they are practicing censorship when they delete such comments.
They need only post that dissenting viewpoints will not be published to cease to be repulsive censors.
Eugene WR Gallun
If Obama were to announce tomorrow that from now on, no news detrimental to the Democrats will be published in the US, then it wouldn’t be censorship?
Openly declaring that you will not permit certain types of posts is still censorship. It’s just open censorship.
Since KOS is a private concern, they have every right to censor anything they want.
Similarly, we have every right to criticize policies that we don’t like, even if those policies are legal.
MarkW
There is a difference between government censorship and private censorship. The constitution and laws protect us from the former and allow the later.
i would equate the issue with the right of businesses to refuse service to any one they chose. Both a blog and a business can refuse to serve those they find repugnant.. Christian run bakeries don’t have to make gay wedding cakes. But after the first cake refusal they need to post a sign.
And I have no difficulty with a business posting a sign saying “We don’t serve blacks” or with climate blogs stating “We don’t post denialists” — just so long as they are upfront about their policy. The freedoms of racists and intellectual degenerates must be preserved if we are to preserve our own freedom of association.
Blogs that do not openly state their policy appear to be an open storefront door and customers arrive expecting equal treatment — if nothing is posted otherwise. When hidden rules are then applied censorship occurs.
Yikes — i can’t finish this! I have an appointment i almost forgot about!
Eugene WR Gallun
The girl in the video has her head on straight.
While there may be an expectation of “whatever”, there’s nothing making the fulfillment of any expectations by website visitors as being some ironclad promise. Owner has the right to refuse service; at least in free societies.
It’s like going to a free outdoor concert, you may have hopes and expectations about the quality of the bands that will be playing, but you might just as easily be disappointed. Perhaps you may then decide to skip future productions from the particular event promoters.
Such is how it works with a privately owned website. Unless you have a contract, you get what you are served by the proprietors, nothing more, nothing less. You don’t have to like it or respect it, but one thing it is not is free speech infringement, only the government can commit that violation.
People tell other people to STFU all the time and sometimes can do so by deleting or blocking a user or comments, that is free speech: the right to say go away, this is my soap box!
DailyKOS is a stomping ground for jerks, but it’s not rare these days. Every traipse on over to Wikipedia these days? if any place had the promise of expectations written all over it, it would be Wikipedia, and yet there it is in all its consensual circle-jerk glory.
I think we’re conflating censorship with the 1st amendment: Government is not (should not be) allowed to censor due to the 1A, Private entities are always allowed to censor.
The concert analogy is pretty bad as you are describing enjoyment of the free event, not participation in the free event.
Government has found willing courts to allow all sorts of censorship and direct violation of the constitution. Clear violation IMHO.
Website posting agreements aren’t legally binding (though a pay site could open the door for civil damages if they violate their own policies to their paying members). Posts that are removed with or without notice are completely fine for 1A including when they don’t note it in their TOS.
They’ll exist because, echo chambers.
The Daily Kos only believes in freedom of speech if they agree with it politically. So instead of liberty, they promote fascism. The Huffinton Post and Yahool News seem to be of the same “Speech Police” ilk. A little U.S. Constitution anyone?
Yes, it is a fascist echo chamber site that doesn’t allow even the slightest deviation from ‘group think.’ Years ago when an election didn’t go liberal, they were all whining about why this happened so I suggested Daily Kos stop demonizing voters and act somewhat friendlier.
Banned instantly! With posters screaming foul mouthed abuse at this daring suggestion and talking hot about how much they hated American voters in general and how they wished to replace them with illegal aliens.
Here is Macaulay in 1843 on the subject of bigotry.
“The doctrine which, from the very first origin of religious dissensions, has been held by bigots of all sects, when condensed into a few words and stripped of rhetorical disguise, is simply this: I am in the right, and you are in the wrong. When you are the stronger, you ought to tolerate me, for it is your duty to tolerate truth; but when I am the stronger, I shall persecute you, for it is my duty to persecute error.”
By that perhaps archaic definition, contemporary liberals are among the most bigoted, of bigot-ty, bigots.
The Constitution isn’t applicable….it states “Congress shall pass no law”. That simple phrase also takes censorship off the table. Government is the only entity that can censor, in private enterprise its nothing more than editing, from a legal sense.
There is a right to speak….there is no right to be heard.
Just Steve,
In a narrow legal sense you are of course, correct. However, the larger point being made here is about the value of debate itself, and a willingness to tolerate the ideas of those with whom one disagrees.
What does it say about a group so insecure, that they must instantly vacuum away any opposing viewpoints. The preferable alternative obviously, is to respond to the opposing viewpoint with sound arguments in an attempt to persuade, if not the original writer, at least those who are onlookers to the conversation.
Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote about fascism: “The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.” In the case of The Daily Kos, the Progressive thought police are the fascist group that has taken ownership of “their” truth to be the only truth.
Hmm, I now understand. FDR was not as smart as people think he was! (Though I suspected this all along.) Fascism is like socialism in that the government controls production. The key difference is that government does not own the means of production, but controls all production. If a factory owner does not do what the government wants, the factory is confiscated and turned over to government crony who will do the government’s bidding. (A factory can be anything – a newsroom, a blog, a widget manufacturer, etc.)
It may start out that fascism comes about through political oligarchy as FDR implied, but it comes down to brute government force in the end controlled by the powerful few. It is also true that before the war FDR wrote glowing reports of the Mussolini miracle in Italy.
That’s what is repellant about billionaires being activists for their personal pet peeves and contributing mass sums of money to them, especially when their aims are against one or more of our Constitutional rights and freedoms. Bloomberg, for one.
The left wing echo chamber cometh.
They come and they go. This is skirmish tactics by way of propaganda. Imagine that you would be able to actually debate a real eco-religion. It wouldn’t be a fair fight. The AGW advocates are generally uninformed bio-bots repeating slogans.
The objective of these people through sites like Daily Kos is to bark out their nonsense to achieve their eco- religious/political end. It is not about dialogue. It is not about science. It is a verbal steamroller of oppression by socialists.
Where did you ever get the idea that these zealots ever held science or rationalism as virtues? If you think that, you have lost. These people are robots chanting words from empty heads.
This is them…
Burning the Wickerman
> These people are robots chanting words from empty heads.
Yup.
But unfortunately this is also true of many other groups – actually, perhaps most humans. Most people I know definitely do not want to think for themselves, even the very smart ones.
Indeed.
Because of your difficulty with climate change free speech, this link to the specialty of “Climate Linguistics” may possibly be of assistance.
http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2015/05/18/climate-linguistics/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=climate-linguistics
John Scalzi had an interesting short essay on freedom of speech. Part of it touched on freedom of speech as it applies to sites such as Facebook and Twitter as well as blogs. http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/05/11/reader-request-week-2015-1-free-speech-or-not/
Thanks, SMC. Good piece.
Scalzi is hardly a champion of free speech! He is notorious for suppressing it.
Please support the charge.
“Climate Change Free Speech Prohibited at DailyKos”
Any kind of speech except Consensus Speak. Four legs good, two legs bad.
Some animals are more equal than others.
When the POTUS condones the same behavior, “fair” is no longer in the equation. Oppression is.
Just sayin, bullies, blowhards, and lies, right before your eyes.
Interestingly, this section:
“think of me as the Fox Mulder character from the X-Files TV series / movie, who wanted so desperately to believe in UFOs. Give me some kind, any kind of irrefutable proof showing big industry-inspired / industry-bought errors in the skeptics’ peer reviewed published reports, please hit me over the head with undeniable evidence of the lies skeptic scientists have told and what motivated them to do such shameful acts that are so easily exposed, please, please, please”
Can easily be changed to:
“think of me as the Fox Mulder character from the X-Files TV series / movie, who wanted so desperately to believe in UFOs. Give me some kind, any kind of irrefutable proof showing [b]big government-inspired errors in the warmists’ [/b] peer reviewed published reports, please hit me over the head with undeniable evidence of the lies [b] warmist [/b] scientists have told and what motivated them to do such shameful acts that are so easily exposed, please, please, please”
And that can be easily accomplished via the ClimateGate files. There is undeniable proof that they lied, had errors in their research, and they admitted what their unscrupulous motivations were.
Kos said this:
“Perhaps the only way to convince the cult of deniers, is to convince them that their initial assumtion [sic] that doing something about climate change will require a dramatic change in lifestyle is wrong!”
And the thread includes these tidbits:
‘It is not about dialogue. It is not about science. It is a verbal steamroller of oppression by socialists.’
‘Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote about fascism…..’
‘To silence criticism is to silence freedom’
‘So instead of liberty, they promote fascism’
So Kos’s point is to ‘convince’, and the posts are all about fascism, socialism, and censorship!
Anyone encountering this dialogue for the first time might be inclined to say:
Kos: 1) Wants to persuade through dialogue and communication.
2) Has information about the impact of solutions.
Those posting: “Overheated, irrational, over the top fearful of solutions, but have no interest in the science and don’t want to hear anything about solutions.”
Which are the adults? And which are the children?
Censorship is dialogue and communication? Seriously?
Don’t you realize how ridiculous you sound?
What censorship? WUWT bans posts or links from AGW websites, and has policies that if violated, lead to a ban. Any blog has a protected right to do so.
Seems like what we’re seeing on this thread is a pity party.
warrenlb blurted out “What censorship? WUWT bans posts or links from AGW websites, and has policies that if violated, lead to a ban. Any blog has a protected right to do so.”
WUWT includes a long list of links to AGW websites but you’d have to scroll down a bit to see them.
DailyKOS has the sharpest censorship of any blog I’ve participated in. The slightest deviation from their groupthink results in being banned. I lasted about an hour there and all I did was point out a silly, stupid blatant lie someone had posted; something so trivially easy to find the truth that the writer ought to have been embarassed.
Scientific American isn’t very far behind. I quit Huffington Post when they took a hard left turn a couple of years ago so they never got the chance to ban me. Until then it was a lot of fun with lively, real debates.
I always write civilly; there is no reason for anyone to ban me except on grounds already thoroughly discussed here — discussion is not their goal, maintenance of the hive is their goal.
They, and possibly you, are drones; enslaved to a queen that is never seen by most of the drones but they know with certainty the “smell” of their hive and will viciously attack intruders that do not smell right.
It is a matter of degree and intent. WUWT will eventually ban someone that just isn’t civil; but if you sincerely and politely (sea lion, anyone?) argue some aspect of climate science, all the better!
DailyKOS differs dramatically. Truth is irrelevant; I have never seen anything like it for “doublethink” — the ability to think completely rival things at the same time; good is bad, bad is good; war is peace, etc. George Orwell must have had DailyKOS in mind when he wrote “1984”.
In that sense DailyKOS is an interesting phenomenon for students of human nature.
“Seems like what we’re seeing on this thread is a pity party.”
Yes; it is a pity that DailyKOS does not encourage discussion and debate because they do at times have interesting commentary and sometimes ask questions, rhetorically of course, that I could answer if only permitted.
Follow-up:
warrenlb says “WUWT bans posts or links from AGW websites”
WUWT will delete a post that contains too many links of any kind.
There’s hardly any point in linking to DeSmogBlog or SkS; I won’t follow those links anyway.
@warrenlb… If a given blog, newspaper, magazine, etc… wishes to suppress opinions about some viewpoint on some topic… that’s *not* censorship?
Hint: it is.
Is censorship of the presented viewpoints a privilege of the information provider?
Hint: it is.
So, by definition, Kos is censoring viewpoints, which means that ‘dialogue’ is not the goal. While that censorship is a privilege of the information provider, the blatant censorship of opposing viewpoints is precisely in violation of the scientific process. Science only works through thorough and continuous examination of opposing viewpoints. Nearly literally, nothing is ever ‘settled science’.
WUWT only bans people who are offensive and offer nothing to the conversation.
DailyKos bans anyone who disagrees with them.
Only a total nincompoop would declare that there is no difference between the two positions.
warrenlb- you attempt to justify the censorship at such sites as that reprehensible KOS, by equating them with actions at WUWT. The fact that you are still here after all this time, disproves your claim.
warrenlb May 18, 2015 at 7:46 pm
WUWT bans posts or links from AGW websites
And yet there’s the links to Pro AGW Views almost directly across from your comment.
and has policies that if violated, lead to a ban.
….and yet, here you are. Again, and still.
MarkW – yep – or a brainwashed warmist or leftist in general
Owen: You say potato, I say potAHto.
warrenlb is writing as if he deems himself to be the arbiter of what can and cannot be discussed. How does that fit in with the idea of free speech, exactly?
It’s interesting that warrenlb can spout his misinformation and nonsense here — but scientific skeptics are banned from posting facts and evidence at his favorite blogs.
How does that work, warrenlb? Why is it a one-way street?
…Because CAGW is seen as too much of a risk to do nothing… and those who stand in the way are stirring trouble with the doubts.
However, I’ve had CAGW arguments with friends and family for two decades. That’s 20% of a century, the last time I did the math. Shouldn’t most of the coastal areas be under the ocean by now? If not… and clearly they are not… it would seem that the emergency is not so much of an emergency.
And then part two of primary enters… the doubters will take away the government run CAGW gravy train… I think that’s where we are now. And when the pie slice is threated, the right to free speech needs to go.
The children are those that declare that anyone who disagrees with them is evil and must be silenced.
Aka, DailyKos.
[snip . . content free post. Try harder . . . mod]
Case in point
And which are the demented sociopathic narcissists who are cannot stand to discuss issues in an open dialog?
warrenlb “Which are the adults? And which are the children?”
Insufficient information provided.
I wish to be a child; eager to learn new things, flexible of mind and with a cup not full (*).
* Reference to the movie “Avatar”: “It is hard to fill a cup that is already full.”
Walls keep people out and walls keep people in.
The Kos Wall is to keep people inside the prison of ignorance.
Outside are reality and freedom.
August 20, 1961 — Berlin, Germany (youtube)
A wall of l1es will always fall in the end, for truth wins. Every time.
The young don’t like being told to stay put — “just be-koz”. The young are, even now, questioning ….
November, 1989 — Berlin, Germany (youtube)
Good for you, Mr. Cook, et. al.!!! Keep on sending in those dits and dahs — truth is getting through. If it were not, the Kos gatekeepers would not be so bumblingly frantic. What a bunch of BUFFOONS! lololololololo
Okay. The jerks at NBC (or wherever) won’t let that video play directly here. So,..
The Berlin wall falling — 1989 (youtube)
@Janice:
Your post brought this story to mind:
http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/SelGia.shtml
And your charming Oscar Wilde short story brought this to mind…
#(:))
“Love and faithfulness meet together;
righteousness** and peace kiss each other.”
Psalm 85:10.
**Here, science truth = “righteousness”
Maybe it’s just me, but Satterfield isn’t making any sense as far as I can see. First he says skeptics believe they’ll have to make some significant changes in their lifestyle which is why they don’t ‘believe’. He even says the overwhelming evidence is that this is not likely the case (regarding, I assume, the significant lifestyle changes). But he follows this up with an appeal to authority, stating that the “nearly unanimous opinion” (97%?) of climate scientists is that we are heading for a catastrophe! But somehow, apparently, averting catastrophe doesn’t require any significant lifestyle changes, huh? Color me skeptical 🙂
Thanks, pinroot. I thought it was just me.
“…let’s look at someone who has been convinced that doing something about climate change means a significant change in their lifestyle, wealth, or ability to drive their favorite vehicle. Understand here, that there is overwhelming evidence that this is not likely the case, ”
Yes, that statement struck me as just plain “nuts”. If no “lifestyle” changes are needed, just why do CAGWers attack skeptics? Do they believe in FAITH rather than GOOD WORKS?
Not “No” lifestyle changes….just significant changes. Significant to whom? Depends on whose ox is gored…
Gosh, I wasn’t aware that DailyKos was considered a locus for atmospheric physics research. My bad.
Frankly, who cares how a coven of trivial, immature and politically besotted reporters(?) conduct themselves.
I remember the Daily Kos as being “the source of truth” when the brouhaha over Dan Rather’s GWB memo was the talk of the town. A while later, many of the same people who were pushing the Daily Kos were also pushing Real Climate.
Amazing how difficult it is for some people to grasp the concept of “agreeing to disagree”.
The owner of DailyKos was feted extensively at the most recent Democrat convention.
They are and always have been very influential to those on the left.
Beyond that, this is just one more example of censorship on pro-AGW sites.
Censorship at the Daily Kos, seriously who’s suprised.
No one who pays attention to what those on the left have been saying.
More’s the pity. Both the vehement and the hidden Left warrant a close watch.
Not sure why this is surprising to anyone. Liberals/Progressives are highly intolerant of anything that diverges from their beliefs. This happens all the time at the Democratic Underground, where long term users are “tombstoned” (meaning they are permanently banned) for daring to take the wrong viewpoint. I once left a comment there that had absolutely nothing to do with politics, but was a serious matter that was related to my business. My extremely helpful comment was wacked and my account tombstoned.
I’ve been blocked by all sorts of Cult of Climastrology members on Twitter. Blocked at Little Green Footballs (after Chuck went bat guano insane) for simply asking him a question. Blocked for a while at the UK Guardian for asking inconvenient climate questions. Blocked at Shakesville, and I never even commented there using Disqus. I could keep going on. Suffice to say, they are very intolerant.
Sounds as if the world is out to get you…
Lol, nope. Just your tiny, dark, dungeon of a “world,” Warren Pound.
warrenlb,
When you can’t answer the points raised, you change the subject.
That’s just more of your deflection. How about trying to answer the points raised… IF you can. You can start by explaining why you’re against free speech.
The comments are complaints about Kos and others exercising their right of free speech. The whiners just don’t like to be criticized.
warrenlb says:
The whiners just don’t like to be criticized.
For once we agree. Next time you’re over at Kos, tell those crybabies that being criticized is part of life, and that the answer isn’t to shut out differing opinion just because the Kos kidz are a bunch of whiners.
Fascinating how our AGW troll is so tolerant regarding the fascist tendencies of his friends.
warrenlb,
“The comments are complaints about Kos and others exercising their right of free speech. The whiners just don’t like to be criticized.”
Well that pretty much describes the situation at DailyKos I guess. Bunch of people whining because there are millions or billions of people who disagree with their strange world view. They do not like to be criticised, at all – they can’t stand it in fact. It is the psychology of a school yard bully. The internet allows them to have their own playground. Better there than here, IMV.
Focus Warren Focus.
This is a comment section for a specific article. What evidence in the piece demonstrating The Daily KOS being small minded, fearful of criticism, and an echo chamber for only pre-approved views do you disagree with?
Maybe it’s too painful to live in a world where people are allowed to have opposing views.
Too bad.
I wonder if you could, would you prefer to shut up all people whose views you do not approve of like the KOS does on their site? It seems to be a trending line of thinking.
No, it’s just that Truth to a Liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.
I once [or thrice] had an argument about CAGW at a party. I was *accused* of not *believing* in anything.
I took it as a compliment, as I follow evidence based reasoning and not belief unfalsifiable, and apparently infallible, pseudoscience and superstition.
Heh, I still have an LGF account (I think; haven’t visited in a while).
I was in a cult. The strict rules were that we had to avoid, at all cost, anything that contradicted what the cult leader said was true. This was because a powerful, wealthy conspiracy was working to destroy the cult. This enemy was EVIL and wanted to destroy the world so they could control it all.
This Daily Kos sounds too damn familiar.
So glad you got out, Bill!! Aaa. Don’t EVER tell your real name online — in their eyes, you are now the “enemy.” You must be a strong person — so many, even if they see the truth, are too frightened to ever leave a cult. VERY happy for you. (ugh — thinking now about real cult members, I shuddered — very real tragedies are happening as we write).
“…cult leader said was true.”
Any connection to clams or Xenu?
Somehow I got on their list and get at least 3-4 emails a day from them. I can’t remember one article or one thing that I agree with and never respond (but like to keep track) They are always looking for money (donations) and for me to sign their petitions. I almost responded once, but figured that they would X me from their email list. I like to keep track of what the socialists – eco-nuts are promoting…
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y55/silverbeam/A%20CSM%20Blog/Bigfootprint.jpg
Oh, brother, Max (eye roll and smile). THAT is because he never got the AC fixed in his 1969 Camaro resto-rod and that 427 with the dual overhead cam puts out a lot of heat in a cruise through town!
The comment is a bit crude, but, the general sentiment seems to be backed up by some “evidence,”:
lololololol……. Hm.
#(:))
Janice, this one’s for you girl. (And wow, you seem to know your cars! 🙂
Rare Double COPO 1969 Camaro 427 V8 425 HP Muscle Car
But seriously, wouldn’t you prefer this guy?
http://gadgetking.com/wp-content/uploads/CoolCustomSMARTCars_860E/image.png
Thanks, Max. I have known a few gear/motor heads (all very patient teachers). $169,000 — only a sucker would pay that much. It wasn’t ORIGINAL, just restored to factory. Heh, while the guy narrating the vid was likely being honest THERE…, the frequency of his “believe me”s said to me: “That guy l1es on a regular basis.” Just a prejudice, I know, but I’ve never met a person who used phrases like, “Believe me” with high frequency who was not also a habitual liar. A weird-but-true “fact.” Re: the sound …. (cough)…. I sure hope it was the poor sound quality of the video… . Not impressive.
NOW! Impressive is the Dumb Car (a.k.a. “Smart Car”) monster truck! Loved it! Truly, “smart.”
#(:))
Thanks for sharing.
And, to all: I feel just fine, thank you very much, talking about stuff like this on a thread about that Klimate Klown periodical. What trivia would NOT be on topic? lololol
Might I note that the chevy 427 has a single cam in the block 🙂
The ford 427 I think in some versions had a single overhead cam, but dare I say putting one in a classic Camaro is sacrilegious?
Nothing personal, but this site blocks many people, even in articles attacking them. Pot, kettle and so forth
Really? Nothing to do with breaking blog rules? Offensive language? Persistent trolls? etc
I’m confused, is Russell Cook responsible for the moderating policy of this site? Silly rabett, your tricks are for kids.
No it does not. (Nothing personal)
And yet, Eli, your posts are still here whereas a post like that would quickly disappear over at KOS. There’s a difference between removing offensive rule-breaking posts and removing posts whose only offense is to offer a different point of view.
To those on the left, any opinion that they disagree with is offensive.
Most of those comments that get bit canned are from invalid email addresses or have some other attempt at hiding their identities. Some have gotten banned but usually after quite a few warnings for trolling the board off topic. Some instant bans have gone out for those communicating threats or using abusive language, but for those who treat this blog as a conversation in our hosts living room there is no problem. There can be many disagreements, but we don’t have to be disagreeable while doing so.
Of course after a while, one learns to just read past certain users’ comments because the track record indicates that their block of text will be content-free.
Isn’t it fascinating how those who defend fascism are utterly incapable of recognizing the issue of scale.
One site allows posts that disagree with the host, but only bans those who time and again violate the rules of the site.
The other site bans anything that the moderators disagree with.
To some who are either clueless or desperate to change the subject, these two cases are indistinguishable.
just one of the reasons I found CAGW to be suspect. The quality of the argument from warrenpound and rabettpellet is so typical of the warmistas. the science is settled, the world is gonna end, you can’t see my data because you’re a denier, and on and on and on
Eli Rabett asserts “Nothing personal…”
Some, but not me of course, would say everything you write is personally motivated. 😉
Kos is just a left-wing echo chamber, and being a private site, they are entitled to their own rules just as WUWT or any other are. So who cares about them? Surprised that this article is here.
The point was not about the mere presence of censorship. THAT, everybody knows and/or would otherwise guess at. The point was one of their own people admitting that within DailyKos, there are ‘trusted users’ and ‘untrusted users’, and the inherent threat aimed at their own people: “Obey. Or risk being labeled ‘untrusted.’” They were so weird about that trusted/untrusted user structure that I could not be trusted to read my own diary post.
I guess I’m an untrusted user, since they remind me often that I haven’t contributed pesos or filled out their many petitions…jajajaja
We care about them because they represent the public face of the True Enemy we are fighting, in the Climate wars. This is not a “scientific” battle at all, and anyone who still believes that is hopelessly naive. This is now ONLY about money, and power, and political control, and Kos represents that element of society that is eager to seize power and disenfranchise the rest of us.
You might as well have said, why should anyone have cared about an obscure German corporal in 1931? Not many people at the time did – but they should have. All they had to do was listen to find out what was coming.
NZ Willy says “So who cares about them? Surprised that this article is here.”
It is obvious that you and a great many other people care about the existence of DailyKOS and consider it a window into a dangerous world view.
As to the article being here, I cannot say as it basically states the obvious BUT as you can be sure DailyKOSsers will be looking at these comments, might be interested in how many are not subscribing to their world view.
Thanks, Russell Cook. Not that I care about the Kos, but intolerance is a symptom of an ugly malaise. I know, I came from a country that was destroyed by intolerance (later came greed, then fear).
And the intolerance I pointed out within DailyKos about just who in their own midst is ‘trusted’ or ‘untrusted’ is a cancer that has every potential of devouring them from the inside out.
The revolution always eats its own. Name some left wing or fascist revolution that came to power that didn’t have its own lists of trusted and untrusted followers — with the latter soon going to the wall.
The surest sign of an untrusted follower is that the person actually believes in the stated goals of the revolution. A trusted follower knows its all about getting power and keeping it by any means.
Eugene WR Gallun
The DailyKossac is still around??!! It’s amazing to me that such a degenerate vestige of the blog wars still lurks in the dark corners of the net
Lestists want everyone to think and believe the same as they do,with opposing views often: boycotted, demonized, ridiculed, shouted down, picketed, censored, harassed, threatened, businesses shut down, careers ruined, and in some tyrannous countries–imprisoned and killed.
In free societies with strong freedom of speech laws, even hate speech is allowed, providing direct illegal threats of violence aren’t advocated.
It’s only through open and unfettered debate can truth be ascertained, for without it, only dogma and tyranny survives.
Climate change and fish science is conducted by the same agency, NOAA.
Ask yourself this rational question. If you have reservation of the data with one issue, climate or fish, who could not be skeptical of both data issues?
It is NOAA after all.
Grandiose vessel’s that for whatever reason, feed poop into computer models that spit out some pretty smelly, economic choking, results because stock assessments in NE are not having the climate data(!) factored in, in the place they claim the temp went through the roof, which would result in the of knowing of redistribution.
The NOAA is controlling this because ENGO insider bureaucrats that are of the well, kooky persuasion, are all camped out in DC.
In the Gulf of Maine lurks the R/V Bigelow. The only boat that couldn’t catch a cod, or a flounder.
A Tale of two pictures – NOAA and Enviros have it all wrong on Gulf of Maine Cod!
http://fisherynation.com/34174-2
we get the same nonsense in the uk http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/9546004/Just-100-cod-left-in-North-Sea.html . if the fisheries scientists doing the research actually used the correct gear properly and in the areas where the fish are present we might actually get accurate stock assessments, until then it takes people like this commercial skipper to humiliate them into back tracking (a friend of mine was skippering the boat at the time this catch was made) https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/business/north-of-scotland/432958/north-east-boat-brings-bumper-13-tonne-haul-cod/?piano_t=1 ,they actually had over 20 tonnes but had to cut a portion free to enable the net to be hauled.
as a recreational angler the winter before last i caught over 500 kg of cod on rod and line from the shore on the east coast of scotland ,this would not be possible if cod stocks were not on the increase in the north sea.
I hear that! The foundation funded/taxpayer supported through non-profit status ENGO’s have convinced the public that feeding people from the sea, is an assault on bio diversity, as they have no problem destroying for off shore wind. I think they want a UN for fisheries!
Damanaki floats idea of US-EU-Japan collaboration on global fisheries protection
http://fisherynation.com/archives/36100