It should be noted that a moderator on your site, "Ethan" is the one recommending users to arm themselves "just in case" they need to stop robberies they see in city diners. I am non-violent, and none of my comments have ever attempted to "incite violence." I have told stories of events that occurred in the past that were violent as a demonstration that violence is WRONG, and should NOT occur, EVER. If people who read these posts, including the moderators, are not bright enough to understand that, perhaps this website should consider disbanding.
Grow a brain, and a set.
Ethan
· 1 year ago
Just for the record, I don't moderate anything on this site. I am a contributor only.
Nicole
· 1 year ago
There is a distinctive difference between the right to bear arms and violence. Maybe you are "not bright enough to understand that."
Andrew S.
· 1 year ago
Free speech is a right on public streets, but it is a privilege on this site. Your comments were removed with extreme hesitation and after consulting with many of the contributors. It was not my decision alone. Your IP Address was also banned, but you've returned with a different one. So as to best protect "this" DAISY_YANG's identity I should assume that you are not the same person, so I have decided not to hold you accountable for the comments someone else left with the same name. Feel free to register at www.disqus.com to allow your comments to be posted without delay. This will further protect your identity.
Thanks,
Andrew
Andrew S.
· 1 year ago
For the record, DAISY_YANG has the same IP address as SANDYSLAMLESS. Interpret that as you'd like.
Ryan_W
· 1 year ago
While I agree you shouldn't have people promoting violence on your website, most of Ms. Yang's comments were not inciting violence. As misguided as her opinions might have been, I don't think inciting violence was her main objective. If you have to censor your site, it would be better to censor individual offensive comments, not everything, offensive and non-offensive a user has written.
Andrew S.
· 1 year ago
This isn't "my" site, this site belongs to all of the contributors. I clearly remember that you were invited to become a contributor and post your views and opinions freely on the site. I guess you'd just rather attack me personally from the sidelines than take the risk of participating in a larger way.
We started to 'censor' comments with extreme hesitation and I personally warned people to stop. You don't know the whole story...
You, Ryan, are getting yourself into a very dangerous position by befriending some rather unsavory people on the internet. You have know idea who these people are (in fact, if you were able to see IP addresses you would have found out how you've been duped). Don't betray a former friend for the satisfaction of finding others that think I'm somehow dumb or evil. These people are ruthless...
Ryan_W
· 1 year ago
1. Good point that this isn't your site. Since you created it, I've perhaps unfairly associated it with just you, when in fact you do have other contributors.
2. Given you know I disagree with you, I perhaps again unfairly assumed you would not welcome articles that debunked your ideas. I figured it would be easier for you to reject any articles I submitted than to censor my comments. What are your guidelines for contributors articles? Maybe I should step up and write some articles.
3. I'm confused regarding how I've been duped? Could you elaborate?
4. Betraying you in my mind would be if I didn't project my opinions here. I don't think its right that you look for conspiracy or injustice where there clearly is none. I believe it 1. Spreads fear 2. Spreads misinformation 3. encourages violence in indirect ways, by positing that our leaders, civil servants and other various groups are guilty of horrible crimes. As I've said before, I believe you're a talented and resourceful individual, it pains me to see you push yourself to obscurity by taking what I think are ridiculous viewpoints and unsubstantiated claims.
Perhaps I should write an article debunking Money Masters, I spent about two hours watching it, and found it to be unconvincing. If such an article would interesting to you, perhaps I could find the time to do it, though that is a very looooong movie.
Ethan
· 1 year ago
You absolutely should write an article Ryan. My first article was in disagreement with Andrew and he still posted it. Was 9/11 an Inside job? Does It Matter?
Andrew S.
· 1 year ago
1) Thank you for your fair response.
2) I have not rejected any articles for content (yet). I can imagine scenarios where I would (obviously) but so far I have only encouraged revision for clarity, punctuation and grammar. Then I have allowed these articles to be posted. If you look at articles others have written you can see some of my comments back and I don't always agree with everything in them.
3) People need to register with an independent service now to comment. I have done this to protect myself and the other contributors legally. I will gladly elaborate in a private communication with you the nature of the deception, but I would rather not get into the specifics here. McCain and others have in the past introduced (and my continue to push for) legislation that allows bloggers to be prosecuted for the words and links left by those who comment on blogs. If you read some human rights articles the number of bloggers that have been prosecuted continues to grow each year.
4) I agree with you.
Feel free to write an article debunking Money Masters, but make sure to do your homework on what has been written about it already, pro and con. Also keep in mind that it was made over a decade ago and some things may have changed since then. I also have not had time to watch the entire movie (it has hours of extras, so I've been told) but I've heard recent interviews with the makers and I agree generally with their claims. Keep in mind that the current economic crisis was predicted by these people in a general sense, which gives the film some level of credibility. Few documentaries have the amount of buzz about them grow year after year and this may be reflective of the ideas contained within.
I also might suggest Murry Rothbard's book on the Great Depression.
SANDYSLAMLESS
· 1 year ago
While I also agree that violence is never the answer, unless someone is actively saying "let's go out and hurt people" you shouldn't be censoring a spirited debate. Doing what you're doing here is only creating fear in your posters, as I am now not sure what I can or cannot post. I read what YANG was writing, and it wasn't "inciting violence" at all. In fact, she continually made reference to the fact that she was against violence. It was clear to anyone with half a braincell that she was using sarcasm as a method of debunking your points and debating you, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Other members on this site have urged others to carry weapons, have denied the holocaust, and done things I find FAR more offensive than someone using sarcasm and wit to debate points with you. If you can't come up with good counterpoints, your solution is to remove the material, and ban the user?
Andrew S.
· 1 year ago
For the record, SANDYSLAMLESS has the same IP address as DAISY_YANG. Interpret that as you'd like.
Nicole
· 1 year ago
Not surprising!
SANDYSLAMLESS
· 1 year ago
While I also agree that violence is never the answer, unless someone is actively saying "let's go out and hurt people" you shouldn't be censoring a spirited debate. Doing what you're doing here is only creating fear in your posters, as I am now not sure what I can or cannot post. I read what YANG was writing, and it wasn't "inciting violence" at all. In fact, she continually made reference to the fact that she was against violence. It was clear to anyone with half a brain cell that she was using sarcasm as a method of debunking your points and debating you, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Other members on this site have urged others to carry weapons, have denied the holocaust, and done things I find FAR more offensive than someone using sarcasm and wit to debate points with you. If you can't come up with good counterpoints, your solution is to remove the material, and ban the user?
Andrew S.
· 1 year ago
For the record, SANDYSLAMLESS has the same IP address as DAISY_YANG. Interpret that as you'd like.
Nicole
· 1 year ago
While I found Daisy Yangs comments entertaining at first, through her thinly veiled attempts at inappropriate sarcasm, they became sick and disturbing last night. Although it is sad that it had to come to this, Andrew is doing exactly what he needs to with the site regarding commenting, due to the fact that the commenting was no longer regarding relevant issues/healthy debating, but instead sick and twisted commenting ensued.
Andrew S.
· 1 year ago
It's amazing how we are not allowed to require people to register with a 3rd party in order to comment on our site and reserve the right to remove comments that may be offensive (or illegal). Strangely, the same cries of injustice are not lobbed at the Democrat and Chronicle or City Newspaper for their similar safety measures to protect themselves legally as well.
Even the New York Times requires people to register to post comments.
This is a courtesy that allows people to protect their identity. Nobody that comments on this site can have other people pretend to be them simply by using the same name or email address.
Funny, because when I leave comments on their sites, they add more comments under MY NAME, effectively stealing my identity and undercutting my credibility.
All Comments
Grow a brain, and a set.
Maybe you are "not bright enough to understand that."
Thanks,
Andrew
We started to 'censor' comments with extreme hesitation and I personally warned people to stop. You don't know the whole story...
You, Ryan, are getting yourself into a very dangerous position by befriending some rather unsavory people on the internet. You have know idea who these people are (in fact, if you were able to see IP addresses you would have found out how you've been duped). Don't betray a former friend for the satisfaction of finding others that think I'm somehow dumb or evil. These people are ruthless...
2. Given you know I disagree with you, I perhaps again unfairly assumed you would not welcome articles that debunked your ideas. I figured it would be easier for you to reject any articles I submitted than to censor my comments. What are your guidelines for contributors articles? Maybe I should step up and write some articles.
3. I'm confused regarding how I've been duped? Could you elaborate?
4. Betraying you in my mind would be if I didn't project my opinions here. I don't think its right that you look for conspiracy or injustice where there clearly is none. I believe it 1. Spreads fear 2. Spreads misinformation 3. encourages violence in indirect ways, by positing that our leaders, civil servants and other various groups are guilty of horrible crimes. As I've said before, I believe you're a talented and resourceful individual, it pains me to see you push yourself to obscurity by taking what I think are ridiculous viewpoints and unsubstantiated claims.
Perhaps I should write an article debunking Money Masters, I spent about two hours watching it, and found it to be unconvincing. If such an article would interesting to you, perhaps I could find the time to do it, though that is a very looooong movie.
2) I have not rejected any articles for content (yet). I can imagine scenarios where I would (obviously) but so far I have only encouraged revision for clarity, punctuation and grammar. Then I have allowed these articles to be posted. If you look at articles others have written you can see some of my comments back and I don't always agree with everything in them.
3) People need to register with an independent service now to comment. I have done this to protect myself and the other contributors legally. I will gladly elaborate in a private communication with you the nature of the deception, but I would rather not get into the specifics here. McCain and others have in the past introduced (and my continue to push for) legislation that allows bloggers to be prosecuted for the words and links left by those who comment on blogs. If you read some human rights articles the number of bloggers that have been prosecuted continues to grow each year.
4) I agree with you.
Feel free to write an article debunking Money Masters, but make sure to do your homework on what has been written about it already, pro and con. Also keep in mind that it was made over a decade ago and some things may have changed since then. I also have not had time to watch the entire movie (it has hours of extras, so I've been told) but I've heard recent interviews with the makers and I agree generally with their claims. Keep in mind that the current economic crisis was predicted by these people in a general sense, which gives the film some level of credibility. Few documentaries have the amount of buzz about them grow year after year and this may be reflective of the ideas contained within.
I also might suggest Murry Rothbard's book on the Great Depression.
Other members on this site have urged others to carry weapons, have denied the holocaust, and done things I find FAR more offensive than someone using sarcasm and wit to debate points with you. If you can't come up with good counterpoints, your solution is to remove the material, and ban the user?
Other members on this site have urged others to carry weapons, have denied the holocaust, and done things I find FAR more offensive than someone using sarcasm and wit to debate points with you. If you can't come up with good counterpoints, your solution is to remove the material, and ban the user?
Even the New York Times requires people to register to post comments.
This is a courtesy that allows people to protect their identity. Nobody that comments on this site can have other people pretend to be them simply by using the same name or email address.
Funny, because when I leave comments on their sites, they add more comments under MY NAME, effectively stealing my identity and undercutting my credibility.
Oh the injustice.