Monday, March 05, 2007

BBBs and the Disaffiliated

Daily Kos has an image to maintain. Any perceived threat to that image is therefore considered a threat to the entire community and some members there have absolutely no qualms about defining what they deem to be unacceptable.

Exhibit A:

Exactly what I did (0 / 0)

when I walked away from MLW and BT. And why I fervently hope the purveyors of impeachment porn at this site will get tired of it and go somewhere else, or else force Markos to boot them and ban that kind of mindless shouting at the rain.

When the signal-to-noise ratio drops to 1 or less, it’s time to move along. That hasn’t happened here yet, but it’s well past that at MLW and BMT–or was when I left both places.

So explain to me why I would particularly want to have them on “my” side? Especially since it just makes it easier for the MSM to mischaracterize blogs and bloggers as a temporary annoyance instead of a true threat to their traditional dominance of the field of news and opinion.

Musing’s musings

by musing85 on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:15:49 AM MST

Exhibit B:

People that stand in the way of electing (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:musing85

Democrats because of their addictions to drama and constant conflict have found their homes at MLW, Booman Trib, and other sites filled with malcontents that would like to collectively destroy dkos effectiveness and mission. The malcontents need to be shown the door so that they can not contaminate dkos.

Politics is the business of dkos, personality and discontent is the business of the sites Musing mentioned.


WWYTR? “Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend” MLK

by PaintyKat on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 04:22:43 PM PST

During the 80s, one of my favourite bands The Clash (yes, I really did like them) had a song out which some of you might remember - Red Angel Dragnet - which was inspired by the De Niro movie Taxi Driver. The lyrics included this:

All the animals come out at night.
Queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick venal.
Some day a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets.

Thank god for the rain to wash the trash off the sidewalk.

For those who don't know, The Clash was a counter-culture band...well...I won't write a thesis on the subject, but if you want an idea of what they were about, read this wiki piece about their song Straight to Hell. That should help you understand their message.

Anyway, when I see comments like those above, the words of The Clash come to mind because they were meant to fight on behalf of the disenfranchised, the disaffiliated, the contaminated, the purveyors of [impeachment] porn which mainstream society chooses to shun at every turn in order to keep its neighbourhoods clean and scandal-free (they hope, while hiding their own dirt under the rug).

Read those comments again and let the parallels sink in.

There are some who prefer to ghettoize the dissidents - to put them in convenient virtual cardboard boxes where they simply don't need to be dealt with, heard or looked at - where they can no longer contaminate the conversations of those who believe their opinions are so vastly fucking superior.

That is why we talk about the big box blogs as being like gated communities here - and it's more than just dkos that has that attitude. Their desire to insulate protected, valued members from the "scum" is no different than the bigotted policies of the most backwards institutions in society like those exclusive little country clubs where your money speaks more about your worth than your character does.

"Malcontents" who "want to destroy" dkos.

Yet, some of the most vicious and vindictive words and actions that surely will destroy that overblown, cherished image are spewed by the revered elders day after day. That's acceptable though. They are the members of privilege - much like the rich, drunk kid who kills someone in a car accident and gets a slap on the wrist while a poor African-American kid in the same circumstance is jailed for 20 years.

Anyone who's ever been marginalized or discriminated against should be able to see these situations on the BBBs for what they are. Yet, even some of those people choose to participate in the derision in some warped attempt to heal their wounds.

Membership has its priviliges - for a select few.

And they wonder why people like me are disgusted...or, frankly, they just don't care. Why should they? They've obviously got what they want - everybody else be damned - and so they are.

Even BBBs can practice internal colonialism. They can be more than a reflection of the society that they're a part of, but they actually have to start acting like it first and that responsibility is left to every single member to take on - yes, even at the risk of being thrown out into the street until that rain comes.

People think we're the blight.


We're actually the light.

They need to stop acting like De Niro's character, Travis Bickle, as if he's some kind of hero and find some fucking humility before they do even more damage if they're so damned concerned about their image and mission.

"Listen, you fuckers, you screw-heads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up. Here is."

Except that he wasn't, really.

Meta Update: Big Tent Democrat (you all know who he is - wouldn't want to "out" him, after all!) has written yet another GBCW diary at dkos citing "irreconcilable differences with the Management." I wonder how long this self-imposed time out will last. Start the stopwatch.

Mo Meta Update: post by kos

BTD (7+ / 0-)

wasn't asked to leave.

He was asked to be civil in the comments.

He has reacted how he thought was best. It's too bad, because there are few people here I value as much as him.

by kos on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 12:19:35 AM MST

Click on the link to follow the rest of the soap opera.

Now serving fresh popcorn!


catnip said...

Sidebar: Not related but I just wanted to add that some of the insults in the rec'd diary about Ann Coulter aren't exactly what I'd expect from a so-called "progressive" community that claims it respects women. And no, I don't mean they should respect Coulter. Who would? I'm talking about some of the comments that degrade women in general.

ms_xeno said...

Why do I sense that if the chips were down, the likes of "musings" would name names against other bloggers on other boards in a heartbeat-- in the best tradition of those who collaborated w/HUAC ? Just a hunch.

catnip said...

After all of the bullying that's gone on there - and there has been some nasty, nasty stuff expressed - these attitudes and the language used just struck me at a gut level of sheer disgust. Or maybe it's the culmination of the language that's been used there lately that's finally piled up on me to the point where it absolutely sickens me.

Whatever it is, it's vile.

ms_xeno said...

Well, to paraphrase a hoary cliche', they get the kind of blog they deserve. They fawn over some shitheel like BTD as if he's the Second Coming. Frankly, people that gullible and masochistic are more than welcome to stay on Kos-- far, far away from me.

catnip said...

After reading through his comments in his GBCW diary, it looks like kos had had enough of him:

When the going gets tough. The tough get going. (0 / 0)

Big Tent Democrat says, "I'm tough. And I'm going."

In D.C. they just take care of Number One, and Number One ain't you. You ain't even Number Two.

by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:28:20 PM MST

[ Reply to This |Recommend ]

A step ahead (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

of being goned.

Let's Go Gators!

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:32:08 PM MST

I wonder what the final straw was...

catnip said...

Guess I just found out. Posted in the update.

Is this the beginning of the end of all of this crap now? Time will tell, I guess.

NLinStPaul said...

I know this is more about the content than the "meta" but the discussion reminded me of this quote by David Swanson:

I had a conversation this weekend with someone who believes that Bush and Cheney lied us into an aggressive war and will never end it, but who opposes impeachment because it’s antagonistic, “violent,” and “will leave blood on the floor.” I submit this as further evidence that Americans do not believe non-Americans are human beings. If congressional hearings and potential hurt feelings are too violent, what would the ongoing slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis be… if they were humans?

scribe said...

I find it literally astounding to observe the vastness, limitless expanse of some male egos.



Ack. Ptooey.

They can all just keep their silly "Little BoyKing Sandboxes".

ms_xeno said...

My current theory as to how it will all play out runs as follows:

1) Kos runs his blog into the ground, through incompetence and just generally being an infeffectual creep wedged firmly up the DP's hawkish, anti-choice sphincter.

2) Kos hires on with some big-time former DP lobbyist like Mike McCurry, and shills for some shiny new version of the (not !) Internet Access Bill from last year.

3) Kos tearfully appears before the House and Senate, explaining why the average citizen cannot be trusted with open access to the net unless they can shell out huge bags of money, like him. Kos cites his own service in the belly of the internet beast as proof that this is so.

4) Kos gets lots and lots of lobby money, writes a book called Pulling The Plug On The Peons, hits the talk-show circuit and lives happily ever after.

catnip said...

lol ms xeno

"the blessing of me" - I like that! I think I'll sign my 8x10 glossies with it.

catnip said...

If congressional hearings and potential hurt feelings are too violent, what would the ongoing slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis be… if they were humans?

That's very apropos, considering the topic of this post. The easiest way to dismiss someone is to dehumanize them.

Arcturus said...

. . .what would the ongoing slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis be… if they were humans?

according to a FP BowelMovement the other day, keeping the troops in Iraq, is now to be unerstood as a humanitarian gesture to prevent further blodshed . . .

catnip said...

Yup. That's the same argument the Afghanistan war supporters who haunt my blog use against my posts, arcturus.

"Humanitarian war" is an oxymoron, afaic.

ms_xeno said...

So what's worse: The assholes who sold us Afghanistan as a "humanitarian" enterprise and won't backpeddle on their own stupidity even though it's well past the time that they should ?


The assholes who sold us Afghanistan as a "humanitarian" enterprise, are now backpeddling frantically, and can't wait for the next "humanitarian" enterprise to come down the plank so they can get all excited about it ?

Arcturus said...

worth repeating here:

[& note how Martin's stance lines up w/ McCain’s “You’ll see a bloodletting in Baghdad that makes Srebrenica look like a Sunday school picnic” relying on that ‘good humanitarian intervention’ framing nonsense], from an LA Times op-ed yesterday, “How to stop genocide in Iraq”:

Although critics of withdrawal do a masterful job of painting a grim picture of the apocalypse that awaits, they offer no account of how U.S. forces in Iraq will do more than preserve a status quo that is already deteriorating into wholesale ethnic cleansing. Although more than 115,000 U.S. troops have been in Iraq for the last four years, about 3.8 million Iraqis have fled their homes and at least 50,000 Iraqis are fleeing each month. It would be nice to think the surge of troops to Baghdad would help to staunch the flow. But with only one-third of the new troops on duty at any given time in a city of 6 million people, they will have no more success deterring the militias intent on carving out homogeneous Shiite or Sunni neighborhoods than U.S. forces have had to date. About 74% of Shiites polled and 91% of Sunnis — the people who have the most to fear from genocide — would like to see U.S. forces gone by the end of the year.

the blood drips from them all, blahgpologists & pols . . .

catnip said...

Thanks for that, arcturus. I attached it to my latest surge post and gave you a h/t.

catnip said...

Chuck Hagel: just the latest purveyor of impeachment porn.

"The president says, 'I don't care.' He's not accountable anymore," Hagel says, measuring his words by the syllable and his syllables almost by the letter. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends how this goes."

syd vichy said...


DavidByron said...

You're the light? But if the salt loses its saltiness what is it good for catnip?

Anonymous said...


DavidByron said...

it's a biblical reference

Maryscott OConnor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maryscott OConnor said...

About this "impeachment porn" shit -- WTF?

When did that phrase become acceptable? Hunter? What bullshit.

God, I am so sick of being belittled by centrists because I happen to think there is no victory in winning seats in Congress if we sell out every fucking liberal principle that makes -- excuse me -- MADE us Democrats in the first place.

I've said it before and I will go to my grave saying it:

The Republicans are the party of the RIGHT.

The Democrats are the party of the CENTRE.


There is no party of the LEFT.

And until there is, this country and its government will move ever rightward until we hit fascism.

Unless, of course, we already have and just don't know it yet.

catnip said...

Well, I'd say that fascism is very much on the march.


Dennis Kucinech? Ralph Nader? Mike Gravel?

Imho, I don't think the majority of Americans want a party of the real left. It's been pounded into them that "socialist" ideas like universal health care are simply too pie in the sky and about as close to communism (in theory) as you can get.

I hate to say it but I think too many people would rather live in an authoritarian state of quasi-fascism than some scary "commie-like" country (like Canada or those wacky Scandinavian countries).

Centrism is about not rocking the boat and that seems to be a comfy fit for some people who fear their own power.

Maryscott OConnor said...

Sure, catnip, individuals -- hell, there are plenty of BLOGS speaking for the left.

But I mean -- and, of course, you know what I mean, but I'll reiterate -- I mean, where is the PARTY of the left?


Without a third party, representing the left, so that each viewpoint (vast generalisation, but it's a start) is represented in COngress and the Presidency, the left is nonexistent.

Socialist party or Liberal party, either one is fine with me -- each of those words has been corrupted and besmirched by 30+ years of propaganda from the right -- and the Democrats, of course, being naturally the party of the centre for lo these 30+ years, didn't lift a finger to stop it. They wanted nothing to do with the left, they denied liberalism, they CERTAINLY denied socialism -- because they WANTED to be the party of the centre -- that much vaunted, highly praised, utterly meaningless "mainstream."

But when there's only right and centre, you're flying to the right. Full time.

We need a party of the left. Nothing is ever going to change substantively in this political system until we have a fully fledged, viable third party representing the left.

catnip said...

But when there's only right and centre, you're flying to the right. Full time.

Very true, unless there's a major push from the people to turn left.

We need a party of the left. Nothing is ever going to change substantively in this political system until we have a fully fledged, viable third party representing the left.

Well, we have at least a couple of those here - prominently, the NDP and the Greens - and they do hold the mainstream parties' collective feet to the fire as much as they can. More importantly, they get to have a voice in the public debate that's actually heard and the provinces have the ability to vote them into provincial governments too.

I think that's an important aspect of this - changing the landscape at the local and, in your case, state levels so that thrid parties can get a chance to actually govern and show what they stand for (although not all provincial parties are carbon copies of their counterparts at the federal level).

When you're stuck with 2 parties that have power all over the US, that's exactly what you're going to get on the federal level too because people don't know differently ie. they're not given the chance to actually see how a third party would govern at home, so why risk it in DC?

Maybe that's where the change needs to start? At the state level?

I don't know. I'm just throwing that out there.

DavidByron said...

And until there is, this country and its government will move ever rightward until we hit fascism.

No fascism is a reaction to socialism. Since socialists have no power in the US you will skip straight past fascism. Fascism won't be necessary.

Doesn't the US already have a party of the left? The Green party. Have you ever looked at what policies they support Maryscott?

NLinStPaul said...

Most days I don't think much about the problems with our two parties. And I'm not sure about "marching towards fascism." The description that I think fits the US best right now is oligarchy. And the reason the Dems have given up is that ultimately they are as controlled by the corporate money machine as the Republicans are. No new party is going to make any difference as long as the corporate money controls the game through the media and the amount of money that's needed to run a campaign.

scribe said...

I think that's it in a nutshell, NL. Nice concise summary.

Keir said...

NLinStPaul, I prefer the term "kleptoligarchy".

ms_xeno said...

Funny that nlin should mention the link between stifling effective outside parties and the U.S. and stifling reform to the way parties can access the almighty dollar. Dan Meek is a local champion of financial accountability in the political process. Has been for quite some time, and he is now involved in the formation of an independent party called "The Independent Party." I'll dig up the links (previously posted at Mcat's blog) if anyone's interested.

skippy said...

as i've said elsewhere, kos is a brilliant blogger in the same way tom sawyer was a brilliant fence painter.

NLinStPaul said...

Keir - I'd love to hear how you define kleptoligarchy.

I'm not a historian, but I'd love to hear from someone if an oligarchy (or maybe kleptoligarchy) has ever been seriously challenged through a political process.

pyrrho said...

why believe kos?

the associational logic of declined groups has set in rather hard because kos is all for it... it often takes longer with "leaders" that understand the dangers of it.

Kos thinks he's golden, that success will always continue, that it's coming from who he is without reflection, that reflection couldn't make that better but might disturb it.

hopefully some will have at least learned what's gone on on the left for decades.

We come up with compelling emotion, NON leftist people like "democrats" move in to take the message, we share the message with them, happy to finally have an ally.

Then they stab us in teh back. We put up with it because these baby steps have been better than nothing, and experiences like dkos SHOW many people how it happens.

marisacat has no respect for my theories on leftist organizations, but this is it in a nutshell, what happened at dkos has happened at 100s of coops, communes, and progressive political organizations.

The inner ring overtakes the progressive philosophy.

DavidByron said...

Perhaps they meant to say kleptocracy which means literally "rule by thieves" or "A government characterized by rampant greed and corruption".

And yes they get challenged. These things go in cycles. What happens next is that the US gets involved in a huge war or an economic depression where enough people get angry that there is a threat of third parties being formed. At that point the oligarchs will allow some slight reforms to go on long enough to prevent a more radical solution.

Until then it's panem et circenses.

pyrrho said...

maryscott et al,

I do believe "impeachment porn" is kos' term for it from a comment at one point.

pyrrho said...

skippy, I'm going to remember that.

catnip said...

I'd love to hear from someone if an oligarchy (or maybe kleptoligarchy) has ever been seriously challenged through a political process.

Well, to begin with, I'd say the people have to actually:

1) know what it is.
2) believe it isn't beneficial.
3) start thinking outside the box.

I think that last point is the most difficult since too many people don't think enough about how government really affects every aspect of their lives and don't believe that government can really fix things in any reasonable amount of time anyway.

Look at all of the outrage that quickly died down after Katrina. That should have been a pivotal point for societal and governmental change. Instead, the majority of unaffected people eventually said "oh well" and moved on to whatever it was they were doing before it hit.

We need to stop feeling so powerless and we also need to stop overestimating our power (via participating in the big box blogs and thinking we're somehow making a huge change).

/end o' catnip's free advice that everybody probably already knows anyway

Arminius said...

Hope I'm not unwelcome here. Been lurking for awhile. I'd just like to chime in to say I really like the comments by Skippy and Pyrrho. Meta is a vice, but I love it.

Query: I've read the entire latest Armando/GBCW diary and comments, and it's not clear to me that Armando actually got banned. He was still posting on Wednesday morning. Can anybody clarify that?

catnip said...

Not sure if he was banned, arminius. Maybe track him down at Talk Left and ask him?

Oh and yes, you're welcome here.

(The cheque's in the mail, right?) ;)

catnip said...

Too bad (15+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
clonecone, badger, Pandora, scrutinizer, northsea, LeftHandedMan, ChiGirl88, vcmvo2, jhancock, Elise, terrypinder, zombie, Major Danby, bonesy, PaulGaskin

some of us would rather fight for change than "have fun" by blowing a lot of hot air and engaging in impeachment porn.

by kos on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:36:42 PM MST

Keir said...

nl, I made it up without thought of the definitional consequences. Side effect of an English major; sorry for the bad joke. I would define it as "rule by a group of all-powerful thieves" maybe?

I can't think of an instance where that sort of rule has not eventually been replaced by a different stripe of the same thing. That may of course be a simplistically ignorant thing to say but it's all I can come up with right now.

Oh, and I am also a longtime lurker here. It's been hard to catch up with some people that I liked to read- a virtual blogaspora I guess. I will say that pink presents interesting possibilities for someone like me who enjoys (almost) all the other colors out there. Thanks catnip.

Keir said...

oops, pardon- that thanks should go to the founder too, I spose. Thanks Ductape for making this space.

catnip said...

Absolutely keir, and DTF chose the pink ambience too. :) (Sigh...I miss him.)

I'm just one of many here who post and comment, so they all deserve thanks for keeping the place going. This "kewl sleeper cell" has no head honchos, big cheeses or numero unos - thankfully!

Keir said...

Thankfully indeed. It's been a very bizarre few meta-months to say the least. Sometimes I was forcibly reminded of the days when I used to try to get people to care about booking my band. Same sort of "don't make us say 'you'll never work in this town again' now, kid" vibe. I decided not to judge or take it personally eventually, and I employed those same skills when needed recently.

I'm just impressed when any group of folks maintains communities regardless of size or honcho-dom because of my own crappy managerial skills.

Arcturus said...

pyrrho sd: . . . happened at 100s of coops, communes, and progressive political organizations

the large-scale environmental orgs are perfect example of it

the poet Charles Olson, back in the 50's, used the term pejorocracy - same root as pejorative - 'a worsening or deteriation'

I read it for years as 'perjure-ocracy' which presents its own possibilities)

& hello Arminus & Keir - everyone's welcome to comment here - people arrive for a variety of reasons :)

I hear the Venezuelan oligarchy these days isn't feeling as in control as they'd become accustomed to . . .

scribe said...

arminius, pyrro, keir, welcome aboard the good ship bloggopop!

alohaleezy said...

What I want to know is why so many people will spew how they totally hate a blog and then keep posting there? It's one thing to read what's going on to maybe post at a place such as this where we can vent about those things from the BBB but to go back and post? I don't get it. Am I naive?

Curmudgette said...

At 3/07/2007 11:08:00 PM, Arminius said…

Query: I've read the entire latest Armando/GBCW diary and comments, and it's not clear to me that Armando actually got banned. He was still posting on Wednesday morning. Can anybody clarify that?

At 3/07/2007 11:16:00 PM, catnip said…

Not sure if he was banned, arminius. Maybe track him down at Talk Left and ask him?...

The word over at Boo Trib is that he was banned at some point during the endless discussion -- I think that thread is stiiiiiiil going -- following his GBCW diary.

ms_xeno said...

Nothin' ever matters unless Kos sez it matters...

With apologies to Elvis Costello and "Baby's Got A Brand-New Hair-Do."


The man has no soul and no spine, nor do his apologists. If some shitheel in a blue pinney says to peddle something, he'll peddle it. If they say it's "porn," he says it's "porn;" (An ironic term for him to choose given how he allegedly used to make his money.) No questions asked. Does he even have a clue how obvious this is to anyone not serving a self-imposed sentence in one of his in-house veal pens ?

DavidByron said...

Hey is it easy to get banned by Marisacat? I think she banned me after one comment there. That has to be a record.... oh wait I thing one place banned me after zero comments. Can't recall which place that was though.

So is this place somewhere for all the people who love to ban others to come and bitch about how awful it was the one time they got a taste of their own medicine?

Am I hypocritical enough to be posting here?

DavidByron said...

Not only banned but now they are threatening to report me to the police for my "stalking". I suppose if I'd made three comments not two I would be accused of raping all the little girlies there.

"You seem to be stepping over a line here, and I would recommend to MCat that if you continue, she inform the relevant legal authorities of what you’re doing. Since your first banning from Little Orange Footballs was due to your stalking me in comment threads"

I guess it must be the overwhelming power of my personality that turns these little girls into jello at my mere presence. Catnip, I don't know how you put up with me as long as you did. You must be made of sterner stuff than this JJB person. Or do you think I raped you repeatedly but you were too stunned to make the accusation?

No wonder Marisacat thinks everyone who posts at her place is looking for a mother.

Talk about a lack of irony when someone at Marisacat's place accuses someone else of stalking; it's pretty much gossip / outing / dirt-mongering / character-assassination HQ. Not that there's anything wrong with that, huh?

Who is JJB anyway? Why do these ninnies expect me to remember them 4 years later.

Arcturus said...

David B - if you've come here looking for empathy in yr personal internets battles, you're probably in the wrong place.

btw, I think JJB's remark that your comments are often "(unintentionally) hilarious" hit the mark for me - the persecution schtick provides comic some relief in these trying times

you do know that people are laffin' at that stuff, right?

Arcturus said...

O, Arminius, I forgot to thank you for your sharp analysis of my "racist jingoism" post:

Re: Meta Jesus (4.00 / 3)
I assume you're talking about the new post on Mo Betta today by Arcturus calling you a racist, and many other things, for your recent post contrasting El Paso and Juarez.

I've got a better solution. Just take one second to realize that it was an asshole post. And then ignore it.

by Arminius on Sat Feb 17th, 2007 at 06:28:33 PM EST

P'haps it would be helpful for you to recall that DtF, this site's founder, was tireless in pointing out the racist jingoism embedded in the langauage & thinking of many 'progressive liberals' like Martin - what I prefer to call the Left Wing of the Neo-liberal Washington Consensus.

Don't be overly surprised to read further such "asshole" posts here.

pyrrho said...


there are a couple reasons... one is similar to talking badly about the phone company usuing a phone... why not? They provide a service, why should we censor just for them? in honor of service? It would be in honor of bad service.

two, dkos getting worse does not mean everyone there is bad. Some of the people that are falling for the current line (less and less so) are open to better ideas, look at OPOLs popularity. That could not be explained if the inner ring at dkos were really correct about "what dkos is".

what I don't understand is why people want to belong, why would someone want to feel a sense of belonging to a group in order to take part in it's activity... that's not why I discuss/debate/collaborate online wrt ideas.

scribe: thanks. I happen by sometimes. :)

Anonymous said...

py, py! my py guy!!! ;)

love to see you here!

(anywhere, really....)

byron - untintetionally hilarious describes you oh, so well. Don't let the persecution complex weigh you down man, the "girlies" are allright, don't ya worry!


catnip said...

the good ship bloggopop that our theme song?

Catnip, I don't know how you put up with me as long as you did.

Neither do I.

So is this place somewhere for all the people who love to ban others to come and bitch about how awful it was the one time they got a taste of their own medicine?


Am I hypocritical enough to be posting here?

You just love conflict, don't you? FYI, no one has ever been banned here and there's been some damn outrageous behaviour at times that wouldn't be tolerated at other places. So, feel free to keep acting like a jerk. One good thing about this place is that people can often see others for what they truly are and how they try to play their manipulative little games. One thing they forget though is that the rest of us here see right through that crap. That's part of why we're here.

So, knock yourself out. I doubt you'll surprise anyone here with your oft tedious behaviour. You're no more special than other blowhards we've already had to deal with and, speaking for myself, it gets old really fast so don't be shocked when your attempts at belligerence for its own sake are just ignored. Your schtick is predictable and boring.

Have a nice day.

catnip said...

What I want to know is why so many people will spew how they totally hate a blog and then keep posting there?

I've had the same question before. I don't think it's a matter of "hate" though. From what I've seen, many people actually care about the future of the blogs they're complaining about. I know. I went through that with BT. That's why I was so damn frustrated when the ridiculous meltdowns were going on. At this point though, I don't care about their survival anymore so I'm able to be more detached.

Afaic, that "caring about the community" thing has caused a lot of angst for a lot of people when they finally realize that no matter how much they do care, there's an authoritarian structure involved that dictates what happens. It's an emotional investment that many find very hard to let go of.

So, I don't fault people for complaining here while they're still posting at those blogs. At least, for some, I think that's the trap they're caught in so it's understandable in that sense.

I think this blog also serves people well by being a place where they're able to say things that they wouldn't be comfortable bringing up on those blogs since they might be troll-rated into oblivion or just end up being outright banned. (Have I mentioned how much I loathe ratings?? Yeah, I think so - many times).

I think it's a form of blogtherapy sans medication. ;)

Arminius said...

Arcturus, Sorry about that. I like BooMan and I also have high regard for most folks here. I did think that particular post of yours was a little unfair, but I don't really think you're an asshole. I apologize. Incidentally, I also miss DTF. For what it's worth, he's one of the few bloggers I've had any dealings with outside blogistan. I put him in contact with a respected publisher, because I was hoping to get some promotion for one of DTF's excellent essays on racism and immigration policy.

alohaleezy said...

Let me rephrase the question. To those that after a cooling off period go back and post somewhere and act as if nothing happened? I wasn't just talking about Dkos in particular. Moreso to BooMan. His recent post of "poor me" they are still picking on me is hilarious.

catnip said...

Oh, well I can't really respond to that one, leezy. Conveniently short memories, perhaps? :)

I know it's not that simple and I probably shouldn't be facetious (on the other hand, why not?). There are a bazillion blogs out there though. If people would just look around a bit, they might actually discover places that actually (gasp!) suit their needs better. This "x blog is the be all and end all" attitude doesn't exactly encourage exploration or alternatives.

Anonymous said...

arminius -- you know how DTF is?? I, with catnip (and a host of others, or as scribe/glo would have it "others") miss him more than I can write -- have you contact with him? Will you tell him we think of him often? DTF, come back to us, please!? ;)

Even if not, thanks!


DavidByron said...

FYI, no one has ever been banned here

Because the owner of the board is AWOL and has been for 6 months (in eleven days time). You ban on your own board as do many others here. You applaud those that ban whenever you happen to like them and not like the person banned. Is that not hypocrisy on your part?

If it were left up to you there would be banning here too.

catnip said...

If it were left up to you there would be banning here too.


DavidByron said...

Do you understand why I am skeptical about that statement catnip?

You are hardly the only one. I see that over at MLW Maryscott is criticising Kos for his cult of personality while apparently completely unaware of her own cult. Armando being kicked off the board is an almost exact parallel with dhonig being kicked off MLW. However in both cases the cult and the local blog cops largely remain. The main difference is that at MLW there's a huge amount of self-congratulatory back-slapping at how they are nothing like those folks at dKos.

Naturally you could no more post such remarks at MLW than you could at dKos, or for that matter post anything critical of "blog mother" Marisacat at her blog.

What a freaky bunch of little hitlers.

So what exactly is the point of this place if it isn't gross hypocrisy? How do you see it catnip?

supersoling said...

No one gets banned at MoBetta other than anonymous commenters, period. What happens at other places, even places run by members here, is irrelevent to what the policy is here. And I think I can safely say that DTF, who is/was the founder here, but by no means in a position of authority more than anyone else, wouldn't ban anyone either.

Arcturus said...

's ok Arminius - I've been called worse - I also recall that you do some important serious work in r/l

the angry rush to defend him from what I didn't say & totally ignore what was . . . was amusing, if predictable

my style in that post was admittedly that of a verbal cartoon - & like most cartoons of social commentary, one's response to it depends largely on one's predisposition to the viewpoint espoused - they rarely do more than preach to the converted

i've debated whether or not it's worth posting a more anayltic follow-up - actually do the socio-linguistic reading - who knows, mebbe yet?

(& btw, just to be clear, while the t/y above was sarcastic, the Welcome is quite sincere

catnip said...

Keep typing away there if you want to, DB. I'm not playing your game.

DavidByron said...

No one gets banned at MoBetta other than anonymous commenters

LOL, and I saw how THAT worked out. The rule was nobody gets banned and then that woman (I forget the name) turned up and you decided to ban her, so you made her "anonymity" an excuse. Funny sort of anonymity it was when you all knew exactly who she was.

As soon as I saw that I knew it was just a question of time until the next banning. You've got a taste for blood now.

Still I am curious as to why there's even a pretense kept up. Is it to honor Ductape? Or just to avoid the charge of hypocrisy? You fell at the first fence of course, but I suppose a man can always pick themselves up again.

DavidByron said...

Well catnip you clearly are playing my game because I am clearly so cunning that any response you make or don't make is just playing into it.

However I would like to know what you see as the purpose of this place. It seems to me that I would fit in fine with the purposes Ductape had originally imagined, but as for what it's for now, I can't say.

You seem to post here more than anyone else so what's your take?

alohaleezy said...

What do you get out of all this crap you spew DB?

Arminius said...

brinn5etc, I was never real close to DTF, but I admired his work enough to try to get it published in some professional places in my field. I'm sorry, but I haven't had any contact with him for at least nine months.

supersoling said...

are you functionally brain dead? That woman was free then and is now to post under whatever name she wants. Just not anonymously. So how do you say she was banned when she continued posting under her name?

catnip said...

are you functionally brain dead?

Do we get to vote on that?

alohaleezy said...

Oh yeah!! Let's have a poll on

spiderleaf said...

Not allowing people to post anonymously is banning? Really? Can you post as "anonymous" on dkos? Well, sure, if you sign up for an account and provide your email address as "anonymous".

duh. someone needs to figure out how these internet thingies work before spouting off methinks.

DavidByron said...

supersoling YOU were the one who said it was banning.

No one gets banned at MoBetta other than anonymous commenters

It must be very stressful for you to have to talk to someone intelligent enough to recall what you said two seconds earlier in the conversation. I see you don't often experience that.

The point remains. You banned someone and it wasn't because they were "anonymous" because you all knew exactly who it was and there were other anonymous posters you were cool with around that time. You banned them because you didn't like them and you wanted to piss all over them.

Now can you all not admit to the truth of that? If you've repented of that action that's one thing but to simply deny it seems a little silly when the episode is recorded in the archives here.

sjct said...

DB is trying to be the FIRST person banned from MoBettaMeta. Let him rant. Let him rave. We all have a scroll button, right?

supersoling said...

stop man, you're stressing me out, LOL! Now you're what? Perry fucking Mason? Parse much?

DavidByron said...

I just went back to refresh my memory of that thread. the reason given for the deletions was nothing to do with them being anonymous:

I deleted the comments for two reasons. 1) they were insulting and hostile in nature, in the last few they started talking about people being obsessed and having crushes and wanting 3somes, just to cause shit and keep stroking their out of control ego. 2) It is absolutely ridiculous to allow Martin to, as leezy said, keep his site 'clean' and one-sided, and then come over here and spew bullshit accusations at everyone here anonymously. His point of view has been well represented on this site in comment thread after comment thread. This is not his personal dumping ground on anyone he has a problem with imo.

Furthermore I saw not one person in that thread complain about the deletions.

Look I didn't put a gun to your head and tell you to say nobody gets banned here. Say what you want to. Do what you want to. I only reserve the right to make comments about your actions after the fact. So if you want to ban people why not go ahead, but what I don't understand is why anybody would want to pass themselves off as more liberal than they really are on this. It seems to happen all the time though.

Why the big fuss? You banned someone because you didn't like them. Period. Why the big denial here?

Is it because you are afraid of being called hypocrites as you denounce places like dKos for doing the same things? Is it because you want to appear more liberal than you are? Is it because you really aspire to those ideals but being human you fall short of them and then were too egotistical to admit your failures?

Whatever it is you're hardly alone in this behaviour. What's to be so much in denial about?

spiderleaf said...

Oh I like feeding trolls sjct. He ain't gettin' "banned".

DB, all the anonymous posters you refer to have all since then posted here under their real names and not been "banned". Check the records you're so "up on". It was decided that if they were gonna sling shit they could only do so under a blogger profile. That's it, that's all. Martin came back here as something like "fuzzy pink bunny ears" and yep, he was allowed to continue making a fool of himself. As are you of course... free internets and all.

Jeez, get a grip dude.

spiderleaf said...

and also, I deleted the anonymous comments for exactly the reasons you quoted me as stating above. Yep, thanks for the refresher.

catnip said...

Yeah, and I missed those threesome comments. Bummer. ;)

Maryscott OConnor said...


dhongi has not been banned at MLW.

YOU, in fact, are the ONLY actual member who has EVER been banned from MLW.

The rest were all fly by night trolls.

So I guess that's some sort of badge of dishonour for you to pin to your puffed up chest.

Anyone else missing from MLW has left of his or her own accord.

Arcturus said...

sound like any conversations you've been having of alte?

catnip said...

Now you're what? Perry fucking Mason?

I used to like watching Perry fucking Mason back in the day. Then there was LA fucking Law and Law and fucking Order. But my fav is Boston fucking Legal these days.

catnip said...

Hilarious, arcturus! rofl

DavidByron said...

Hey Maryscott!
Hope you are feeling well.

Barely a day goes by at MLW that you don't threaten to ban people, most often imhotep but you've recently ragged on Arthur Gilroy too, and proximity1, Stu Pidy etc etc - for them it would be their second time being banned of course.

Let's just say that outspoken people like Galiel and Pluto have a habit of disappearing under a cloud at MLW. Anyone who doesn't exactly "fit in" by being sycophantic enough. And then there's your tendency to claim falsely that you've never banned anyone. What's really freaky is that nobody there ever dares to contest that flat out lie - it's quite Orwellian isn't it? I don't know which is worse - that they have genuinely managed to throw that data down the memory hole or that they are all so intimidated by you that they know better than to mention you're lying.

I've never met anyone for bragging about about a liberality they don't possess more than you do Maryscott. You've said it so often, and demanded others say it to you so often, I think you even believe it yourself. Everything you've said recently about dKos could be said of MLW as well. The main difference is that Kos doesn't pretend to be something he isn't; he doesn't claim to not ban people and not threaten and censor issues.

But to get back to dhonig, yes I know he's not banned. God knows you'd never ban your private head of gestapo (or is that eugene?) any more than Kos has banned Armando. They'll both be back. They do the same jobs; obnoxious enforcer. Someone to scare away anyone who is "umutual", or if they can't be scared off then engage them in shitstorms so they can be called "trolls".

DavidByron said...

and also, I deleted the anonymous comments for exactly the reasons you quoted me as stating above. Yep, thanks for the refresher.

LMAO. Yes the exact opposite of what you'd just claimed in your prior comment. And you're welcome.

spiderleaf said...

DB, moron, reading comprehension is your weakness, not mine. You claimed we banned people. Nope, proven wrong. Deleting anonymous comments for profanity and slander is not the same thing.

But go on with your persecution complex. You deliberately wander from blog to blog and try and be as rude and obnoxious you can be without racial slurs and hope to get banned to prove your point about the blogs. Nice life you have.

alohaleezy said...

Db needs to open his own blog and then he doesn't need to worry so much about getting banned anywhere. What a waste of breath.

DavidByron said...

I got to tell you that the river of flame coming my way from you guys won't do anything to shift me so unless you are using it to boost your fragile li'l egos ..... waste of time. Really. I've heard it all.

Well maybe some of marisacat's stuff.... she really has a mouth on her...

Ok where were we? You were just explaining that you deleted comments because they were comments flaming people were you not?


Well that's more honest of course but you're only half way there. It's not rudeness that upset you. It's rudeness directed at you instead of by you.

The ol' double standard of course.

Oh and thank you alohaleezy for that very positive comment from you. That was very positive and definately not a "waste of breath". I cannot even think of a comment that was more useful. Yup, nobody could call you a hypocrite over that one. Certainly not me.

DavidByron said...

Talking of double standards....

Maryscott is threatening to deliberately flout the rules at dKos by posting a diary with obscenity in the title. The context is a thread about how bad Kos is etc etc, and how good Maryscott is.

Maryscott bans people because she feels like it. Basically if you get on her bad side by failing to be sufficiently servile or sycophantic, telling her how wonderful she is etc or piss her off by disagreeing with her gestapo. Anyway there's no rules to break as such at MLW.

At dKos there are some rules. Simple rules like don't post obscenities in diary titles because Kos wants the site to be more family / hypocritical politician friendly.

It costs MSOC nothing to comply with this simple rule. Does she choose to do so?

I have such a post in mind. A VERY controversial piece. And a title that by itself would be controveersial, but with an added profanity that would, of course, bring all the nannies AND Markos himself RUNNING to censor the profanity itself, as well as the title, which would be TERRIBLY embarrassing, should it be seen by the Establishment or the advertisers, which, of course, it would, since it would top the RD list and remain there for a day or two...

So... let me get this right... MSOC is contemplating deliberately breaking the rules just to piss off Kos. But she feels she has a right to do this at Kos' blog whereas she feels it's perfectly ok to ban people from her own site for any or no reason - just personality clashes.

Of course Kos bans for trivial crap too. Hell yes, that's not my point. But how would I or someone else last at MLW if we deliberately flouted the rules there? Why the double standard?

Nanette said...

Blogarrhea - Is There a Cure?

Also, I'm pretty sure my word verification word is rude.

Arcturus said...

Blogarrhea - Is There a Cure?

i'm afraid it may be a homeopathic remedy - & it comes in pink

Pyrrho said...


you are terribly out of date, and on things I've wasted time explaining to you before.

Pluto? Are you serious. Pluto LOVES maryscott and left for reasons I'll not share with you, but which were public... perhaps you should get more up to date.

And yes, I know, you feel banning you proves a line was crossed and we are now equal banners as everyone else.

problem: you verbally harrass people, and try to pretend it's a morality test.

"It would be the second time for them..." then you know that many people left because Maryscott overturned that banning decision made in her absence... but, you don't want to take it into account... oh, INCLUDING EUGENE.

Pyrrho said...

"So... let me get this right... MSOC is contemplating deliberately breaking the rules just to piss off Kos. But she feels she has a right to do this at Kos' blog whereas she feels it's perfectly ok to ban people from her own site for any or no reason - just personality clashes."

you are a waste of time.

none of your "facts" are accepted, in fact, you flout facts YOU have accepted in the past. Isn't it funny that of all the "anyone's" YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE falling under that description. Well, the reason is clear, look how you enter a thread.

The whole internet knows you prefer to be banned david.

ms_xeno said...

I say we keep on DB but ban catnip. She uses too many naughty words. And she spells the word "color" funny, too. I'm sick of these foreigners invading our Sacred Internets and trying to make them all exotic and dirty and stuff. DB embodies everything that makes America great and I think we should make him our king.

catnip said...

Shut the fuck up, ms xeno, you colourless clueball you! :)

Also, I'm pretty sure my word verification word is rude.

I don't doubt that. I've had some doozies as well! It's Blogger pr0n.

ms_xeno said...

Emotional. You foreigners are too emotional, too. If it wasn't for the Tinky Winky Link(y), I woulda' ratted you out to Homeland Security months ago...

Nanette said...

i'm afraid it may be a homeopathic remedy - & it comes in pink

I think I could get a patent on it tho... well, once I invent it.

I will name it "EpicYak!" (the ! is very important to the product branding).

Pink is good.

(lol, Blogger pr0n)

DavidByron said...

I think I'd make a good king Ms Xeno. After all I'm more of a lefty than any of you. Thanks for the vote of confidence ;)
You must be thinking it's a great shame you can't ban me here and then delete all my posts and lie about me as happened at MLW. Nothing like disappearing the opposition for getting your "facts" across.

Sadly that is not the case here.

Pluto said some things to me that I assume she didn't to you. There was stuff she wouldn't say at MLW for fear of trouble. The fact that you didn't know about this is sort of the whole point. If you are in touch with her currently why not ask her? You might be surprised.

Like Maryscott herself you appear to confuse liking someone with agreeing with them. Pluto likes MSOC so she can't possibly have had any issues is that really what you just said? LOL. And I must hate MSOC by the same logic, huh? But then I hate all women, right? Or is it just that I hate everyone?

Maryscott approved the bannings by Eugene once she got back to MLW. She didn't reverse that decision immidiately as you suggest here. In any case nobody would give a fascist like Eugene the authority to ban if they didn't want to have a few heads chopped. Eugene certainly didn't feel he was doing anything MSOC would disapprove of. You are right to say, just as I said, that they were allowed back again, but since then they have constantly been threatened.

Your statement that I was banned for "verbally harassing" is beneath contempt. You are certainly not such a fool as to beleive that any more, but for public presentation that's what you say. Fine then.

Let me point out that you were banned from dKos for the same reasons. Whenever anyone gets banned they have always been acting like an ass. All by themselves too. Nobody else is ever involved. It's amazing.

Certainly when you were banned there was nobody else acting like an ass such as Armando was there? When I was banned it wasn't as if dhonig had been running around the board calling me a Nazi and eugene and sassy texan and others running around calling me a misogynist. Gosh no. I was just ranting and raving by myself wasn't that correct pyrrho? All by myself in a thread with nobody else even commenting.

The gestapo at MLW just as elsewhere are professionals at taking "offense". They start arguments with people who don't agree with them politically and then if that person doesn't back down - as you usualy did at dKos, but refused to do that one day - they create a shitstorm and proceed to blame the other guy for it all. An effective tactic because they suck up to authority and operate in packs. Maryscott sees a big fight, as did you, and she decides to ban me because I don't suck up to her and eugene, dhonig and sassy texan did. Besides which it's easier to ban me than try to tell her "friends" to knock it off.

pyrrho I challenge you to find me "verbally harassing" someone as you put it. I won't hold my breath on that one. It's a shame that you were all so quick to delete the comments at MLW because I'm sure that would have supported your case here wouldn't they?

The truth is that Maryscott recently admited to herself finally that dhonig is a disgustingly rude poster and that she's been ignoring his shitstorms for a long time. Yet she did not ban him. Why? Because she doesn't ban people for being rude, not even incredibly rude, deliberately attacking others as dhonig routinely behaved for a long time.

Just the same as Armando at dKos.

You are being dishonest pyrrho. It's a shame. You know better.

And yes, I know, you feel banning you proves a line was crossed and we are now equal banners as everyone else.

Well you are sounding a little more honest there at least. Back up thread Maryscott admited I was not a troll but an "actual member" that was banned. She did claim I was the only one, but her comment certainly undermines your own little piece of damage control.

So you both know that you banned an "actual member" not a troll. That's common ground yet you ask rhetorically, "Did we cross a line?"

No. You were always over that line.

Equal banners? Certainly dKos has more commenters and therefore has to ban more to preserve it's "special" status. I never said MLW bans as much as dKos but if you insist on attacking that strawman then congratulations, you win that "argument".

But it comes down to the same thing either way doesn't it? Both sites have effective no-go topics which will cause someone to be attacked. In both cases this attacking is done with the knowledge of the blog owner. Both sites have their gestapo squad, their blog maids as marisacat puts it.

If MLW had more traffic it would ban more in proportion obviously.
And now the flaming turd bit.

The whole internet knows you prefer to be banned david.

That's the level headed pyrrho everyone respects. The one that flames his opponent only if he can't ban that opponent, and if that opponent can't ban him.

you are a waste of time.

I know you are but what am I?

It's a shame you didn't come to the conclusion that I was a waste of time before you sent me about 100 e-mails over the years. Saying it now just makes you sound like a child flinging shit.

Look I can do the flaming shit thing if you like pyrrho, but I will note that you started it. You want to flame each other in each post? 50% of the post flame? 75% flame? Frankly you're boring when you flame people. You don't get enough practise.

Good grief. "you are a waste of time." is that your best cheap shot? LMAO.

Better if you try to calm down and behave like a good boy I think. Apart from anything else it undermines your "argument" that I am the bad guy when you come in all "guns" firing like that.

Look you've done your little loyalty thing now. You've attacked me so that MSOC can see you're a good little boy. If you want to you can carry on flaming me as we talk, just to make MSOC feel more secure you know.

If you don't want to respond then fine. I was not addressing my remarks at you.

catnip said...

This thread's getting long. Anybody willing to put up a new post?

supersoling said...

Let's give DB the keys to the dash. I'm sure he could come up with something short and cogent :o/

Keir said...

Wait, wait, no new post yet!

"It's an emotional investment that many find very hard to let go of."

Just thought I'd say that I find it very easy to do on a daily basis. I even turn off the machine at night!

I mean, I've been to some pretty awesome stadium rock shows in my time. I love frying my lizard brain like that, but these days a theater-size venue is more like it for me.

It's silly to feel emotionally invested to something on theater-scale, or club-scale, even, let alone stadium-scale, even if the scale is relative.

catnip said...

You turn off your machine? But how? When? And it comes back on in the morning? Really? I don't trust you.


Arminius said...

Not really my business. I've been holding my fire. But after that last post of his I must say--davidbyron is so davidbyronish that his every post should be illuminated by a special glow.

Of a BLU-82 "Daisy Cutter" fuel air bomb.

catnip said...

You actually read it? I just saw:

"david byron said...

blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, burrrp"

ms_xeno said...

I think that King Davypoo must get paid by the word.

pyrrho said...

whomever is admin (catnip?) could you please just delete that comment as it is signed in from some strange blogger account I don't even remember.

and I don't really feel like reposting it.

I should learn, you cannot believe the hundred hours I've wasted giving DB points a hearing just to see even HE doesn't stick to his points.

catnip said...

Done, pyrrho.