Thursday, July 19, 2007

Hail Blogdonia, pt 2

Bill O'Reilly has attacked DailyKos,specifically the YearlyKos convention. That isn't surprising, but what interests me is how various comments on DailyKos are being quoted as "hate speech" and compared to nazis.

What is your definition of "hate speech"? I've seen various conversations regarding religion, politics, transgendered people, referred to as "hate speech"--and this confuses me. How can we discuss these things in depth, if any strong or especially controversial opinion is instantly labeled "hate speech"?

Is O'Reilly's constant anti-immigrant speechifying also "hate speech"? Why does he exempt himself? (He obviously feels he is "upholding the law" and that's the difference.)

Also, what about the commentariat? Is every blogger responsible for the comments on their blog? To what extent?

Where do you personally draw the line?

14 comments:

CRF said...

HA! ORiley = free speech for me but not for thee

hate speech = eye of the beholder

hey D, howya doing!

Anonymous said...

Hate Speech: I know it when I see it.

Veronica said...

I don't like O'Reilly. I don't like Kos.

Let 'em snipe. Then, when they're done, they can get together and talk about how much they think feminism sucks.

Daisy said...

Veronica, I keep hearing that DailyKos is sexist, but I think I have (mercifully!) missed most of his misogynist posts. Several feminists are speaking at YearlyKos, so maybe he has partly been rehabbed?

I mostly go there to check on how the Republican Crusade in Iraq is going. Damn, that shit depresses me.

Veronica said...

There was something called a "Pie Fight" a few years back, wherein Kos made himself rather clear about "the sanctimonious women's studies set." He's also said that the Democrats should go pro-life so as to win elections, instead of pandering to "special interest groups."

Daisy said...

He's also pretty slack on disability issues, but then, most leftists are.

Thanks for that phrase "the sanctimonious women's studies set"; due to your precision, I was able to google the whole thing!

bint alshamsa said...

Well, my policy is if some one tries to say something hateful, then the only way I'll let it stand on my blog is if am willing to take the time and point out exactly what's so hateful about it and why I don't support that. Otherwise, I'm not going to allow the comment to show up on my blog. I want my blog to remain a place where people of color, people with disabilities, feminists, and others feel comfortable visiting.

shadocat said...

I think when arguments are aimed at people, and are not just about differences in ideologies,You're headed down "Hate-Speech Road."

Daisy, I really am intersted in purchasing that herbal hair color...

Daisy said...

HEY BINT! so nice to see you here!

Shadocat, here you go, the brand is called Naturtint:

http://www.herbsgardenshealth.com/naturtint_hair_colours.htm

Also, Tints of Nature, a British-based company, and due to the tariffs, a bit more expensive:

http://www.beautynaturals.com/brandindex.asp?id=tn

bint alshamsa said...

Hey Daisy! Do you mind if I link you? I'm enjoying your blog. I saw your comments somewhere else, so I had to come and check out who it was making such good points!

Daisy said...

I would be honored!!!! Thank you!

I love your blog and your spiritual writing. I love people who openly struggle with faith issues and 1) admit they don't have all the answers, or even all the questions, but 2) want to maintain faith, even knowing they don't.

That is what I think spirituality is all about, the whole journey and the whole process--and you and I sound so similar that way. No surprise we would agree on much! :)

Kseniya said...

Hiya Daisy...

O'Reilly is a waste of oxygen, if you ask me.

There was also that brouhaha over Kos basically telling Kathy Sierra to suck it up when she shut down her blog for a while after receiving a series of threats against her person and her family.

He wasn't a total pig about it or anything, but it did convey the sense that she was being weak by retreating from threats that were very probably never going to be enacted up.

He might be right, but it's damn easy for him to say, eh? I guess the fact the he'd received some pretty nasty mail himself over the past few years led him to believe he could put himself in her shoes. I suspect that, on that one count, he was wrong. Calling him on it is appropriate.

Kseniya said...

(Whoopsie! Please make that: "never going to be enacted upon.")

Elaine Vigneault said...

In my eyes it's hate speech when it crosses the line from debate about a topic to debate about people. That is, when it's an ad hominem attack on the person, for whatever reason, then it's hate.

So, for example, if we're discussing immigration and someone says they want to put up a fence. I might be offended by the idea, but that's not hate speech. When someone says they want to put up a fence to keep the [insert derogatory term here] out, well that IS hate speech.