From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
Censorship Only refuge of Weak and Fearful
Published on October 25, 2006 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Current Events
You see it in articles and replies all the time. To paraphrase, it usually boils down to this..." stop saying things i can't deal with, or i'll censor your words." It matters not how polite the person is. It doesn't matter if the person refrains from insults and profanity. All that matters is that the host of the article can't effectively argue something, therefore his only course of action is that of any coward. Run and hide. In this case, censor the writer.

Of course, that's their choice. But what a weak choice it is. It is, in effect, an admission that they cannot back up their own points. It's usually surrounded by a bunch of "eloquent" language, but anyone with a brain knows what's happening.

I've been in some very heated arguments over the last decade + of writing online. Sometimes you are dealing with someone unreasonable. No matter, just stand your ground and the "trolls" usually go away after a short while. When they don't, they can be fun to play with. Plus, anyone who has been in a heated debate with me knows that when the dust settles, like in a boxing match, I am usually the 1st to extend a gesture of friendship and emphasize that perhaps we can find common ground elsewhere. But some aren't interested in finding common ground, they are only interested in bullying their opinions on others, and when they find they can't, they censor. They know not of competing hard and good sportsmanship, they only want victory uberalles.

In all the years I have written, and written online, I have always used my own name wherever possible. I do it for a reason. I stand behind what I write. And just because someone comes on and tells me i'm wrong and uses their "evidence" as proof, doesn't make it so. And i'm big enough of a boy that I can deal with some yahoo yellin at me. Censorship has never been an option. Censorship is for cowards who hide behind their keyboards and act like bullies. Usually paper bullies.

I have been sworn at, insulted, had my family and friends insulted and worse. But I don't censor. It is a principle. Obviouly one not shared by all. Some would rather supress dissent than deal with it. Some don't have the mental capacity to understand that people will disagree with you often, no matter how well you think your argument has been laid out. Some take this bloggin stuff WAY too seriously.

Many times over the years, I have called these keyboard bullies out. I'm not afraid of them, like they think I should be. This usually results in 1 of 2 things. Either they back off, or they try to censor me. To tell the truth, I usually have more respect for the ones who back off, even if it isn't accompanied by an apology. At least those folks are showing they are capable of seeing how stupid they were. The censors just prefer to live in their state of denial, their delusional world where everything they say is right.

Of course, these are the 1st people who start accusing others of being stalkers and trolls. They even try to foolishly define them sometimes. Of course those definitions never apply to them, as they are perfect in their own eyes. It's sad and a shame.

But if they choose to bury their head in the sand and act as if they are justified in squelching different opinions, so be it. But if they think others don't know the truth, they are really delusional not realizing that while you may be able to wield absolute power on the lil ol blog site, in the real world, the truth is known, and discussed without censorship.

If you are gonna dish it out, you gotta be prepared to take it is the bottom line for most. But for some, they only wanna dish it out.

Such is life.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 27, 2006

I black listed Sean.

And I make no bones about it.  I suspect Sean is beyond redemption but I will tell you why I black listed you, Sean.

1) You rarely read what the original article is. As a result, you set up strawman arguments or make a point that has already been addressed in the original article.

Example: I write an article asking people to think of government policies that affect them in the real world. I explicitly mention that things such as the NIA wiretapping or other things should not be listed unless you actually know someone who has been affected.  And what do you do? You immediately go into a rant about those very policies without even addressing the point of the article. Which leads to #2...

2) Your responses usually veer way off of what the original point of the article was.

Example: Because you don't address the article's points but rather some tangent, you tend to push the argument off-topic.  My article about asking people to think of government policies that affects them turns into you trying to defend those government policies as if that was relevant to the topic at hand.

3) Your writing is atrocious.  By that I mean it is very difficult to even read what you write. It's poorly formatted, lacks punctuation, hecks lacks capitalization. I could probably overlook it but that leads me to #4:

4) Your responses appear poorly thought out, and I don't mean to hurt your feelings but give the appearance of being a sub-par intellect.  Maybe you're a really smart guy in the real world but you don't seem to be able to convey your intelligence into conherent responses.  If I didn't know better, I would think you were in your early teens. I am not trying to insult you, but that is how your writing comes across.

I enjoy debates. I have a lot of friends with very left-wing opinions and I enjoy talking politics with those people.  But I don't enjoy having my articles hijacked by someone who either didn't read the article or didn't understand the article who posts lengthy, barely literate responses.

If I wanted to bully you or censor you, I'd just ban you and your blog. I don't mind you writing about whatever you'd like. But I don't want my comments area littered with noise.

on Oct 27, 2006
"If I wanted to bully you or censor you, I'd just ban you and your blog. I don't mind you writing about whatever you'd like. But I don't want my comments area littered with noise."


Noise is really the issue. If it is your blog, you have the priviledge of keeping the argument in the direction you want. I'll grant that it is abusive to use blacklisting to keep it to the OPINION you want, but that doesn't happen here very often.

As to why, that is the built-in punishment I mentioned. When you do it, people stop coming to your blog. How many discussions do you see where everyone agrees that last more than a dozen or so comment? Successful blogs generally have very heated debate.

"Noise" is something that hamstrings the debate. It becomes confused, people don't like having to follow it in multiple, needless directions, so they move on. You usually end up with the Col and his foils in the same damned boring conversations we've read a million times.

Just posting isn't enough for most bloggers. We want feedback. We want people telling us what they think. We censor people too much and we lose that.
on Oct 27, 2006
Your responses appear poorly thought out, and I don't mean to hurt your feelings but give the appearance of being a sub-par intellect. Maybe you're a really smart guy in the real world but you don't seem to be able to convey your intelligence into conherent responses. If I didn't know better, I would think you were in your early teens. I am not trying to insult you, but that is how your writing comes across

the fact is brad, i get plenty of compliments on my writing. some on this blog site. if you hold a different opinion, that's fine...but nowhere does that deserve blacklisting.

as far as capatalization goes, i do miss some, but that actually goes back to a couple of years ago when this site was operating so slow (i'd have to wait literally a minute or 2 just to backspce or attempt a correction, it literally got ridiculous) and trust me, i've had the most modern connection i can have on this site. at no time as far as i can remember, have i used "dial up" here. also, web writing a lot of times isn't too strict on capatalization et al...and neither am i. in fact, i don' tever rip on other people's typos. i will, point one out if it is key to an article. but i, like you, read thhru all kinds of typos on the web everyday.

and again, you personally insult me. brad, i don't know if you realize this, but there are typos all over your ads and sites. and they have been there a long time. i don't insult you for it. and blogging is casual, i don't always feel compelled to go back and proof everything for proper form. quite frankly, this is a casual format and i really don't care to spend more time at it than i do. plus, i'm usually doing this in connection with other business, so dotting i's and crossing t's aren't always my priority. getting an idea across is. if you don't like my style, fine. but your insults are pompous at best.

as far as the article in question goes,,,brad i DID read and understand your article fully,,,i just disagreed. YOU don't seem to comprehend someone disagreeing with you. i showed plenty of examples showing republican roots and help in many of the legislation you mentioned. i showed an example of conservatives booing a liberal. and you never even acknowledged that. that despite that it ws a big point you made in your article that you had NEVER jeard of that happening and essentially challenged someone to show you. i did,,,you blacklisted me. .

everything i do write here is "1st draft." but i hardly think my writing is "sub par" compared with most of the writing i see here. again, as you can see for yourself, i get plenty of compliments on my writing. my style is very casual, and conversational.,,,is that a crime here? not to mention, i've mentioned in articles and responses past that i need a new keyboard. i type fast and my "caps" key doesn't always respond the way i'd want it to. you'll notice i also sometimes will put a space in a word, then the last letter will be attached to the next word. yeah, i miss that sometimes. i guess that's why they say one should never proofread their own work. but honestly, this is not about typos or my style of writing.

what you interpret as noise other people disagree with. and sure, it is your perrogative to blacklist me from your blog. but for the past 2 days i have not been able to post anything on the forum in response to anyone. and most of my attmts to respond on the regular site have been blocked, except on posts and people i've never spoken with previously, and on my own. is that what you intended?


2) Your responses usually veer way off of what the original point of the article was. Example: Because you don't address the article's points but rather some tangent, you tend to push the argument off-topic. My article about asking people to think of government policies that affects them turns into you trying to defend those government policies as if that was relevant to the topic at hand.

your article was entitled "who is the party of authoritarians?" in the article you made a laundry list of things you contended was from the democrats exclusively. i disagreed with that. how can you say i "tangented" when i was addressing the title of the article and responding to the bulk of it?

brad,,we've been doin this for close to 3 years now. we both know you have ignored any time i have complimented you or acknowledged your rightness. you simply hold me to a different standard than others here. and it seems the more respectful i am, the more you try to find fault with me.

3 years ago, when i was out of line,,,i apologized, sincerely. you know i am not unreasonable and don't see my self as infallible. but this time, i am not at fault. i'm not totally sure what your motivation is here, tho i do have theories. but the "reasons" you are using here simply don't hold water.


But I don't enjoy having my articles hijacked by someone who either didn't read the article or didn't understand the article who posts lengthy, barely literate responses.

cmon,,,i don't hijack articles. not with you or anyone else. and again, you insult me. in our last exchange, i had to put in the article showing the liberal being booed because in my mind, if i don't spell everything out the 1st time, i am usually ridiculed as "hiding facts" and making stuff up. then i have to waste more time just defending myself and trying not to get "too wordy to follow" there. and anytime i try to be brief, someone always accuses me of dodging something. so yeah, being longwinded get s to be a habit here. so i'm damned if i do, damned if i don't. that's just a set-up.

show me something that's "barely literate" by the way....typos yes, but those comments are simply inflamatory, pretentious and out of line. yeah, i may occasionally "run on" a sentence. but so do you and everyone else here. you say things like that, with your lil "air of superiority" to get a reaction. but when you get it, you can't deal with it.
on Oct 27, 2006
hey brad...i was thinking about this site , with the upcoming elections, should maybe set up a lil debate on some of the big issues. not a flame fest, but maybe a format where a question is presented, and a few people , chosen in advance, could just give a single, say max 500 word response to the question. then readers could judge for themselves. no traps, no badgering, no flaming or tangenting.

on Oct 27, 2006
Example: I write an article asking people to think of government policies that affect them in the real world. I explicitly mention that things such as the NIA wiretapping or other things should not be listed unless you actually know someone who has been affected. And what do you do? You immediately go into a rant about those very policies without even addressing the point of the article.

i may be repeating myself,,,but i feel i need to clarify here.

brad, i never disagreed with your contention that the policies / laws were "real world." i disagreed with the premise that they were all exclusively from democrats. that wasn't a tangent. that was what you contended.
on Oct 27, 2006

Most of your comments, other than the one that got totally off topic are still on my blog for people to read and decide for themselves.

Sean, at the end of the day, my personal blog site is my personal blog site. I have the right (just as you do) to control who can and can't respond. 

It doesn't matter how many people you claim think you write well (though man, even reading response #20 for me was painful). It doesn't matter whether you think you're a good debater.

If you want to believe that you were singled out to be black listed from responding on my blogs simply because I'm so thin skinned and intellectually incapable of refuting your..arguments then be my guest.

You wrote a blog about "dishing it out but not taking it". I just don't think many people will think that I can't take it given how often I am flamed.

I clarified for you my reasons. You can choose to ignore those reasons if you wish.

on Oct 27, 2006

BTW, if you are having problems posting on the forum then that would be a bug.

I also want to add that my black listing you from responding to my articles is not meant to be a personal affront to you as a person.

That is, from reading your blogs I am certain you are a fine, good, moral, decent person.  If we lived near each other and hung out socially I am sure we'd get along fine.

But for the reasons I mentioned above, I simply don't want you commenting on my articles. I may change my mind over time. 

on Oct 27, 2006
Noise" is something that hamstrings the debate. It becomes confused, people don't like having to follow it in multiple, needless directions, so they move on. You usually end up with the Col and his foils in the same damned boring conversations we've read a million times.


and baker, ya'll send plenty of "noise" my way. there have been many times that ya'll focus on how i phrased 1 sentence in a multi paragraph article. or nitipicked 1 point and declared that i was wrong on everything cause i didn't spell something out or you disagreed with 1 out of many points. i don't supress that. i may call it out in my own way, but i don't supress it.


Just posting isn't enough for most bloggers. We want feedback. We want people telling us what they think. We censor people too much and we lose that.

excellent point baker. i totally agree. i don't think all bloggers are "starved for attention" but esp when you are writing on current events and politics, one does want to get feedback and have a discussion.

one of the problems with those discussions is that people on blogs and message boards want to argue in a way that suggests (or they even blatantly say) that "because i got you on this one lil point, everything you say is a lie." and that begins a defensiveness i see all over this site and all over blogs in general.

i, like EVERYONE, have been guilty of that style. i've seen you and just about everyone i can think of use those strategies. but i don't see that as such a horrible thing as it is natural. and there is a big difference between you, who is a regular here and some yahoo comin in annonymously and stirring up shit. when i argue with you or others on the right, i know, despite what the outcome is on any blog, we will "meet again" on another article. that's why i try to say something like "maybe we can find common ground elsewhere" as an open door that i'm not just being an asshole and trying to argue with everyone endlessly.

sometimes, i just drop arguing with someone when things get out of hand, sometimes they drift naturally into the past.

but i don't do a fake "above the fray" argument as some do. i know who i am, and can see what others are doing online here and elsewhere. usually the ones claiming they are so pure and free from all the "low road" tactics are the worst offenders.

call me what ya want, but hypocrite is not something that is accurate.

but i'm sure someone is out there combing even these words to find a inconsistancy or typo or word spelled wrong and will use it a s "proof" of somthing that exists only in theri mind. and if they look hard enough they will probably find it. but that's because to me, the conversation we are having is casual. it's fun. if i really want to put my guard up, i can drill things down to the "T" as well as anyone. but i don't see that as necessary here.

well,,,my baby just fell back asleep,,,so i'm gonna do the same. i'll look forward to a feisty debate with ya another day:)

and really, have yourself a great day:)


ps...jsut one final thought. for those of you who think i'm just "anti GOP" wait until the dems get some share of the pie (if they don't self destruct) and you'll see me hold them to the fire as much as i do the bush loyalists of today. i don't go after powerless people in general...that to me is bullying. if you would have known me during the clinton administration, you would have seen things you probably would have emphatically agreed with in my writing.


on Oct 27, 2006
brad,,,just caught your last response. and yes, you have every right to black list me for whatever reason you choose. i stated that, and even underlined it earlier.

my biggest problem actually, was and is not being able to respond in the forums, as they are much easier to quote with and such...but i'm not tellin ya anything you don't know. if it is a bug, any idea how to fix it?

and yeah, response 20 is longwinded and not my best writing,,it's late, and i've been typing while trying to get a toddler back to sleep. ...but cmon,,,there's FAR worse in here. we're both educated people and you know that. why the insults? you claim it's not personal. but you say things like,(para)" from your writing, i can make the following judgements about YOU"...how is that not personal?

on Oct 27, 2006

I made some adjustments, if you are still having problem responding on the forums, let me know.

 

on Oct 27, 2006
whatever ya did,,,it seems to have worked...thank you:)
on Oct 27, 2006
everything is back to normal seemingly. thanks brad:)

now if we can just get a lil balance on the front page....lol

thought maybe my "democrats called for benchmarks a year ago..." would have been a nice addition...
2 Pages1 2