Here’s an email I got:
John –
I’ve been reading your site for a couple of years, though posting only rarely. I love: Tunch, Lily, photo’s of the two of them, Rescue stories, Thursday night menus, your openness, your interests (though I can’t say I’m a Steelers fan), your distaste of certain kinds of internet craziness (I seem to remember you telling posters to stop going on about Andrew Sullivan and his obsession with Sarah Palin’s baby), the care that posters often show for you and other members of the community, the not-compulsive ideology of Balloon Juice.
Recently, I feel like some of the posts and comments are getting meaner/more hyperbolic/less insightful. The hullaballoo today over FDL seemed nutty and overwrought (and not even you were able to calm those waters for awhile!) I posted on 3/25 in response to a mistermix front page comment: “I used to think that the notion that the Catholic Church is an institution devoted to fucking young boys was just a joke. But it’s clearly a fact.” I’m not Catholic, I’m hugely liberal. I hate what is happening in the Catholic Church and the awful responses from the Vatican. But, come on. It’s just not an “institution devoted to fucking young boys.” I don’t learn from that. I don’t get ideas from that. I’m not motivated to act by that statement. A couple of your readers really took me on in the comments…some responses were very thoughtful…some were just over-the-top nasty. One guy (I assume) said he wasn’t interested in any useful discussion on the topic. So why would we be spending time here?
Anyway, my question for you: Do you think the tone is changing on your site? I’m feeling kinda sad.
But best to you — and your pals — in your new home.
And Mistermix- just so people know publicly, I thought your statement was over-the-top and just the kind of thing I would have said, so don’t think I’m attacking you. But maybe that means I’m the problem.
But has the general tone changed here? We’ve always been shrill, but the comments do seem more in your face, there does seem like there is less snark. Maybe everyone, from me down to the first time commenters needs to tone it down a notch. It just doesn’t seem that friendly here anymore some days, and it doesn’t seem like there is as much room for dissent as there once was, and I blame myself for that.
Something to think about. I’ve got a bunch to do and probably won’t be back until dinner. Have a good one.
Comrade Jake
Please take this with a grain of salt, but I do feel as though, when it comes to religion, people get shot down pretty quickly here. There is a religious left out there (ahem, check out Obama’s denomination) that is alive and well, and some here would appear to have very little to zero appreciation for that. A fairly even-handed comment like “not all Christians are bad” tends to get slammed pretty thoroughly.
But really this is small stuff for me. In the big scheme of things, this blog and its commentariat really doesn’t take itself all that seriously. I suspect that’s why many of us continue to read it and comment.
Just my $0.02.
homerhk
My two cents worth from across the pond. I think that the tone has got a bit sharper but the blog is better for it. I appreciate the fact that there are liberal or progressive blogs that do not feel the need constantly to berate President Obama for some perceived slight. I appreciate the fact that there are liberal or progressive blogs willing to take on the sharp tones of other liberal or progressive bloggers without fear. In particular, with regard to FDL and GG (re the latest spat where I have been mightily entertained), I think they need a counterbalance in the blogosphere. I think GG is obviously bright and has strong views but too often he errs on the side of conspiracy. He is so strident that I do find it hard to take him seriously and I think he undermines himself by taking the same rigid, self-righteous damning tone in respect of every issue he blogs about (which are, naturally, of varying importance). BJ takes a bigger view for which I am grateful.
I have absolutely no time for Hamsher.
victory
When sh*t in the world gets more f**ked up the discussions centered around said sh*t gets more f**ked up.
It’s a yin yang thang.
Omnes Omnibus
There seem to be a few topics that really set people off around here. Two of them-Hamsher and Catholic Church sex abuse-have both featured prominently in the past couple of weeks. The results were predictable. At the same time, posts about pet rescues, etc., also feature prominently.
Lisa K.
I, personally, do not want geniality and across-the-aisle posturing when it comes to my blog preferences (why I am also a huge fan of Wonkette). I could sit around the White House all day if I were looking for that. The same reason I come here two to three times a day is the reason I watch Keith Olbermann-while I do not take everything that is said or posted all that seriously, I get no bigger enjoyment than watching people and institutions I cannot stand get regularly and unrepentantly shot down, including teabaggers and the Catholic Church.
For news and discussion I will go to The NewsHour. For those who will stare down the Glenzillas and firebaggers and zombie-headed Palinites, I will stay right here.
demkat620
I have to agree with Comrade Jake. I don’t think the commentariat here take themselves too seriously.
As a catholic, I am absolutley enraged over what is happening with the abuse scandal. I would like to see the church suffer huge consequences for this. They need to remember they are to serve the needsof the people not the church. That’s what they forgot. They put the institution of the church first.
I wasn’t bothered by the hyperbole. I can read it for what it is and if I don’t like it, since this is still a free society, I can go somewhere else or take issue with it.
DecidedFenceSitter
Having been part of this blog since the Terri Schiavo days – the amount of snark to the amount of anger ebbs and flows. Basically, the more ridiculous and obscenely evil things get, the meaner the commentary gets. Eventually it purges, and we get to our happy, snarky selves again.
TomG
LOL. I just read the first comment and thought “that sounds like the response to ‘not all libertarians are bad’.”
I’ve enjoyed this site (and many others, including Sully’s) for several years, but perhaps that is because I don’t expect to agree 100% with posts. They draw my attention to things and I enjoy many of the comments.
I don’t comment often, perhaps because while I think libertarianism can be defended, I know it takes more than a few comments to do so. I wish more people realized that Reason is not AT ALL the only source of libertarianism, and also that there is a strong left-libertarian current if you know where to look. I do agree completely that the obsession most rightwingers have with TAXES over any other increase in liberty is appalling (and I LOVE Glenzilla, read him every day).
And yes, all the hypocrisy. Total agreement there.
homerhk
By the way, I read this yesterday and thought it was an excellent piece in self-awareness. http://openleft.com/diary/18066/the-progressive-internet-space-changed-because-obama-convinced-it-to-change
This is something which I think both GG and JH discount preferring to view anyone who agrees with Obama as mindless robots (GG’s increasing use of “the Leader” really really gets my goat) whereas it’s probably more along the lines of what Bowers says. Obama has managed to convince more people than JH and GG have.
Yossarian
I agree with homerhk on Greenwald. He’s a gadfly who needs a gadfly of his own.
Overall, though, the stuff about the Church did bother me. I’m not Catholic, I’ve never been Catholic, and I have absolutely no connection with religion. I mean, none at all– not even enough to work up a good hatred for it. But overbroad statements that unfairly slam someone are overbroad statements that unfairly slam someone, and the line about “an institution devoted to fucking young boys” does absolutely nothing for me. If it’s satire, like the Louis CK video, then it’s great. But that line was written in the service of a larger, serious point, and appeared to be without irony. It doesn’t fit the legal definition of slander, but it fits the moral one. To say nothing of the fact that, as the e-mailer points out, it doesn’t help elucidate any understanding whatsoever. It’s just cheap vulgarity meant for shock value, apparently.
Avid Reader
Don’t change a thing! I read this blog for all the reasons the reader above listed, but for some reason I don’t spend a lot of time in the comments. If the comments are offensive to you, don’t read them. Meanwhile, I really like the edginess and the snark of the actual posts. Mistermix’s post may have been over the top, but so what? The behavior of the Catholic church has been over the top, and needs to be called out, the blunter the better.
Vlad
I thought the Louis CK bit in question was hilarious, and don’t see it as any kind of departure from the site of the past.
Joshua James
Hmm, well I also think it depends somewhat on context … I mean, we are talking about a religious leader who covered up for a man who molested hundreds of children, didn’t report him, kept him in place as a priest and allowed him to continue, right?
That’s a rather shocking thing, on its own.
And it’s not even an isolated event, as we all know.
The reality is that there are certain things that we should all agree that cross the line (like, ahem, lying about WMDs to get our country into an illegal war, ahem) and it doesn’t matter how good a person is, what they did was fucking terrible.
Molesting children should be number one on that list.
Doesn’t matter how much good a person has done, how much charity they’ve donated to, how positive a presence they are in the community … molest children, that all becomes moot …
I’ve had this debate since 99, and a lot of people have found comfort in the church, and therefore defend against the allegations … and that’s okay, defend it as long as one does it honestly, but the honest truth is that this has been going on for hundreds of years, and thousands of children have had their lives ruined (the number could be higher, mind you) and the current leader is specifically responsible for specific cases involving hundreds … and that’s terrible.
It crosses a line. So that’s a time when tone should get thrown out the window, really. When we talk about the sheer numbers of children (just those known about) and the obvious effort to obstruct and hide those guilty of the crime, we’re talking about a criminal enterprise, really.
If these we only school teachers and principals, would people be saying we need to tone down the rhetoric? If it were summer soccer programs, would they? Any other organization?
No. Therefore the people calling for us to tone it down are being rather blind to something very specific … this is a terrible crime we’re talking about, and all that’s been done is that efforts were made to cover it up.
That’s fucking terrible.
And that if you’re Catholic, you can get denied the right to communion if you’re divorced, if you work for Planned Parenthood, if you’re gay, you can be kicked out …
But if you’re a priest who molests children, not only will you remain a priest and be allowed to give communion and hear confession, you’re free to continue to do what you’ve done and die a full Catholic priest and buried as one.
That seems to be a reasonable description of what happened to the man who molested 200 deaf boys.
So why not get angry about that?
PaulW
Tone it down?! TONE IT DOWN?!?! TONE IT DOWN?!?!?!?!?!?!
Okay.
Everyone around
Love them, love them
Put it in your hands
Take it, take it
There’s no time to cry
Happy happy
Put it in your heart
Where tomorrow shines
Ahhhhhhhhhh
Gold and silver shine
TomG
I am not religious at all, and I honestly think that ORGANIZED religion doesn’t do half as much good as it does harm. Perhaps if there was more effort inside the Catholic church to act contrite and responsible for the harm their people have caused (instead of repeatedly covering the harm up) I would feel bad about statements like the one about “an institution devoted to fucking young boys” – but so far they rarely do, so I don’t feel bad. Those statements – at this point – are TRUE. TOO BAD.
A Thousand Faces
Sigh. This is why I left the GOS. Endless blogospheric navel gazing and recriminations over preceived slights or infighting over the site not being “productive” in the right way. As though blogs are some shining beacon of intellect and activism. Who gives a flying fuck? It’s a blog. And no, the tone hasn’t changed much. And hyperbole is a fundamental of comedy. Let’s move on please. This is getting beyone tiresome.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
Regardless of the perceived change in tone lately, I still find the comments section here to be *the* best on the internetzes. I’m either laughing hysterically or pondering a deep thought expressed far better than I could ever do.
Malron aka eclecticbrotha
Certain subjects bring out the worst in people. Those same subjects also tend to invite a shitload of trolling. I’ll even go so far as to suggest some bloggers that disagree with a certain post here may encourage their readership to pop in and give us a piece of their mind.
I believe you guys and gals handle it all quite well.
Joey Maloney
I don’t think the tone has changed, and I’ve been reading ever since John came in from the cold. I mean, obviously things fluctuate according to subject, posters, phase of the moon, timing of SorosBucks disbursements and so on, but if there’s a trend line it’s been so gradual I haven’t noticed it.
And, just so you know, I’m surrounded at this moment by Israeli sf geeks. Decidedly less paunchy than the American varietal.
Jude
Oh, John.
Clearly, you’ve been bought and paid for by the Catholic Church, Jane Hamsher, the Church of Scientology, and Cobra Commander.
I can’t believe you’re now one of them.
Remember November
I have been sensing some hostility myself- not that outrage over the atrocities committed by a few Catholic priests is unwarranted, but we can’t blame all the Catholics out there. Just the drunk kid-touchers and the people who cover up for them. On the plus side, Catholic High School Girls( 18 + of course!).
TomG
And Joshua James has it exactly right, and said it better than I did.
Brick Oven Bill
OK then, a positive story.
My co-musician of Iron Teabag fame, and fellow co-worker at The Facility, who was let go because like most things, The Facility is all about numbers, was there drinking at the bar earlier in the week. In walk two women.
These were music publishing women from a nearby city who offered him nearly six figures for the rights to a song he authored, and we played, to crowds of perhaps a dozen adoring fans. This is a song SGEW would not approve of. He said no in an arrogant way and I think he is crazy. Maybe he had had too much beer. He also drinks some shots.
The lesson is perhaps that fate is good to those who would create, and not tear down. And that I should get back to writing songs. And that alcohol should be enjoyed in moderation.
brendancalling
i had no beef with the attacks on the child molesters protected by the catholic hierarchy (I have a lot of sympathy for my catholic friends who are dealing with the scandal). But I felt the gleefull rampage about GG and JH was a poor reflection on this place, and I’m really glad it blew up in your faces, Not because I dislike you (I read balloon juice every day), but because I hope it taught a lesson about due diligence.
I mean, that thread was embarrassing.
cat48
I think the healthcare debate made every site I read more shrill and it may just take a while for everyone to calm down after that. It was/is divisive. I am an Obot, and unfair attacks on him make me shrill. He’s not perfect, but he needs to be supported when possible because he’s our Dem president. When numerous sites started relentlessly attacking him, I simply stopped reading them as I couldn’t identify.
It seems the harshest attacks on fellow commenters often come from folks who are not regular visitors. I don’t comment that much, but I do enjoy reading some of the humorous, snarky comments. Maybe everyone should remember to label their /snark or /rants as such until the political fervor dies down. That may not be until after the November election.
I would really hate to see the site change though. It’s a great blog.
eric
I think the issues raised by Hamsher and the Catholic Church are the same. Many of the commenters who challenge those two are faced with return recriminations when not here at BJ, so that when they face them here they may respond more aggressively than they would otherwise.
I still see TONS of sub-conversations running through threads where everyone is talking with each other in an interested and respectful way.
HCR was a VERY VERY VERY tension filled event that for many was perceived as THE signature political event of their lifetimes. That amped things up.
In sum, if you dont want to be attacked, dont be an asshole
eric
toujoursdan
I grew up in the Anglican Church of Canada and currently belong to a progressive Episcopal Church in New York where I serve on the vestry and acolyte. I wouldn’t say that the tone here is worse than on other progressive blogs.
There is an active religious left in the U.S. made up of leftist Catholic laity, Jews, mainline Protestants, Buddhists, Hindus, pagans and even some Muslims, but we don’t tend to wear our religion on our sleeve. So perhaps we’re guilty of not being more visible and easily overlooked. But we’re there advocating for a more just and humane society, stewardship of the earth, social justice (Sorry Glenn Beck!) and tolerance and friendship between different groups people.
In my neighbourhood, my Episcopal Church works closely with the Conservative Jewish temple, the local mosque, Catholic and Lutheran churches and community organizations because our common social outlook is far more important than any theological differences.
It would be great to be acknowledged once in a while but most of us don’t expect it.
bcinaz
FWIW, John, I do not think your brand of snark is much different now than it has been, – I’ve only been reading/commenting here since late ’07. Just about everyone on the Left is frustrated with Rightwing hypocrisy/obstruction/racism and the tone of the whole blogosphere is sounding more polarized (if that’s possible).
That said, I too look forward to the pics and adventures of Tunch and Lily.
Malron aka eclecticbrotha
@homerhk: That’s the excellent Chris Bowers piece cited by BooMan yesterday. Very good read. I really think that’s what it all comes down to with JH and GG: wanting to claim the title of leader of the netroots and being angry because people dare follow their president instead. But I have no intention of starting a new flame war about those two today.
Third Eye Open
Well John, perhaps what we need are more trolls to focus our ire on, so that we have more of a connection with those on “our side”. We must have BIRDZILLA! back, or you’re going to need to create more intransigent BOBs. In the meantime: bath-time!
Hal
People are too deferential to the Catholic Church. To me they have so much to account for throughout history, so many bad deeds, that sexual abuse is just the tip of the iceberg. Why shouldn’t someone be able to make a slightly over the top comments regarding literally decades of sexual abuse compounded by the devotion of so much energy to cover it up? I don’t think the church hierarchy cares nearly as much about their members as they do themselves and all their secrets. Reminds me of that joke I heard once, about Christianity being like Scientology + 2000 years.
MattMinus
When an immensely powerful institution shows that, right from the top, it is dedicated to ensuring that boy fuckers are not only protected but given access to new boys to fuck, how is it inaccurate to say that they’re devoted to boy fucking?
At this point there’s enough evidence to show that this is not some anomaly, but an institutional tenet of the organization.
If it makes you uncomfortable when people say it, it’s an indication that it needs to be said.
The pope’s a boy fucker, and since he is God’s representative on earth and infallible in matters of faith, one can only assume that God is also a boy fucker.
I’ll start being more polite about it when they stop fucking boys, deal?
Oh….this is, like, the opposite of what this thread is asking for, isn’t it?
Arkon DougJ
@brendancalling:
I don’t think “it blew up” in anyone’s face just because I was reasonable enough to take back an opinion that was worded too strongly, especially when I got a 1000 word reply that said “what you linked to is all lies, even though it is also on our web page.”
tim
BJ is as prone to GROUPTHINK as any other blog frequented by commenters who apparently put WAY too much of their self-identity on the line when they drop by. Many regulars here are way more interested in maintaining their perceived status within the BJ “community” by hazing dissenters in comments with abusive insults than they are in any kind of rational discourse.
The worst is always assumed. I’ve been accused of being a Hillary-whatever, an FDLer, a troll, a whatever, anything other than calmly addressing the point I made or the question I asked.
Many commenters here seem mostly focused on kissing JC’s ass; it would be funny in a junior high school way if it weren’t sort of pathetic in a grown up way.
So what happens over time is that potential new blood in the form of new readers and commenters don’t bother to engage and stop dropping by, and the regulars get wound more and more tightly around each other in a nice wet BJ circle jerk of mutual self-validation.
I mean, how pathetic is it that many of you seem to have BJ as your primary source of social interaction? REAL LIFE takes place OFF the intertubenets.
Punchy
Holy meta. Not friendly enuff? Suck it, nancies
SGEW
For what it’s worth, I’ve observed this as well. And it hasn’t just been on the FDL/Glennzilla posts or the ones about the Catholic church (tho’ those have been particularly egregious).
As to possible cause(s), that’s a tricky one. The increased site traffic and the many new commenters? (Who should be welcomed to the community, of course.) John’s decreased prolixity? The different tone of the new frontpagers? (Don’t get me wrong; I do like them.) The changing general tone of the leftish/civil rights blogosphere in toto now that there’s a Democratic majority in office? The general nature of things? I don’t know. But it does seem like there’s been less of that old school B-J striving towards reasonable discussion of serious matters, and less good-natured snark (and more you’ve-pissed-in-my-cornflakes flaming).
Lord knows I don’t want us to “all get along” (that’s not what the internets is for!), but I do see a lessening in civil discourse around here.
El Cid
Yes, there are particular spats that make little sense to me (I still can’t quite understand what actual disagreements were made with some of the factual disputes Greenwald had with the PAC posts’ claims).
On the other hand, I really hope people aren’t thinking that to find the most sober, serious, issue-based discussions they would look to the comments section of a blog humorously titled Balloon Juice.
There are all sorts of academic and near-academic style fora out there. I don’t think this blog need aspire to be one of them.
Linda Featheringill
Good morning, folks.
Yeah, we have been a bit angry lately. Not that anger is automatically bad. But it can get in the way of analysis and it can divert us from taking needed actions.
I fully understand some of the anger. The very idea of religious “leaders” using their office to abuse other people ticks me off and the use of office to abuse children sends me right over the edge. But I am not sure that my anger, by itself, helps anyone. I could be persuaded to move on to another topic.
The snitfits against Hamsher are not quite as understandable. In fact, the fits usually confuse me. I suggest that you learn how to ignore her or actually break down and show me on the doll where she touched you.
Overall, you guys [all of you] are smart, funny, and sweet. You could pull in your claws once in a while. And you might be rewarded with ear rubs.
Dr. I. F. Stone
If Andrew Sullivan had comments on his blog, they would probably look pretty much like those here, except maybe a little more straight-sounding. All in all, the comments here are interesting, if somewhat illiterate at times and overly profane; but those are probably just the comments posted by the hosts under pseudonyms.
Keep up the good commenting.
Trinity
I visit Balloon Juice almost everyday, several times a day, from work and from home. It is my “go to” site. I find the posts here range from thoughtful, activating, snarkalicious, and heart-warming. I’ve been a regular reader since January 08.
Frankly, I think the posts and comments here have changed in proportion to the way that posts and comments have changed within the blogosphere and beyond since the 08 election. There is a rising divisiveness within our country’s discourse. I think we reflect it as much as note and critique it.
And I don’t think that is a bad thing. The posters and commenters here are an engaged and engaging bunch.
valdivia
I have not been commenting much lately but only because I have been swamped with work. I think BJ is as it always was and though some threads get pretty heated this is still the best commenting community/best blog on the net.
Morbo
Roger Cohen would be very, very proud of this post.
AhabTRuler
Feh. Blogospheric navel-gazing. The problem is that people tend to notice the comments that affirm or offend their worldview. Yesterday, the Greeniacs noticed the posts attacking GG, while ignoring the numerous posts defending him. Same thing with religion. Same thing with Sullivan. I have found that, on balance, things shakeout pretty even over time.
tim
I don’t think “it blew up” in anyone’s face just because I was reasonable enough to take back an opinion that was worded too strongly, especially when I got a 1000 word reply that said “what you linked to is all lies, even though it is also on our web page.”
…and so there goes Arkon DougJ, doubling down on his embarrassing performance of yeterday. Nice.
JC needs to go back to being the one and ONLY poster here.
chopper
if this place loses it’s snarky asshole quality, i’m leaving. this place is like a stream of bat’s piss – it shines like a shaft of gold when all else is dark.
and yeah, i’m angry. this country is full of inbred moron assholes. damn right i’m angry. and shrill.
liberal
@Lisa K.:
I don’t either, but more to the point,
(a) other blogs are much worse,
(b) these pussies need to take a spin on USENET—they’d get f*cking hammered there.
cleek
@tim:
that’s some impressive remote-mass-mind-reading, there, tim !
El Cid
FWIW, I’ve thought that the increased tension here (and on other blogs) was partly the result of the buildup to the either passage or failure of Democratic HCR.
I figured generally that once passed, that particular generator of extra tension would mostly recede.
Not saying that the higher levels of tension are good or bad, since I’m not convinced that blog commentary had a real world effect on the passage or failure of such high level legislation.
Libby
Interesting you would bring this up today. I almost said something yesterday and then deleted the comment because I thought it was too scoldy schoolmarmish but now that you’ve asked… I love this place. I think the rough and tumble nature of the community is a big part of its charm. I adore the regulars here, but I did think the Glenzilla threads were a bit out of hand. A lot of those comments were just mean and lacking the clever snarkiness that lifts our side about the wingnuts.
For the record, I don’t agree with Glenn and Jane’s current strategy or tactics but I don’t think it makes them bad people. Think it’s useful to remember back in 04 the left was barely able to make a blip in the narrative. Glenn and Jane’s work in those days was instrumental in building the power of our voice and pushing back on the Bush regime. No matter how irritated one gets about their current activities I think they deserve some respect for that and I didn’t see much in the commentary.
That being said, I think there’s a whole lot of angry on the internets right now, everywhere, and people are just releasing tension for the most part. But I don’t think it’s productive for us to fight each other, particularly when there are so many wingnuts and GOPers out there who so richly deserve it more. Just saying…
Arkon DougJ
@tim:
Classy.
liberal
A happier, OT question:
If I got silestone countertops installed recently, will the Righties come by snooping, or does it really hafta be granite?
SGEW
Also:
It’s been a long time since John came into the threads and called us all moronic assholes. Maybe that’s what we’re missing? ;)
D-Chance.
But has the general tone changed here? We’ve always been shrill,
No, you haven’t. Go back to the Schiavo threads from a few years ago. The discussion was just as passionate, but without the hatred and bile.
And, quite frankly, most of the shrillness and hatred has come from your pee-ons, Cole. The less you post, the more you farm out to your lessers, the worse the site gets tone-wise and quality-wise.
Unless you enjoy Greenwald personally berating and undressing your entire BJ community… and right on your own front page.
Fair Economist
Outrageous insults have always been a huge part of this blog. Look at all the flak thrown at the Bushies, and before them the Democrats, back when this was a rightie blog. Everybody who reads them understands them as hyperbolic and intended to be funny while reinforcing a legitimate underlying point.
Religious organizations and people are hypersensitive to mockery because religions, without exception, are based on truly ridiculous beliefs. Complaining about mean and unfair comments is an attempt to deflect discussion from the underlying articles of faith. A doctrinaire Catholic is now forced to claim that God chose as his vicar, out of hundreds of millions of Catholics, a man who for most of his adult life has actively participated in a global conspiracy to aid and abet child rape on a massive scale. That’s gotta hurt.
liberal
@El Cid:
That’s a good point.
Face
Ha ha! Go play in traffic and let the adults talk, please.
racrecir
Sounds like some people here need a stern tongue-lashing from the Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser.
Marc
There was a lot of justified rage built up on the progressive side during the Bush years. The frustration of unmet expectations has caused some of that fury to get vented in the form of friendly fire.
There are a lot of progressive web sites where it is completely typical to treat Obama (or his supporters) in the same way that they treated Bush (or his supporters.) The comment section at Atrios; front-pagers there like Avedon Carroll; FireDogLake; Greenwald; etc. etc. They come to places like BJ, casually use the same language that no one notices at their home turf, and then fireworks ensue.
The sane find this attitude infuriating. Lifelong progressives don’t like being called corporate shills and corrupt sell-outs by alleged allies. In many ways the Bush years instilled some very lazy habits into progressive bloggers. An inflexible good/evil classification system, where anyone disagreeing with you was both wrong and a bad person, is one example. The five minute hate approach, where something is presented as an outrage (without bothering to see if there is another side to the story). Conspiracy theories. The list goes on.
Violet
A couple of new front page posters have been added relatively recently. That alone will change the tone, as all of the people who post on the front page have different priorities and takes on things. It may take awhile for BJ to settle into its new rhythm with all the posters and during that settling-in period there might be a few feathers flying.
I agree with whoever upthread pointed out that things ebb and flow. It might be a bit heated now, but then look at the wider world – we’ve just worked hard to get health care passed and the wingnut faction is encouraging violence because of it. Tensions are high. Add the Catholic church and more examples of child molestation and cover up, and people get heated.
The three things never to talk in polite company are Sex, Politics and Religion. Looks like Balloon Juice is three for three. Guess that means we’re not polite.
The Grand Panjandrum
@AhabTRuler:
Thank you. I thought I was going to vomit before I got to the end of this Kum-fucking-bayah thread and the attending comments. Jesus Babbling Christ, did somebody’s panties get bunched up in a knot?
greennotGreen
John, your letter writer is confusing weather with climate. There’s been a bit of turbulence in the upper atmosphere which has resulted in some localized thunderstorms, but here at Balloon Juice we have inadequate data to suggest an actual change in climate.
Marc
#48: I think that Jane and Glenn’s tactics say something extremely negative about their character. If they can be so completely wrong about my motives and beliefs, then why should I trust what they say even about the motives and beliefs of, say, Republicans or conservative Democrats?
geg6
@tim:
Hmmm. Since we’re so pathetic, why are you here?
Personally, I don’t think the tone has changed at all. And bitching and snarking is exactly why I am here. In fact, it was a friend at another site that steered me here as a place I would like and fit after I got banned from another place for being too…well, outspoken.
I was one of the last regulars here to climb on board the PTDB bandwagon after arguing in many threads, many days against simply passing it. It was the many, sometime vitriolic arguments I had with other commenters here (waves at Stuck) that kept me thinking about the issues involved and the larger picture. It was a thoughtful, sometimes funny, sometimes angry time that kept me analyzing my own opinions and finally made me change my mind and support the effort.
And you are honestly a dick. Seriously. You know nothing about any of us, let alone that BJ is our only social interaction. I have a very full and interesting life. Which includes BJ and the people here.
Lastly, I have no patience for that email writer. If people who are religious don’t like criticism, too fucking bad. The religious persecution complex is the biggest joke there is. They run this fucking country and control my life. They feel no compunction about treating people like me with complete disregard and disrespect. Whine to me about religious persecution when the agnostics, atheists, and deists hold 100% of the elected offices in this country. Otherwise, STFU. And having grown up Catholic, I’ll say anything I like about that criminal organization. Their child fucking is the just the tip of the iceberg with that bunch. The good thing is that their corruption and their pitiful defenders have finally chased my devout sister out of the cult. I’m sure the Episcopalians will be happy to have her.
debit
There was a time during the HCR debate that I had to give myself a time out from here; there were certain people and positions that I did not agree with and I grew weary of feeling perpetually under attack even when I didn’t speak out. But I recognized it was my problem and came back when I got over my snit.
You can’t please everyone, Cole. As the blog grows and changes posters will come and go. I still hang out at the GOS because I know which authors (and posters) to read and the ones to avoid. I left FDL when it became clear Jane’s primary goal was to get on the tv machine. I used to have the impression that BJ was stuffy and humorless, so I never came here unless following a link. Now it’s the first place I check in the morning and will check on (totally against the rules) at work.
Fargus
Long time reader, infrequent commenter.
Look, mistermix’s comment was clearly a reference to the Louis CK bit posted earlier. What’s more, it’s increasingly accurate. The Vicar of Christ aided and abetted child rape and refuses to apologize for his crimes, or promise accountability for those who are guilty of child rape. Personally, I couldn’t give less of a shit if it makes people feel bad that Papa Ratzi is getting criticism for having aided and abetted child rape.
Dork
Dont you DARE Kos-sify this blog. I beg of you, stop this meta-purge/introspection bullshit. It’s a fucking blog. It’s not supposed to also be theraputic, politically correct, and happy bullshit all the time.
eric
If I am called a mindless follower of john or an obot one more time I am gonna get shrill with a two by fucking four. Thanks for listening.
L Boom
Just for some perspective – I read John off and on while he was a winger and have read him regularly since the Schiavo incident, so I’ve been around a while, mostly lurking.
I think the bulk of the changes in tone are due to the seriousness of the general political climate. It’s one thing to rail around with happy snark when you’ve won the Presidency and most of the legislative work being done is tinkering around the edges with cabinet appointments and rules changes.
But with the passage of HCR, Democrats have passed the biggest legislation in 30 or 40 years, so they’re understandably pleased with that. Along the way, however, the right has fallen into the craziest brand of hyperbole and have begun advocating (and in some cases performing) actual political violence, with the demonization of liberals pushed to astounding new heights. The veil has come off and the teabaggers are spouting out unabashed racism and spitting on members of Congress.
On top of that, the Catholic Church has had yet another major child-molestation scandal, and their response has been not only unapologetic, but they’ve doubled down on the victim-blaming. Then to push things even further, the archbishop of NY compares the Pope’s “suffering” to Christ’s persecution. As many others have said, I’m pretty sure there’s nothing in the Gospels about Jesus being accused of pederasty.
People are rightfully pissed off about this stuff, and that’s always going to affect the tone. I think most people find it hard to snark about death threats and child molestation but those are, unfortunately, some of the biggest items in the news recently. They’ll subside at some point, and people will relax once things get a little less insane.
Comrade Jake
Essentially, this blog doesn’t take shit from anyone. If that changes, many of us are fucking out of here.
Brick Oven Bill
On the other hand, Marc couldn’t satisfy a woman with two spinning washing machines and a gallon of chocolate ice cream.
You all have a nice day.
jeffreyw
From the NYT this morning:
Silly mayor, now they can go back to paying the rich for bad behavior as is the natural order of things.
Anya
@Lisa K.: This
I would only add that Mistermix’s statement about the Catholic Church was way over the top and unfair. It would have been acceptable if he said: if the Catholic Church wants to be known as an “institution devoted to fucking young boys.” But accusing a whole institution of that heinous crime is unbecoming of a liberal.
cmorenc
I thought that the “dissent” role was why we kept Brick Oven Bill around here as an eccentric housepet.
Ajay
I didnt read mistermix’s comment but I dont think its a big deal. As a reader, you tend to throw away the rhetoric if it doesnt appeal to you as long as you get the gist and perhaps the writer is may be not as serious as you might think. Obviously if it becomes the main theme then it will be hard to differentiate it from Drudge’s of the world.
OK by me so far.
cleek
i must admit that B.J. has reached the point for me that many other blogs have: i’m contemplating writing a GM filter that will block certain front-page authors. sadly, there’s a certain kind of sloppy shrill sanctimoniousness that really turns me off; and i’m seeing it in some of the front-pagers here.
less screeching, please.
(also – comment editing code seems broken again)
Fair Economist
When was that? When I started reading this blog (2006 or so) it was almost 100% snark all the time. If you read the comments literally they were extremely mean, although they were obviously not intended to be read literally apart from the (rather numerous) spoofs.
If anything, the blog is much more serious now. It supports what’s basically a mainstream Democratic PAC with (mostly) levelheaded arguments. Now *that’s* something you’d never have seen in the past.
Noonan
Overall it seems the anger, snark and hostility in this blog is reflective of the mood of the country. People are quite literally losing it right now and the Left is pushing back on an increasingly deranged Right — when it’s not committing Left on Left crime.
Anyway, I can’t say I’ve noticed a change in tone insomuch as I’ve noticed a big difference in the quantity of posts. I’m not sure more is better. Could be it’s just me, but the quality to quantity ratio seems to be getting a bit out of whack. Which isn’t to say there’s less quality. There’s just a lot more to get through to get to the good posts. With that said, this is still my favorite blog.
Also, I’ve been meaning to ask this for a while and figure now is as good a time as any: would you ever consider re-posting some entries from your Bush fanboy days? I’d love to see what you were getting worked up about in, say, 2003 and get any self-criticism/insight into how and why your views have changed on that particular issue.
soonergrunt
I don’t come here for activism. Some of it goes on here, just like boy-fucking goes on in my former church. The activism isn’t the primary goal, just like the kiddie-diddling isn’t.
Having said that, I could do with less of both from their respective organizations.
When I want activism and people trying to turn a laid back community into some self-indulgent bastion of moonbat liberalism, I go to GOS. When I want boys sexually abused I’ll go back to the church. I can get the totally unironic hypocrisy, pointless handwringing, factional fighting, and way overblown rigid hierarchy at either place.
Violet
@Brick Oven Bill:
Fixed.
media browski
Ok, frankly I’m not finding many of the new bloggers added to the site recently to be “added value”. Anne Laurie and MisterMix are more “Added Shrill”, a la Dailykos, and have led to me coming here less often.
rmp
OFSM, are going to need a group hug?
El Cid
And in regard to those feeling somewhat put-upon by people discussing in mean terms a global and fantastically wealthy religious corporation institutionally dedicated to protecting child rapists, I’ll think about tip-toeing around peoples’ preciously held religious beliefs and values when I get the sense that people with religious beliefs and values feel so careful about protecting my precious non-religious beliefs and values.
Jane2
I agree with the writer of that email. I like snark and pointed commentary as much as the next BJ-o-phile…maybe it’s the number of bloggers and resulting increased number of posts that make it seem edgier than usual.
Darkmoth
@tim:
Congratulations for describing every human coalition, ever. I mean, my freaking Warcraft guild is that way.
To the wider point, the tone is fine. Or rather, there is no proper and correct “tone” that will bring you to an optimal level of blog-nirvana. Some of us actually come here for the tone – when i want soothing wonky blandishment, I read Ezra.
Maybe you guys could put together a “tone committee”, and produce some ultrahomogenous amalgam of FDL/BJ/538/Yglesias/Klein, etc. We could call it “Generic Progressive Blog”, and it would be awesome. Or not.
media browski
Oh, and Hamsher/Greenwald bashing is just a sign of being in the reality-based community, and a good thing. Remember: it’s not punching hippies, it’s punching parasitic self-promoters whose main contributions to the progressive movement have been absorbing resources and undermining everyone else’s efforts.
Noonan
@media browski: Have to agree.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
The bullshit used to come from just the wingnuts until Obama won the primary, took office, and now it continues daily, from all directions. but mostly from the left side. Since in- family fighting is often the meanest and most personal, it is no surprise things seem worse.
My education has been just how destructive democrats can be in tearing down their own house at the drop of a hat, and we have been inundated at times with so called democrats who get pissy when we won’t join them in their all or nothing jihad that Obama is Bush meme in particular, and or any of the other Obama/fail memes. I used to think it was just the wingnuts who demanded purity from their elected leaders, I was wrong about that, very wrong.
And the letter you posted just sounds like a smarmy version of “don’t hit me cause I’m a dem wanker, and special”
Critique is one thing, critique without evidence or perspective is and should be mocked and derided, ESPECIALLY when it comes from your own side.
So no Cole, I don’t agree with your analysis that we are being meaner without cause. This blog can either submit to the netroot borg, or not. That is the stark choice IMO>
==with the caveat that sometimes individually, we all go overboard in the heat of debate, and should individually set the record straight and make amends if called for.
Evinfuilt
@Vlad:
As a recovering Catholic myself (I like to think of it as a phase), I can’t help but laugh at the Lewis CK video. My partner who spent basically 30 years in the church, loved that video (saw it long before this latest scandal.) Then when 5 years later we realize how bad it really is, would say “You know what, the Catholic Church really is about molesting boys, occasionally girls, and covering it up.” That was the end of her ever thinking about going back to the church. Crisco jokes are the norm around us, and her catholic family.
FSM forever!
If we didn’t bash evil doers and those who over-react, then why would we have this blog? Its Grade A Prime Snark, and its catharsis with all the stuff we deal with daily.
Some Guy
I think part of the perceived tonal change is that this blog has been much more critical of FDL relative to health care, DougJ’s post was a continuation of that criticism, but it was very ill-considered. The tone carries over into other threads, and when something as brutal and disgusting as sex abuse by priests comes up, why be moderate about it? Greenwald’s response had dudgeon so high it was ethereal. That gave cover to generalized harsh words.
If you want to dial it down, John, I don’t think a call for a more moderate tone is in order because it is not a style issue. It is a politics issue. Perhaps a straight forward debate about where the left blogging community is and its disagreements. Civility is one thing, but why are people so hot over this? Not because of tone but political disagreements about how to carry forward an agenda.
Add to that the complete meltdown of the rightwing (and by complete I mean I thought it melted into an indistinguishable, smelly pool of plastic a long time ago, but no, wingers were just making a roux and are now making a putrid soup of rage and ignorance), and it makes it easy to elbows out, pick-sides-now.
That is my diagnosis, but I pretty much lurk until lately, so I don’t have as good of a day to day view of comments on this blog.
slightly_peeved
@Comrade Jake:
@demkat620:
@Yossarian:
I’ve never felt this blog is too bad on the subject of religion, because people like you post here.
And part of the reason I post here instead of ObWi was they got so goddamn polite half the arguments ended up being arguments over definition. Interesting stuff, but far more serious than I wanted my main blog reading to be.
jeffreyw
From McClatchy this morning:
A whole new meaning to “killer curry”.
cleek
“Generic Progressive Blog”
OMG, i so want to do that.
if only i had the time.
madmatt
He has a point, it’s not ALL child molestation, there is also lot of work being done to make sure women are not treated as human and that wombs become property of the patriarchy. Fuck the nazi’s that make up the church, maybe the suckers will rise up and throw the scum in prison, but I bet they just keep feeding their brats into catholic schools.
Vlad
Also, just out of curiosity: What kind of “useful discussion” is it possible to have about rapist priests? How high to hang them?
sbjules
I’m a comparative newbie, but religion especially this week might disturb some. I gave up my inherited mormonism in my 20s with no regrets although I do find myself explaining about plural wives and visions, etc.
But, we’ve seen abuse in Boston, L.A., Rhode Island, Ireland, Germany, and abuse is coming to light in Italy. I don’t think this can be minimized, especially the coverups.
Crashman
This is fun. Where’s my popcorn?
Scott
I can’t see that much change in comments or tone. Seems like it’s always been pretty darn snarky. Comment tone is why this place is one of my three most-visited blogs (along with Sadly No and Pandagon).
And I think people are angry about religious assholes because they’re sensible.
PTirebiter
@Joshua James: I’m one of those who, as a young boy, found great comfort in the Church. I’ve had the debate with myself and others for years. I’ve also defended the Church for years but this bends it. I can no longer argue “a few bad apples” or “the good far outweighs the bad”, the rot is to the core. And if publicly equating the Church with MAMBLA is what it takes, so be it. IMO, facing this kind of worldly sickness, requires a healthy dose of sick humor.
Fair Economist
I’m going to stick up for Hamsher. Her “antics” almost got a public option included in the bill. The value of that would be in the billions, so even a 1% chance of success would be worth tens of millions. Plus, for Overton window purposes, it’s important to remind the public that Obama is not a leftist or a soshulist and there are many people who really are.
Hard left discourse needs less marginalization, not more.
Earl
I find it encouraging that we’re asked our opinion on the matter instead of being sent to a gulag until we’re pure enough…
A good sign, I would think.
Punchy
Speaking of new front-pagers, when’s that Soccer Guy gunna debut? Would be nice if he could throw up an article once a week highlighting a WC powerhouse. Ya know, for those of us who dont follow the sport?
demo woman
John, I visited the site before you were liberated because your posts always led to interesting discussions. What has changed over the years are the blogs about animals although I do love them.
The additional posters have added to the site. Do I always agree with every post, no.
Self reflection is always good but I do hope that we can have a post today about off-shore drilling. It’s a situation where it is easy to say hell no but that might not be realistic.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
You know you’ve reached major blog status, John, when your site was able to get the one thing that no other site could: Glenn explaining that report that was floating around the internet (yeah, it might have been somewhere else, but not on the places I saw).
I got frustrated at the tone from people, not only the commenters, but Glenn as well. Some of that is the general problem with the internet – allowing people to write comments without thinking about how it might be received – but some of it is the normal shakeout of egos. I find Jane to be annoying and Glenn to be shrill and hurting the cause on the left; others don’t, but we all ultimately have to work together.
Probably the worst thing about yesterday was everyone losing sight or our real goals: 12 Republicans in the Senate come November, the end of DADT, and Single Payer health care.
Dork
I’m picturing Flea joining the Indian Special Forces.
Todd
@tim:
Amen.
Guster
Personally, I’d appreciate a box at the top of the site that identifies Enemies of the Sites, so I don’t get confused. I like all the vitriol, but sometimes forget in which direction BJers are supposed to direct it. (I comment at OpenLeft, too; often the exact same comment. Well, it amuses _me_.)
SGEW
I suppose my memories of the blog are veiled in hazy golden retrospective (esp. from the post-Shiavo Road-to-Damascus moment through the 2008 election), but I feel that, along with all of the snark (O bountiful, divine snark of goodness; come for the snark, stay for the wonkery and pet pics), there was a real effort put in on the part of both the front-pager(s) and the regular commenters to place our legitimate differences of opinion within a reasonable framework, and to try not to devolve into outright vitriol. Even when the primary insanity got to the point of a full-on flamewar, I always had the impression that John was making a good-faith effort to be sensible, reasonable, and even-handed (N.B.: I actually admire these qualities). The earlier stages of the HCR debate was also, for the most part, a very good example of this.
Have things changed significantly since then? Not really, I suppose. Not dramatically. But there has been some kind of change in . . . well, tone? Intention? Audience and demographic? I don’t know. Like others have said, it’s mostly plus c’est la même chose, along with the unavoidable changes that come with an increase in both front-pagers and site traffic. There’s always been a split here about the appropriate ratio between snark (and/or trollery) and actual debate (I’ve had choice words with certain other regulars here over the years about this; y’all know who you are); so maybe this is just a slight rejiggering of the balance, or something.
Also: hilzoy retired, so there aren’t any adults in the blogosphere anymore. This may have something to do with all this.
The Grand Panjandrum
OK, I’ll fess up. I am really pissed that we haven’t had a thread on the former half-term Governors new show on Fox! C’mon, she’s gonna have LL Cool J, Toby Keith and Jack Welch on! If that isn’t a solid gold, ready to be devoured, BJ snarkfest, then nothing is. I can fucking smell the snark all the way up here in NH!
Jennyjinx
I’ve been reading this blog for years (though I rarely comment). Sometimes there’s a fantabulous post on the front page, but mostly I come to see what the discussion is about. Most of the regulars have been on the Toobz long enough to have that thick skin so can take the “abuse” as well as give it.
I love that one commenter will come in and say something along the lines of “Jesus Christ…er, I mean Dear Leader” and get shot the fuck down in the most hilarious way possible. I love that there’s no hero worship of certain blogebrities. And I love that BOB will pop in every so often, spout something off the wall, and not be run off by the regulars (is he the BJ drunk Uncle, by the way?).
If this place starts getting all meta and worried about hurting someone’s tender feelings…Ugh. Really, the character and charm of the blog is in part due to the discussions being so interesting. I want to say something about people running to Dad, but that would probably be cruel. Still something to be said about that thick skin thing.
valdivia
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
what you said.
BR
I’ve been reading this site for about two years and it’s still great.
There are only two types of posts (and accompanying comments) that make my eyes glaze over: Politico stories and FDL/Greenwald/Hamsher stories. This goes for both the meta stories about either and the links/blockquoted stuff from either.
So if from today on there were never another post that quoted/referred to/linked to anything from/about/related to Politico, FDL, Greenwald, or Hamsher, that would be awesome. Their stupidity hurts my brain to the point that it’s easier and better for my sanity (and I think for most folks’ sanity) to ignore their existence. (Almost like Palin in that way, though for different reasons.)
Update: Add Sirota to the list. (Though we’re already ignoring him like he should be ignored.)
Guster
@cleek: It’s kinda cool as a thought experiment. The Generic Progressive Blog couldn’t say anything about Obama or the Democrats, or Democratic policies or initiatives, because you’d never get agreement. So it’d be all about the right and how much they suck. Sounds kinda good.
BR
@SGEW:
It was around the time hilzoy retired that Balloon Juice became the site I read most frequently. I never put two and two together.
Brandon
Long time reader and infrequent poster here. I’ll just give my 2p.
I think there is a direct correlation in both the dropoff in posts by Tim F. and the increase in new guest bloggers and perceived changes in the site. No offense, but I’m just not a big fan of Annie, mistermix and the others. Dennis G. Is tolerable, but solely because he has a laser-like focus on Republican corruption. Which adds a different dimension. And Annie is mitigated by the fact that she mostly posts at night when I’m not reading.
Since I’m an Obamabot, it’s odd I’m so resistant to change, but there it is.
So in summary: more Tim F. and less everybody else.
But that’s not to say that I think things have gone so bad that I am going to stop reading or commenting. In fact, the notion that things have “gone bad” is a stretch. Things have just changed. And I prefer more posting by the old front pagers is all. Unless I click links from this blog, this is the only blog I read and that is definitely not going to change.
geg6
Maybe we can get some new whiners about saying mean things about criminal conspiracies to cover up child fucking and all the Catholics will shut up:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031904657.html
jron
I was talking just the other night about the evolution of this blog from conservative, to not-conservative, to active advocates. It has been interesting to watch and to occasionally participate in, and its effectiveness has been pretty inspiring in a lot of ways.
the snark is still excellent and the points still good. I especially appreciate reading the rambling OT’s that the discussiond often lead to, and I think the more active posting schedule cuts down on that type of discussion just a bit. otoh, there are just more people here than there used to be and the increased posts are needed to keep up with that.
the larger population, the higher profile, and the greater amount of front-pager activism are all bound to cause some people to miss some favorite aspects and increase the amount of angry comments, but this is also a pretty healthy growth pattern for a blog to take.
still my first stop on the internets every day. now I just have to check in more often.
Linda Featheringill
Okay – offshore drilling. Well. I might have to research that.
I don’t think we can prevent this drilling in the near future. Maybe eventually, but not today. We could come out against it, though, should we want to. We should keep in mind that the drilling does not have to be a complete eco disaster. I am not sure I can say the same about the oil produced.
scav
I think everyone’s stressed: things are volatile. These are extremely fundamental and elementary things in our society that are breaking down or at least becoming visibly creaky. Furthermore, I think discussion and emotions on the internet are heightened, vis-à-vis the traditional usual face-to-face style of American communication. I think it was Vinvin that said it was something along the lines it was a relief to be back in France where people actually discussed things and didn’t just immediately paper over differences in opinion. The U.S. doesn’t really usually do question time. Except on the tuubz, in some places. I fully expect things go over the top once in a while here but I don’t quite think that’s the end of the world so long as, during the melee everyone at least attempts to use logic once in a while and once it’s over, most everyone shakes hands or at least grumpily nods and everyone actively thinks about and open-mindedly considered (probably internally and never-letting-on-edly) what was said.
But a good rant is a fine thing to see and BJ had got a deep bench.
dr. bloor
@chopper:
If this does not go into the rotation at the top of the site I am leaving forever. Shakespeare could not have done better.
That said, I tend to agree with some of what John’s writer states. I don’t think anyone is suggesting we be less angry with the state of the world or engage in Senate-style comity for the sake of doing so, but the heat-to-light ratio has been a bit out of whack lately.
While I would never disrespect the beloved Arkon, some of this is a reflection of the posts. Yesterday’s bit re: JH’s and GG’s PAC was, as the initial commenters noted, guaranteed to ignite a flame war, and was destined to be a 1000 mile march to nowhere.
Noonan
@Guster: I think that blog is called Think Progress.
Pigs & Spiders
Not that you’re wrong, but why’d you have to go and open that wound in my internets!!
John S.
John-
You know I’ve been a member of the community here for years. I think as far back as 2003, when the place was dominated by the likes of TallDave and Darrell, and I was one of the few liberal voices around.
That being said, I don’t think the overall tone has changed very much at all. Balloon Juice has always been a place of angry yet jockular bloviating, and it hopefully always will be. But here’s the thing…you may not recall the little diagram I made back in 2005 describing how you didn’t really change sides, but the center shifted on you. A refresher:
X—————-X—–x———–X 2000
L C Cole R
X———————–x—-X—–X 2006
L Cole C R
Well, the same principle holds true here at Balloon Juice. Once upon a time, your blog was to the Right. The majority of commenters were conservatives who agreed with you and battled with the few liberal detractors, as consistent with the 2000 diagram.
But around the time of your “conversion”, when the center shifted and Right became a small and desolate place, a couple thongs happened. First, we lost nearly all our conservatives who decided to shift with the center and stay on the Right. Which meant all of a sudden, the commentariat changed here. The few liberals became the majority and closer to your position, which was only slightly to your Left. And you see that wide open space that opened up on the Left in 2006? That’s where a lot of the new folks came from.
Instead of having the fringe element of BJ as the slightly to the left liberals, the fringe became the ultra-left liberals. The firebaggers, the Glennbots, the PUMAs, the manic progressives all became the dissenting voices here. But the tone of the blog never really changed even if the political realities around here did.
So don’t be so hard on yourself. And remember, the TallDaves and Darrells of yesterday are the myiq2xu and Just Some Fuckheads of tomorrow.
Dork
Back to politics…
Please file in the nobody could have anticipated file. I’m guessing that file cabinet is approaching full.
Also — cant wait to see how Repubs suddenly decide that off-shore drilling is Teh Dehvel, since Obama has just agreed to try it. I smell some epic flip-flops.
dr. bloor
@The Grand Panjandrum:
You may just be getting a whiff of the flood waters in RI.
Libby
#61 Not saying you should agree with GG + JH or blindly accept their strategy and although I don’t really read Hamsher at all and GG less since the #hcr fight started, I know they been much less than polite to those who disagreed with them. I don’t want to play that game. Others are of course free to do as they will.
Not saying people shouldn’t call out what they perceive as wrong thinking wherever they see it. Just thought too many remarks on those threads yesterday were gratituously mean and not very clever. It seemed atypical of this place. All I’m saying is, just because you think someone is wrong, doesn’t necessarily make them evil, unless of course we’re talking about our lying Congressional GOPers or Glenn Beck.
Not calling for kumbaya, even though it’s in my nature to make peace instead of flame wars. Realize not everyone is like me and not giving advice, just stating my observations.
PTirebiter
@tim:
Fuck you, I’m getting ready to attend a virtual barn raising and tomorrow, we’re making waffles!
res ipsa loquitur
Anyway, my question for you: Do you think the tone is changing on your site? I’m feeling kinda sad.
Oh noes! An “I’m a saddened by the tone” post.
Guster
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: Dude. This blog is the netroots borg!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpZ8EkK3eWY
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@BR:
=5. you can thank me later:)
SGEW
@Jennyjinx:
He’s really more the Crazy-Neighbor-Who’s-Huffing-Paint-In-Our-Kitchen. So long as he avoids expressing outright bigotry (or trying to sexually harass guests), and so long as he brings his own paint, he’s generally tolerated.
Still creepy, tho’.
jeffreyw
Another thousand words looking for gainful employment.
Likes Ketchup
John, I have to say, this is probably one of the reasons I still come here daily. We all go into apeshit mode from time to time, but it means a lot if you can look back and reassess where things have gotten to – especially if it’s pointed out to you.
This kind of post makes me think you’re capable of keeping things on an even keel here.
Oh yeah, a return to snark would be good.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Guster:
Bullshit.
flukebucket
I have been a daily reader of Balloon-Juice since 2004. Like other commenters I agree that the incivility here has an ebb and flow. Sometimes it is worse than others. I can assure you that no matter where you are when the topic concerns God or Jesus or the Church things are gonna get ugly if there are a variety of opinions. To paraphrase an old saying I once heard ” When God is mentioned the guns ain’t far behind”
But I love it here. I think the commenters here are the funniest on the web. I mean, “when fascism comes to America it will be wearing librarian glasses and hooker boots” and “Galtamount”. Where else besides Balloon-Juice are you going to get that kind of quality comedy?
Sure it gets ugly sometimes but as Dave Matthews says, What you see here is human
demkat620
I’m there!
Da Bomb
I have been a long time lurker(July 2008) and infrequent commenter of BJ. As someone stated upthread, the commentary ebbs and flows. It hasn’t really gotten meaner. This is one of the few political blogs that I visit.
The Catholic commentary was a little jarring, but if I don’t necessary agree with something then I just ignore it and move on.
I also think that the political atmosphere has been somewhat stringent lately and people are frustatrated and down right pissed.
I will continue to visit this blog and comment when I feel the need to do so.
BR
@chopper:
this.
And like @dr. bloor I think it needs to go into permanent rotation (probably as “like a stream of bat piss – shines like a shaft of gold when all else is dark”)
Svensker
Two things:
1.Percentage of posts by blog owner down.
2. And Dems in power.
I think #1 is what Holly was referring to yesterday about the “messaging”. The subs (much as I like them all) don’t have your exact view on things, so stuff starts to go a little off the path at times. (Not that your path is very straight and narrow, John, but it is your path.)
And now that “our side” is in power, we’re of course going to have a lot more arguments. Before, we were all pretty much united in loathing Shrub & Co. Now we’ve got to argue means and ends and we all get a lot more hurt and angry when someone on “our side” disagrees with what we think is absolutely essential to the running of the country properly.
scav
And saying this isn’t the real world is like saying what takes place in your brain isn’t the real world. We just have have a lot of very talkative, very odd, very argumentative, invisible friends.
soonergrunt
@geg6: The only thing worse would be a boy scout troop affiliated with a Catholic Church.
I do find it interesting that the Boy Scouts are the officially sanctioned boys club for the Mormons. They’ve got the little-girl raping in-house and they contract out the boy-abuse.
Rommie
I think this is just the result of JC being injured and limited to DH duty (so to speak) at “crunch time” and the blog having to rely on the bench for a lengthy period.
If John was 100 percent over the last two months, the tone of the site sounds more normal IMO, and no one notices a shift.
It’s not a criticism of the other front-pagers at all, they are simply different people, and have their own styles. And JC has that former-wingnut viewpoint that is still rare as a front-line commentator. Once he’s healed up and settled in, things will get back to the usual state of snark.
cleek
@BR:
ditto.
also, around the time Hilzoy left, ObWi started attracting a new group of trolls. so, not only did my interest in the content on the front page take a nose-dive, but the comments became an absurd mix of giddily vulgar trolls and befuddled moderates asking the trolls if they would please stop pissing in the fruit punch. nobody could even get a good Vietnam or election-2000 thread going because all discussions would get derailed.
it became obvious that if i’m going to hang out in a troll-infested place, it should probably be one where i can tell the trolls to fuck themselves with a rusty utility knife without worrying about Posting Rules and Tone.
happily, the trolls @ ObWi are mostly gone, these days, and the content is recovering, too.
oh look! there’s some lint in my blogospheric navel!
Jim C
That’s one of Shaw’s!
Guster
@Noonan: Don’t tease me like that! I click on ThinkProgress and the first thing I see is about the administration approving “‘significant oil and gas exploration off America’s coasts’ in a move expected to bring widespread opposition from his own party’s environmentalists.”
I want bland, dammit!
Punchy
I advocated years ago that Cole put together something like the annual GOS Meet and Greet, just so we could all see who we were verbally sodomizing each day. Alas, he ignored it. Now he’s got a tickle fight on his hands, and has no way to stop it. Where’s Krista when you need her?
Some Guy
@John S.:
master c
It’s good to consider the tone of conversations-and comments,
the fact that you put this up for discussion….means you are open and that is good. As a lifelong Catholic-I can’t say enough bad things about the pope and state of decay of this very powerful organization.
Rage on!
It seems that having genial discussions about politics etc, is increasingly difficult, if not impossible.
Guster
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: The first step is admitting we have a problem.
stuckinred
@Svensker: I find that some people here refuse to reply when you ask them a question. Whatup wit dat?
tomvox1
@homerhk @ 2:
This.
@A Thousand Faces @ 15:
And this especially.
demo woman
Sometimes we do act like drunks at the Thanksgiving table, though.
We’ll try to better next time but if we didn’t write about politics, religion and Jane, what would we write about?
Face
Comedy gold.
Parole Officer Burke
@Punchy: The problem with a Balloon Juice Meet and Greet is that half of us are sockpuppets.
Brien Jackson
I took a pretty “meh” line to the Accountability Now story, but it was reported, there were expenditures that looked dicey, apparently Hamsher refused to explain them to the writer, etc., so I didn’t think the story was unfair in the slightest. And I think a lot of the nastiness is driven by the thin-skin of Greenwald, Hamsher, and their biggest fans.
Beth in VA
Okay, I’ll be the curmudgeon and say I rarely, rarely ever read the pet entries. I’m a dog person, I get it, I like my own pet. I’m amazed by photos of my own pet. Other people’s pets? Really, that’s a blog post?? But others LOVE that stuff. Go figure. No disputing taste and all.
But I put up with that for the rest of the stuff I like here. It is different since John Cole doesn’t do all the posting, but then there’s more of it. And I very much enjoy reading posts by those who react in horror to the Hamsher posts. Signing up with tea-baggers to kill the bill. Man, that really got to me.
DBrown
I post a bit and have found that some people are rather foul mouthed and tend to be crude rather than argue their points (empty cart, I guess.) Still, the subject of child r*pe is a heavy topic and the so-called church has been proven to have been doing this for many years and over entire countries, so I understand why some people are so upset about that and do not like people defending those monsters.
Steeplejack
@soonergrunt:
Serious question: so what is it that you get here at Balloon Juice?
spiceagony
Just wanted to say that I have been reading your site daily (multiple times) for a couple of years now. This is my first comment though.
I read most of the liberal leaning sites as well on a daily basis, but there is something special here. Everyone seems like they really care about everyone else.
I haven’t noticed the nastiness, but I didn’t read the comments on the FDL post. Anything about JH seems to get people on all the sites I visit riled up though, so if you want to see if there is a trend, I’d leave that data out of the mix.
P.S. I have a big orange that may be even bigger that Tunch. Everyone calls him fat, but the vet says he is just a big cat and is at most 1 or 2 punds overweight. (he’s 22lbs) So- I love the Tunch posts! If he could only know how famous he is.
Thanks for all the time you devote to this site!
Just Some Fuckhead
@cleek:
I’m with Cleek. Having been around in some form or another since the 7000s, the problem is that there is a new core group of commenters and front pagers that just aren’t funny, entertaining or particularly personable. The site has gone from a top notch snark site where the comments were the reason to read the blog to the equivalent of a trainwreck where ya slowly drive by looking for survivors.
Now I know this looks like a whole lotta backinmydayism to you newbies that think the whole world began when you and another newbie made a connection in a late night thread but.. well, it probably is. Things change and we either change with them or go elsewhere.
IndieTarheel
I haven’t been around all that long; came over from the GOS. LOVE the snark; it provides a release from dealing with the insanity that seems all-encompassing at the moment. With all that has gone on in the last year, and with the “Party of Ho” coming ever closer but never quite reaching Peak Wingnut™, anger is inevitable. Any sentient being watching other alleged adults acting like a bunch of drunken howler monkeys, and realizing they’re gunning (figuratively, for now anyway) to be put back in charge of the place, would respond more or less the same way.
__
Carry on.
GReynoldsCT00
John, I love this blog. I love the discussion, the pets, the community of it. The occasional flamewar on certain topics is to be expected — kind of like the crazy uncles at the dinner table on Sunday afternoon. And, it’s beneficial to see different sides of an issue. That’s why I come here every day.
That being said, it’s seems that on some of the touchy subjects where other blogs/bloggers are mentioned we get commenters who are not regulars that tend to pour gasoline on the fire — not that some of the regulars are capable of that themselves, but that’s just an observation. Yesterday’s insanity was a little much for me and the outright cannon fire was difficult to read.
FWIW
Emma
One thing that I have never understood is what drives all those people who hate a site but can’t seem to stay away. When a site becomes too looney tunes for me, I leave. If I find a site too insane, I never go back. Why, oh why, do you want to spend time among people that you can’t stand? And on top of it all, you insult them because they aren’t the way you want them to be?
RedKitten
Well, as a long-time reader and commenter, I would say that this is just a normal phase in BJ’s evolution. When I started reading, John was the only front-pager. Then he added Tim, and that changed the tone somewhat. Then he added Tom in Texas, and then DougJ, and then Anne-Laurie, and then mistermix.
When you add in all of these extra people, of COURSE the tenor of the blog is going to change somewhat.
Plus, let’s not forget something else: us.
I can think of maybe a small handful of people who were commenting back in 2005 who are still here. The crop of “regulars” keeps slowly rotating, as new people become regulars and old regulars move on to other things. Plus, look at the traffic. I have no idea how many readers John had back in 2005, but I’m guessing he has about tenfold that today. We’ve gone from a small tavern of snark to a large arena, complete with battle cage.
I don’t think the place has suffered for it. And I think that any attempts to halt or divert this natural evolution would only result in things feeling very unnatural and forced.
Plus, as many others have mentioned, between the Bush years, the extremely contentious primaries, the election, and the weight of our gigantic collective expectations and hopes on your new President…the left is more than a little cranky. It’s been a very emotionally trying last couple of years, and well…we could all use a nap.
Or more Tunch and Lily.
BR
@John S.:
I disagree that:
Nate Silver said it well:
Morbo
@The Grand Panjandrum: Except that LL Cool J maybe, sort of, I don’t know, didn’t do an interview with her. Or something.
Dan
I love BJ and visit here 10 times a day, but everyone would do well to read closely Tim @ 33’s point. I have been noticing the same thing, and the circle seems to be getting tighter.
WereBear
@Fair Economist: Ouch. But, yes.
I’ve come to the conclusion that people who get upset at religious snarking are attacking the wrong targets.
Why should the Pope care what I think? I’m supposed to be going to hell anyway, right? Would it be wrong to point out that he doesn’t even care what Catholics think?
The people to complain to would be the folks running your particular religion.
We live in a world where Teabaggers yell, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare,” the Party of Family Values takes potential donors to strip clubs, and 24% of the opposing party think our current President is actually the Anti-Christ.
Snarkers gotta work harder under those circumstances.
Kevin K.
The biggest problem is that the leftosphere has never existed when the Dems were in power so it’s still trying to find its legs. The only problem is that they’re oddly hairy, totally unsexy, and end with the disturbing (and requisite) socks ‘n’ sandals combo.
db11
As someone who has lurked at BJ for years, I mildly agree with the writer — there has been a shift recently in the overall quality of the comments. Less snark, more invective… and too much gratuitous hippy-punching. (often seeded from the front page)
Seems to me to correlate rather neatly with the arrival of Mike Kay as a commenter. His quantity/quality ratio alone has shifted the tone of many comment threads. JC has called him out a few times on this, but to little overall effect.
It’s amazing how quickly a very small number of highly prolific and aggressive commenters (often one or two) can lower the tone at a blog… the main reason I spend little time at FDL any more. Would hate to see BJ continue in this direction.
inkadu
Catholics deserve all the absue we can dish out.
The Catholic Church is built to molest children. Not specifically, of course, but it’s a powerful, confidential boys-only club that has diplomatic immunity, its own political state, and vast financial reserves.
“Liberal” Catholics wring their hands and whine about the recent goings-on in Church and how the Church needs to change direction. Well, the problem isn’t the direction — it’s the structure.
And if you want to know why the religious impulse gets bashed around here, this is why. It takes people comitted to social change and building open institutions and forces them to send money to child molesters every Sunday.
Fuck, man, the Left is ready to ditch the Democratic Party every time a nuke plant is built, a tax is cut, or a highway is funded. But the Catholic Church gets to molest hundreds of children for years, cover it up, and all the Catholic left does is cluck about direction.
jron
@Some Guy:
well said
Punchy
@Parole Officer Burke: I’ve considered this. It would keep such party down to about 7 people, but still…..7 people! Plus DougJ, now that’s he’s gone Akron.
Svensker
@stuckinred:
Yo, wut?
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Guster:
You Dr. Phil or something?
SGEW
@Just Some Fuckhead: We are all Abe Simpson now, JSF. Get off my lawn!
I admit to some of the same “I was here at B-J before it was cool!” feeling as well, and that this is unworthy of me; as you say, things do change (and this is a desirable state of affairs). Hell, speaking of change, look at me: I’m agreeing with you. ;)
I still don’t like twitter, tho’.
Yossarian
It was brought up earlier, and I didn’t want to say anything because it’s not my blog and I feel weird just bashing front-pagers who contribute to a site I enjoy, but the adding of front pagers is always suspect. Lawyers, Guns and Money did it and now it’s losing its voice. Balloon Juice is doing it and we’re getting more content but less essential content. Josh Marshall fell prey to this to some extent, too. I hate to say it, but a more limited, personal, idiosyncratic blog is almost always better than a broader, multifaceted one.
GReynoldsCT00
@Punchy:
and comments like this are priceless!
Darkmoth
I think someone earlier nailed it when they said “confusing weather with climate”. When I think about it, I can’t think of a single blog that hasn’t had this “tone” discussion lately.
Anyone reading 538 a year ago would hardly recognize the comment section now. GOS is simply an exercise in factional blog warfare. As people’s positions on issues solidify, it becomes less and less plausible to convince them – after that point you demonize them, to prevent their position-memes from “spreading”, as it were. Or perhaps you simply start to view them as sub-rational.
During the Bush years, there was no one on our side to convince of anything. We are all like “yeah, that’s right!”. “Exactly, my friend, you nailed it!”. A thoroughly different dynamic than the situation in which we now find ourselves. The Left now has multiple conflicting goals. In many cases, we have become our own opponents.
I’m fairly certain that had yesterday’s AN report been about an Erick Ericson PAC, there would have been much less sturm und drang all around. We’d have had some mild defenders and many gleeful critics. There certainly would not have been the caliber of defensiveness exemplified by the Greenwald Tactical PostNuke. We’re not “supposed” to question lefties with the same level of evidence that we would question righties. We are expected to hold a double-standard for our own side.
When we don’t – which will become increasingly common as we diverge on policy goals – all hell breaks loose.
stuckinred
@Svensker: THX!
DanF
The more successful the blog, the more Alpha dog and pack-like the behavior in the comments section becomes. Any sign of weakness or strangeness and the pack attacks. Sometimes it’s fun to watch (Brick Oven Bill anyone?), other times it’s unwarranted and prevents thoughtful discussion. For this reason, the comments over at Atrios’ place are worthless and I stopped reading them years ago – they stopped even being relevant to the post. You can’t keep up with the stream of noise and one-liners and inside jokes. I hope that doesn’t happen here as even when I don’t comment, I enjoy reading the comments. Snark is fine. I love snark. I also enjoy being challenged on the merits of my arguments. It’s how growth happens.
Brien Jackson
@Kevin K.:
To piggyback that, I thought Bowers’ post about how he finally came to realize that the overwhelming majority of Democrats didn’t agree with his opinions of the transition, and that even his Kucinich-backing sister thought he was being unfair to Obama. Not that that makes either side wrong, per se, just that it means you aren’t speaking for some overwhelming contingent of “real Democrats” or “the base,” you’re voicing your own opinion. I think some people are having trouble adjusting to that realization as being in the majority creates some fault lines in the leftysphere.
Just Some Fuckhead
@SGEW:
That’s two agreements in one day. (Not that I care about agreement. I respect everyone else’s right to be wrong.)
Xenos
@Arkon DougJ: What was improper about the whole kerfuffle was the you ought to have called GG or JH to ask them to comment before posting it. In the same vein, GG should have emailed you and asked you to call him next time instead of going off on a novella-length rant about Obama cultists.
In both cases people were spoiling for a fight. It was not helpful, useful, or interesting. Just tiresome and petty.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
I ag@Yossarian: I agree with having too many front pagers can bring a loss of focus. Don’t know if that is the case yet with BJ, or not. But an interesting question that deserves consideration.
jibeaux
How did this post somehow avoid the “blogospheric navel gazing” tag? Are we saving for something?
I’ve only been here since John registered Dem, somebody linked me to the blog, and I just thought it was great all around. But now I’m completely paranoid that I’m part of the problem, and I don’t want the soft bigotry of low expectations to make it just ok that I’m here, I want to really contribute, dammit.
Noonan
@Guster: All they’re doing is acknowledging reality. Just don’t expect them to cross the adminsitration when there’s other Obama talking points to fluff and Republicans to hit.
BR
@Xenos:
Not sure I buy that you need to get a comment from them first. This is a blog, not The Paper of Record ™.
Although I would be happy if I never saw the names Greenwald or Hamsher or the sites FDL or Politico ever mentioned again.
ericblair
@Da Bomb: I have been a long time lurker(July 2008) and infrequent commenter of BJ. As someone stated upthread, the commentary ebbs and flows. It hasn’t really gotten meaner. This is one of the few political blogs that I visit.
It’s snarky here, but snark is funny and snark takes work. It makes the comment section so much better than the blogs with 400+ comments for each article where the majority reduce easily to “lol” or “u suck”.
Snark is not patient; snark is not kind,
It does envy and boast, it is proud,
It is rude, it is self-seeking,
It is easily angered,
And it sure as hell does keep record of wrongs.
Here endith the lesson. Amen.
matoko_chan
I think perhaps as we approach peak wingnut teh Sane are becoming increasingly radicalized about the frothing obvious lying and demogoguery escalation.
Do you watch South Park, Random Sanctimonious Christian Commenter?
OTOH, my cultural bible, South Park, has been sayin this for years.
Check out Red Hot Catholic Love, airing in 2005.
Balloon Juice doesn’t look the other way.
The pedophile priests are a fact, jack….your religious sentiment doesn’t get a pass.
Evangelicals that proselytize are just nasty.
Sorry, that is just the way it is….a great deal of the world’s ills have been caused by proselytizing and evangelicalism.
Yours isnt better……sowwy.
cleek
@jibeaux:
hey look everybody, i think we’ve found the problem!
General Egali Tarian Stuck
A case in point. Blog commentariats do not police themselves without effort by the regular commenters. These days, any high traffic blog will become a cesspool of trolls and wankers in no time flat without a degree of pushback by the regulars.
Maude
The emailer wrote to John and told on us.
He/she made John feel bad.
The emailer said that we were mean, awful, commentators and we should all have a quiet time in the corner.
The emailer doesn’t spend much time in reality.
Yossarian
BTW, there’s an important distinction here that I think is worth making. The “tone” of a site can be referencing its, well, tone– whether it’s snarky, humorous, earnest, angry, opinionated, relatively neutral, wonky, etc. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with BJ’s tone, and indeed, I don’t like “tone” arguments in general. If you disagree with what I say, what difference does it make if I say it with heated anger or understated resolve?
But if standards of logic or honesty begin to slip, that’s a different, far more troubling issue. I’m not saying that’s what’s happening with BJ, but to the extent that there’s something that needs watching out for, it’s that. The fact that Hamsher, for example, is screechy and self-important is annoying, but the fact that she tends to be utterly full of shit, misrepresents what her opponents think and say, and is given to disingenousness is why I can’t take her seriously. The tone issue is just the cherry on top.
gypsy howell
Can’t we just move on to discussing whether the Boy Scouts is an institution devoted to fucking young boys? And to what degree their uniforms are a throwback to Hitler Youth?
General Egali Tarian Stuck
This here!
Bob In Pacifica
Not having read the particular BJ posts I can’t comment directly on them. I do know that I found myself going and reading a lot more Firedoglake and Glenn Greenwald in reaction to the stuff here and found myself generally agreeing more with them. (The only time I read official Catholic media is for the movie reviews.)
But I think that as the health reform debate continued and split between “at least it’s something” and “it’s terrible” camps widened, and since I am not a legislative analyst/lawyer and did not read the whole bill I can say I hope the first camp is correct and suspect the second camp is right. Since I have no choice in the future I shall wait and see.
What I do see is the same thing that has happened in the Clinton era. A Democrat elected to pursue more egalitarian policies who consistently aims for less reform and has managed less than that. A Democrat, elected to correct serious flaws of the past Republican administration, for example violations of civil rights, whose Justice Department follows the same Republican policies. As a result the Left has two choices: continue to complain about the policies or adapt a cheering section that announces “At least he was against illegal wiretaps (etc.) before he was for them.”
I think that this has an overall depressing effect on the discourse. I wonder if there is less traffic on lefty political blogs these days than, say, two years ago. People find that the political system can’t change things and thus pay less attention to it. It’s a rational decision. I think it’s time for a more thorough examination of why our political system is so impervious to public opinion.
Grumpy Code Monkey
My half-assed assessment:
1. We have met the enemy and he is us. It’s easy to get along when you have a common enemy (e.g., the Bush administration). Now that we non-27-percenters are in charge, all those little differences that didn’t matter suddenly become intractable points of dispute. The slap fights between GG and JH and EZ and the front-pagers here are symptomatic of that. Everybody has their own idea of what’s best, and they don’t want to have to compromise, and feelings get hurt. That’s life in politics and on the internet, and you either develop a thick skin and a sense of humor or you accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with you of being an Obot or a firebagger. This has been a problem with the Democratic party since at least FDR; it’s an unfortunate side effect of encouraging people to think for themselves. It’s also a side effect of electronic communications; it’s easy to be rude in print as opposed to in person.
2. Shit’s gone bugfuck crazy this past year, and we’re responding in kind. I don’t think I’m wrong in thinking most of it stems from having a president of color. The demographics of the US are changing, whites are becoming a numerical minority on their way to becoming a political minority, it scares the holy goddamned fuck out of white people on both sides of the aisle. Obama and Jindal and Sotomayor are signs of what’s coming. You have both Klansmen and limousine liberals convinced that Obama is going to bring the wrath of the Angry Black Man down on Whitey. Hence, teabaggers and firebaggers. Personally, I think these people need to be slapped across the face and told to grow the fuck up. If that’s seen as “harsh” or “offensive”, then tough shit.
Leelee for Obama
I don’t think anything I posted about the Catholic Church situation was hyperbolic, but then, it’s in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. That said, I wouldn’t take anything back-this is a forum for opinion, and sometimes that leads to people speaking their minds in CAPS and maybe go further that they might IRL. Having been born and raised a Catholic, my opinions have a truth, mine. This current scandal is only the latest of many. I left the Church ages ago over things far less incendiary, but no less painful. When trust is lost, the pain is massive and lasting. I try not to judge, but this is a case where someone should have stopped this, many someones, and they covered up crimes instead. If Catholic people don’t force the policing of their clergy, then they will have made a choice I will never understand.
I haven’t gotten very involved in the Hamsher, GG debate, because I don’t read them any more and so I don’t feel I should voice an opinion. I tend to move away from too much anger on either side of an issue, as it makes more heat than light and solves so little. But, others here are very passionate about them, and I don’t think they should hold back, but we do need to investigate before burning down the house.
FlipYrWhig
@Marc:
I think this is bang-on, and it’s part of the reason why I post here in much sharper tones than I have done anywhere else. Because this became my oasis, where I could be among people who _don’t_ do what Marc describes, because _everywhere else_ that was all anyone seemed to be doing. So I’m more aggressive and impatient in comments here because it got so frustrating to try to participate anywhere else and be surrounded with all the strutting faux-radicals who have to prove why they’re so far left that you really should be quite impressed. I had quite enough of that posturing when I was in grad school in the humanities.
I hope I’m not the only one who does that: acts more snappish here than elsewhere. But if it’s true, it might account for some of the perceived harshness in comments.
Arkon DougJ
@Xenos:
What was improper about the whole kerfuffle was the you ought to have called GG or JH to ask them to comment before posting it.
I think I should have emailed, I agree.
But I have mixed feelings about doing that, in general. It seems a bit keeping too much from readers.
tballou
The tone here has definitely gotten more toxic in recent months. I have to keep reminding myself that Cole was once a Bush accolyte and is therefore somewhat suspect in certain areas. Anytime he criticizes Greenwald he should pause just a moment and remember how far off base he was with Bush and be thankful that there is someone out there willing to make the kind of thoughtful and informed postings that Greenwald provides. Sure he (GG) is a little over the top sometimes but I think that is entirely the result of his strong feelings about important issues facing us today. We should all be so concerned about where this country is going.
Regarding Hamsher, I think she is an important voice who absolutely should be heard and listened to carefully. She and GG are both very justifiably suspicious of Obama’s actions as President.
Violet
Pet peeve – the word “snark” is seriously overused. I vote to retire it completely. Except for Lewis Carroll’s “The Hunting of the Snark.” That one is okay.
soonergrunt
@Steeplejack: a little more relaxed atmosphere. Nobody has called me a babykiller, warmonger, or war criminal round these parts either. That kind of endears me to the place.
jrg
I personally enjoy this blog because nothing is sacred. You just need to be aware that there is a trade off. When mistermix says that the RCC is devoted to raping kids, I’m fine with that, because I think people treat the RCC with far too much reverence, and I think it’s true to some extent.
That said, be aware that the more hyperbolic the front pagers get, the less this blog will be respected in wider discourse. I’ll still enjoy it (as will most of the regulars). The tone of this blog was never too respectful, but I consider that a feature, not a bug.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Bob In Pacifica:
Same here. I never read FDL before the retards made a sport out of introducing Jane hate in every thread. Now it’s one of my daily stops.
jibeaux
@cleek:
you’re not helping, you know.
Brian J
IMO, it seems like things can get a little heated, but that once something is over, it’s over. I was once raked over the coals for suggesting something about Ezra Klein’s employment, including by John Cole himself, to the point where a friend from work who also reads this site said I was being massacred. I had never received a response like that. But a day later, nothing came of it, as far as I could tell. It was forgotten.
Also, why do we care that people on this site are criticizing FDL? It’s not as if people are throwing personal attacks in Hamsher’s direction.
Leelee for Obama
@Grumpy Code Monkey: Yeah, kind of reminds me of post-Tito Yugoslavia, and we know that ended pretty badly. We can see that the old “enemy of my enemy is my friend” theory gets things pretty messed up fast.
We should be better than this, but, sadly, even enlightened humans are still, humans.
matoko_chan
I like the idea that NOTHING is “sacred” at BJ.
If it aint broke, don’t fix it.
Check out the LL CoolJ vs Palin freakout at HotAir.
LL tweets.
C4P responds.
Will AllahP retract?
hahahahaha…..so pathetic and sad how cravenly and desperately “conservatives” search for some random cool black person to validate their intransigent racism.
scav
@Arkon DougJ:
Yeah, too much of the e-mailing behind the scenes and all we have is a blogospheric recreation of the Villagers discussing important things at their private elite dinner parties.
slackjawedgawker
@Noonan:
This. I think there are a few commenters who tend to dominate certain threads with the same (usually substanceless and humor-failing) comment over and over again. It’s annoying to sift through. Yesterday one person posted the same exact, bizarre question for Greenwald nearly a dozen times in the space of 100 thread comments. There have always been occasions where the snark just fails and the comment comes off as just a petty, assholish insult. Lately it seems like these are becoming an ever-larger percentage of the comments, though.
So yeah, I’ve noticed a shift in tone, but I think it’s more the result of these few commenters. I was disappointed in DougJ’s first GG post yesterday, but still I am a huge fan of his posts and comments, and digging your other new frontpagers, too. They aren’t the problem at all, and frankly I’m stunned that a few people here seem to think otherwise.
ericblair
But I think that as the health reform debate continued and split between “at least it’s something” and “it’s terrible” camps widened, and since I am not a legislative analyst/lawyer and did not read the whole bill I can say I hope the first camp is correct and suspect the second camp is right.
My feeling from growing up in Canada, is that this is an important step because it institutionalizes health insurance as something that everyone has instead of a perk that only the Right People get to enjoy. Once you have that for a while, it becomes easier to do what just happened with student loans: you ask what good these private companies are actually doing, and if they aren’t doing anything for the money you stop tossing them cash and bring it into the government.
geg6
@FlipYrWhig:
This.
Between the Teabaggers who surround me IRL and the posturing of the “faux-radicals,” as you so perfectly put it, at all the places I used to frequent on the Toobz, I have found that BJ is the place I can sound off.
mcd410x
@Yossarian: I think you may be onto something here.
Also, one of the tasks of blog front pagers on occasion, right or wrong unfortunately and feel free to disagree, is to steer the comments. TNC does a great job with this.
Redshift
@Dan: I am not one of those who has been a regular reader since the glory days of yore, I’ve only been an active commenter here for a few months, and I couldn’t disagree more. This community was quite open and welcoming, and I regularly encounter opinions that I want to cheer on and ones I disagree with completely.
And when considering whose judgment to pay attention to on how a community should operate, it has been my long experience in many forums, both online and off, that people like tim who presume to know what the lives of other members are like outside of that forum and pass judgment on how much participation and passion is appropriate always, always have their heads up their asses.
DBrown
@Bob In Pacifica: Please; can you be that unknowing? The problem is MONEY – the power is obtained to get access to MONEY, the need to answer to special interests is MONEY and MONEY is all politics is about – the control of MONEY and getting as big a piece of it.
Sebastian Dangerfield
F1xx0red in fairness to the Church!
Liz
@comrade scott’s agenda of rage: Regardless of the perceived change in tone lately, I still find the comments section here to be the best on the internetzes. I’m either laughing hysterically or pondering a deep thought expressed far better than I could ever do.
I have to agree. Half the time I’m so late to these posts that there are 200 comments already and I just get lost reading them all. It makes it hard to get any work done, believe me. But I love this place, being relatively new to it. Smart blog posts, smart comments on all sides, people who know how to articulate a lot of what I’m feeling.
Things are getting a little crazy in our world and I think sometimes everyone needs a break from it. Which is another reason I love it here-Lily, Tunch, rescue stories…all good.
geg6
@tballou:
Question…
If your post is what you really think, how do explain a person like me, who has always been a liberal and an activist since the mid-70s when I came of age, who thinks that JH and, to very much lesser extent, GG are not my friends or, even, allies?
Why must there be such group think?
norbizness
I think that maybe instituting a 5-comment-per-person-per-thread limit would help, and probably a 100-comment limit overall.
CynDee
I have been coming to BJ only since just before John decided to bring Lily home.
In that time I’ve noticed that when there were Tunch and Lily pictures as more of a regular thing — before John’s accident and move, and the entire racheting-up of national passions — the BJ community was generally more tolerant while remaining extremely candid, incisive, articulate, and free-flowing.
The animals are a calming influence. It helps to feel that somewhere some innocent creatures are safe and cared for because someone saw to it, and things are normal and civilized. It also helps to see Lily snoozing on a nice green blankie, if you aren’t able to have your own pets at this time.
Now in painful contrast, there is still, in this day and age little safety or comfort for the abused children of the Catholic church and other organizations. Where is the children’s rescue? Not with the church, and rarely with the Justice Department. Well, it’s in our hands. Each of us can take or not take some kind of meaningful action. Letters, organizations, a trip to the local church to put the local leaders on the spot about what they are doing about the situation. Many ways to help if we really want to.
Meanwhile, it’s totally understandable that things can get pretty wild on a blog where at one end you have GG unproductively going on a convoluted justification, and at the other end you have new revelations of priests getting away with crimes against humanity.
Thanks, John, for all the energy you have put forth and the many realizations and actions you have thus fostered. You help people discover where and whether they should be directing energy. And I don’t mean to pressure you about Tunch and Lily pics or make it a big self-conscious deal and ruin your enjoyment and the charm.
So when’s the next pic?
And Jeffrey’s pictures of food are real soul-lifters also too.
norbizness
Says #214 (whoops, only three comments left now).
El Cid
@Brien Jackson:
Okay, they are fairly thin-skinned types, but, you know, they were basically accused of corruption if not what was more or less theft.
I’d like to see how calmly and thick-skinned a response you’d get from a lot of bloggers (John Cole) included if someone basically began accusing them in multiple locations of truly corrupt financial dealings.
Xenos
@Arkon DougJ:
IT does keep something away from the readers… it is the sort of journalistic convention that is at once more fair and collegial, but increases the separation between insiders and the hoi polloi on the blogs.
You are not journalist, and neither is Glen. Glen is an activist/pundit/blogger operating from a somewhat privileged position at a perennially unprofitable and increasingly irrelevant webzine. You are whatever it is that you are. There are no clear institutional roles to follow here, just a bit of courtesy, and the expectation that everybody ought to have a fairly thick skin. I am more disturbed by Glen’s need to freak out about the whole episode than anything else.
Marc
#196: your post reads like reflexive hero-worship to me. Greenwald has always been far too wordy and binary in his thinking. Having people just defend him even when he is being destructive, or when he is just wrong, makes these tendencies far worse.
Hamsher made an alliance with Norquist and other wingnuts – this matters a lot to some of us. In fact, it makes her useless and makes a mockery of her alleged progressive credentials as far as I’m concerned. But YMMV.
Darkmoth
@Just Some Fuckhead:
I realize you meant this as a criticism, but it’s really an argument against the “please never mention Jane/GG again” position. If even a critical post can introduce a reader to a new viewpoint, it’s a good thing. I have no doubt that many people find out about GOS by first seeing it referred to as “the fucking..”.
Ash Can
I dunno. Sure, there are pockets of nastiness here, especially in the way of anti-religion bigotry, but it comes with the territory. We have all kinds here, and that’s the way it should be. I missed the whole GG kerfluffle yesterday, and I sure as hell don’t have time today or in the foreseeable future to review it all. So I can’t make any judgments regarding that. But I know that when I come across something that rankles me, whether in a FP post or in the comments, and I can’t immediately put my finger on why it rankles me, it makes me think. And that’s all good.
In short, put me down on the side of not seeing any real problems here. (Then again, of course, I have considerably less invested in this blog than John does.)
fez
I’m here daily, but almost never comment. I have found it disturbing that it is acceptable to make sweeping, ugly generalizations about Catholics when the same about any other group would not be okay. Rest assured that Catholics (many, most, some) are struggling right now. It’s okay if you don’t get having faith. But the comment quoted above is a disgusting generalization. I don’t defend indefensible acts, and my having the label of Catholic does not make me complicit.
CynDee
@Violet: No, nooooo; don’t take away our SNARK! I’m still learning!!
Punchy
Been a problem for awhile now. Like lettuce in your teeth or sex stains on the back of your shirt, no one’s had the heart to tell you.
norbizness
I will gladly trade my last three comments for the retirement of “THIS,” the 8-ball jacket of terse expressions of hipster agreement.
Brien Jackson
@El Cid:
It didn’t “accuse” them of anything, it implied that there might be funny business going on, because some of the expenditures looked odd. And if we assume the author was telling the truth, he contacted Jane trying to get an explanation, and she wouldn’t talk to him/got defensive. As did Glenn in his email to DougJ. That would certainly send up more red-flags for me too.
matoko_chan
jesus h keeyrist in a fuckin’ handcart.
there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT COMMENT!
Trey and Matt have been sayin’ this since 2002.
I think Random Sanctimonious Christian Commenter should get out of the kitchen and quit being all butthurt because the RCC gets deservedly pwn’d.
Redshift
@norbizness: Nah, that doesn’t work because it changes the space (at its best) from a great conversation to a kind of formal debate — “everyone gets a chance to make their points and then we’re done.” Teresa Nielsen-Hayden laid out pretty much everything that’s needed to keep an online forum productive five years ago at Making Light.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Darkmoth:
No, I’m specifically referring to retards like Mike Kay or the folks that gotta make it the topic no matter the actual topic. They know who they are.
At some point, it’s obsessive behavior and indicates some degree of mental illness or, worse, an attempt to set an agenda, keep folks bickering, on edge, etc.
mcd410x
Also, and I call this the Buffy Syndrome. (Please feel free, anyone, to disagree with this — this is out on the limb a bit). When you’ve got a Xander, adding an Oz may or may not be redundant. At some point it may get to be too much comic relief.
There’s a certain percentage of commenters who are going to emulate front pagers. If everyone on the front is doing over-the-top, you’re going to have it in comments, too. Not saying that this is good or bad, positive or negative. Just is.
soonergrunt
@norbizness: why?
Ash
I haven’t sensed a change in tone for what little it’s worth, but then again I don’t really get involved in the stuff involving other blogs since this is one of only like 2 or 3 I regularly visit. Shit’s gone crazy this year, and so have some people. Who cares.
*giant shrug*
As for the Catholic Church stuff, well, they’ve spent hundreds of years fucking things up, not much sympathy from me.
ChrisZ
Yes, please ban all hyperbole and snark from this blog because it doesn’t advance the discussion! That’s what I want, total bland commentary!
TR
@norbizness:
We could call it the BTD Rule.
liberty60
First, I really admire the commenters here, as much as the posters- Compared to most of the blogosphere, the comments here are a model of restraint and intellect.
But as Jon Stewart would say, thats like being the thinnest kid at fat camp.
Like John, I am a conservative who has drifted away from the movement; it isn’t just a disagreement over issues; the single most awful and horrific thing about the conservative movement is its Stalinist framework of thinking- they thrive on a cultish sense of paranoia and encirclement, always hunting for traitors and heretics, terrified of breaches in the Holy Writ of Truth.
Which is why I hated to see people start using that sort of logic towards Hamsher/ Greenwald/ KOS.
They might be wrong- hell, I disagree with them as often as not- but suddenly viewing them as Enemies Who Must Be Destroyed is RedState-ism at its finest- all we would need is a “blamstick” and we would be the mirror image of the Strikeforce.
And the thing is, in order to have this civil and reasonable atmosphere to operate in, sometimes that means ignoring wild and hurtful behavior from others, and sometimes letting others have the last word.
We can’t change other people- but we can be the change we believe in.
Now everyone joins hands…ready?
Obama…Hmmmm, Hmmmm, Obaaamaaa!
Um…that last part was supposed to be my inner monologue. Best to just ignore that part.
norbizness
@Redshift: No, it prevents dead horses from being beaten and greatly reduces the chances that individual commenters’ mommas get brought into the discussion.
I mean, I scanned Teresa’s list for a second, and 90% of this place flunked immediately.
TR
@norbizness:
Can we replace it with “Megadittos, Rush!”?
Nicole
I’ve been reading since a year or so before Schiavodammerung, and I really think, if anything, commenters are kinder now than back then. It might be because many of them are much closer to my own positions, so I see through tinted lenses, but I think there’s often a difference in the way people communicate. I spend a fair amount of time on a horse racing blog that has a political forum, and it’s about 50-50 right-wing/left-wing. And, I swear, I swear, I’m not biased on this, the right-wingers go to name-calling and insults very quickly. And then the discussions disintegrate. I don’t think most of them are awful people, and I’ve had very nice conversations about other, non-political topics, but I think they mimic what they hear on Rush’s show, etc. because that’s what they think political debate is.
On this site, I think while there’s plenty of snark, and anger at institutional things, the personal meanness is very rarely present here and people are expected to be able to back up their assertions. The anger stays focused on the issue, and doesn’t go towards the commenters.
Unless they’re total assholes.
mcd410x
Since we’re bitching: I hate it when people type definately. It makes me want to kick your pony.
Will
I’ve been coming here for about 2 years, since the heat of the primaries. I definitely enjoy the pet stories and photos, but I am mostly here for the very enjoyable political commentary. Which, by its nature, is going to often be heated. I don’t think any of the front-pagers have gone too far at all.
Ash
@Nicole:
An elder. D:
jibeaux
@Punchy:
The lettuce, I can relate, although I find people usually do tell me. But
Coupla different possibilities here, none of them too pretty, is it possible ur doin it rong?
slag
@SGEW:
This was said in jest, but I think there’s something to it. Personally, I have enjoyed more diversity on the front page. It’s the comments that seem to devolve into tribal warfare whenever some major or mild controversy arises.
In my view, provocation on the front page is good when commenters have the capacity to respond intelligently–with humor, righteous indignation, or even a thematically appropriate “go fuck yourself!”. But sometimes intelligent responses require discipline. And some of us seem incapable of disciplining ourselves at times.
As re the Catholic thing: I don’t think many of us have a problem with people going after deeply entrenched institutions. A lot of us see doing so as an obligation. But kicking Catholics when they’re down does seem kinda…weak. Kicking them when they’re up, however, can make for fine holiday fun.
ricky
I would comment more if you would quit focusing on that fat cat. I could care less who quarterbacks the Pennsylvania
football fanchise.
FormerSwingVoter
1662436″>Yossarian:
Yeah, I think that’s kind of the point. When people are meaner, logic and honesty matter less than attacking your enemies.
I feel like the GG and JH thing was a case in point. I don’t think anything in the post was factually wrong, but there was a clear implication that they were guilty of corruption, incompetence, or both. We can’t very well go on about people who blow goats and mock people with “it would be irresponsible not to speculate” and then do the same things ourselves.
Personally, I’ve had little patience for people’s feelings since HCR got nasty, and I think I need to try to tone down my insults now that it’s done. I need to get back to “Tunch is fat” and away from “Go kill yourself”. More snark and less nastiness.
It’s all my fault! I’m a dick!
soonergrunt
@Nicole:
Schiavodammerung
you win.
zulif mclaren
A number of people who comment on this site never do anything other than launch envenomed personal attacks.
They never link to any useful or illuminating articles; they never provide any statistics or figures to back up their assertions: they never cite any facts or make reasoned arguments.
Instead, these people rely on hysterical name-calling and ad hominem insults. The standard accusations include: anyone who disagrees with them is mentally ill, on drugs, mentally retarded, unable to read, unable to count, etc.
That’s not useful.
That does nothing to further the discussion.
Everyone’s entitled to vent once in a while. When a commenter never, ever does anything other than character assassination, it’s time to think about bringing the ban hammer down hard.
sparky
having not been online yesterday apparently i missed a kerfluffle. rats. anyway as a whack-job lefty, i still read GG though i never have read FDL, and still don’t see any reason to do so.
i do think as blog traffic has grown and the number of front pagers has increased the substance of the comments have changed.i don’t mind getting slammed here; kinda goes with the terrain. but it is unfortunate that most of the responses here are now ad hominem rather than snark.
when i stumbled across this place, aside from John and Tim there were two things that i liked about the comments section: the snark was really pretty good (and much more diverse than what you see at Wonkette, for example, which is good but all the same kind), and there were people of all ideological persuasion here. now it has become a much more sort of mainstream D kind of place, with a definite herd mentality at times. (IIRC i think this first showed up in the democratic primaries).
the only reason i started posting in the health care threads was that i couldn’t stand to see a hundred posts with people all nodding sagely in agreement with talking points that weren’t even accurate. (oh yeah, and i got pissed off at the utter silence about what the US is still doing abroad.) so i became sort of an accidental troll. and sadly i didn’t do a good job as usually nobody responded. oh well.
observation: it may be that some of the friction here is due to people who look at the Rs and worry about them taking power again but with real crazies running the show. my take on that is that (1) that should not excuse Obama’s conduct and (2) that’s not a real issue. why? because the oligarchy would not permit it in that even if the GOP were to regain power their corporate sponsors would keep them in check–assuming they would win an election, which, given their current crop i just don’t see happening. in other words, because i think business as usual is a bigger threat to whatever remains of the Empire than the nitwits running the GOP treehouse, i focus on what’s wrong period, rather than focussing on the evils of a particular party organization. that said, i can appreciate people coming to a different conclusion on that point. i just wish they would respect my perspective a bit more.
/off to read GG threads….
Grumpy Code Monkey
@El Cid:
I don’t blame Greenwald for being righteously pissed off, and if he had responded with “here’s where you’re wrong, here’s why you’re wrong, and fuck you for suggesting I was doing something hinky,” then there wouldn’t have been a problem. It was his going off about Obots and Dear Leader and all that other crap, attacking not just the front pagers but the entire Balloon Juice community, that lost him a lot of points. You can be mad without being a raging asshole.
Darkmoth
@geg6:
This.
There has always been a strong element of Progressive groupthink – or rather a presumed homogeneity of opinion if you call yourself a “Progressive”. If there are N Progressive positions, what are you if you hold N-2 of them?
This isn’t unique to Progressives, of course. I suspect it’s what separates a movement from a coalition.
John Cole
Count the times in the last year I have criticized Greenwald. If you come up with more than one or two times, I would be shocked.
And I want links. I remember approximately ONE post criticizing him, and I maintain I was right.
Violet
@CynDee:
You misread what I wrote. I’m not suggesting banning humor or anything of the sort. It’s the WORD “snark” that is far too overused and frequently seems to be used as a shield for pettiness or meanness. Or stupidity. And even more often is used in a self-congratulatory manner (“We’re so great here! We really get snark!”). Ugh.
@ChrisZ:
CynDee misread my post, where I suggested banning the WORD “snark” not the concept of intelligent, interesting, well-written commentary with a side of humor. See my response to her above.
El Cid
@Brien Jackson: I think the notion that the intent wasn’t to suggest they were corrupt or, maybe less seriously, completely wasting or squirreling away donations, and someone was just asking ‘Wha’cha think about this? Anyone know?’ is pretty silly and very few people would believe you.
Again, leave the actual figures involved out of it for a second and imagine the same was asked of something John Cole sponsored. I’d expect a rather “thin skinned” reaction from him too.
ChrisZ
@norbizness:
__
THIS
Grumpy Code Monkey
@tballou:
Why “justifiably”?
Malron aka eclecticbrotha
@matoko_chan: FOX News isn’t suggesting Sarah Palin actually interviewed LL Cool J by using his name and celebrity to promote the new show she’s hosting. Just like FOX News isn’t supporting the teabaggers by endlessly hyping every rally and giving them wall to wall coverage and hours of free advertising.
The nerve of LL to point out FOX and Palin are full of shit.
Noonan
All this BJ introspection has me yearning for a meta “Why FDL Sucks” post.
SGEW
A few thoughts:
Re: The Catholic Church
Balloon-Juice has never identified itself as an explicitly “atheist” blog, but a lot of the recent thread commentary has been similar to what you find on, say, Pharyngula (or whatnot). This can be discomfiting to those not familiar with it (to say the least). This isn’t necessarily a criticism, mind you – but the contretemps over the latest scandal involves much more than the Catholic Church alone.
Re: Glenn Greenwald
The blog authors (particularly Mr. Cole) agree with almost everything Greenwald writes about, with the notable exception of political analysis (i.e., political speculation based on perceived motivations and correlations; not the underlying facts themselves). For example: Greenwald a) reports on the Justice Department’s legal position(s) on detention and possible commissions, b) draws legal conclusions, then c) speculates about the current administration’s intentions and motivations. I doubt that either John or Doug dispute anything substantial in a) or b); the bone of contention is in c). (See, also, Rahm speculation). However, many of the commenters on the GG threads unleash very personal attacks on Greenwald himself; not just his conclusions, politics, and writing style, but also his integrity, authenticity, and even his personal life. Additionally, Glenn sometimes acts like a complete jerk in comment threads, so that doesn’t help matters. To paraphrase Mr. Cole, from one of the earlier GG threads, it sucks.
Re: Jane Hamsher
I have no idea what the hell’s going on here. I’ve never really read her stuff, to tell the truth, and have no dog in this hunt. However, y’all do know that there’s a history between Hamsher and Cole, right? I really don’t know if this plays any part in all this, but it’s there.
Finally: If there’s any real criticism I have of the blog, of late, it’s in the noticeable decrease in front page cursing. What. The. Fuck?
soonergrunt
@slag:
You really think they’re down? The richest, most powerful non-armed state actor in the history of the world?
It’s not the laity with whom I have a problem. Well, most of the laity. Bill Donohue needs to stick his dick in a rat trap, shove a broomstick up his ass, set himself on fire and then shoot himself.
But I do have a problem with the priesthood that refuses as an institution to change anything, issues a blanket, single half-assed apology and then considers the issue closed all the while going on with the kiddie diddling. Exactly how many are redeemed by this?
Just Some Fuckhead
And really, just what the hell is up with all the Mikes and Jens? I bet if we figured that one out, the rest of the mystery would unravel.
El Cid
@Grumpy Code Monkey:
I’m a part of the “Balloon Juice community”, and I didn’t feel like he was attacking me, and if the rhetoric about ‘Obots’ and ‘Dear Leader’ attitude seems over the top, I’d suggest not reading blogs any more. I’m also completely unsurprised that the writer against whom something akin to charges were made would be not just over the top pissy but inclined to see political motivations behind the ‘questions’.
Nor do I think it the most horriblest thing in the universe for someone to suggest they see such patterns. For my part, I too assumed that political axes to grind motivated the accusations, but since I know absolutely squat about the questions asked and had little choice but to wait for more investigative types to follow up, what would it matter? In general if “Obots” or Obot-ish types looked into something and it was true and serious, why would it matter?
CaseyL
Excuse me??
My god, “old-school BJ” was Stormy and Darryl and TallDave v. Everyone Else! 300+ comment threads on torture, war, the suspension of habeas corpus, and whatever other hot button topic of the day was, and believe me we were not civil. I used to have to shut down the computer and walk away, or else I’d throw it against the nearest wall.
No fvcking way was the tone “reasonable” back then. We sacked the cities and then salted the ground. And Cole would get down and dirty with the rest of us. That’s what I loved about this place then and love about it now: that discussions are passionate, and yet we still love one another. Mostly :)
No, the flame wars of the last couple days are more like a return to the real old-time Balloon-Juice. To paraphrase ReBoot Scotty: I like this blog! It’s exciting!
ChrisZ
@Violet:
I was actually directing my comment at John’s post and the e-mail he quoted. I guess when I come to the game this late I should be more clear about that.
As for overuse of the word snark, I think that’s inevitable. I’m much more annoyed by overuse of words like “disaster” or “awful” or “unique” in general parlance, but I have yet to find an effective way to combat it without having to be a total pedantic dick all the time. I think we just have to invent new words every time the non-pedants hijack one.
someguy
So after reading about a thousand gazillion comments (I had a Republican budget critic estimate that) the post boils down to:
I think what we need to fix this ennui is for John to write a book about how to take back the White House. Or at least the Senate.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@BR:
I think Xenos at #178 has a very valid point about the poor quality of DougJ’s research in the intial AN/PAC post (and I say this as a big fan of DougJ’s oeuvre). I think this blog is going through growing pains as it moves up in traffic and visibility. Just recently we’ve seen both GG and Jake Tapper respond directly to direct attacks on their integrity launched from the front pages, and subsequently waded into the comments and mix it up with the commentariat. I’ve been here since 2006 and I don’t ever remember that sort of thing happening before, certainly not on a regular basis. Yet just in the last week DougJ has successfully trolled two establishment media figures and lured them into the swamp here.
The problem is that the atmosphere that worked just fine when this was just a snarkly little tavern for semi-private barfights doesn’t work so well when outsiders are drawn in, just as you would expect to happen when the principles start showing up here, because they don’t have all the local mores down and the context needed to interact well with the regulars, and to know the difference between when somebody is just talking smack or snarking and when they are really trying to draw blood. So as a result we get more in the way of blogfeuds. Which are pretty boring really.
I don’t know what the solution is. But saying “what do you want, it’s just a blog?” glosses over that there are blogs and then there are blogs, and moving up the traffic ladder does impose a greater level of responsibility to own your shite. On one level it’s sad, but then growing up is sad too, in that you can never really go home sort of way. Doesn’t stop it from happening anyway. So perhaps it would be good for the front pagers to try harder at properly researching a post before just throwing out inflammatory stuff that is likely to attract notice enough to piss off somebody in the outside world and invite their entourage to show up here as well.
Chinn Romney
Huh. I thought we were all just starting to come together in our mutual dislike of the Pittsburgh Steelers. ‘Tis true that it’s going to take John a while to warm to Bill Belichick and his team of the decade, but that’s okay. He used to be a Wingnut so I’m sure he’ll come around on this one too. Perhaps in time to partake of the 2011 victory celebration.
And if Bob Huggins can do his Dennis Hopper ‘Shooter’ from the movie ‘Hoosiers’ impersonation, and watch the Final Four from a rehab bed rather than the sidelines, I might even be able to muster up some support for WVU. The solidarity will be palpable. Try not to riot too hard if they win though.
BruceFromOhio
@tballou:
tballou, I respect your opinion on this, as you put in plain words on a public site. I hope you can fathom DFHs like me who once felt this way, but were blown away by the Norquist alliance. I’ve had to make deals with people I dislike and distrust to further my own goals, though there is always a line somewhere that cannot be crossed in such machinations.
Being allied with Norquist crossed a big line, and there’s been little to justify going back. When I see how much has been accomplished since Kerry’s defeat in ’04 without Dems, libs, progressives having to ally with the Norquists of the world, not only does it underscore how powerful a force “The Left” is in America, it serves notice that people like Norquist are unnecessary to any efforts to further progressive goals.
To the topic at hand regarding BJ and ‘tone,’ this thread is evidence that all is well. Yeah, sure, the drapes don’t match the carpet, BFD. Doesn’t stop anyone from staying and having a good time, or STFU and going elsewhere.
someguy
And that’s why I come here – the humor!
El Cid
I haven’t really seen anyone kicking “Catholics” when they’re down. A lot of people are kicking what appears to be an operation — the Catholic Church as a hierarchical institution much akin to a corporation — which has systematically facilitated and protected the most horrible of crimes and the most degenerate of child-raping criminals over the course of decades across dozens of nations.
Jeebus friggin’ cripes, how quickly a bunch of otherwise liberal and Democratic types (including Jon Stewart) leapt onto undocumented charges of no actual crimes posited by fraudulent miscreants about ACORN, and pretty much nobody is weeping for our one national defender of homeless / housing rights for the poor / financial security and non-usurious practices in poor communities being dissolved as a consequence of a single fraudulent accusation.
My sentiment is, have whatever religion you want, but don’t expect anyone to care whether or not the organization remains intact or in anything like its current form.
Brien Jackson
@El Cid:
I’m not disagreeing, it clearly was meant to imply that there might be some funny business going on. What I was pointing out was that had Jane answered the author’s questions (again, assuming the author was telling the truth about that bit), it might not have been an issue at all. And there were definitely things that could set off some red flags, especially for donors. I’m not saying that they weren’t justifiable, but you have to actually, you know, justify them. Or explain them if you prefer. You can’t just get righteously pissed off when people ask questions about them and then posit it as a “how fucking dare you” defense.
And for the purpose of full disclosure I’ll acknowledge that I’ve made fun of Accountability Now, I think they’re a laughable organization that’s rather comically run, and I’d never even consider giving them any money. But I don’t think they did anything illegal (although I do think a lot of the stuff, while SOP for most PACS, is extremely unethical, though YMMV on that point).
To turn the comparison around, imagine how GG would respond if a government official responded to a reporter’s inquiry the way he responded to DougJ.
Gozer
I wandered over here some time in 2007 and have consistently enjoyed the BJ main posters and commentariat. IMO there are no sacred cows (as a Catholic who has gone to Catholic school I’ve immensely enjoyed the church snark around here) and BJ seems to hold to that idea as well.
FWIW I used to read FDL back when it was still a blogspot page, but moved on when it became a non-stop rage-a-thon (still read TBogg though). They’ve done great work, but the vibe is too fucking intense over there. And they take themselves too seriously. I guess if you aim to be a political power-player you gotta appear to take yourself seriously…bah, fuck it. Moar Tunch and Lily!
Xenos
@zulif mclaren:
For fuck’s sake. Get some self awareness, pls.
You use this place as a dumping ground for your aggression, spite, and wild marxist ramblings. Pretty much the same use I make of it. It is pretty therapeutic, really. But don’t get all whiny if some people get tired of your shtick and tell you to go get screwed. Just improve your game or go do something else.
scav
@Grumpy Code Monkey: Oh, come on, Obama’s not actually the second coming and he can’t walk in water in all directions at once. Depending on your individual exact issue, he’s been more or less satisfactory. For example, my primary issue is, if anything, is more DOJ/torture related. Not so grand there. I’d also like DADT out. Getting there. Similarly waiting on my financial reform. HCR wasn’t high on my initial list but I’ll cheer it all the same. Obama seems to be a pragmatist and a compromiser by nature most of the time, NOT luckily always. I personally wasn’t wildly in favor of any Dem. candidate but am all in all am pleased that somebody nicer and smarter than me is in the White House. I can see that people would think otherwise, even when we have similar opinions on similar topics.
FormerSwingVoter
@SGEW:
A history? Woah. When did they break up?
Violet
@ChrisZ:
Ah, I see. Sorry I misread your comment. The work “snark” is a particular pet peeve because it seems to convey a “we’re so much better than other groups of people on teh intertubes” attitude, which I really can’t stand.
Leelee for Obama
@soonergrunt: Thanks to you soonergrunt for this cogent assessment of Bill Donahue and what he should do with and to his miserable self. That made my morning, and I’m not ashamed to say so.
The RCC, the institution, needs the purge of a lifetime, and Holy Week is just the time for it. Moneychangers, et al, out of the Temple. Yes, it would leave a smoking hole in the world for devout Catholics, but they would be able to build on sterilized ground, and what grew might, just might, be worth knowing.
SGEW
@CaseyL:
Hmmm.
I guess when I say “civil” I don’t mean “not being mean to each other” (lordy lordy, how mean people were!). Crikey, how we would weep with rage, then laugh at others’ destruction, then come back for more. Good times. Um. Kinda.
So wait, what’s different? What am I talking about? This is actually something I had to stop and think about, right now. Cripes, I guess it really is about the difference between being a left-wing troll on a right wing site (and then a “moderate” site), fighting the good fight against right wing idiots, and now being a “moderate” on a “progressive” site, trying to moderate fights between lefties.
I’m probably harkening back to that strange interim period, post 2006 election, pre-inauguration 2009, when a new kind of consensus slowly emerged. When the right wing trolls became the distinct (and hilarious!) minority, and hope was in the air, and all that bullshit. So now I eat the cake we baked.
I don’t know, really. Enough navel-gazing for me today (it’s bad for me, probably).
Betsy
I feel a little weird coming into someone’s house and complaining that their decorating isn’t to my taste, but…apparently that won’t stop me!
I’ve been reading/commenting here for what, maybe 2 years? 2 and a half? If I had one suggestion/request/thing that would make me personally happier, it would be less of a focus on intra-lefty-blogosphere. That focus seemed to get more intense during the HCR debates. I think the quality of the critiques and the snark here is higher when the scope of conversation is wider. I’ve never read Hamscher, I’ve rarely read Greenwald. While I understand the frustration with their arguments and tone, I just don’t find those kinds of spats very interesting, and it seems like that’s really where the rage got amped up, recent religion issues notwithstanding.
That said, it ain’t my house, and I love coming here despite the aspects that I don’t like as much. I like how supportive a group it can be when someone’s going through a hard time, and I like that that coexists with biting sarcasm where appropriate. I totally adore many of the frequent commenters, and can only aspire to their level of incisiveness.
Sentient Puddle
Holy fucking meta!
Um…as far as I’m concerned, I visit this blog because I like the posts in general, I skip the posts that don’t interest me, and comment because I like the commentariat. And if I ever change my mind about any of these things, I’ma just stop, and the only indication anyone will ever have is if somebody with an incredibly supernatural memory for super-trivial things one day says “Hey, what ever happened to that Sentient Puddle dude?” And then everyone will go back to what they were doing because they don’t care what ever happened to him.
That out of the way, here’s cats on a treadmill.
Grumpy Code Monkey
@scav:
I never claimed otherwise. I just want to know why GG and JH are “very justifiably suspicious” of Obama, over and above being suspicious of any elected official. I just get the feeling that some lefties’ problems with Obama have little to do with policy.
Leelee for Obama
Perfectly put, Betsy. I share things with my friends here before I talk to family sometimes, like my job and other stuff. The biting sarcasm is like a whetstone. It helps me keep my claws sharp enough for when I need them. And when one of us is in need, there are always friends to help you through whatever is causing you troubles. All in all, it’s fellowship with people I wish lived next door.
scav
@Grumpy Code Monkey: ahh, you were looking for exact details? not a solitary clue.
Pococurante
Yes, the site has gotten more shrill, and not in an entertaining way. I’ve made a few comments about some of the contributors in the past six weeks. I like a good old fashioned smack ’em up but sometimes it really does come up as hit trolling (“Jon Stewart, stand-up comedian, lacks gravitas…”? RLY?)
slag
@soonergrunt:
Can’t disagree with this. But I can see how the average Catholic might also think they were personally being kicked.
Admittedly, I will never understand their interest, but it seems that many people have invested a lot in their church. And if I were them, I would be feeling pretty insecure about that investment right now. No matter how wealthy or powerful the institution. And unless the Pope is reading Balloon Juice, it does seem that likely to be the average Catholic who might be feeling kicked or piled-on or whatever.
That said, I’m not about sparing people’s feelings here. I’m just saying that it’s more fun to smack them around when they’re feeling smug and secure rather than than weak and afraid. Of course, I can find lots of caveats to this position. For instance, smacking that dude who said Catholics should pray for the Pope who was being persecuted a la Jesus = fine holiday fun. So, whatever…maybe it is just the tone of the smacking that’s important. I don’t know.
zulif mclaren
@Xenos:
Provide hard evidence that my citation of facts to show that many provisions of the current health care bill will make things worse for many Americans is “aggression, spite and wild marxist ramblings,” or stand revealed as a liar and character assassin.
Thank you for providing a perfect example of the kind of grotestque behavior I pointed out.
Evidence supporting my assertion that the current HCR bill makes things worse for many Americans includes <A HREF="“>Howard Dean’s article in the Washington Post, also <A HREF="“>Armando’s point about regulatory capture, countless articles citing the massively collusive corrupt medical cartels which raise costs in America to between 2x and 10x what it costs in every other advanced country, and serious doubts about the advisability of using the government to force ordinary citizens to pay private corporations without imposing cost controls.
I provide link after link to article after article. I provide facts and evidence.
How is any of this “marxist ramblings”?
How is any of this “aggression” and “spite”?
Is this really all you’ve got to bring to the discussion, Xenos? Calling names? Anyone who disagrees with you is spewing “marxist ramblings?” All the economists like Umair Haque that I cite, all the doctors like Howard Dean — they’re all just ranting and raving, they’re all merely spouting “marxist ramblings”?
Really?
That’s your entire argument?
Wow. Looks like I just proved my case with your help. The level of discussion on this forum has degenerated into mindless name-calling and personal insults, you stand as Exhibit A.
NobodySpecial
I’ll throw in my two cents, they’re not buying anything at the candy counter anyways. I’ve been here on and off since Schiavodammerung, mostly lurking.
The tone HAS gotten worse here, but to me it’s mostly a few commenters who have cliqued up and try and drive debate here by means of splitting up the blog into camps, using Cole and the front-pagers as cover. I honestly don’t remember nearly as much of the ‘I come here because I’m sensible like Cole and not a screaming idiot like Hamsher/GG/Villain of the Month’ until they started pushing it. It happened at DailyKos too, several times. It appears to be part of the process of blogs becoming megablogs, as people who don’t feel like part of the groupthink begin calving off and the people who stay form up into their little groups.
El Cid
@Brien Jackson:
Not a bad question. I’m not sure I buy the analogy 100%, but it should be borne in mind. People leading these types of efforts have to think even more about how their comments & responses will be seen and heard as public figures and not just as blogger interactions.
DPirate
My grandmother is not a pedophile.
ricky
What is with all this Hamsher-Nordquist vitriol?
You would think she starred in a Cialis commerical
in paired footed bathtubs with the chap.
Which she produced. And wrote. And advertised. And distributed. And was compenasted for. By her PAC.
Which she founded. Which she stategically consulted.
Which she managed. Which she treasured. And was compensated for. By her PAC.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@zulif mclaren:
Clinical sociopath.
Frankly
Remember it is very challenging to hunt the SNARK!
from wikipedia…
gwangung
I’ve mentioned before that I was helping run a non-profit, and had people question expenses and outlays. So I understand the annoyance. But not the vitriolic response.
Heads of agencies have to tamp down their annoyances. Partial news gets passed around all the time. They have to learn strategies to cope with them, and not treat the more innocent questions the same as the more malevalent ones (because both will exist).
Little Dreamer
John, you can’t be serious. The tone around here was always thus (and we who have been here for a long time are fully aware that it takes thick skin to spend any real time arguing here). Balloon Juice has always had that type of a reputation – and the fact that you’re falling for this just shows that the screamers saying “those lefties are worse” will always get their screws adjusted.
Consider yourself pwned by the email author.
slag
@zulif mclaren:
Umm…we’ve had this discussion. Howard Dean said it was better to pass the bill than to not pass the bill. Get over it.
But on second thought…why am I even addressing this?
matoko_chan
@Malron aka eclecticbrotha: well….allahp still hasn’t changed his headline. ;)
Fox is totally butthurt.
Why don’t they get that NO ONE likes Palin but them?
Sweet Baby Jeebus her shrill screechy voice alone will keep her out of high office….she grates on me like Miley Cyrus.
I bet the butthurt meter is pegging off the charts this week….the Pre-trib Hutaree “Christian Warriors”, the bondage lipstick lesbian strip club and the “Young” Republican Eagles Donor Club, the pedophile/pederast priests and the Bad Shepherd…..these WEC tears are simply delicious.
:)
And I’m not sorry for xian-bashing….pushing your religion on others is just nasty and rude….it is intellectual molestation.
Get over your bigselves and keep it in your pants.
Little Dreamer
@Comrade Jake:
perhaps the very idea that a man can be born of a virgin that had the sprinkling of God’s sperm given to her by an angel and that this man would consider himself to be the equal of God might be a reason for this?
I’m not above those who think they are truly doing Christian work (helping the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked) – but the idea that everyone needs to accept Jesus as God and that all those who don’t are evil is just plain wrong.
The Old Testament states that God is not a man and that there is none beside him (think about that, the Old Testament predicted that a religion would be born that would state God was a man and that that man would purport to be standing next to God on the heavenly throne) – perhaps it’s not those who believe in Christianity that are being persecuted at all.
I am not allowed to say these things in public. Stating these facts will cause me to face a mob ready to lynch me. I am thankful that I have forums such as these where I can speak the truths I’ve learned.
Christians do not have a monopoly on what type of religious ideas can be expressed, if that is what they choose, then perhaps they should all go live in a wilderness (good luck finding one of those besides perhaps the North Pole, or maybe Sarah will offer Alaska for that purpose) and force others to think as they do – here in America we don’t like that sort of thing and it says so right in our Constitution.
cleek
@liberty60:
good idea! BJ needs a BlamStick!
soonergrunt
@Leelee for Obama:
I worshipped in three different parishes before I left the church, and there was always somebody like Donohue hanging around. More Catholic than Father, plays golf with the Bishop, donated lots of money to the Diocese and so on. Sometimes you couldn’t tell if the church was there for us or for that guy.
@DPirate: there is, however, a substantial non-zero chance that her priest is, though.
inkadu
Screw the tone. I want to know why I can post an off-topic comment at the end of a 300-comment thread I haven’t read and not get a single reply.
Little Dreamer
@inkadu:
You expect a reply before you’ve even posted?
Chuck
Longtime reader here who is just about to yank BJ from my RSS reader. I agree with the OP quoted above that much of the charm of BJ has to do with JC and his journey from the dark side. In this regard, the – seemingly – regular addition of other voices
I enjoy Doug J’s posts about the latest tasting he caught at the NYSCC, but he knows fuck-all about politics. I tend to gloss over Tim F.’s posts. Annie is a nice addition whose posts are always thoughtful and never vitriolic.
I have precisely no interest in puerile juicer / firebagger flame wars.
In summary, in an effort to add a variety of voices to the blog (which, let’s face it is JCs), BJ has become an incoherent mess. An incoherent mess averaging more than 15 posts a day lately, which is more attention than I am willing to dedicate to pretty much anything.
Any chance we can get separate RSS feeds for each author? Would help to greatly reduce the signal to noise ratio.
soonergrunt
@inkadu: I’m sorry, what?
soonergrunt
@Chuck: I just scan it and don’t bother with the threads that don’t interest me.
Of course, being unemployed as of yesterday, it’s not like I have anything else to do while shooting resumes all over the place.
Molly McRae
My two cents —
John, I recently thought about asking if you would set up your RSS feeds by blogger. I read BJ because I enjoy your perspective and your writing. I do not mind if you do not post several times a day or even daily for that matter. That is mainly why I use my reader — to catch posts by occasional bloggers I like reading and/or have fine minds and good writing skills.
I think I understand why you have opened the site to other bloggers but none so far have really engaged my mind. Sorry, guys. Also, I mostly only read comments when it is not readily apparent from the topic how they will react.
So, how about it. Can you give us RSS feeds by blogger?
scarshapedstar
This site has always been plenty snarky; the difference is the nationwide descent into abject lunacy. Sometimes there really is nothing nice to say, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t say anything at all.
Little Dreamer
@soonergrunt:
No problem with that unemployment thing, I have heard commercials that the CIA is hiring for the last three mornings on my favorite rock and roll station while I’m driving home from doing my route. They run these commercials at 6:00 am every morning now.
They stress being an Equal Opportunity Employer and sound like they have a lot of positions open.
;)
Just trying to help!
Little Dreamer
@scarshapedstar:
I’m in total agreement with this.
inkadu
@soonergrunt: Just an inside joke with myself, I guess.
I like the conversations here. But a lot of the times by the time I come here, the comment threads are past ripe. Either I can invest the time to read the comments and reply, by which time the conversation has moved onto to other threads, or I can say my piece. But if I do the latter, I’m likely to repeat what’s been said upstream, or, just as bad, say something off topic to where the thread’s discussion has gone (as my anti-papist rant above demonstrates).
Meh.
Joel
if we don’t get to try benedict like a regular accessory to child rape, then we should at least be allowed to call a spade a spade.
james
Scorched earth now, scorched earth forever.
soonergrunt
@Little Dreamer: The CIA?
Wow. I could become the enemy/whipping boy of EVERYBODY!
Naaaah. I need to find a government job where I do nothing of value and take a paycheck I haven’t earned.
I think I’ll apply to staff for a Senator from Oklahoma.
zulif mclaren
@slag:
In fact, we haven’t had a discussion about the HCR bill — nor about most of the other topics presented here. Instead, we’ve had a great deal of name-calling and personal insults hurled at anyone who disagrees with the groupthink consensus.
No one has provided an argument to show why Bob Herbert’s point that the “cadillac tax” will force employers to rapidly scale back the insurance they offer to employees will not effectively leave everyone in America to pay for essentially all their insurance on their own — and without cost controls.
No one has provided an argument to show why the lack of cost controls in this HCR bill won’t allow costs to spiral out of control to the point where most American’s can’t afford it — but will still be required by law to pay for private insurance they can’t afford.
No one has provided an argument to show why the corrupt cartel of doctors and hospitals and insurers and medical devicemakers who collude to fix the price of of medical care will not be strengthened by this HCR bill, driving up costs even faster and forcing even more people to abandon insurance because they don’t have the income to pay for it.
No one has provided an argument why dumping 15 million new uninsured and uninsurable poor people on the state medicaid system will give them access to medical care when all 50 states are already slashing medicaid benefits as fast as they can to stem the rising tide of red ink as state after state becomes insolvent.
No one has provided an argument to show why regulatory capture by toothless state insurance regulatory boards won’t actually strengthen the power of the medical cartels, causing prices to rise even faster and leaving consumers with no option at all when insurers reneg on their commitments and refuse to pay for covered health care.
@slag:
Because you’re desperately aware that you have no arguments and no facts to support your claims, and as a result your implicit claims that the issue of health care reform is settled and that the HCR bill is a good thing overall are falling apart.
Quick, better resort to name-calling…
daryljfontaine
My experience is that the increase in frontpagers (and thusly, the increase in front page posts) has me finding the most interesting threads when they are four or five posts old, and anything I want to contribute to the discussion is therefore already obsolete. This thread is of course no exception, though it is less interesting. :-D
As for the tone: it’s a group blog now, the tone is different from frontpager to frontpager… the HCR debate brought out some acrimony between the pragmatists and the idealists, and led to some bizarre donut-hole coalitions (Hamsher+Norquist, the edges vs. the center) that did not fly so well with many, myself included. But it also brought us popcorn-grade entertainment, such as the self-perpetuating Stuckhead slashfic that permeated the comments here.
I come here for a lot of reasons; among them are the interesting commentariat, the snark, the occasional bitchy infighting, the food porn from jeffreyw, the pet pics, the links to really good (or really bad) political commentary, etc. There are some things I don’t care as much for. As of now the balance is still well in favor of things I like, so I stay — and the level of unnecessary bullshit has stayed relatively low, unlike my previous experiences with AmericaBlog and FDL, so again, I stay.
Don’t navel-gaze too much, John; this too shall pass.
D
Grumpy Code Monkey
Something that just struck me out of the blue.
One company I worked for had a Friday beer bash; we’d all head downstairs at 3:30 or so and have a beer and hang out on the plaza for a while. It worked really well when the company was small, but as the company got bigger the nature of the bash changed. It got louder, people got drunker, and eventually things got to the point where you had the code monkeys hurling into the shrubbery.
I don’t know how the population of the Balloon Juice commentariat has changed over the years, but I wonder if that hasn’t also contributed to the change in tone. I know I’m a relative newcomer and part of the problem.
BombIranForChrist
I am not entirely sure why I post here. I think it is really hard to follow certain threads of comments because they aren’t nested, and I can’t name regular posters here as easily as I can on other sites where I don’t post.
At a baseline level, this site and its authors say a lot of smart things, so that is why I visit. But I think I post here largely because I think John, Doug, et al. are largely like me (god help you). Snarky, smart, kinda confused, drunk, addicted to video games, etc.
Yesterday was pretty frustrating, though. Maybe I am delusional, but I think Differing Views are generally better tolerated here than in other communities, but yesterday … man … not a good day for the BJ.
And I dunno. Maybe I should change my Posting Name to something less inflammatory, like Giant Pink Bunny or Dick Cavett.
inkadu
GCM – You make an excellent point. Maybe the new kids just can’t hold their liquor.
+0
Little Dreamer
@Grumpy Code Monkey:
Oh, you worked for Toshiba too, eh?
[inside joke]
Little Dreamer
@BombIranForChrist:
No, please don’t! The name is very effective, and necessary to show the hubris that is involved in the GOP thinking.
Little Dreamer
@soonergrunt:
__
Nobody has to know. ;)
Quiddity
Just Some Fuckhead wrote:
From this comment thread, a sample of what that looks like:
Not friendly enuff? Suck it, nancies (Punchy)
Go play in traffic and let the adults talk, please. (Face)
I thought I was going to vomit before I got to the end of this Kum-fucking-bayah thread and the attending comments. (The Grand Panjandrum)
… you are honestly a dick. (geg6)
If I am called a mindless follower of john or an obot one more time I am gonna get shrill with a two by fucking four. (eric)
… Marc couldn’t satisfy a woman with two spinning washing machines and a gallon of chocolate ice cream. (Brick Oven Bill)
… the letter you posted just sounds like a smarmy version of “don’t hit me cause I’m a dem wanker, and special” (General Egali Tarian Stuck)
Fuck you … (PTirebiter)
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@inkadu:
So are you saying you want Balloon-Juice broadcast on tape delay for your local time zone, like NBC’s coverage of the Vancouver Olympics? No, I say, no! This can only end in tears, broken crockery, and giant inflatable beavers.
sparky
@Grumpy Code Monkey: damn. i was hoping someone else would have said something here.
i can’t speak for other “lefties” but i can speak for myself, and as a person who donated and rang doorbells for Obama, i understood that he had to be a “centrist” but i did not expect:
1. stealth adoption of Bush policies (with one exception–the “no torture” rule–but as the US is still outsourcing dunno if it matters).
2. ramping up in Afghanistan. i don’t mean the original–which to be fair he said he would do–i mean the more recent surge.
3. giving away the UST to the banking sector.
there’s more but i can’t think of it at the moment
oh and i am one of those folks who thinks this health insurance for all was a really bad idea as executed.
HRA
I visited blogs from the US and other countries since before the Iraqi War. I found it more of a learning experience than an entertaining one. My favorite blogs began to disappear.
I began to read memeorandum and in time was led here.
I have no perception of how it was before I arrived here. I lurked for a long time before I became courageous enough to comment. I got a few slams from commenters for commenting OT. No big deal -ss.
Then when an associate blogger seriously slammed me I was shocked more than anything else. Solution? Easy -I did not read the associate’s threads and even now I do my best to avoid them.
I think we’ll survive this nicely.
chopper
@CaseyL:
this. nobody remembers the old days? ppGaz (before he was TZ) vs. half the commentariat? the spoofs (jesus, we all had at least one)? birdzilla? darrell? grudge matches with everyone?
hell, we destroyed each other back then. anybody who pines for ‘the old days when BJ was a more civil place’ is either deluded or wasn’t actually here back then.
Little Dreamer
@chopper:
Almost exactly.
For the record, I only sparred with TZ once, and that was about immigration reform. I admired how he kept up the pace with all of you in his face all the time. I guess you could say it was the fault of all of you that I became sympathetic towards his purpose and decided to expand that connection into a real life relationship.
Thanks for being so damned hard on him.
;)
Death Panel Truck
I’d hate to see the tone change here. I loves me some righteous indignation, no matter the topic, or position on same.
I’m only pissed off because I’m not allowed to express my considered opinion that the Dreadful Grate is the worst band in the recorded history of music. John Cole doesn’t allow that, you see.
terry chay
@El Cid: Actually in the thread mentioned the word “corrupt” was only used three times in 400+ comments. In those three times, two of them were a direct quote from AccountabilityNow’s homepage and the other was someone claiming that commenters here were accusing Jane Hamsher of being corrupt (note, no one before that commenter even used the words, so the argument was a Straw Man).
I performed a similar analysis on every word that Glenn Greenwald claimed commenters on BJ said about him in that thread and the result? only one commenter used one word in reference to him that could possibly consider tarring him with a label he mentioned (the word was “lying”).
This is why I got so righteous. Unlike DougJ. I’ve never been snarky, but when you claim:
then I’d have to caveat that the “by whom” is nobody at Balloon Juice.
That’s a crazy statistic! I mean Cole has never edited out people like Brick Oven Bill’s comments. It should be easy to dig up actual examples of accusations instead of manufacturing straw man arguments like these. (For instance, you may not have intended it, but you are implying that there are people have accused the two of theft here, when nobody has but their own defenders!)
Recall, before I even posted a comment in the second thread, Greenwald claimed that I (by commenting on the previous thread) was saying “all day” that he was:
lying: only one comment could have possibly be construed that way (and it was a snark).
stealing: no comment claimed this
embezzling: no commenter accused him of this (on straw man argument from a commenter claiming we were).
commited a crime: no comment claimed this
hiding money stolen: no commenter actually accused him of this (one straw man argument from a commenter claiming we were).
…
I did (and many others) call him an asshole. Which, given the above, he obviously is.
Grumpy Code Monkey
@sparky:
Okay. Those are reasonable objections, and I do share some of them. There are areas where Obama has so far proven to be a disappointment, and it’s reasonable to worry about other areas where he will fall short of what we want.
But you don’t believe that Obama is out to deliberately screw progressives/liberals/Democrats/whatever, do you? ‘Cause that’s the vibe I get from people like Greenwald and Hamsher (and if that’s wrong, I apologize, but that’s how the rhetoric has been coming across). Not just that he’s not progressive enough, but is actively working to undermine the progressive cause (for some arbitrary value of “the progressive cause”). And that is an unreasonable attitude to take IMO. I don’t believe I’m making excuses when I point out that he inherited one of the biggest shitpiles ever left behind by any administration, and like Tim F. has pointed out several times, he was fucked from day 1 on issues like detention.
I mean, to be clear about where I stand: I do not believe Obama should be immune from criticism when he’s failed to live up to his promises, but I don’t think he’s working to undermine progressive causes in general. It’s like complaining that he isn’t doing enough to protect us from the zombie hordes, and when people ask, “what zombie hordes,” calling them Obots.
daryljfontaine
@chopper: I remember the not so old days, when the twin shitheels pluk and myiq pedaled their troll-trikes SO HARD. Compared to then, this place is positively utopian.
D
Grumpy Code Monkey
@Little Dreamer:
Tivoli. And before everyone grabs their bazookas, I was only there a little while, and the project I worked on never made it to market. So it’s not my fault. Really.
AngusJackBootedThugOfMeat
@Little Dreamer:
What most people forget about those “old days” is that the blog was in a transition phase from John’s “Republican” period into his “Democrat” period, and the commentariat was doing that shift too. We were warring daily with entrenched righty commenters who were fighting like rats to hold onto their ground.
Then we had the Darrell days. Writing then as ppgaz, I basically took on Darrell as an experimental challenge, and flamed with him on an almost daily basis.
It was a different time. It was interesting, funny, infuriating, and exhausting … real flame wars take a lot of work, which is why I don’t do much of it any more.
I haven’t really read this thread, but I haven’t changed in one regard …. I don’t have much use for civility when hot issues are on the table. I won’t explore the point now, but we have talked about it extensively in the past. The good thing about BJ is that John gives this space a long leash and a lot of room to be …. experimental and not controlled.
geg6
@Quiddity:
You are honestly a dick.
AngusJackBootedThugOfMeat
@NobodySpecial:
No, absolutely wrong. I have been here five years, and the tone has definitely not gotten worse here.
The blog can lull you to sleep with the pet threads and the what is your favorite white wine threads, but it is still a no holds barred political forum with plenty of agita and hot air. The latter being the thing that makes the blog worthwhile.
Any three high school girls can run a nice blog about their pets and their favorite shampoos. It takes guts to put up a blog where people are going to tear each other new assholes ten times a day over politics and government issues.
As for DougJ, I probably zing him as often as anybody, and I think that the blog started its third incarnation when John made him a front pager. (John the Republican, then John the Democrat in Training, and now John the proprietor of the most interesting political blog on the tubes, being the three incarnations). I don’t always agree with Doug but I am always interested in what he is saying.
El Cid
@terry chay: You and anyone else can play these bullshit games if you want. I.e., ‘but I looked and no one said the word corruption or theft’.
And if you find such silliness convincing, fine.
C’mon, what the hell else was going on with posts about what the PAC was doing with the money they were given, with the clear suggestion that it was supposed to be going to candidates, but it wasn’t, and it was going to Hamsher and Greenwald, and, oh, I don’t know, do with that what you may? What other purpose was there? It was curious? Interesting? Neat?
You can say that it wasn’t that bad, or whatever, but if you try to suggest that it wasn’t a post trying to sound like something scuzzy was going on — use whatever bad word you prefer, or keep engaging in statistical word use analysis — then you’re going to convince people who want to convince themselves of something silly.
Here’s something else — I didn’t even read through the comment thread. I read the posts. I’m not going to enter into a 450+ comment thread involving pro-Greenwald/anti-Greenwald/pro-Hamsher/anti-Hamsher crap here.
I made up my own words to use, to try and figure out what seemed to me was being suggested. If you think it’s horrible to suggest that it’s awful of me to analogize it to (and you remember I continually qualified the terms) corruption or theft or, in the typically dry, Congressional-hearing type usage, “ethics violations”, then that too is pretty silly. And I saw the same things making it around quite a number of blogs, and when it’s not somehow entertaining to me, I’m certainly not going to view the ‘Balloon Juice commenter’ community as some significant sample population of anything.
About the ‘censorship’ thing, you must be responding to someone else.
That may also be a good point that Greenwald overgeneralized about BJ commenters and he’s given to saying such things. I’ve seen commenters here and on occasion myself, if pissed off enough and posting too quickly, complaining about what ‘everyone’ or ‘half’ here are saying.
Just Some Fuckhead
@geg6: Whatever. I think yer the best.
Little Dreamer
@NobodySpecial:
The only little group I’ve formed up is with TZ (I live with him, we met on this blog) – everyone else can honestly go fuck themselves. I like that they are here, and I can and do agree and disagree with them quite often (sometimes agree with someone on one thread and disagree on another), but there is no little clique here AFAIK.
Karen
BJ is a place where you can read different opinions from commenters without people taking things personal. I can disagree with someone without being concerned that all of BJ will say I’m a horrible person, etc. Sometimes it does get passionate and that’s great because I’m just as passionate. But I think compared to a lot of the blogs: ie GOS, we’re respectful without being insulting.
AngusJackBootedThugOfMeat
@Little Dreamer:
Just for the record: In the 1980’s in the El Toro district of Orange County, CA, certain bars and clubs would put up a little sign at their front door:
NO TOSHIBA
Toshiba employees were …. let’s just say, a little prone to excessive consumption of the demon rum and the behavior that went with it. And mind you, we were in an area heavily populated with Marines, within a triangle marked by three Marine bases. I never saw a sign saying NO MARINE CORPS there.
Little Dreamer
@Karen:
You obviously don’t remember Darrell. Picture BOB without the show props but with the attitude posting vitriol just about 24/7.
sparky
@Grumpy Code Monkey:
no, i don’t think Obama is trying to screw the left, such as it is (or however we define it). given the small size of the lefty electorate and its lack of cash, i have a hard time imagining anyone would bother.
but you raise an important point about rhetoric. i think some of what you perceive is rhetorical excess like that Catholic church post here contained rhetorical excess. as with that post, everyone thinks rhetorical excess is great unless it is directed at them. so some of that is (perhaps) going on here: to make his point Greenwald sometimes goes a bit overboard or wrongly lumps too many people into the Obama-bot veal pen. is that bad? depends on whether it’s your ox being gored, it seems.
what i find curious and a bit unsettling here is that his excesses on that particular point seem to be used here as a sufficient ground to ignore everything else he says. that’s a cheap stunt straight out of the Rove playbook. being a crusader of sorts seems to require people who are zealots to some extent. does their sometimes boorishness mean that everything else they do is worthless? can anyone argue in good faith that Greenwald’s difficulty with criticism from Obama supporters outweighs the work he does at throwing a light on the inner workings of the Empire?
as for FDL, i don’t really have a good feel for that situation other than that from this distance jane seems to be the Mark Penn of lefty blogistan–whatever her intentions may be she seems to have a tin ear, tin heart and tinfoil fingers when it comes to communication.
now to the personal. i think a number of people like me feel disappointed. people have different ways of dealing with disappointment: some of us give up, some of us turn away, some of us criticize the new regime, some of us get angry and some of us take it personally as a kind of betrayal. i don’t think it’s a surprise that some folks who are angry about Obama would get into scraps with his supporters or that their anger would lead them into rhetorical excess. after all, no one likes to admit they made a mistake or that they fooled themselves. i certainly don’t.
as a related point, i can also understand people being pissed at Obama’s successful co-optation of the “change” rhetoric. he is quite skillful at giving the appearance of change while largely keeping the status quo intact. that alone could give some folks apoplexy, the same way some of Bush’s renaming stunts did.
to me the most surprising (and newly disappointing) development has been the almost total absence of criticism of Obama from both the posters and the commenters here. it’s a sad state of BJ affairs when lurkers like moi have to be the people saying the Obama administration has no clothes.
BruceFromOhio
@AngusJackBootedThugOfMeat:
What in Gaia’s name happened to those people to cause such, um, rejection?
In contrast: think for a minute on what would happen to an establishment in that area that did put up a ‘No Marines’ sign.
sparky
@Little Dreamer: well that IS a surprise. when i started lurking here i got the impression that TZ, his closetful of socks and a few other people constituted the whole blog, and that y’all corresponded via email and did the comments threads as kind of a performance piece.
i have better meds now :)
Little Dreamer
@sparky:
I ignored your previous comment, because quite honestly when I saw your examples, I didn’t think your statement that you understood Obama to be a centrist was quite accurate.
Right now we have a huge problem with the right in this country, that means that they are the squeaky wheel who will get the most attention. I’m sorry that you feel slighted.
I know that while Obama is continuing some Bush policies, he originally intended to end them and if it is at all possible to do so, he will eventually find the way and do it. Apparently he can’t do it fast enough for you.
Little Dreamer
@sparky:
Nope. While some of us do correspond off the blog, I can guarantee you that TZ doesn’t have sockpuppets (neither do I) and the number of people that frequent this blog is actually quite astounding (and I’m sure I don’t even have a clue of the true and accurate number myself). I do know that the number of people who correspond was larger than I first imagined (they are all unique people with unique addresses).
It so happens that I met someone on this blog (not TZ) that happens to have a relative who teaches at my former elementary school which is about 2500 miles away from where I sit right now, and was about 1200 miles away from where I was sitting when I first visited here (I’ve moved, obviously).
El Cid
@Little Dreamer:
I know I go a lot farther than most who share my outlook on politics in willing to grant Obama really good intentions.
On the other hand, we have a lot of history to go on about political behavior in this country and a need for empirical skepticism.
I’d like to believe something like that, but it’s also impossible to think about in terms of evidence, because if something doesn’t happen or isn’t changed, you’d have to assume it was inherently impossible. Not much of a possibility of debate there.
sparky
@Little Dreamer: i didn’t say i felt slighted. i said i was disappointed. big difference. as i said the disappointment is mine i’m not really sure what the point of your response to me was.
as for having a huge problem with the right, i think we will just have to agree to disagree. in a country with 300,000,000+ people there are bound to be a certain number of fringe folks lurking within the 27% crazification part of the population.* i have said before and continue to maintain that people here are mistaking GOP theatrics for reality. now it may be that at some point those theatrics become a problem but i don’t see any evidence of it becoming so in the general US population. if i am wrong feel free to point me in the right direction.
i do think there are major problems with this country; i don’t, however, subscribe to the notion that they would all be solved if Fox news or the GOP ceased to exist.
*if you mean the US senate, that is a different, structural problem.
Just Some Fuckhead
@sparky:
Ha!
geg6
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Back at ya. You know that I always have a soft spot for you. Even when one or the other of us is being a fuckhead.
chopper
@AngusJackBootedThugOfMeat:
it wasn’t just the righty commenters, we also attacked cole on a regular basis. people forget that before his ‘schiavo moment’ this was mostly a mixed commentariat on a gooper’s blog. so half the threads would involve commenters tearing up john’s shit over his post, then turn to infighting b/w rightie and leftie commenters.
sparky
@El Cid: Obama can only be failed. ;)
Little Dreamer
@El Cid:
Well, I believe Obama had good intentions when he started and there are things that he will have found he can’t do that he wanted to do. I’m not saying he’s going to wave a wand and change a policy. I’m just saying that I know that he intended to when he campaigned and I realize that we don’t get 100% results on campaign promises when putting a candidate in office (if you think about it though, he’s given us more already in the past fifteen months than most presidents do).
I’m sure Obama is privy to a lot more information now than he had when he campaigned and he may not be able to fulfill certain things. Change happens over time though, just because Obama might not be able to take care of reversing something Bush did doesn’t mean it can’t be changed in the future. Yes, I’m pissed that Bush got away with all he did, but, I don’t expect things to change overnight simply because we have a new president. Let’s wait and see and push and if Obama can’t reverse those things, we push again the next time we have the power to do so.
BruceFromOhio
@sparky:
If I read between the lines incorrectly, by all means please point it out – I interpret your ‘personal’ disappointment as having been sympathetic to or attracted by the “change” message prevalent in the campaign, and 1 year on not seeing the change you expected, and that it is this expectation that renders the president nekkid.
Allow me to contrast this with my own personal reflection:
PRESIDENT JOHN MOTHERFUCKING MCCAIN? AM I ON FUCKING HALLUCINOGENS OR WHAT?
Now, that’s not to say your expectations are invalid or your vote doesn’t count or that you shouldn’t speak up. They are, it did, and you should. Please know that if you are disappointed in the performance of teh Executive, you are absolutely entitled. Just also please know that yucks like me will likely point out that we are one helluva lot better off now than when you pulled the lever, pushed the button or filled in the bubble for the Democratic candidate for President. We can list all the things he hasn’t done that he promised he would do, and we can list all the things that have been done that maybe were promised or weren’t promised but got done nevertheless. I have a feeling you’d find ample agreement here and abroad on both being worthy lists.
And look! There’s still 3 more years to this presidency. Plenty of time to make good, screw it up worse, or deliver something in between that will make the president look not so nekkid.
In the dark, ugly days of October 2001 and October 2003, I had many, many conversations about American politics that generally ended with recognition that “it will take decades to undo the damage these idiots have done.” This President will never satisfy my interest in vengeance on those who brought us to this time and place.
But if “status quo intact” causes further self-destruction of the GOP, along with more of what’s been accomplished to date since 11/08, then more, please. I regret that your disappointment is balanced by my gleeful surveillance, but only a little.
El Cid
@sparky: One of the frustrations I had when spending a lot of time examining and thinking about the U.S. foreign policy record was how so much time was spent within the U.S. defending absolutely horrid acts visited upon the civilians and governments of other nations by discussions of the claimed nobility of U.S. intentions, when, of course, what matters in the end is what is actually done to people by forces supported by the U.S. foreign policy established.
There’s a point at which it simply doesn’t matter what’s in your head or heart. It matters what you do. And other lessons learned in recent Batman movies.
Little Dreamer
@sparky:
I never said that Obama can’t fail, but, I see it differently – I see that he has won more for us in the short time he’s been in office than we’ve seen from any president in decades. I am willing to sit and wait and watch and hope rather than call him a failure.
If he does fail, I will admit it, when the time is right.
Obama is human, and all humans have the ability to fail (even the Pope).
El Cid
@Little Dreamer: I’m not saying things aren’t complex. And though there are times to look at things from a particular leader’s point of view, there are a lot of times in which that perspective should not be taken.
And if we can only discuss things in terms of total acceptance of or total rejection of Obama, or placing lots of analytical emphasis on whether Obama or someone else’s “intentions” are purely positive or purely cynical, we really are sort of in that sort of mind in which comments and perspectives are ‘objectively’ pro-some malevolent force.
Beyond that, I would think that Obama of all people would expect the various citizenry to hold him to account, rather than appear to trust him in ways not usually conceived as the roles of citizens in a democratic republic. He is, after all, a Constitutional scholar.
Little Dreamer
@BruceFromOhio:
Ummm, that was awesome, and I wholeheartedly concur!
AngusJackBootedThugOfMeat
@sparky:
First of all, I don’t have socks. I use multiple handles, but all of them are explicitly declared to be mine. hardly a conspiracy, eh?
Some of us have corresponded offline, but I’ve never made a secret of it. In fact I mention it in the comments regularly. And so what? The offline group is not an echo chamber, most of the members were recruited specifically for their capacity to disagree with each other.
And … performance art? Of course, there is a lot of that, and that’s one of many things that makes this place interesting. Check the logo, this is not a “discourse of record” kind of place, never has been.
And with that, I am moved to say this: The Wire absolutely sucks, which is why its ratings sucked, and why it is not on the air any more. People don’t want to watch dreary, depressing ugly portraits of ennui and despair painted up to look hip. Maybe it was well done depressing shit, but it was in the end just depressing shit. Ergo, cancellation.
Little Dreamer
@El Cid:
I do hold him to account, although I don’t expect him to get it all done “right now”.
I am sure there will be failures, and I will openly admit those when he is finished. In the meantime, I’m sitting back and allowing him to do his job and letting people like you put the pressure on him, because honestly, I’m quite happy with what he’s already accomplished.
Little Dreamer
@AngusJackBootedThugOfMeat:
__
Oh God, are we on that rant again? I will stay out of your short little hairs for a while.
Ha! ;)
AngusJackBootedThugOfMeat
@El Cid:
Blaming — or crediting — the president for or with everything is all part of God’s Unitary Executive Plan.
If you can’t blame or credit the president for everything, what is the point of having all that Unitary power? And how to defend that power?
If we want a presidency that is one third of the government, we need to get some self respect for the other two thirds. Right now, Congress is fucked. Those guys are just in it for the money, they have no self respect whatsoever. And it shows.
AngusJackBootedThugOfMeat
@Little Dreamer:
Heh. That “rant”, as you call it, is the most correct thing I ever said on the blog. It was true several years ago when I first said it and it is still true now.
The Wire could only muster a meager cult following. And if you look at the cult that follows it, it’s no wonder that it got cancelled.
chopper
@Little Dreamer:
i’d say that, FWIW, obama has done more for progressive policies in this country in this last year alone than clinton did in both terms.
El Cid
@Little Dreamer:
Don’t want to sound too high-minded here, or maybe I did. In reality I’m mostly just working a shitty job and trying to pay the bills and reading blogs at slow points and sending e-mails and faxes and calling politicians when I can, and maybe sending a couple bucks to worthy causes here and there.
And remember, it’s not just about things like “failures”, because that assumes that someone always shares the same aims, views, and goals that you think determines ‘success’ and ‘failure’.
A lot of leaders succeed in advancing some policy, and they and/or other prominent folk think it’s a success, but that doesn’t make it so.
Little Dreamer
@AngusJackBootedThugOfMeat:
Well, then you’ll be happy to know (as I’m sure you already do) that I have zero interest in it! :)
Mad Men, on the other hand, ummm, time for another episode in about an hour? What do you say?
::sticks out tongue::
Little Dreamer
@El Cid:
Perceptions vary across the spectrum, you can’t please all the people all of the time. What one group finds to be great improvement, another group will consider perilous (see Bush, George W: April, 2003).
Little Dreamer
@chopper:
During the Clinton campaign and election, I was a union wife. I remember all the hope we had at the time and then I look back on it and all I can say is “NAFTA” (my unionized ex moped around huffing and puffing about NAFTA for weeks on end – It got quite tiresome). I’m happy Clinton left us with a surplus, I can’t say he never failed.
So far, I think Obama is trying to make changes and I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to work on it.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
I think media browski hit the button dead on. In the past we pretty much got hit by the wingers when an issue near and dear to them came up and now we are getting hit by factions of the left and the wingers now that Obama is president. I am pretty sure that this would explain any additional heat we are seeing today.
What really makes me laugh is the drive-by posters who come to gore the ox and instead get their ox gored. For example, one poster said this yesterday:
To which I responded:
I left Kos in part because of the bullshit you would get for jumping on someone who was being a blithering idiot. You had to be NICE about it and that ain’t my style when dealing with blithering idiots. Navel gaze all you want butplease don’t try to change the tone of the place so everyone is NICE because the world ain’t NICE. If people want to lock horns over an issue then by all means let them do it.
With some of the assholes out there if you give them an inch they will drag you ten miles. The GG bit about DougJ and you (John) “retracting” DougJ’s sole OPINION on the subject led to a chorus of cheers that GG and JH had been absolved of any wrongdoing. This is the same bullshit game that the wingers have been playing but now ‘our side’ is doing it. That’s why you have to be very careful of any retractions made, being very specific in exactly what was being retracted so your own words will not come back to haunt you.
The same thing goes on in the comments here and part of what leads to the exothermic reactions we are seeing more of. Like media browski said, in the past it was only wingers but now it’s wingers and dissenters from the left. If you can’t take the heat then get the hell out of the kitchen. On the Fp’ers, I like them and I don’t always agree with them but somehow I am able to survive their opinions. Just like all of the other opinions around here.
We tip others sacred cows and gore their oxen here and I am just fine with that because that isn’t the only thing we do. Whiny words like “groupthink”, “kool aid”, “ass-kissing John” and the like tell me that the whiner can’t take a dissenting opinion without clutching pearls. Boo fucking hoo. Get over it.
Now everyone have a nice day. Really. :)
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@terry chay:
I see you coming out of the woodshed with that smile on your face. ;)
Good job on the stats and calling bullshit on bullshit.
@daryljfontaine:
rAmen.
CletusB
John:
I come here often, when time permits, to read what I many more times than not consider to be very thoughtful commentary. I guess that some recent comments, judged by some to be incendiary, have passed me by.
I will still come here to read. Thanks. (Don’t comment often.)
Batocchio
I still like both the posts and comment threads overall. The best feature reality-based snark, while the worst are flame bait/flame wars. There is something to be said for stepping away from the keyboard at times and taking a deep breath.
El Cid
@DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal): What did the stats prove again?
arguingwithsignposts
@ericblair:
Forever and ever, amen
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@El Cid:
Do you understand English? If not ask someone to translate it into your native language because I’m a lousy translator.
ZulifFromOhio
@sparky:
If I could make that a tag, I would.
tripletee
Don’t have nearly enough time to read through this entire thread, so I’ll just express major lulz at the idea that the “tone” of BJ has worsened in recent months. Go back into the archives a few years and dig up one of the many, many threads that were irredeemably Darrelled, and marvel at just how nasty things often got back then. If anything, this place has gotten a lot nicer over the past five years.
And if you disagree, fuck off, you worthless piece of shit.
Steeplejack
@soonergrunt:
Thanks for your reply. Had to biff off to work this morning and got home late tonight. Just now getting around to the backlog of threads.
El Cid
@DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal): Apparently in the local dialect of English used by some here, “stats” about commenters not referred to by me originally somehow disproves a characterization of main posts suggesting nefarious activities by a PAC.
It isn’t so much about English as it is someone entirely missing the point. It’s also interesting who thought what was a reference to BJ commenters, since this is apparently what some people think life must revolve around.
Characterize it any way you want and count up comments in any number of threads — any suggestion that the original post on this and on several similar blogs regarding the Accountability Now PAC was not meant to suggest that the PAC’s sponsors Hamsher and Greenwald were acting improperly or in some sort of corrupt fashion is simply disingenuous.
If you think it’s “English” to respond to that simple statement by counting up the responses in which commenters used the words “corruption” or “theft”, it isn’t English you’re not able to understand. It’s an inability, or perhaps refusal, to understand the point.
AngusJackBootedThugOfMeat
@BruceFromOhio:
Pretty much drunken and loud behavior, which annoyed other patrons. Toshibites would show up by the dozen and end up driving other patrons away. I could tell some stories, but they are embarassing.
Rogers Cadenhead
… any suggestion that the original post on this and on several similar blogs regarding the Accountability Now PAC was not meant to suggest that the PAC’s sponsors Hamsher and Greenwald were acting improperly or in some sort of corrupt fashion is simply disingenuous.
The original story (which I wrote) laid out the expenditures of the PACs as contained in their FEC filings and sought answers on expenditures I did not understand from the treasurers of the PACs. Answers I did not get.
That’s hardly an accusation of corruption. The same exercise ought to be done with other PACs, if for no other reason than to see if they value transparency. I think that a PAC treasurer has an obligation to either answer questions about the FEC filings or direct them to someone else in the organization who can.
I’ve never had dealings with Glenn Greenwald before he lit up my email inbox yesterday by accusing me of a lot of things that weren’t in the piece I wrote. He ended the emails with this comment: “You’re just a lying, reckless smear artist — even people who hate Jane are repulsed by how cheap and substance-free your attacks are — and I’m not going to give you any more of the unmerited attention that you so blatantly crave.”
Hold me.