Reasoned DiscourseTM, Part CCXLII

I can sympathize somewhat with Joan Peterson here, because I remember when I first decided I needed to implement some basic ground rules for comments. My one paragraph ground rule basically amounts to, “Don’t be a jackass,” and those of you who have been around for a while know I probably tolerate a good bit more jackassery than could be classified under my guidelines. I probably only remove or partially redact, at most, ten posts a year, and the majority of those are rambling nonsense from people who I think found me on Google and have mental health issues.

But Joan’s comment policy reads like a Hammurabi’s Code of blog commenting. What’s more, my, and most of our default is to allow comments generally, and only remove or redact ones that cross the line. It’s hard for me to understand how facts that are in dispute can be corrected if they aren’t published and discussed. There’s an old saying that you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. One thing I’ve learned from observing Ms. Japaete is that she often thinks she is, in fact, entitled to her own facts. Common Gun Sense has been much more open to dissenting ideas than many other blogs run by folks on the other side of this issue, and she deserved credit for that, but it seems as time has worn on, there’s been more and more Reasoned DiscourseTM going on. One of the other side’s greatest weaknesses has been not forming a credible response to our grassroots new media efforts, and their unwillingness to engage in open debate has been one of those.

20 thoughts on “Reasoned DiscourseTM, Part CCXLII”

  1. I have had a hard time commenting on her blog. I believe the rule I am running up against most of the time is this:

    “7. Comments attacking organizations with which I am affiliated or groups of people will not be published or tolerated.”

    Basically, if you even mention the VPC or Brady Campaign, the post will not be published. I guess it’s pretty easy to make them look great, when they cannot be criticized in any way, shape, or form.

    Recently, I had a post published where I watered it down and said that basically, “certain groups are against that”. She responds asking which groups I mean. I respond and guess what, the response was never published! How can you have anything resembling a rational discussion with someone like this?

  2. Her rules-of-engagement are designed so that she gets to decide what passes for ‘civility’ or ‘truth’. She has no intention of allowing anything resembling dissent on her blog.

    It’s why I don’t waste my time …

  3. Her posts just seem to ramble on and on and on. Take a look at the comments to the stories she links to. It’s telling.

  4. I am ready to give up on her site. I am always civil and factual, but I think her “problem” with me is “Comments that are not germaine to the topic will not be published.”

    Example: She will say (as most gun control advocates do) something like “Look at country X . They have great gun laws and less gun crime than we do.” I write to ask if she supports making self-defense an invalid reason for a firearms permit (and other extreme measures), as they do in Country X.

    When she says “no,” I usually follow up by asking why she praises their laws if there are so many that she doesn’t want here, and why she would expect the same results here from the far milder gun control that she says she wants.

    Now THAT she often won’t allow to post. Not “germaine to the topic,” don’t you know.

  5. And they’re all peace loving, respectful individuals. At least according to Baldr.

    Obviously they’ve never read the comment sections on CSGV, Huffpo, DU, MikeB, etc.

  6. I decided to be oh, so reasonable, to see if she’ll publish mine.

    Your house. Your rules.

    Can we discuss the rules and some of our observations?

    1. and 3. and 6. spot on and dead right.

    2. I’ve seen some good discussion here where the topic wandered because that’s where the discussion led.

    4. Repeats 2. Of course, thread jacking shouldn’t be encouraged, but inquiring minds can lead to interesting related discussion

    5. Very similar to 3. However, what is your definition of incivility if it is not that discussed in 3.? Am I missing something?

    7. Is criticism allowed if it pertains to the subject or discussion?

    8. and 9. sounds like a blog comment thread to me.

    and 10. is standard for blogs.

    So, any discussion or clarification?

    June 24, 2011 8:30 PM

  7. “I don’t feel a need to read your blogs in the first place so I am not even tempted. ”

    Hm. She’s never read Sun Tzu.
    “The end and aim of spying in all its five varieties is knowledge of the enemy.”

    Quite foolish. Use her ignorance to destroy her. Someone should set up a blog with the sole purpouse of taking her posts apart and exposing the lack of any real sense in what she says. I have seen many of these anti-gun people refer to “common sense” and then spew such idiocy I wonder how they can use the term. Common sense is not so common on the moonbat side of the fence I guess.

  8. Go read some of her responses to various comments (published and unpublished)

    She makes the rules and wastes no time breaking them.

    If standards are good, then double standards must be TWICE as good!

  9. I don’t think I’ve ever had a comment blocked on any blogs other than Common Gun Sense and New Trajectory. It is tempting to comment on their posts but I know what I have to say will just be blocked.

  10. It’d be funny to set up a mirror site – something like where everyone could copy their comments to. To show, of course, just how unthoughtful and mean gunowners really are.

  11. The problem with Joan is that she allows one comment, then challenges the poster to back up their claim and then won’t allow your retort.

    She then comes back and screams SEE SEE, I told you you were wrong!

    She banned me after I asked her what she thought about the NRA hiring The Word Doctors to conduct polls.

    Ya, I baited her and she took it hook, line and sinker.

    She was appalled the NRA would use such a dispicable company. I then informed her that it was in fact the Brady Campaign who employed them.

    She blocked my comment and banned me.

  12. We don’t go to Joan’s to convince her or others. We go to Joan’s to put out a factual counter argument for those on the fence. Her style of response is wonderful! What better place to illustrate the gun-banners’ lack of principle, thought, or…. common sense.

    We should encourage her. She may be the only one out there that allows comments to such an extent, gets exposure, etc. She’s OUR perfect example.

  13. kaveman: “The problem with Joan is that she allows one comment, then challenges the poster to back up their claim and then won’t allow your retort.”

    Happens to me there all the time.

  14. Heck, it’s her blog — and we’re 90 percent of her traffic. She can set any rules she wants but she’s still wrong,.

  15. I never to go Joan’s site. I don’t want to give her the traffic, or be given the inevitable abuse. I think it’s wrong to encourage sociopaths, such as the anti’s and their organizations, by giving them reinforcement.
    They don’t want discussion, they want domination.

    Some quotes from others that I’ve saved on dealing with such people:

    “The main lesson I have learnt is that when dealing with a sociopath, the normal rules of etiquette do not apply. You are dealing with someone who has no empathy, no conscience, no remorse, and no guilt…It is a completely different mindset. Words like ‘predator’ and ‘evil’ are often used.”

    “So, what is the lowdown on dealing with psychopaths?”
    “Either avoid them, or, once you know or suspect what they are, avoid them.”

    Avoidance is the only effective way to deal with psychopaths. They’re mental poison. There’s a lot of information on psychopaths/sociopaths on the net.
    My view is that the pathology is a continuum, not merely present or not present. I have seen that everyone has at least some of the characteristics of a psychopath to some extent – it’s matter of degree. Some people aren’t so bad at all, while some people are worse than others, and some people are the worst, like serial killers, who are sociopaths who lack the ability to control themselves. However, some psychopaths/sociopaths can control themselves and won’t engage in illegal abuse of others because they don’t want the penalties, so they look for a socially acceptable way to express their psychological need to harm others. Pushing gun control is a magnet for such people. It lets them abuse gun owners, while pretending to do so for the public good, despite the fact that gun control results in bloody horrors like Chicago. There is no reasoning with them on gun control, because they’re not really about gun control. Gun control is just a ruse that they use. They’re about using power to abuse their victims, and they mean to continue to do so. That’s why they can seem to have an astonishing independence from the facts, because they’re not about facts. They will relabel their convenient lies as “inconvenient truths”, with no qualms whatsoever, and then harm anyone who disagrees with them. Harming people is their ultimate objective and they mean to make that happen, however they can.

  16. Markie Marxist sez: “Joan would be an excellent choice to be the new head of ATF. She’d be like Hannibal Lecter with a billion-dollar-a-year budget! Ha! Ha! Although we pretty much already have that, don’t we? At least the billion-dollar-a-year part! And much of the Lecter part too! You don’t think those hundreds of widows and orphans of Gunwalker happened by accident, do you? But Obama/Holder/Melson aren’t serial killers! Nooooooooooo! All those people were killed by mistake! It was just an accident! Oopsie! Ha! Ha!”

  17. The stupidest thing about Joan (and others like her, in general) is that she’ll refuse to post comments, claiming that they are uncivil, or that they don’t pertain to her discussions, etc.

    If she is correct, then why doesn’t she back up her assertions by posting the comments, perhaps with an “Editor: This is off topic, please don’t make such comments!” or “Editor: See how stupid/evil/mean gun rights proponents are?” appended to the end? Let us see exactly how bad they are!

    But by deleting such comments, there’s no reason to believe her allegations; indeed, it becomes reasonable to believe that she’s trying to hide as much reality as possible, so that she could “win” the debate.

    And she loses anyway, because the information she attempts to hide–even the comments she blocks–are available in the open, in other blogs, and in magazines, and in books.

    Thus, “Reasoned Discourse” is a stupid policy to follow: If truth is on your side, it’s always better to let incivility rear its ugly head. Of course, the problem with Joan is that truth is not on her side!

  18. I succeeded in making a comment on Joan’s blog. Hopefully it will convince Joan into accepting all comments! ;-)

    I’ve been able to squeeze through the radar so far, but then, I think it’s because my comments there tend to be moderately pro-gun, often more about the debate tactics than the debate itself…

Comments are closed.