Is Chomsky still on DU's "approved" comentator list?

[Mika]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by LeftishBrit (a host of the General Discussion forum).

I would like to post a vid of Chomsky commenting on Ukraine - not sure if it'll be locked.

[Ed Suspicious]

1. He's on mine. Why wouldn't he be. He's brilliant.

[2banon]

109. Hear! Here!

[sibelian]

2. It depends on the content of his contribution.

Where his observations find the actions of Democrats morally questionable by virtue of their content or consequence, he will probably have various personality flaws or secondary agendas, it seems.

He's generally free to make similar observations regarding Republicans, as far as I can see.

It's not as if he makes much of a distinction between the two, as he's usually ignoring the party divide and talking about the themes upon which the political structures used by Dems and Repubs depend. Some posters here are happy for him to do this if it implies culpability for Republicans, but will not accept similar implications for Democrats.

[2banon]

110. Fact Based Observations.

Your response and Chomsky's geo-political analysis of international events, most especially root causes of conflicts.

[Orsino]

3. Well, I doubt your thread will be locked preemptively...

...so why not post the vid without click-bait teasers? Yolo.

[FBaggins]

4. Sure!

As long as you leave in the part where he agrees that Putin's actions in Ukraine are unjustified.

It would probably also be a good idea to point out that he's wrong that the antecedents of the crisis go back to the fall of the Berlin Wall... instead of much farther.

[bananas]

5. It's ridiculous, isn't it? nt

[L0oniX]

6. If he's not then DU is seriously fucked up.

[Mika]

7. I had a Chomsky vid locked by jury because it was on RT.

Ukraine was the topic. Was that it was on "Putin's" RT.

[KoKo]

10. I had a Video of John Pilger interview on worry about Cold War with Russia

locked by Jury. I've posted videos from Pilger before and never had a problem. The jury seemed to feel it wasn't acceptable.

[sabrina 1]

16. What??? John Pilger? Wow, who on the Left would even consider

hiding John Pilger, one of the most respected journalists known for his accuracy in reporting.

I find that to be shocking.

If these great journalists continue to be hidden on this forum, then, imo, there is definitely something very wrong going on here.

Parry, Pilger, Chomsky, these were a guaranteed hide on FR. But on DU??

[Ramses]

22. the truth is coming out and they are getting desperate

Anything, and i mean anything that questions US imperialism or the oligarchy will be shut down hard. They are relentless. Its very sad to see

[NuclearDem]

24. Nope, no hyperbole here.

That's exactly what's going on here.

[2banon]

111. Any critique of US imperialism is guaranteed to be rapidly thrown under the bus here.

Not always locked. but the USA! USA! USA! Mobsters are fairly quick to bum rush the OP with stunning rapidity and with pathetically ignorant reactions.

[Jackpine Radical]

39. Pilger's been under the bus for some time now.

He supported Assange and otherwise made a nuisance of himself among those who are--ahem--bogged down in convention.

I disremember what his most recent mortal sin was, but as I recall, it involved dragging him out for a public stoning before stuffing him back under the bus.

[sabrina 1]

44. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised anymore. Funny how 'popular' he was during the

Bush years.

The man is a great journalist and belongs among those under that bus, where it appears, every real journalist now resides.

[Jackpine Radical]

48. Journalists under the bus, and

whistleblower sources in jail.

The Empire marches on.

[G_j]

106. always the messengers

like clockwork

[L0oniX]

43. DU's blinders on makes for good lock step.

Rule 1: When you disagree ...attack the messenger first.

[2banon]

145. McCarthy Cloned Boot Licker Brigade...

I know, I know, name calling is soooo juvenile, but all's fair in love and war, eh?

[sibelian]

31. Fucking. Arseholes.

"meh meh meh meh meh meh meh MEEEEEEEEEEEH - Putin"

[Warpy]

78. That's utterly insane

While I RT as trustworthy as far as I can toss Putin by his left pinkie, their stories aren't all bad. It's certainly not on the low level of, say, Prison Planet or some of the sites that are banned here. I think most DUers are smart enough to take propaganda with a grain of salt; after all, we're here instead of swallowing all the propaganda we've been fed in this country for the last 40 years.

We must have a merry band composed of old Cold Warriors plus Israel Firsters whose families fled the USSR who want to censor anything from Russia. That is a mistake. Things they report should be questioned and discussed, not censored right out of the gate just because it's a Russian news service started by an old KGB propagandist. Sometimes they even get it right on RT. When they get it wrong, it's generally a whopper and laughable.

This used to be a pretty fair and free site. There are too many people with axes to grind against people and groups they don't like to make it so now.

Whether or not Chomsky is palatable seems to rely on which news service has posted a video of his words. This is clearly wrong.

[KingCharlemagne]

100. The inveterate Russophobe (and descendant from Polish nobility) Zbigniew

Brzezinski was, after all, Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser and still serves as one of President Obama's foreign policy eminence grises. Old habits, shall we say, die hard.

When we must rely on that old war pig and realpolitiker Kissinger giving an interview to Der Spiegel to put the brakes on the mad rush to war, you know we're not in Kansas anymore. Kissinger's interview was truly a WTF? moment.

[2banon]

114. I Missed that one! would you happen to have the link handy?

When it comes to that Evil Bastard Kissinger, I rarely give him any of my precious time to hear what he has to say about anything, even the time day. Brzezinski is a piece of work himself.

[KingCharlemagne]

127. Although I can read German (with considerable effort), I read this interview in the English-language

edition ("International&quot of Der Spiegel. There probably is a version of same in German, I'm guessing. But I'm including the link to the English language version here. It was interesting, to say the least, after listening to all the foaming at the mouth from the Russophobes and NeoCons which preceded it. After Kissinger's interview, I noticed that most of the Russophobic acolytes STFU, also worthy of note. I won't go so far as to say they take their marching orders from Herr Strangelove, but the silence apres was, shall we say, deafening:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-henry-kissinger-on-state-of-global-politics-a-1002073.html

[2banon]

139. thanks for the link, interesting interview but his ego is beyond the pale

Obviously his interest that his analysis and point of view on current geo-political affairs remain relevant to the pundit class, after all he's frequently invited on the teevee (all anyone of these turds have to do is spin out another book to hawk) like Charlie kiss ass Rose et al.

But true to form, he could not bring himself to even slightly suggest or hint that perhaps, just perhaps NATO's presence on Russian borders wasn't such a good idea, in light of HISTORY.

No, Kissinger will never concede that point being the ruthless war hawk - criminal he is. Despite the hints of pragmatism here and there, he's still an evil bastard I don't give a damn how "affable" he comes across to those who race to genuflect in his presence.

[KingCharlemagne]

141. I only wish that discussions of Ukraine and what is happening there

could begin from this excerpt of Kissinger's remarks:

We have to remember that Russia is an important part of the international system, and therefore useful in solving all sorts of other crises, for example in the agreement on nuclear proliferation with Iran or over Syria. This has to have preference over a tactical escalation in a specific case. On the one hand it is important that Ukraine remain an independent state, and it should have the right to economic and commercial associations of its choice. But I don't think it's a law of nature that every state must have the right to be an ally in the frame work of NATO. You and I know that NATO will never vote unanimously for the entry of Ukraine. (Emphasis added)

In this one brief passage, Kissinger exposes and deconstructs the Russophobes' agenda, thereby nullifying their entire raison d'etre. While he has much to answer for before the bar of history, here at least Kissinger speaks like the sole adult in the room. That it fell to him of all people to re-assert the primacy of the post-Westphalian system is irony taken to an art form (IMHO

[2banon]

144. Somehow I missed his quote wrt to NATO, Very Revealing Indeed!

Completely agree with You,. THIS is a rather significant point, coming from Kissinger is astonishing.

But I don't think it's a law of nature that every state must have the right to be an ally in the frame work of NATO.

and yes, that entire passage, makes a striking point which has been repeatedly ignored here by the McCarthy Cloned Boot Licker Brigade.

Thanks for highlighting that quote and bringing it to my attention. Also interesting that it was an interview with Der Speigle (sp check) never to see the light of day here, in the U.S. I suppose. (?)

[2banon]

112. Spot on Warpy..

What you said..

[MrMickeysMom]

138. I agree, Warpy

And, rather than a knee jerk alert to airing whatever may be a good show/interview, because it's "Russia Today" network is quite narrow. Reminds me of that pod people movie with Donald Sutherland pointing and screaming!

[KoKo]

8. It seems to be up to the Jury to Decide on what is approved...

There was a poster who posted this on DU (who is now on a "TimeOut&quot and yet their post was not locked (I don't know if it was even alerted on) which would seem to say they felt there was a list of what is approved and not approved on DU these days. They didn't get their "Time Out" for this post but it's kind of strange if there are people here on DU who disapprove of these familiar Favorites of most of DU in the past.

This was their post that I bookmarked because I found it shocking and was going to ask Skinner about it... Since they are on a "Time Out" I haven't bothered, but if there are others who agree then it is hard to know how a jury would vote if we post anything by these former DU Traditional sources.

This was their post on a Thread:
-------------

The golden rolodex of the Putin explainers (Update2)

Last edited Fri Jan 23, 2015, 03:49 PM - Edit history (4)
Ever notice that the Putin apologists repeat the same few sources over and over again?

John Pilger http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017234336

Stephen Cohen http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251357086#post1
see also https://disunitedstates.org/?p=6170

Robert Parry Oh yes (Haters hate Putin because he's been too peaceful)

Lawrence Wilkerson: Good whistleblower gone bad--now he's a professional gadfly/conspiracy theorist who goes on the Kremlin media to self-promote his very wrong predictions about the always-evil US.

I hate to add:
Seymour Hersh (great work during the Vietnam War but now he's lost it, having devolved into "the US must be wrong in every conflict" territory)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=748466

Thom Hartmann--I agree with Hartmann's politics 99% of the time, but having his show on RT has really made him knuckle under to the guy paying his rent.

And these:
Russia Today AKA Putin TV
Counterpunch: they've really lost it
PFIP
Consortium News http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=854333
Common Dreams

------------------
Update 1:
Glenn Greenwald: http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/u-s-critic-blind-to-putin-media-control-cathy-young-1.7346637

Paul Craig Roberts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025726000

Someone possibly named Michael Collins: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1403/S00159/the-childrens-crusade-obama-and-merkel-go-after-russia.htm
---------------------
Update 2:
There's definitely something fishy about "The Real News Network"

[Maedhros]

29. Wow. That post is frightening in its slack-jawed, mewling acquiesence to authority.

Hopefully that "timeout" will be permanent.

[sabrina 1]

54. Interesting list there. I noticed that some of the would-be

'censors' of our reading material here on DU, had no problem with the 'former' right wing and hate site, Little Green Footballs'. That site has been cited for hate-mongering, it's vicious rhetoric against Muslims drawing attention even by more mainstream media.

Little Green Footballs was part of the Right Wing Noise Machine that was ready and waiting for Dan Rather after his report on Bush's Awol Status was aired.

Amazing what gets by on this site these days.

I like to observe these hypocrisies, it tells me whose opinions I should respect, or not.

[KoKo]

57. "LGF" used to single out DU'ers and make fun of them back in the early 2000's

They had some awful and hurtful posts about those of us here on DU. I wouldn't have known about it except someone PM'd me that I and several other DU'ers were being targeted. I checked it out that once to see what they said and never went back. The site was considered comparable to "Free Republic" here on DU by Admins and posts from there were never allowed.

So, I was very surprised to snips and links posted here recently referencing "Little Green Footballs" as a site to refute some of the more liberal posters on threads here. I thought, WTF? I can't imagine that place has been taken over by Democrats....so it's puzzling.

[sabrina 1]

58. Yes, you are correct. Little Green Footballs was one of the more hateful sites

against Liberals, definitely on a par with FR.

So to see the same people who constantly attack 'sources' applauding that hateful site was simply stunning to me, though in many ways a confirmation of what many DUers have thought for a long time now.

Greenwald was the topic of the Little Green Footballs article.

No surprise to him or any of us who know how detested Greenwald has always been by the Far Right.

The anti-Muslim LGB site absolutely would be on the list of Greenwald Haters.

Greenwald can be as proud of who his enemies are, as he most likely is, of who his friends are.

[KingCharlemagne]

130. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, as was said by a very

wise Frenchman (La Rochefoucauld) many years ago

[elias49]

11. I would hope he's still approved of...

jeez! Put it up on GD. It might not make LateBreaking, but if Chomsky gets locked on GD something is seriously amiss.

Let me put that another way: That would be f***** up!

[Rex]

12. He better be, otherwise who is next? Jospeh Campbell?

Paul Krugman? Chomsky is an epic writer. Might as well ban Naomi Klein or Amy Goodman.

Any of those names get locked on DU, it is game over for this place.

[elias49]

13. Yup. nt

[sabrina 1]

14. I agree, 'any of those names get locked on DU, it is game over for this place'

Definitely game over.

[closeupready]

30. Yes, yes, a thousand times, YES.

[Jackpine Radical]

49. For some years now I sorta been waiting for Bill Moyers to hit the shit list.

[neverforget]

80. Jeremy Scahill is on the list too.

It seems anyone who has the temerity to question current authority must be attacked and vilified.

[NuclearDem]

15. Shocking, some DUers take exception to videos consisting of apologist nonsense

for the fascist, homophobic, imperialist regime in Moscow.

[sabrina 1]

17. Chomsky is an 'apologist' for fascism and homophobia in your view?

Thanks, I like to know where people are coming from on this forum lately.

[NuclearDem]

19. I said no such thing.

Notice how I said videos containing apologist nonsense, not apologists.

It's alright, I know reading comprehension is hard when you've got an axe to grind.

[sabrina 1]

27. Comprehension isn't hard at all. And I have some axes to grind

and always have.

They are mostly related to the Right and their hatred for the Left, and I've been grinding them for as long as I can remember.

Even if that hatred appears to be coming from within our party.

I understand it, the Left is the only faction in this country that is willing to tell the truth despite the massive efforts, with help from the Corporate Media, to hide it.

Chomsky is an American treasure and the day DU has a problem with him will be the day the site itself loses its own credibility as a left wing site.

I doubt that will happen, however.

[NuclearDem]

35. And off into tangentland again. I don't know why I even bother.

[Maedhros]

32. Yet this post is about a video interview with Chomsky and how it was hidden.

Last edited Fri Feb 13, 2015, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

You're justifying the hide by claiming the video was "apologist nonsense."

FWIW, your opinion (or that of those who hid this video) of what is "nonsense" is hardly the last word on the subject. Better to view the video and have a discussion over its content than to hide it. If it is indeed "nonsense," then DU will figure that out.

[NuclearDem]

34. I had no idea about the video, and have never seen it.

My point was that videos should be judged on their content, and how a single video being hidden doesn't mean Chomsky/whoever is automatically "under the bus" here.

[Maedhros]

47. Your response to the OP was:

Shocking, some DUers take exception to videos consisting of apologist nonsense for the fascist, homophobic, imperialist regime in Moscow.

Yet you admit that you didn't view the video? How can you make judgements on its content (i.e. it's "apologist nonsense&quot when you haven't seen it? How can you then argue IN FAVOR of judging the content of a video when you just did the opposite?

Essentially, you are engaging in straight-up propaganda - mocking a video you haven't seen because you think it might include content that you don't want to be seen.

[NuclearDem]

59. I wasn't referring to that video in particular.

Maybe my post wasn't clear enough. I was referring to any video or post that contains apologist nonsense, not specifically the one in question, because I don't know what exactly is being said in it.

[Maedhros]

63. Then I'm left wondering why you made your post in reference to the OP.

Seems irrelevant to the issue.

[NuclearDem]

68. Again, my fault.

It was also addressing the other sources that had been brought up prior to my post, not just the OP in particular.

[2banon]

115. "Apologists Nonsense" - quintessential Cold War Propaganda meme.

Intellectual honesty demands forgoing propaganda gimmicks and devices.

Anyone reading your posts on the subject of East West affairs, will observe that this meme seems to be favorite of yours.

But seriously, haven't you noticed (yet) that using that meme undermines your credibility?

Or is it simply your intention to wag that tail in an attempt to derail potentially informative discussions?

[KingCharlemagne]

131. Your post is one of the best, most succinct takedowns I've witnessed on this site. Serious

hat tip!

[Maedhros]

133. Well, I guess I've tried so many that didn't work

I was bound to eventually find an effective one.

Thanks!

[treestar]

99. Nothing in the OP about the hide

No jury results.

So if we didn't see that, we don't know why there was a hide.

[Electric Monk]

55. That was clearly your implication, otherwise why post what you did? nt

[NuclearDem]

60. No, it wasn't.

[Ramses]

18. if he say anything negative about the US

He probably would be. Pretty soon the only news sources allowed here will be CIA news pieces and foxnews. Its sad really to see how far to the right media in general has gone.

[TheKentuckian]

20. You don't need permission from the Circle D Inquisition Squad to post a damn thing

They can kick rocks while they sit and spin in innermost circle of Hell with their nonsense.

[RedCappedBandit]

21. Plenty of DUers hate Chomsky

I appreciate their honestly as it is telling.

[rhett o rick]

64. Funny how when you drill down all that they hate you end up with the Corp-Media and

Gen Clapper.

[dissentient]

23. Well, some seem to only want to hear "feel good" propaganda

American propaganda, that is.

It seems to upset them when America's hypocrisy is exposed.

[90-percent]

25. My hard learned lesson about the "DU approved" list

If you want to share some Chris Hedges or Noam or Parry or Thom or Scahill or Palast or Maher or Cenk or Fugelsang or Donahue or any other progressive liberal media figures, make darn sure the parent website of your link is NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, associated with a hate sight, a CT sight, a conservative mis-info site, an astroturf Koch created propaganda site or some other site that's is antithetical to the core principals of DU.

And that can split some hairs, for example - thom is on RT, as well s a lot of radio stations, his website, podcast and sirius satellite. If you link to the RT version, you can be found guilty by DU jury because RT is a propaganda tool of Putin who is a totalitarian homophobes and a personalty that shouldn't be allowed to play with sharp objects, let alone an arsenal of thousands of nuclear bombs. Who is flirting wiht triggering WW3 because he has the though processes of a spoiled child. But if you post the exact same Thom content on a more "DU pure" site, like Thom's website, the chances of being silenced by a jury is much less.

The second thing I see going on, and it's based mostly on instinct and intuition and fact not so much, is that I suspect there are "conservative trolls", perhaps some paid agents of evil Dick Armey himself, that deliberately post info about what an irresponsible non-journalistic ill informed creep like Noam or Hedges is, which to me leads me to doubt the veracity of what my respected liberal journalists are all about. The whole vast liberal media conspiracy can get it wrong now and then, but I don't think any of these journalists are carrying out a secret propaganda mind control effort to subvert the core values of DU members!

And it would be nice if there was an actual DU approved list of journalists/commentators that DU assigns a high measure of credibility and accuracy to. We are indeed in the age where "Everybody is entitled to their own facts", because we a drowning in "agenda driven MSM corporate propaganda".

One journalist in particular where the DU opinion is widely varied is Glenn Greenwald - is his one of us or a paid shill for some secret anti-democracy and anti-American interests? He does seem to be about 55-45% in terms of getting it right.

-90% Jimmy

[QC]

26. The Sensible Pragmatics have never cared for him much,

but I'm always glad to hear from him.

Of course, with the jury system, anything one says or does is a crapshoot, so your concern is justified.

[NCTraveler]

28. A quick search.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026132145

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017238795

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017211400

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025954411

[leveymg]

33. We need a two-prong test for locking threads: 1) unacceptable media; AND 2) unacceptable message.

If the message is at all acceptable, then it shouldn't get locked - regardless of where it's posted.

Isn't it really about the message, anyway?

[bobthedrummer]

107. There are messages and various everchanging "lists" of messengers here that's for sure levymg

Chomsky, the Parry family, the Parenti family, The Center for Media and Democracy, dissidents from Chelsea Manning to Edward Snowden to Fred Hampton to Naomi Klein to Dennis Kucinich to Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity...et tu DU-lol.

[moniss]

36. No Rhyme No Reason

Heck I got thrown into TO just for posting that Poland would react very strongly against Putin because of their history with Russia.

[Marr]

37. So long as he's discussing the Bush years, he's approved.

If he's talking about anything that's happened since Obama took office, prepare for a swarm of BOG-types slinging 'ivory tower' insults.

[bigwillq]

40. He's on mine.

Post away.

[countryjake]

41. There's no guarantee anymore, Mika. It's sad, actually.

What Skinner has always said about "taking chances" has practically become a joke some days, when it comes to opening discussion on certain topics around here. Chomsky, even Amy Goodman interviews have been questioned as "inappropriate" and most times, there's no solid reasoning in the explanations for such objections. No discussion, at all.

On the other hand, accepting propaganda from the MSM has become standard practice, without question, and those days of picking apart the "official" word on a subject seem to have fallen by the wayside.

It's not only sad, it's frightening, too.

[KG]

42. he doesn't play kissy face with the prez or dems in general. or israel. or 'the west'.

or whatever makes the fanboi's whine.

[Karmadillo]

45. Who would have guessed back in 2001 that a poster as respected as Mika

would one day have to ask a question like this about Chomsky, of all people, and the best we could do is reply that one takes one's chances and hopes for a favorable jury? Surreal.

[countryjake]

46. +100,000,000

Nutshell.

[Mika]

52. Thanks. I've been here since day 2.

Gone thru lots of changes here. Most are great, some ... not so much.

[malaise]

62. Great spot

Unfuggingbelievable!!

[treestar]

71. Talk about discussing people not ideas

This thread is all about people, sources, why not post the damn video so we can discuss it?

[joshcryer]

85. Yep, just read the whole thread.

Not a link to squat.

[treestar]

101. I particularly dislike too

the idea that any particular poster is more valuable than another. Like that poster would be immune from juries. Seems anti-progressive to me.

Somebody linked Chomsky and had a post hidden, it seems. The OP could have at least put the jury results or asked for them if they were the poster who was hidden. So we could at least see if Chomsky was the reason. But whining about jury results is supposed to be Meta and disallowed.

[Rex]

129. Yes and it seems that notice has a few angry.

As expected.

[Bobbie Jo]

120. "devolved"

Since 2013, even.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. Is there only the acceptable party line on DU as far as Ukraine goes?

Freedom for supporters of the government only, for members of one party only, no matter how big its membership may be is, no freedom at all. Freedom is always freedom for the man who thinks differently.

Rosa Luxemburg

[KoKo]

67. That's the worry ...there's no declared policy but DU'ers getting posts locked

Last edited Fri Feb 13, 2015, 10:43 PM - Edit history (3)

because one our "used to be approved sources" is now considered RW Propaganda ....is worrisome. How do those of us who've been here on DU for years navigate the change in emphasis of DU as an alternative view to Faux News/RW Propaganda and Free Republic and the Rest of online Hate Sites who were never allowed here....yet now our greatist Democratic/Progressive Voices are considered "Propaganda" because they can no longer get "airtime" on USA Media and they go to Alternative Sites to get heard?

It goes to issues of Freedom of Press, Being able to have Open Access in America to "Views and Opinions" that might be controversial but we Pride Ourselves on allowing ALL of our Population to Read and View?

Look....I was a kid during McCarthy Era/Hoover/Redbaiting here in the USA where Voices were Silenced for their right to Freedom of Expression in Books, Media and Hollywood Film Industry. I was still old enough to see how horrible that time was and that is WHY I AM a DEMOCRAT.

So, this is Serious Stuff if we are on a Democratic site that now has posters attacking Democrats with Joe McCarthy/Nixon/House "UnAmerican Activities Group" tactics.

I think there are other DU'ers, who've been here for years, are getting concerned about what we see happening on the web with the effort to Silence Dissent against efforts we feel are "New Cold War....War Everywhere" as part of our Foreign Policy (lost classmates in Vietnam) and the ever increasing CONTROL of MSM invading every area of our life along with the Control of our Internet by those who want to Dragnet all areas of our communication and lives into Data Bases to use to silence us or make us afraid of Participation in Activities that Protect our Civil Rights and our Right to Protest against Foreign Wars which are draining our Economy and threatening our freedom of expression and right to a decent lifestyle.

If we Democrats start to disallow the voices of Fellow Democrats/Leftists in our Media and those with Long Track Record of being for Democratic Values then WHO ARE WE....and WHAT DO WE STAND FOR?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. I remember those times too and am similarly appalled when censorship is applied here.

Not to mention the applauding of new wars, justification for war crimes and torture, rationalization of government spying on citizens and the curbing of civil liberties, and the acceptance of things like Homeland Security and the Patriot Act by "liberals".

But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing. Thomas Paine

[Pooka Fey]

91. Agreed, this is serious stuff

If we Democrats start to disallow the voices of Fellow Democrats/Leftists in our Media and those with Long Track Record of being for Democratic Values then WHO ARE WE....and WHAT DO WE STAND FOR?

Disallowing discussion is called Authoritarianism and it comes in 2 flavors, Right-Wing and Left-Wing. Our own home-grown DU variety is LW authoritarianism. Being a militant critical thinker myself, I can only reject both varieties.

Bob Altemeyer from the University of Manitoba wrote a very hard-hitting book on the subject, which is considered to be THE reference on the subject. It's a must read for those who understand why Authoritarianism is toxic, and the author considers the book so important that it is available for FREE.

Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Altemeyer

Link to website to obtain a free copy of "Authorians" by Bob Altemeyer http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Cheers!

[2banon]

118. Spot On Koko! Spot freaking On!

You know i think this post should be an Op at some point..

[KingCharlemagne]

134. Agree 1000%. - nt

[2banon]

137. Glad to hear it.. :)

[treestar]

102. Gimme a break

There are plenty of threads on Ukraine with a lot of disagreement. Another liberal posts many threads with links to RT and demands that no one disagree with AL's position on the subject. I've seen several that were never hidden. In spite of AL's demands, others argue against the source and debate whatever the latest outrageous claim is.

Some people claim they are being oppressed and "silenced" when all that is happening is pushback.

[2banon]

116. As far as Ukraine goes? Only if it's USA! USA! USA! (apparently)

[Maedhros]

53. It would seem to me that there is a larger contingent on DU that has a specific agenda:

to shut down discussion of issues deemed critical of the National Security State and it's President.

How else to explain the hordes that descend, like rabid methed-out howler monkeys, on any post that criticizes blanket surveillance, drone murder, the TPP, whistle blower prosecutions, criminalization of journalism or wars of choice? The vitriol displayed in their posts attacking Manning, Snowden, Greenwald, Chomsky, Parry, Hersch, et al. is far out of proportion to expected objections from anyone nominally on the left side of the political spectrum...

[reddread]

56. seems like a smaller contingent

but the meth really seems to help

[NuclearDem]

61. Alright, this is the second fucking time.

First, you call certain DUers members of "swastikaville", now they're meth heads.

What the hell is your issue?

[reddread]

74. i never called any Democrats those things

[Ramses]

82. Glad that got hid. Ugly comments on many similar threads from that poster

Violent vulgarity and arrogance is also part of many posts here that goes after anybody on the left. I have thick skin and I dont let people like that bother me. I assure you in real life these types wouldn't say anything as nasty and crude in person.

[ND-Dem]

87. +100

[Maedhros]

66. To them, "liberal" means as little as it does to Republicans.

It's an empty label that serves only to denote which side of the D:R line one is on. To that end, they do not see suppression of discussion as antithetical to "liberal" ideas - they see themselves as partisan warriors for the cause, defending against apostates and infidels.

[BrotherIvan]

121. I'm going to post this here as the reason why rhett of rick's comment was hidden

And it's disgusting. Can't argue the point, so alert stalk to try to get rid of the voice.


They are busy little bees, alerting, locking, hiding, and banning. Funny that they think of
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6222412

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

School yard nit picking and insults.
Admin: so this guy is a Host, and running around hurling insults and accusations at DU'ers. Completely inappropriate and always the same nasty behavior from this one. He has no business serving as a host if he's going to do this shit, and there's no indication that he's going to stop anytime soon.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Feb 14, 2015, 12:34 PM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This spurious hide had better go 7-0 to LEAVE IT. And the BOGer who alerted on it should be sent to the admins. This is the very definition of alert stalking. --Brother Ivan
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: rude and untrue. You are not the arbiter of what can or can not be said or done on Democratic underground
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: What an ugly and juvenile subthread this is. I would like to see most of it hidden. Why don't you all act like actual grownups and have a civil conversation…. or better yet, just put each other on ignore.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Administration's football, their rules. Simple, no?
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[2banon]

122. absolutely bizarre. thanks for posting the details on that spurious alert.

the alerter should be alerted on! and all those that agreed to hide it!

[BrotherIvan]

126. The alert was all about not liking the poster, not about the post itself. So OBVIOUS

And those are precisely the people whom I see whine the most about being called names such as "authoritarian." They must not be able to see what they themselves write and the insults and snark are always more vicious from their corner. Any discussion that doesn't send out the bat alert is ALWAYS more civil on this forum. They are doing their best to chase anyone away who is not a 100% subservient cheeleader.

[Maedhros]

123. When your arguments lack merit, suppress your opponent's voice. [n/t]

[ND-Dem]

88. +100

[SixString]

69. +1

[treestar]

72. How you can honestly claim any discussion is "shut down"

is beyond all rational understanding and as unhinged as Chomsky is becoming over time.

Geez, how many OPS have Eddie supporters posted? Nobody stops them from saying anything.

Is total lockstep agreement expected? And how is that good? Aren't the same people against that?

[rhett o rick]

79. This is pure projection. Discussion is shut down with the many, many alerts, locks, and hides that

the none-liberals among us inundate us with. So what if Chomsky is becoming "unhinged" is that reason to alert, lock and hide?

Those that are obsessed with alerting, locking, hiding, banning, and the grave dancing are the ones that are trying very hard to mold DU into their narrow world view. Political liberals are willing to allow discussions, even by those that some believe are "unhinged". Those that don't like those discussions, should avoid them in lieu of alerting, locking and hiding. Seems that some here think they should decide what the rest of us see and discuss, because "total lockstep" is expected.

Not allowing any criticism of the President is requiring "lockstep agreement".

[Bobbie Jo]

98. Good Lord

oh noooooo

It's the infamous "group," again!

Back at it I see....

[bettyellen]

124. yep, the host proudly sitting in judgement of DUers instead of the content of the posts......

demanding that people who want DU's standards enforced be ignored. Because "freedom of speech".
Save it for your street corner, this is not 4Chan or LU.

[zappaman]

132. Oops...

Looks like they lost that privilege.
Oh well.

[bettyellen]

136. well, they were instrumental in forming our "group", LOL....

:rimshot:

[treestar]

103. Geez you'd think the board was full of hides and locks

Those are a minority of posts.

They are also decided by jury decision, and each post will have 7 random jurors. There is no way for the "non-liberals" to control that system.

Some discussion could be shut down as DU is not for right wingers or non-Democrats. Yet the Democrats get plenty of pushback on DU. Gimme a break. Some is not shut down but goes to the CS group because it is out there in lala land, but it is still allowed.

If Chomsky said something really unhinged, it can end up in CS or hidden by 7 jurors like anything else.

[bettyellen]

135. I haven't seen a host-locked thread that wasn't about guns in years, LOL!

Guns, or a jury shut down the OP. That is pretty much it. The hosts group was pretty much paralyzed by fear of few bullies who wanted to leave everything. They would quote Skinner saying "Leave everything" and omit the not really part. Yeah, that was fun.

[Pooka Fey]

93. +1

[treestar]

70. No one is immune from critiques on that subject

You simply post it and then bravely bear the attacks on your source.

There is a list of places not to link to at all, but he's not on it.

[Fumesucker]

73. Chomsky isn't a place or a site

The complaint is that voices like Chomsky are more and more having to be found on sites that are now deemed verboten on DU because they cannot get media time on corporate US media.

You know, corporate as in owned by six companies.

[treestar]

104. The OP doesn't make that complaint

Or tell us what site has been deemed verboten. But if Chomsky can only get airplay on crazy sites, what does that tell you? CS is there too for people who want to discuss that stuff.

If it was a jury hide rather than a moderator shut off for links to a certain site, then that's too bad, I guess. Skinner is committed to the jury system.

What site did they want to link to? And was it a jury hide or hidden because of a proscribed site? This site is not total free speech as right wingers are excluded.

[Fumesucker]

113. Chomsky is a conspiracy theorist now?

And I've seen Andrew Sullivan as well as David Brooks quoted approvingly here on DU, those are just two right wingers I can remember.

[treestar]

119. Depends on the issue

I don't see the need to fixate on people. If they are nuts about one issue or say something looney, it's for CS. If they say something sensible, it can be in GD. Or so the jurors will decide.

[Autumn]

76. Do you have that list? n/t

[treestar]

105. No, but it must be here somewhere

unless it has been overridden by the jury system. Stormfront, for instance, sites you would never expect to see among decent people, let alone liberals. It wasn't that long.

[JEB]

84. Chomsky is Chomsky where ever the fuck he is published and

always worth thoughtful consideration. He should be a regular on nightly news but alas.

[joshcryer]

86. Probably a crap alert.

They can be quite hit and miss.

[OverseaVisitor]

89. It lessen us when we are prevented from using our own intellectual capacity to judge.

The danger here lies the promoting of a specific view regardless of the truth.
It lessen a great site like DU.

The question is more of are user of DU of such low intellectual capacity that we can be influence by lies.
From my personal experience, in the past DU will always debunk and articles that is not the truth.

That was the beauty of DU in the past. The willingness to find out what is true or not.

I was here during the time of Al Gore/Bush election. I came to know of the site through "We Are Sorry World". It was just a gut feel that tells me something is wrong. From that time till now. we lost many great debunker of lies.

Oversea Visitor say hello to many old friends here.
Yes OV is back but lurking mostly now. Just popping out because of Ukraine.

Yes, it is that dangerous a situation. This is not Iraq. This is right on the doorstep of Russia.
And I thank God that Obama is the President at this moment.
President Obama inherited a situation that is totally messed up.
1) A war based on lies... Iraq
2) A financial crisis that nearly collapse US (Sept 2008)
3) A very destructive propaganda campaign based on hatred of a large segment of the world population. Now the chickens has really come home to roost.
4) A very ugly political environment build on fanning hatred of specifics belief rather than Merit of the candidate.

That is just my opinion. Look around old timer and tell me there is now less hatred in US or does it seems like a cuckoo nest.
The Yes We Can is not a Yes He can. And if you expect that he can push that big boulder up the mountain himself alone. CORE VALUES CORE VALUES of the great US citizen. What does it means.

OV feels tired. We the people are losing big time. We the people are having (Sovereign) debt force on us by corrupted leaders and politicians for their financial gains without us having a say but have to pay for it. OV out.

[DeSwiss]

90. The day Chomsky becomes.....

...persona non grata at DU, so am I.

[Ichingcarpenter]

94. .ditto n/t

[Pooka Fey]

95. +1

[Caretha]

96. I intend to stick around

I see it as, I was here firstest sorta thing. I'll remain, and just be a 'fly in the ointment'.

I never was a prolific poster, but loved reading well thought out & insightful posts by "long gone informed DU members". Now I have to scour the posts for wee bits of real information.

[Pooka Fey]

92. You might be interested in reading Bob Altemeyer's book, available for FREE

Which I commented on upthread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6223883

Bob Altemeyer, from the University of Manitoba, devoted his life's work to studying this phenomenon in societies, Authoritarianism, of exactly why and how we come to the point of needing to ask the question you asked in the OP. The first thing Hitler did, before all the awful things he did later, was silence Germany's intellectuals and free thinkers.

Food for thought.

Links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Altemeyer

Link to University of Manitoba website for FREE copy of book, "The Authoritarians" by Bob Altemeyer : http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Cheers and thanks for your OP

[LWolf]

97. He's on my "approved" list,

whether DU approves or not.

Post the video.

[Marrah_G]

108. He is on mine

[HappyMe]

117. Good grief!

After all this drama, are you going to post it or not...

[MannyGoldstein]

125. Next time you post a Liberal's POV on RT

Pehaps add this link so the jury sees that more than 90% think it's OK:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026224391

[NuttyFluffers]

128. DU begins the process of disappearing up its own ass.

it is reversible, but it requires ignoring very loud, squeaky wheels. let's watch over time who the site owners serve...

[McCamy Taylor]

140. There is a DU "approved" list? Did I miss something?

Or, is this a joke?

[LeftishBrit]

146. Hosts have decided to lock this. Not due to anything against Chomsky, but because it's turning into

'whining about DU', which is against DU rules for GD. Please feel free to re-post in the ATA forum.