Thanks to Josh, we witness a new subphenomenon--blogcommentofascism.

/snark

Israel Lobby Watch

As a sometime violator of these new rules myself, I hardly think that civility and fascism have much to do with each other

Are you being serious, or is your belief that all blogs should be completely anarchical? I'm not being sarcastic by that, as I know some people sincerely believe that.

As I read the First Amendment, it gives the freedom of printing/publishing to he who owns the press. Especially with the minimal entry cost of blogs, I think it's fair to say that if someone doesn't like a "press", they are free to start their own.

No one seriously proposes, other than perhaps the Unabomber, that the First Amendment requires a publication to print whatever they are sent. There is an accepted concept of editorial judgment. Josh's policy is actually far more permissive than a typical print "Letters to the Editor" column, and it doesn't seem funny to me, even in jest, to suggest it's fascist.

Fascism is a rather ugly thing, and applying it to almost anything takes away from its aura of evil, an aura that warns us.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I may have been unclear here. Clearly, all discussions involve expressing viewpoints. What I've seen recently though are cases where a particularly commenter clearly doesn't like the point of view of the original post and in reaction they do two or three comments where they paste in other articles from a different viewpoint. Certainly posts are the place to react and express viewpoints. My issue here is the sort of 'reading into the record' i just described or perhaps in some cases where comments are completely off topic.

Brian: In support of your request, I believe it would be helpful to get a couple of examples from management of what it does--and does not--mean by "extreme cases (racist views, threats, attacks on particular ethnic groups, calls for violence, etc.)." Particularly helpful would be a couple of examples as applied to comments about Israel and the ME, as these seem to be among the most contentious topics discussed at the site.

It's not that easy for me to answer in the abstract since I don't think we've deleted anyone's comments strictly for their political views, not during this recent dustup. We did delete a comment calling out "zionist c--kscukers". But that to me was a gimme on offensive language. I think someone's view would have to be very, very extreme for the person to be banned from the site. I think the break point is more likely the conjunction of impassioned views and harsh speech.

I read stuff all over the site and I also get tons of email. It's a bit hard for me to differentiate all of it in my head and remember what was in reaction to what post. Certainly some things I've read struck me as containing anti-Semitic animus.

I don't really want to get into a debating match about what qualifies for this one label. I think you can read something into the fact that little if anything has been deleted at the site. But suffice it to say that I think there's been a lot of harsh, ad hominem and inflammatory rhetoric that I don't think belongs here.

I hope that doesn't sound like I'm dodging the question. But you're right, it's not an inquisition.

Actually, the line in the movie draws from a real one from Herman Kahn: "Gentlemen, you do not have a war plan. You have a wargasm." (For a more technical discussion, see Rung 43, "spasm or insensate war", in his book On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios.)

A personal gripe about certain language, which, frankly, annoys me more than profanity directed at me personally. While I hope, someday, to meet some posters here, to the best of my knowledge, no one knows me in person. They certainly don't know what is in my mind and heart.

It's one thing to say "you are describing a neocon position," or "that idea would appeal to Karl Rove." That's fair comment.

What seems out of bounds is when someone claims to know what I am thinking, and tells me my words are lies about my beliefs. I think many of us can laugh at the early attempts to call me a Republican provocateur, and my self-description as a recovering Republican is accepted by a lot of regulars. Continuing to announce I am a Rove clone here to instigate, or a self-hating Jew when I'm not Jewish, or someone that loves to kill, is, to me, rather offensive.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I believe a lot of the heat comes from the Israel/Palestine or Israel/Lebanon threads, due to the intensity of feelings of Israel supporters, and somewhat of Israel detractors.

I believe that it would be worthwhile to establish specific ground rules for how they can or should talk to each other.

I'd like to make a suggestion that the terms "anti-semite", "israel hater", "america hater" etc. be stricken from the dialogue.

In my view, these sorts of appellations to persons or views do not contribute to dialogue, but are an attempt to stop it.

How do you respond to a person who takes your arguments and declares you are a racist? Such a person reserves the right, not simply to dialogue, but to set the terms of discussion and brand and burn anyone not conforming to their terms. This is unacceptable. It is cheapjack rhetorical bullying and I will not cater to it.

If a position is truly anti-semitic, then it and its lack of merit can be demonstrated through rational argument. The retreat to appellations is nothing more than dirty pool. I will not reply politely to such tactics.

I think those words and phrases should be used very, very sparingly. And often they get thrown around too freely. But I'm not going to ban them because sometimes I think they are accurate. I think there should be an effort to discuss rather than provoke and inflame on both sides.

I quite agree. Last Fall, while commenting on Hurricane Katrina reconstruction issues, some of my comments referred to my experience having previously lived in New Orleans, working with construction contracts, and administering Federal contracts that had Davis-Bacon Act Clauses. Another commenter (since banned) created a fantasy "me" who owned a construction company in Louisiana who was busy looking to hire illegal immigrant labor on reconstruction contracts and make a fortune. What an active but malignantly applied fantasy life.

Dude, did you not see the "/snark" appended to my post? Of course, I was joking, that's why I closed my pseudo-HTML snark tag.

I think we all saw it. But "snark" is not a good natured joke, as your objection seems to imply. It is "snidely derisive" (according to Wikipedia.) And that is the impression I took of it.

I think your impression is correct.

Josh says:

Some readers post extensive portions or articles and/or links into their comments.  This isn't what the comments section is for.  Clearly, quoting portions, even sometimes lengthy portions of other works, is important in the context of a conversation.

I include the links mainly to direct attention to essays, articles, websites, definitions, and the like, either to buttress the case I'm trying to make or provide some information which those interested in the topic under discussion might like to pursue.  Sometimes I add links to rebut links the person who wrote the article included.

For me, the links are ways to both avoid quoting huge chunks of text and to allow the readers access to the things from which I quote, just to make sure that I'm not cherry picking or making things up.  I do it as a way to avoid the kind of thing you're trying to tamp down--endless rounds of name calling or "yes I am/no you're not" ping-pong ball posts. With the links, nobody has to demand I back up the assertions I make.  I've preemptively backed them up. 

I'm happy to cut down on the linking, if you really want that, but I'd like to have your thoughts on when linking is appropriate and when it is not.   

Mike

I sometimes use humor that may be a bit jarring in a thread, but try to do things that are clear. In political threads, I'm apt to use classic quotes from Churchill or Mr. Dooley or Mark Russell, which, with attribution, are usually safe.

There are other usages that really are unwise within a certain context. My original training was as a chemist, and, while I was intently working with an explosive mixture, my hands under a blast shield, some wit, or possibly half-wit, popped a paper bag behind me, and started laughing. On hearing the laughter, I make no excuses of spinning around on my stool and delivering a quite solid punch to his midsection.

In like manner, while there is more gallows humor in operating rooms than most laymen believe, it is generally frowned upon for a surgeon to chortle "oooops".

On perhaps the brighter side, I have a colleague who was on the UN WMD inspection teams in Iraq. His specialty was conventional explosives, as in boobytraps and the like -- he was the person that made sure a shell was safe to handle before the chemists and biologist sampled it.

He has a T-shirt, with a motto on the back, not the front: "I am a bomb technician. If you see me running, do your best to keep up."

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I disagree whole-heartedly with point #2.

That's never acceptable. Comments like that will be deleted and members will have their posting privileges revoked. There are other more damning and engagin ways to express disagreement. Again, if you were in a Coffee House, would anyone think that was acceptable?

Actually yes. Look, whenever someone posts on the main pages (i.e. not in a personal blog) what they are doing is akin to giving a reading at a coffee house, getting up on the little stage and speaking while the rest of us chat amongst ourselves and listen. I think if I was sitting in an audience and someone said something spectacularly wrong it would be just fine to say "Wow, where'd they find this moron?" to those around me.

For example, suppose someone posted something like Mike Ledeen's "faster please" I mean, how can you deal with something like that except saying "that's crazy!"

On some level stupid discourse is really not deserving of intelligent response because it dignifies to a point where it's actually given value. It does add little to the discussion but I don't think it merits deletion and banning. (For how long anyhow?)

Links are useful.   

I think Josh was referring to extended excerpts included in comments.  As I understood Josh, those are better placed in one's blog instead of thread a comment .

Of course, Josh may speak for himself.

What is your policy about posts that are either all links, or perhaps a provocative headline and a link, but no original content in the post? Does it make a difference if the link is to the poster's "main" blog somewhere else?

To me, that's the equivalent of getting advertising and giving nothing back. There's one egregious case where the poster will then put up comment after comment on his own post, so it stays visible in the Tracker.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

i'm not sure exactly where we are on what the policy is precisely. But I agree with you that that is an abuse. Or can be. I mean, I sometimes just post a couple words and a link at TPM. So I don't want people to think I'm micromanaging their blogs. But I share your concern, not sure where we should go on a policy level.

I have been one who in 2 instances added comments to my own reader blog to keep them updated with information of interest to me and perhaps of interest to others.  I don't do it to keep it high on the tracker list but that is the result. 

How do others here view that use of a reader blog (i.e., 2 blogs are Presidential signing statements and Quality of life in Iraq)??

That raises one last question, however.

Is it acceptable to refer to someone posting a critique, however harsh (as long as citing facts or apparent facts), of Israel as an "anti-Semite" without any direct explanation as to the reason for that label being applied?

I will willingly refrain from using the phrase "Zionist thug" here as long as I'm not called an "anti-Semite."

In fact, compared to some others who have apparently declined to follow your rules, I agree to follow your rules and will not refer to anyone as a "Zionist thug" EVEN if I am called an "anti-Semite."

I'd just like to know if it is to be considered acceptable to call someone an "anti-Semite" even when the accused individual has explicitly disavowed any such attitude.

Otherwise I see no problems with your rules, they seem eminently fair.

You might want to specify exactly what the process will be for enforcing them, however.

I think if I was sitting in an audience and someone said something spectacularly wrong it would be just fine to say "Wow, where'd they find this moron?" to those around me.

I agree with you in principle, but in practice, what Josh is talking about has become one of the most annoying phenomena on this site.  I mean, it's not as though I've never though 'damn, that was a stupid post.'  And if this bloggy thing were less of an anti-social activity, I might turn to my companion and say as much.  But when you post that as a comment in response to the post, what you are doing is more along the lines of standing up and shouting it.  That, in a coffee house, would mark you as a bit of a nut.

There are two fairly distinct reasons why I think that this kind of comment is worthy of being deleted.  The first is that it is uncivil.  The second, and in some ways more important reason, is that it is often kind of pathetic.  There are too many comments lately that , to continue the metaphor, whisper their derision loudly, as if to impress everyone around them in the audience with how discerning and brilliant they are, compared to the shabby minds up on stage.  To my mind, the reason that this is a problem is that it is a discredit to this whole enterprise - when I read those comments, I find myself wondering if this whole think isn't just a sad exercise in ego-inflation.  It's not, of course, but you know how, when you're embarassed enough for someone else, it's actually painful to you, too.

"But I'm not going to ban them because sometimes I think they are accurate."

Ah, here we go.

I should have known this was coming. Unfortunately I didn't see this post before asking my questions upthread.

Well, Josh, I will refrain from using the term "Zionist thug" against those who refer to me as an "anti-Semite" ANYWAY.

Perhaps I can establish the nature of my critics more effectively that way.

One thing I think you're missing is being clearer about personal insults/ad hominens.

You might take a look at your own Ratings Guidelines, I thought they were quite good, you set out some things in quite clear language there, not just pertaining to comment ratings.

(BTW, your introtext is missing with that link because of the archive glitch, it was only an introductory sentence or two & you can fid it by scrolling back to Aug 22, 2005 on your Stories list.)

edit to add: I very much like devon's idea upthread if you are still considering leaving your guidelines to be mostly self-policed & I believe someone on the other thread did suggest software language that could be used to make "hidden comments;" it's toward the end of the thread.

I say this in praise Josh...you have been very permissive in the comments that have been allowed to be posted here.  And I do fully agree that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed.  I sincerely have the utmost confidence that only the most noxious and intentionally offensive comments will be purged.  But when the denizens partake in too much of the house brew sometimes the mood in the Cafe can get "edgy"...lol.

But your point is taken.  I have the earplugs out because of some of the exchanges lately.  Discussion of politics or religion can lead to heated arguments...the only thing that is more likely to lead to heated arguments are discussions about religion and politics. ;-)

That is my primary concern here, given that Josh appears to have copped out on whether using a term like "anti-Semite" as an insult to another user is apparently acceptable.

I don't intend to take the bait, however.

It will be interesting to see how this goes, because the current wider war in the ME isn't going away any time soon, and we can expect numerous more arguments of the sort seen on this site over the last few days.

If Josh thinks this issue of "anti-Semitism" here is going to die down, he's probably being naive.

At some point, he's going to have to come clean and point out what he thinks is "anti-Semitic" and what isn't.

If he just wants to point to certain posts and so declare them - with reasons, hopefully, to back up his opinion - I have no problem with that.

If he just starts deleting stuff he doesn't like, we'll be back discussing these rules pretty fast.

I'm perfectly happy to restrain myself from using those terms any more. Ivo Daalder can relax.

I'd also be interested to see if Josh intends to apply these rules to contributors like MK Rosenberg who deliberate insulted most of the TPM Cafe readers in what could only be described as a "rant."

Even then, most of the readers who responded to that rant were FAR more polite and nuanced than the contributor.

I cut Larry Johnson some slack - he isn't a "pundit" and doesn't write like one. I know some other people are irritated by his frequently direct and combative response to some posters who criticize him with ad hominem attacks of their own. But at least he responds to the posters, and doesn't treat them like "hoi polloi" to whom he is dispensing "pearls of wisdom" that we should all automatically respect and agree with.

If we all need to obey these rules, I'd like to see Josh confirm that the contributors need to as well.

I agree irishkg...

I do hope the enforcement will be rare...mainly because the members here don't give site managment cause to enforce it.

I tend not to be the most "politically correct" person on the face of the planet or at this site but I would hope no one would intentionally try to offend another member...unless said member was a Yankee fan and I was insulting the Evil Empire, lol.

I agree with Artappraiser. This isn't a hot kitchen type of site we're you've gotta be man enough or something to take the heat.

A lot of this is chicken and egg. One person says something inflammatory. Someone else calls that person an anti-semite where it's an overstatement. In that case I don't like either. But, candidly, if this is a place where you're big issue is pushing the envelope on anti-Israeli rhetoric, maybe it's not a place for you. It's sort of like in college. There were always a couple folks who in the name of free speech were always getting bent out of shape about how there was no open forum for discussing, say, studies into differential intelligence between the blacks and whites. Just want to be able to discuss it, that's all, not coming to any conclusions or anything, etc. At a certain point, I have to think, what's your point exactly?

Uhm, Berkowitz, this appears to be in response to my post.

Are you sure that's what you intended?

 About all I have to say on this subject is that Josh's guidelines are a very good start.  The goal should be to treat people the way we want to be treated. I doubt that anyone objects to someone disagreeing with them and pointing out the mistakes they made.  But, I certainly do object to people who make a strong effort to insult someone they disagree with.  So, I will try hard to follow the rules, and hope that others do the same.

Hoppy in Sacramento

It's your site. You can run it anyway you like. I'll refrain from replying to Berkowitz.

The publishers of the site can go through people's past posts and comments. I haven't done it here. What I'm doing is expressing a certain weariness and concern. I think I've made my point pretty clear. I think most people understand where I'm coming from. When it devolves into stuff like, 'Okay, does that mean I can't say 'zionist war criminal' or 'arab-killer'' then I start to wonder if maybe the message isn't quite getting through.

I'm glad to see this discussion taking place, since I'm one who complained about the tone of some dialogs.

If the subject of a comment is another person rather than that person's ideas I think that is inappropriate. If you can't make your point without insulting or ad hominem remarks then you probably don't have a good handle on your own position.

Another sign of abuse, in my opinion, is commenting too much. If you have made your point and been contradicted and then made you point again, it's enough. Continual debates between a very few people are unproductive and make the contributions of everyone else hard to follow. To use the coffee house metaphor it's like standing up on a table and shouting out your opinions so that everyone else is forced to hear them.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Oops. Was intended for Selfinterest. Sorry about that.

I didn't look carefully enough at the indentations, and thought the attribution would be clear given the text to which I was responding. My fault.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It's a great site, I enjoy it. Although sometimes I think you don't like me and ignore me...(just kidding)

I agree that it's not the whole answer - in fact, my sense is that the fat middle of the problem isn't in comments that should be troll rated, but in comments that are fine in content, and not especially worth downrating for derisiveness etc., but still enough over the edge that they inspire similar responses, and lead to a lot of unnecessary hostility and fights taking up space.  But I think that the old ratings system did a better job of dealing with the outlying cases, and dealing with those might chip away a bit at other problems.  

Josh,

I really appreciate what you are trying to do here but these threads are beginning to remind me of the squabbles involved in settling two estates simultaneously a few years ago.  Or even worse, a Homeowner's Association from Hell meeting. 

There is no way everyone going to agree and probably no way to avoid hurting someone's feelings.  You've been more than considerate in asking for suggestions and engaging in discussion.  It's your establishment, do what you think best and we'll adjust.

-Emma

As you have had the experience of both types of comments aimed at you, the obvious question is whether those comments have succeeded in opening or changing your mind?

Surprise and insult both work with me. Obviously, there's something in my make-up which causes me to pursue the truth(?), reality(?), or, if Berkowitz is correct, sadistic gratification(?), dominance(?), in the political arena pretty fiercely. Otherwise I wouldn't be posting to radically different sites, using provocative names, stating contrary views.

There's something personal in all our actions, something which determines what we pursue, how we pursue it and why. I recognize that what works for me might not work for others...but I have to have a pretty good reason for abandoning the direction and approach which I feel to be true.

This is my first post at TPM Cafe, though I've been reading TPM since 2002, The Cafe since it opened and I check my Muck first thing every morning. The reason I'm posting today for the first time, is I have to say, I am extremely disappointed.

I stopped reading comments after the Semite / Anti-Semite Hate Festival last week. Where a TPM Contributor libeled every member of this community as Anti-Semitic. Or at least that's how I felt slogging through the slime of that commenter's article.

I read today's comment thread, Rules of the Road, hopeful that some of those wrongs would be righted.

Without even tacitly admitting that the exchange was set off by the Article, and not the TPM Community. Instead of righting what happened last week, Josh has decided to make rules for the Community to follow when responding to such vitriol. But he’s failed to a mention TPM Policy regarding such attacks on the community by contributors.

The sleeze from those articles hangs over TPM Café like a fog. I say your readers deserve more than this.

Shame on you.

I think if I was sitting in an audience and someone said something spectacularly wrong it would be just fine to say "Wow, where'd they find this moron?" to those around me.

Well this is a place where I think the coffee house analogy is useful, TH, if applied correctly. You are describing the situation as though the commentators are all sitting together in the coffee house, while merely viewing or listening to the main poster, who is on television, or performing on a stage. But I prefer to think of the main poster as sitting around the table in the coffee house with us - and would like more of them to think that way too.

If the main poster is addressed in the third person, and in insulting terms - especially right out of the box - they are in a sense being excluded from the conversation. The commentators are discussing them as though they weren't there. So it is only natural to expect that they won't participate further. Saying "who is this jerk?" is in this respect even worse than saying "you're a jerk."

I have been frustrated in the past by the reluctance of some of the main contributors to participate in the discussion started by their own posts, and I'm pretty sure you agree with me on that. Several other commentators have remarked on this phenomenon as well. But if the first response from the comments section is to throw up a wall between the poster and the commentators, then you can kiss the main poster goodbye for the remainder of that thread. I know that if the main poster was me, I would probably think, "I don't have to put up with this bullshit. I have a real job."

However, in defense of the commentators, some of the posters do seem to think of themselves as on stage. So it's a two-way street. If they comport themselves like performing artists and prima donnas, then they are very unlikely to be treated that way by the commentators. The commentators will act as though only they are in the coffeehouse, and the pundit-performer is likely to be treated in the way such celebrities are often treated - with sniggering asides among the audience and the occasional rude catcalls from the peanut gallery.

Some of the posters also might have been used to levels of professional courtesy and approval that amount to flattery and indulgence. They are easily miffed and offended when someone refuses to be dazzled by their peacock feathers.

I also wouldn't want to see the coffee house metaphor taken too far. People are much more frank and blunt in an online discussion format than they are in a public, social setting. And although that bluntness has its drawbacks, as we have seen recently, I think overall it has been very good thing. It has had the effect over the past several tears of helping a large community of politically engaged citizens tear down the barriers of privileged discourse, undermine certain orthodoxies, get past stultifying proprieties and pieties, and inject some real intellectual and political dynamism into what was a stagnant, rigid and class-biased "progressive" scene.

So, a coffee house? OK. But how about a coffee house where everyone is strapped into their seats, and are less intimidated by the physical presence of others? I've been in plenty of stimulating classroom and coffee house and dinner party salon dicussions in my life. But in all those circumstances, one often has the feeling that there are important things being left unsaid, due to the unspoken ground rules. Shouldn't the online rules be at least a little bit looser?

I agree. While a personal attack impedes debate and is wrong on its face, sometimes it is informative to respectfully hash out feelings of perceived prejudice or at least to be able to consider the issue. But accusations of racism have the effect of chilling speech and limiting debate. I think last weekend’s clash made it clear that it’s not difficult to ascribe meanings to a text that were not intended.

An accusation of racism or anti-Semitism is itself hate-speech and has been used as a tool of censorship (criticize Israeli action = criticizing Israelis = criticizing Jews, therefore criticizing Israel is racist hate-mongering). Even if there is a remote risk that condemning Israel (just as you might condemn the U.S. for Iraq or whatever) may get you banned, you will tone down your argument or rephrase it so that it doesn’t really say what you would have said otherwise.

I agree - let's just see how it all plays out over the next few weeks, what additional rules are made, what enforcement procedures are implemented, and the like.

If Josh is correct, almost nobody is going to be banned right away. So let's relax and be ourselves - a more conscientious version of ourselves, perhaps, but ourselves.

LOL, suddenly I'm reminded of Marcus Corvinus saying to Tanis in "Underworld: Evolution", "There's no need for this to be unpleasant" - right before he sinks his teeth into the guy for lying to him...

Josh- But, candidly, if this is a place where you're big issue is pushing the envelope on anti-Israeli rhetoric, maybe it's not a place for you.

Really? Well, If I’m reading between the lines correctly, I’m sorry to hear this.

In a post up now, Matt Yglesias says of a Charles Krauthammer column, "That's moronic."

I can see a difference between saying a person is a moron and that an idea is moronic, but as a matter of interest, would Matt's statement be permitted in comments under the new rules?

Even genius's can make moronic comments, but are not morons.  So, there is an obvious difference between me saying your comment is moronic and saying you are a moron.  The first, in my opinion would be marginally acceptable, just barely, but the second would be totally unacceptable.

As far as the comment by Josh, " ..if this is a place where [your] big issue is pushing the envelope on anti-Israeli rhetoric, maybe it's not a place for you." is concerned, in my opinion, the statement holds whether you are discussing your opinion of the French, the Saudis, the Jews, the Catholics, the Gays, etc.  It just isn't appropriate to use this site to further your bigotry, no matter to whom you are bigotted.  But, Josh can speak for himself on that one, if he choses to.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Transhuman,

Though I appreciate your patience, and willingness to give TPM Management the benefit of the doubt, it is my opinion that this, “Rules of the Road” post is wholly inappropriate in its timing and message to the Community. What it implies is TPM thinks that it’s time to get serious about moderating the comments thread.

Why is it time? Because a Contributor not a Commenter set off a firestorm last week.

How did he do it? He appeared to be calling anyone who is sympathetic to the Occupation of Palestine, Anti-Semitic.

So why is it time to moderate the comments? Because they responded to this pathological dishonesty, and angrily insisted that said contributor be a little more civil.

My conclusion: I refuse, with every fiber in my person to be called a racist, anti-Semite, bigot or any other such slander, because of my sypathies with Palestine (and frankly with Isriel). I am enraged that the contributor's premise and comments have been allowed to stand.

That said, I want to offer a couple of disclaimers.

I take no objection to the rules themselves. Just their timing and the lack of accountability held against the contributor. They are good rules and thoughtful. And I like blogs that apply these rules. All of them.

Finally, a big part of my emotional response to this is the fairness Josh himself usually uses when posting about Israel / Palestine issues. He is always judicious when speaking about these issues on TPM. Yet on TPM Café he’ll let this kind of rhetoric remain unchallenged, at least publicly.

Its very upsetting. And I think Josh ought to come out on this one.

Let me offer one factor that may or may not be involved here. Josh, as I understand, was not intimately involved with TPMcafe operations until Kate's recent leave of absence. I don't want to presume on what Josh does or doesn't do, but it strikes me as possible that this was the first significant controversy he encountered since getting back into the day-to-day operations.

I'm certainly aware when I've suddenly stepped into a new job, especially one in an organization where I already worked and am expected to know the culture, I would find surprises in particular subcultures.

Yes, there were an assortment of inflammatory things going on. An odd thing sticks in my mind. Dennis Smith, a former member of the Fire Department of New York and the author of the stunning Report from Engine Company No. 82, visited Moscow, and met with firefighters there. A colonel of fire service, probably roughly equivalent to a New York borough chief, was proud to say he had fought 90 fires in -- I can't remember if it was the last year, or something as dramatic as his career. Engine 82 was the busiest company in New York, and might fight that many fires in a week.

I'd like to watch Josh for a bit as he acclimates to TPMcafe as it is now.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

the 17th-century rules
(these go with the TPMCafe website illustrations).

Excerpts from "The English Coffee Houses" from the Waes Hael Poetry & Tobacco Club

....The patrons of the coffee-houses agreed to conform to the strict rules of the establishments. According to the posted "Rules and Orders of the Coffee House," all men were equal in these establishments, and none need give his place to a "Finer" man. Anyone who swore was made to "forfeit twelve pence," and the man who began a quarrel "shall give each man a dish t'atone the sin." "Maudlin lovers" were forbidden "here in Corners to mourn," for all were expected to "be brisk, and talk, but not too much," "Sacred Things" must be excluded from conversation, and the patrons could neither "profane Scripture, nor saucily wrong Affairs of State with an irreverent tongue." In many establishments, games of chance as well as cards were prohibited, and any wager was limited to five shillings, a sum which was to "be spent In such Good Liquor as the House doth vent."....

this description sounds quite familiar:

The London coffee-houses provided a gathering place where, for a penny admission charge, any man who was reasonably dressed could smoke his long, clay pipe, sip a dish of coffee, read the newsletters of the day, or enter into conversation with other patrons. At the period when journalism was in its infancy and the postal system was unorganised and irregular, the coffee-house provided a centre of communication for news and information. Runners were sent round to the coffee-house to report major events of the day, such as victory in battle or political upheaval, and the newsletters and gazettes of the day were distributed chiefly in the coffee-house. Most of the establishments functioned as reading rooms, for the cost of newspapers and pamphlets was included in the admission charge. In addition, bulletins announcing sales, sailings, and auctions covered the walls of the establishments, providing valuable information to the businessman who conducted much of his business from a table at his favourite coffee-house.

Naturally, this dissemination of news led to the dissemination of ideas, and the coffee-house served as a forum for their discussion. As the eminent social historian G. M. Trevelyan observed: "The 'Universal liberty of speech of the English nation'...was the quintessence of Coffee House life."

Vaguely remembering some 19th century French coffeehouses...or were they wineshops? Anyway, they had a convenient dueling ground in the back. Seems somehow appropriate.

"Barista! Two espressos!"
B*A*N*G
"Make that one [death rattle]"

Alternatively, this could be an Amsterdam coffeehouse, where some pundit goes on, and patrons periodically observe "groovy, man. Did you know you look like a purple rose?"

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I think yours is a very good question and I hope Josh Marshall thinks on it. Some points to consider:

It is why I mentioned here upthread:

....One thing I think you're missing is being clearer about personal insults/ad hominens.

You might take a look at your own Ratings Guidelines,....

Member rdf said something related in his comment @6:52pm:

If the subject of a comment is another person rather than that person's ideas I think that is inappropriate....

Quite some time ago, I worked a volunteer moderator on another site. With a partner, we came up with the following rule, at request of a fed-up management embarassed of the site:

Not allowed: abusing or vilifying other members. "Flaming" of fellow members, called "verbal abuse" in the brick-and-mortar world, or insulting a fellow member rather than his or her argument.

Believe it or not, that was the result of a lot of thought & research. We ended up looking at lots of psychology sites about verbal abuse, and we couldn't believe how many examples we found on those sites that sounded exactly like some of the members. It became very clear that people in internet discussions that cause trouble use verbal abuse techniques; these can be unlearned, as any marriage counselor knows.

You can really get nitpicky if you want to make sure language is not abusive. As to Matt's example, I could easily say it would not be abusive if it wasn't contracted, if it said "I think that's moronic" instead of "That's moronic." But the latter is kind of borderline, the difference is real to most folks, the latter sounds a teeny bit derogatory. But neither is as clearly abusive as "He's a moron" or "what a moron" or "you're a moron."

The reason I really think it's a good question, though, is because some of the things Josh Marshall has said here implies he would like to discourage the kind of debate where people call each others' arguments moronic or some such, that he would really like to encourage totally civil discussion. That is really a step quite beyond the rule I cited above that I helped write; that would sort of be revolutionary, going beyond where internet discussion groups have mostly been stuck since they started--check out this 1999 article for example: Flame Wars and Thread Nannies: Political Debate in a Virtual Public Sphere. People have grown accustomed to the "old ways," political discourse methods popularized by talk radio starting in the 80's.

I can see a difference between saying a person is a moron and that an idea is moronic,….

I once made my case against a position taken by a contributor. I concluded by saying that one of us had come to idiotic conclusions. In his response to me he included the message that he would let everyone else decide which one of us was an idiot.

I admit that I got a bit snarky with my later exchanges with him and even later I was very tempted to apologize, and might have except I decided he was an idiot.

Ad hominem insults are valueless in any debate predicated upon logic, and they are generally used in an attempt to prop up weak arguments.

• ad hominem

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

I've read everybody's remarks and this discussion is the same can of worms that all standards bodies and discussions come to.

The literalists want exact definitions, "What is anti-semitism?"

 The people who just want to explore ideas don't care about the strict definitions because they've trained themselves to exercise dialogues in the field of ideas.

 In the field of ideas people are free to say what they mean as well or poorly as they like.  Who cares? These are disposable ideas used for learning, exploring, discussing, arguing to the death of the conversation.

When I am teaching, my classes take place in this field of ideas.  I stopped teaching when I encountered a generation of students intolerant of anything but vanilla factoids.

What is so exhilarating about the internet is that these avatars we use to speak through eliminate personal insults.  Call Liberal Voice anything you like.  He is nothing more than an actor following an intellectual muse or calling trying to educate his master.

Self-interest and I went at it pretty good but LiberalVoice was little more than pursuing a satiric escalation of juvenile name-calling to clear the field of ideas of the notion that a LiberalVoice had to be politically correct, had to give a shit about the other guy, had to play fair, had to care, and so on. That's what the audience wants, the doormat.  The self-reinforcing cliche that self-interest wanted to define.

The silly drama of the name-calling didn't hurt either one of us and in reality there's no animus either.  But there was an intellectual wrestling match worth fighting and hopefully worth reading. 

Liberals [using LiberalVoice as an example] don't "have to" fall into those personnas AT ALL.

I don't worry about the ubiquitous ad hominum stuff, and theatrics about hurt feelings on the internet.  This is just digital ether and there's way too much worry about rules, loopholes, and thought police. 

Gonzo writers, Nabakov, Beats, and others use the salt of the earth language to express the heart of communication.  Nobody should mistake this vernacular for inferior quality of thought.

 I respect Josh and what he's trying to say which is "Love your neighbor's ideas."  If you do you'll participate in respectful dialogues that may be completely unpresentable at any given moment - like Thanksgiving Dinner at the in-laws home but satisfying as that contented feeling of being unable to move because you ate [thought] so much. 

If we're to get smarter then this place has to stay contentious, raucous, and at times extreme. Lop off the inappropriate and the mundane and there ain't a better Liberal blog on the web.

Stop sweating the details. 

Far back in the thread I made a general comment. But to some extent the devil is in the details so taking each of Josh's 5 rules.....

#1 YES. A general statement and as such is fine.

 #2 NO . Re: abuse of other users . I disagree. If any pain is caused it is to one individual and that's a price worth paying for the benefits of uninhibited discussion. Leave it to the community to comment , as I do , if we think some one has gone too far.

 3. YES .Re: profanity. Personally I don't consider it a problem but neither do I think that excluding it is harmful.

 4. NO .Re: extensive quotes . I disagree. It ain't broke,don't fix it. I value them and if they are relevant to the topic it would be a loss of information to have to go to the user's blog to find them. As a compromise suggestion Josh could simply establish a maximum limit and quotes that exceed that could be simply cut off. The more long winded of us would quickly learn to prune .

 5. YES and NO. Re: Extreme views.

 I agree that racist generalizations should be banned.Unlike #2 these can cause pain to a whole class of people and are always erroneous since no generalization applies to an entire class. And substituting "most" for "all" isn't adequate . They should be prohibited .

But otherwise extremity is in the eye of the reader. If someone wants to deny the Holocaust , as with #2 leave it to the Community comment .

Finally : a nit picking suggestion. Change the rating system to rifle shoot at civility which is the immediate problem . e.g. #0 abusive- should be deleted # 1 insulting- user should be blocked if this continues . #3. Bad taste # 4 OK. 

My interpretation of this has nothing to do with anti-semitism or any racism in general. "Pushing the envelope", I believe is the key phrase. This could be about Northern Ireland back in the 80's. There are some people to whom the fight is what it is all about. There are those that have gone beyond even ideology on certain issues and the only contibution they can make is a distructive one. But also, based on this, I think that people need to be aware that these people exist because they are a part of whatever the problem is. Stuff like this probably needs to be repetitious before being censored.

Ratings

I agree that the civility has deteriorated lately Josh, most especially around the Israel situation.

I also appreciate the forum you have provided for us to discuss current events. Thanks.

Using the ratings system has never been one of my stronger points in the past but I think its time we all start marking trolls down. Programatically removing troll comments would require minimal effort and we would all have a better environment as a result. Say 4-5 troll ratings gets your comment expunged?

Don,

I agree with you and would like to add another thought. The very nature of "discussing" ideas via the key board changes the context enough so that people tend to feel less inhibited and maybe more reckless in their assertions than they would in a real, face to face discussion (discussions sans alcohol that is). It is important to compensate for this by explicitly stating some guide lines. Afterall, we should all keep in mind the fundamental reason in participating in this means of exchanging ideas- to advance the general understanding of our world.

I'm not sure if thia is really the best place to ask about the rating system, but since there is some thought that the proper use of the rating system may help in the context of the rules of discussion I'll go ahead and ask.

I've tried to use the system to give high marks to comments that I thought were well argued and thoughtful, whether I fully agreed with the point being made or not. This is not always easy and I only rarely actually give a rating. Is this the intended use of the rating system or is it to be used as a means of registering agreement with the commenter's point?

I've seen what appeared to be tit for tat low ratings and would very much like to have a means of avoiding this, is there some way?

To some extent, anti-Semitism is in the eye of the beholder.

By my lights, the claim that Israel gives orders to the United States is classical Jew-hating, straight from the Protocols. Others may disagree, and still others may make a similar claim in a non-anti-Semitic way. The idea that the United States' foreign policy works to the advantage of Israel in ways that aren't necessarily in the United States' interest is a reasonable claim, and sometimes I agree with it. Other times, I think that's a cheap cop-out that evades the question of what the United States' interests in the Middle East really are.

(If and when the United States establishes permanent bases in Iraq, I suspect we'll see significant diminishment of the United States' uncritical fervor for supporting Israel, as its strategic importance lessens.)

On the other hand, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian sentiment of a similar sort is harder to tease out. We don't have, in the United States, the same history and scale of struggle (often less than successful) against that bigotry as against anti-Semitism.

On the gripping hand, I saw Rosenberg's point about anti-Semitism. It may have been overstated, but it wasn't just crying wolf.

I don't always assume that remarks which smell of bigotry automatically come from a bigot. There's a fair amount of hiding bigotry under reasonable-sounding arguments by sophists and opportunists, and reasonable people often fall for that trick.

"When you believe in things that you don't understand, and you're suffering, superstition has a way." --how I always heard Stevie Wonder's "When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way." That's pretty good, too.

You know why it's important to get this settled and move on?

Because this heartbreaking and important post somehow managed not to hit the front page: There Is No Neighborhood

(There's a connection in there somewhere between what Boyd says in his post and what's being said here, but I'm too tired to tease it out.)