tBlog - Abuse Policy

Abuse Policy

Blog For Free!

Archives
Home
2008 April
2008 January
2007 June
2007 February
2006 September
2006 May
2005 December
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June

My Links
Cato Institute
Foundation for Economic Education
International Society for Individual Liberty
Independent Institute
Heartland Institute
Institute for Liberal Values
Institute for Economic Affairs
Tom Palmer Blog
Rational Review
Reason Magazine
Wendy McElroy
Future of Freedom Foundation
Freedom Summit
Dynamist (Virginia Postrel)
Free Speech Coalition

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images

Sponsored
Blog

Abuse Policy

06.28.05 (2:44 am) [edit]

One regualr contributer to the Paleo websites has inundated our message board with abusive messages. We are “psychopathic fuckheads”, “morons”, “cowards”, “idiots”, and more. They are so articulate and mannered.

As I said originally my experience in reading their “contributions&rdqu o; to other blogs is that they become totally unhinged and resort to abuse almost immediately. My policy is to remove such posts simply because abusive material like that is rude, abrasive, and offensive to decent people. For all their talk about cultural conservativism and manners, etc, they lack any culture, conservative or otherwise.

Whatever they say about things they haven’t changed much in 25 years. These people were out to “smash” anyone or “crush” anyone who stood in the way of their radical vanguard. Things remain the same today. Instead of working with the SDS they have simply moved over to the League of the South. They are still extremists who seem more motivated by the desire to destroy something than the desire to build a free society. Oddly the Paleo blog refuses to allow comments at all. Yet when others allow comments these individuals use it as an opportunity to heap verbal abuse on people. Perhaps they cut off comments on their own blog because they project on to others their own attitudes and behavior.

For the record if one posts such messages of abuse about them I’d remove it as well. And when people tried to name specific individuals here for certain things which were not germain to our issue those posts were removed as well even though they basically supported my argument. I do not believe that libertarians need to stoop to level of debate used by the Paleos. It is tempting to leave the comments up just to show the quality of their debating skills but I don't want to contribute to such actions. I figure that abuse is like graffiti. People do it because they enjoy seeing it out there for the world to witness. Remove it and you remove the thrill they get from their dysfuctional behavior. The reward they get is seeing their own abuse in print. Take that away and they may eventually learned to be civilized. Well, one can hope anyway.

posted by: Gil Guillory (reply)
post date: 06.28.05 (4:01 am)

Yeah, f---ing right! Mean people suck. Those people that want to destroy and not build -- they suck, too. Usually being the same people, they suck doubly hard.

Peace and love,

posted by: Stephan Kinsella (reply)
post date: 06.28.05 (2:25 pm)

So you remove "rude" or "offensive" comments, but you permit libelous attacks? Namely, completley unjustified, beyond the pale personal attacks on Tom Woods' character? And insults to and making fun of Mises Institute by calling it the Hoppe Institute, etc.? Ah. I see. Double standards.

posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 06.29.05 (10:07 am)

"Ah. I see. Double standards."

Like calling someone an idiot and then (one post later) bitching about ad hominem?

posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 06.29.05 (12:56 pm)

Your critique of the paleolibs echoes the neoconservatives' in that you employ a leftist-PC standard and the methodology of the Southern Poverty Law Center: it's also interesting that you seem to specialize in sexual innuendo. A favorite weapon of the people who are trying to convince us that George W. Bush is God's gift to mankind. Anonymity doesn't help: why would you be afraid to stand behind your own arguments, rather than whisper in the dark?

What gets the "mainstream" types like yourself so worked up is the paleos total opposition to the Warfare State -- again, a similarity with the neocons. So quit crying about the "abusive" comments: if the shoes fits ....

posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 07.01.05 (4:03 am)

Paleos are tough guys! Macho men!

posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 07.02.05 (1:24 pm)

More on paleocraziness at:
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/022289.php#comments Clement/Justin (wherever Justin is, Clement is also sure to be, even posting from the same IP) takes up much of the space.

posted by: rightwatch (reply)
post date: 02.24.07 (2:33 am)

The comment three up is just bizarre! We supposedly specialze in "sexual innuendo" when in reality anyone reading this sight would find very, very, very few references to anything sexual. Then they jump to a bizarre conclusion that this somehow associations with neocons (a group we consider the enemy of freedom). He accusses us of disliking the "paleos" (a term the Rockwellians use to describe themselves) because they are against the warfare state. Well this blog is not about that issue but for the record I am against interventionist foreign policy totally. But the logic in that post is amazing. It reminds me of the rantings of someone who wrote how Israeli spys were behind the 9/11 attacks or knew about them or, well, they were involved somehow. They were "art students". Same logic, same style of writing. Justin: Is that you?

Tracleer