- Garland Police shot and killed a family dog on a leash in someone’s backyard. This is not unusual. Via Radley Balko, see more puppycide stories from recent months here, here, and here. Or browse stories from the last couple of years here. Question: Do cops these days get any training on how to deal with dogs, aside from fire at the center mass of any canine within sight?
- Also via Radley, the creepiest thing about yesterday’s coronation inauguration starts at 3:18. MySpace Celebrity and Katalyst present The Presidential Pledge
- Those fighting the good fight against the city-owned, taxpayer-paid $550 million (and rising) convention center hotel spent a lot more money than those pushing it. Of course, those for it have the free platform of the council chambers, the mayor’s office, the taxpayer coffers, and the Convention & Visitors Bureau to draw from, so let’s call it a wash. For reasons why the project should be held until the May referendum, read Wick Allison’s letter here.
- Finally, regarding the slate of comment deletions at FrontBurner recently, for which I’ve received a dozen emails: Look, I’m a full-on free speech guy and on my blog, short of libel, gross obscenity, or anything illegal, I’m not going to delete comments. But I’m also a property rights guy, so whoever owns the blog — like D owns FB — has every right to publish or not publish anything they want. This isn’t the public square; it’s a privately owned publication with a reputation to uphold. D Magazine has a professional, prestigious image that doesn’t allow the leeway personal, smaller or alternative blogs have. Any comment that’s not helpful towards FrontBurner and D’s image has no place there. Now, my personal preference in FB deletions would be that instead of disintegrating them into the nonexistence, the place holder would remain and a note would simply say something like, “Comment deleted for content” or some such. Zac did that with at least one comment yesterday in the Obama thread. To me, that’s more satisfying. But again, that’s the prerogative of the owner/publisher of the blog. That’s my two cents. And that’s all I’m going to say about it. However, as usual, I’ve turned comments on.
the video has been removed by the use
“instead of disintegrating them into the nonexistence, the place holder would remain and a note would simply say something like, “Comment deleted for content” or some such’
good point. I agree that when a comment is removed the content should be removed but the offender’s nom de plume should remain and a statement saying why their comment was removed.
I prefer the following
“this comment was removed for being rude, crude and socially unacceptable.”
Video link updated. Thanks for the tip, Peter.
re: Frontburner…exactly. It’s not censorship if it’s a privately owned magazine… I think they should do exactly what Zac did: a deletion with a note. It marks the flow of the discourse, and acts as a warning to the participants that the conversation may have strayed. Regarding the FB Nation, it would be quite helpful if there was a defined code of conduct…
Having said that, I have no idea why your commentary was deleted yesterday. As always, it was productive, snappy, and very entertaining.
There are a number of us who have decided to sit out until either: there is some kind of defined code, OR until the “idiots” leave (perhaps returning to one of the DMN blogs).
You said it straight and true, Trey. It doesn’t make it easy for a feller who’s silly, impertinent and blasphemous by nature, but there you have it. Management reserves the right to refuse et cetera.
Amanda, are you on the Eleventybillionth Board? Funny to say, I kind of miss you taking me to task. It usually woke me up, at least.
The ability to sculpt and thus transform initially individual public, third party commentary into only those forms pleasing to the pundits being commented on creates a wonderful new opportunity for self-aggrandizement not unlike a rhetorical version of tempting others into one’s personal space, by whatever means, and then selectively capturing those personal elements that improve one’s looks, that more supple skin, that more lustrous hair, while clipping away and kicking to the curb that misshapen nose and those yellowed teeth.
The value-added end product, then, though impossible to have been initially created by the original pundits, remains, though, effectively wholly their product, the understanding that any given public commentary could have been edited, reworded, or deleted entirely rendering that ostensibly public commentary no longer credibly the voice of any third party individual in his own right but rather effectively only that of the digesting collective host itself into whose event horizon the hapless squeaker unfortunately strayed.
(You have Trey’s word above, of course, that he hasn’t done anything so sinister to this. Right?)
Commenters soon wise up to such a state of affairs, though, and, realizing that any effort tendered becomes by definition that sort of completely malleable, throw-away sausage filler, soon learn to hold the choice cuts dear to themselves (why on earth bother moreso?) and offer up only sawdust and trichinosis cysts to the grinder, the resulting paste extruded inevitably revealing its cynical heritage.
It looks like it’s a pandemic:
http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/jezebel/full/~3/E0_Efr7yK9s/commenters-we-have-a-problem
Daniel, I can’t figure out the board. Gotta run, I’m oppressing some people right now…
Chris – James Joyce was a twisted genius who holds the Guinness record for longest sentence in the English language. Put another way – doooood….
Of course they have they right to do it, that’s not the point. They’re deleting comments for no other reason than not toeing the liberal line. I can’t help but contrast the last seven years of liberals/libertarians whining like infants about the civil liberties they were supposedly losing under Bush (while never giving any actual examples of a single right they had lost) to your reaction here to an admittedly small example of your free speech being denied by liberals. To be fair to Trey, i don’t expect him to be harsh on his friends at Frontburner, but i did expect at least a small admonishment and not just the obligatory go along to get along nonsense of this post.
I gotta disagree, Lemmy.
For one, I give my friends at FB crap all the time, in comments and in person.
But more, no one is denying my right to free speech. Only government can do that to me. I have the right to say what I want, but the guy who owns a microphone isn’t obliged to give it to me when I want to say something.
There are blogs with far more stringent criteria for who gets to post. Take Gawker’s raft of blogs – Jezebel, Deadspin, etc. You have to post several comments for review first. If they deem you witty and no-spambotic enough, you can become a regular poster. Violate the TOS, and you can get banned.
I think that’s what’s lacking with Frontburner – Terms of Service. A clearly defined set of standards would at least be something they could point to – even if it’s a CYS thing – when they edit a comment out. And editing a comment out would be better, IMO. It would leave a placemarker that said, “This person commented, but we deleted it because it violated our TOS.”
Chris,
I used to construct unnecessary long-winded sentences like yours when I was in college. Upon official review it did not make me a better writer or look smarter.
Well if you want to see some real mudslinging head on over to Unfair Park. The ad hominem attacks are such a delight to read. very informative and my knowledge of biological functions and capabilities has been greatly enhanced
“I think that’s what’s lacking with Frontburner – Terms of Service. A clearly defined set of standards would at least be something they could point to -”
Bethany we (I mean those of us of an older generation) call it being respectful. No need for rules since if you have rules folks will point out “but you didn’t say I couldn’t do X.”
My mother used to tell me “if you can’t say something nice then don’t say anything.” Now that doesn’t mean one should keep silent, but you can have a discussion without accusing the other side of “hatred” or calling them names. its why we call it a ‘discussion’
I’ll be glad to ‘listen’ to another person’s POV, I will point out where I disagree, but pls don’t act like the old SNL skit “jane you ignorant slut…”
Can someone tell me why FB keeps removing references to the Congressional Black Caucus? And these are references simply to it’s existence, not anything accusatory or slanderous. Is there something so innately offensive about the CBC that mere mention of it should be deemed inappropriate?
It’s this kind of censorship that has me so confused. I understand patrolling your blog for trolls, but what FB is doing doesn’t seem to have any rhyme or reason to it.
Serious question that you might be able to address on this blog.
Most blogs income is contingent on the amount of traffic it brings in via advertising bucks. Many have a certain slant that range from the Huffington Post to Jonah Goldberg.
With FB, any income made from the blog, I assume, is icing on the cake. So FB is editor driven and it seems to be having a hard time balancing the freedom of the commenter’s and writers with the primary source of income for the magazine.
I enjoy the openness and honesty that you and Glenn Hunter have on the blog. While I don’t agree with many of the thoughts, I admire people who speak their mind without
regard for a potential verbal backlash. In most cases Wicks views are pretty much to the right. It seems that the rest of the gang is trying to play ball somewhere in the middle of the road. I get the feeling they are not willing to wear their heart on their sleeve.
So, are the editors of FB fearful of upsetting potential advertisers by making statements or comments from the heart? Are they just trying to keep a middle ground? I would assume that the readers of D are far more right leaning than left and if so, it would only be natural for the articles to flow that direction. Politically, Dallas is a much divided city, just like most of our nation. Maybe this is where some of the commenting conflict comes in.
While I made the initial mistake of being outspoken in an obtrusive way (I am a professional bridge burner) and lost my seat at the table of love. I had hoped that FB blog as having the potential to help bring the left, the right and yes, even the Libertarians together for the common goal of our city. Now that President Bush is living amongst us, the local blogosphere will most likely become more contaminated.
As a connoisseur of blogosphere regurgitation, I enjoy reading FB. It is, in my opinion, the most conflicted of all blogs. It makes for interesting reading. I do wish that if the editors are going to spew a little venom at various folks, that they be amenable to taking in a little themselves. Sometimes the very issues that FB condemns are the same they are guilty of. If someone points this out, they become worse that persona non gratis, they become the pariah.
This city is big enough and cool enough to handle all sorts, including clueless left wing nut jobs like me, or extreme right wing nutcases like ___________(fill in the blank)
BTW, the new Bethany blog is really awesome. Somehow she has it rigged to shoot lazers out when I try to post…………kidding….(;0 and other assorted emotocons) oops (sp?)
Steve’s comment kind of addresses PeterK’s. A TOS would eliminate a lot of the confusion – both on the administrators’ part and on the posters part.
But yes, PeterK, I actually agree that if people grew some manners, things would be better. As I said on my blog about the exact same subject matter – “The debate can be spirited without having to affix the word “mean” before it.”
John III,
Your comment incorrectly assumes I was trying to be either a better writer or to look smarter, which may in itself only be saying the same thing in two different ways.
Feel free, though, to say everything I said in your own more economical manner, I’m always open to seeing others demonstrate ways to improve my thinking. If you disagree with something I said, or if I simply said more than you think I should have said, you are also free to hazard those waters avoided in your initial official review.
Bethany I agree that a TOS that covers Steve’s comment would be welcome
Chris – your communication skills are crap-ola. Do you read what you write? It’s gobbledygook.
My guess is that you are a frustrated English major who does not get a chance to write much.