To help the admins and mods, list sources that are too crazy or racist

[geek tragedy]

to be allowed at DU.

If there is disagreement, people nominating the source as unacceptable should put up or shut up--show examples of actual craziness ("aliens caused the tsunamis") or racism/bigotry ("The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a truthful document").

I'll start off with a conservative list:

The American Free Press
tbrnews.org
thetruthseeker.co.uk
John Kaminski
Joe Vialls
Rense.com
fpp.co.uk
freearabvoice.org
whatreallyhappened.com
amnotes.net
aztlan.net
serendipity.li

Note: This thread is not sanctioned, requested, or endorsed by DU admins or moderators. It's entirely my idea.

I also don't want to turn this into a flame war. Please provide sources that are so over the line that they lack any credibility whatsoever.

[iconoclastic cat]

1. fromthewilderness.com alternates between prescient and nuts.

[Hissyspit]

4. That's part of the problem w/ blanket denunciation. n/t

[geek tragedy]

14. For sites that are just plain nutty, I agree. There's the occasional

diamond in the rough.

However, DU takes a moral stand against linking to racist and fascist sites.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

89. Why don't you allow DU to make those decisions?

[geek tragedy]

92. This is to provide them a list of recommendations. They of course

don't have to find any sites listed in this thread as unacceptable (though they have already in many of the cases).

[Hissyspit]

I don't know that I know of any. I'm usually pretty good about...

avoiding them. Good idea for everyone's use, though, to discuss which sources are not credible (not just the mods and admin).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. The American Standard

Commentary
The Washington Times
Christian Economics

All right-wing outlets that publish a lot of pseudo-scholarship

[bloom]

20. Even then - it can be interesting

to see what they are saying sometimes - with the understanding that they are nuts.

Not that I would want a board full of it. But I don't think it makes sense to say that there can never be any snips or anything discussed from any of those sites.

[CatholicEdHead]

3. Newsmax? World Nut Daily?

[geek tragedy]

7. Do people actually treat those sites as real news sources here?

Yikes.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

123. I've seen them used once or twice

Usually by a well intending person that had no knowledge of how off the wall they were. The mods take care of those post pretty fast, however.

[geek tragedy]

134. Check out these numbers:

Search hits for "tbrnews" in the following forums:

In LBN: 68
Editorial: 11
GD: 172
GD Politics: 51

Obviously, many, many posters didn't get the memo.

P.S. It's also worth noting that Israel/Palestine and 911, which have much stricter rules on posting, have zero hits between them for tbrnews.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

139. Wow!

I had no idea. We need to resend that memo!

[snot]

5. I assume the results will be compiled in . . .

more recommended - less recommended format (e.g., 5 stars = highly reliable; 0 stars = highly UNreliable, all based on community input), or something along those lines?

That would, I think, be useful (as distinguished from censorship).

[geek tragedy]

6. Racist sites aren't allowed here, period. For instance, linking

to an article published by the Ku Klux Klan would not be allowable.

Nor should it.

[niceypoo]

8. www.freerepublic.com

www.kkk.com
etc
etc
etc...

[geek tragedy]

9. The Free Republic is a source of entertainment, not news.

;)

[starroute]

10. You're really serious about this????

Now I've seen everything.

:eyes:

[geek tragedy]

11. The sites I listed are all unacceptable sources in any decent conversation

Threads based on material from most of them are subject to automatic locking and/or deletion.

If you think Nazis and Klan members should be allowed as news sources here, please explain why.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

21. Racist and fascist sites have absolutely no business being treated

as credible sources at a progressive website.

None. Zero. Zilch.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

31. Racist sites are already forbidden at DU. However, that hasn't

stopped DU'ers who have failed to do their homework from posting articles from cesspools like tbrnews.org and the American Free Press with appalling regularity.

Do a search on my list if you don't believe me.

[madeline_con]

58. ".... progressive minister of propaganda..."

"the real "geek tragedy" "

DU rocks! ;)

[geek tragedy]

61. Why are people so opposed to the DU rule banning racist websites?

It's a perfectly fair and good rule.

If you can't spread Republican propaganda, you certainly shouldn't be able to spread Klan or Nazi propaganda.

To put it another way: Should "news" articles about gay marriage from godhatesfags.com be allowed?

[madeline_con]

85. "Should "news" articles about gay marriage ...

from godhatesfags.com be allowed?"

You and I both know posters put stuff in here all the time illustrating how nuts some sites are.

Now, we can't post a snip from that Phelps asswipe, because he's "too crazy and racist"?

How do you write the rules and define the intent of the poster, etc?

[geek tragedy]

108. If you're writing it to mock the site, that's one thing.

But, citing an article about Zionism from tbrnews.org, for instance, is exactly like the Fred Phelps example.

[madeline_con]

115. We have to prove intent...

don't we?

I see a slippery slope. "Don't mention him, or those guys, or THAT theory."

It could get messy.

[The Magistrate]

124. You Might Want To Read This, Ma'am

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4081298&mesg_id=4081298

[madeline_con]

133. Thank you...

I get the point, really.

Am I in trouble?

[notadmblnd]

12. areyou doiong this at the requests of the admins?

or is this your own personal project?

[geek tragedy]

13. They noted that they are discussing it. Why not be proactive?

Moreover, it would be helpful for DU'ers to have this discussion.

It would also help new posters who may not be aware that sites like Tbrnews.org are Neo-Nazi propaganda outfits.

But I added a disclaimer for clarity.

[rockymountaindem]

15. I'm glad to see aztlan.net on your list.

I've said it before and it's worth repeating... thlse people are craaazy.

[geek tragedy]

16. Crazy and racist--not a great combination.

Cheers.

[bloom]

18. I don't think we should wait for disagreement - I think there should be

reasons given from the get-go - with links and examples of the problems on each site you wish to name.

[geek tragedy]

29. Fair point. Here's proof for my list:

Whatreallyhappened.com:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:hw_VlpOSd-oJ:www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/week_2003_09_14.html++jew+OR+jews+OR+jewish+OR+holocaust+OR+kosher+OR+protocols+site:whatreallyhappened.com&hl=en

Aztlan.net:

http://aztlan.net/koshernostra.htm
http://www.aztlan.net/jewsmecha.htm
http://aztlan.net/manchurian.htm

Thetruthseeker.co.uk:

http://thetruthseeker.co.uk/category.asp?ID=15
http://thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=532

Joe Vialls:

http://www.google.com/search?q=vialls++jew+OR+jews+OR+jewish+OR+holocaust+OR+holohoax+OR+kike+OR+hebe+OR+jewboy+site:vialls.com&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&start=30&sa=N

John Kaminski:

http://www.picassodreams.com/picasso_dreams/2003/10/the_real_axis_o.html

Fpp.co.uk:

Is owned and run by David Irving. 'Nuff said.

Rense.com:

http://www.rense.com/general40/proto.htm (one of hundreds of examples of vile racism, rightwing nuttery, and outright insanity on that site)

Serendipity.li

http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/jk_on_joos.htm (note the spelling in the link)

Amnotes.net:

Just read the site. But make sure to have a shower ready afterwards.

freearabvoice.org:

http://www.freearabvoice.org/articles/JewishHappinessRussianTears.htm
http://www.freearabvoice.org/whyTheHolocaustIsImportantToArabs.htm
http://www.freearabvoice.org/readerscorner/jewishLobby.htm

American Free Press:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Free_Press
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Carto

Tbrnews:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3169106
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3251541

[bloom]

45. Do you have anything current from WRH

What do you say about their statement?:



WRH and Anti-Semitism

The charge of anti-Semitism is one that Israel flings at anyone who criticizes them. Israel intentionally blends itself with the world's Jewish people in order to be able to hide behind Jewish people. If you ask Israel any question they do not like, you will be called anti-Semitic. It's a real fraud and the irony is that Israel is setting up the world's Jewish people as targets by acting as if they share the responsibility for Israel's actions.

But the reality is that Jewish people are no more responsible for the crimes of the Mossad than Americans are responsible for the crimes of the CIA, or the people of Great Britain responsible for the crimes of MI5. But by intentionally equating Israel with all the world's Jewish people, the Israeli government sends out that message, that all Jewish people ARE responsible for Israel's actions. That makes them targets for those whom the government of Israel has angered.

As for me, you will not find anything inside my site that talks about Jewish anything. I write about Israel and the crimes of the Israeli government. I write about Rachel Corrie. I write aboutJames Miller. I write about Tom Hurndall. I write about the USS Liberty and the Lavon affair and the Israeli spy who was inside the very Pentagon office from which the lies about Iraq's WMDs that sent our young people off to war came from. I write about nuclear weapons being built under the Dimona reactor and radiation leaking from the complex into the surrounding soil. I write about ongoing defiance of United Nations' resolutions.

There is nothing anti-Semitic about opposing reckless deaths and deceptions that lead to wars. There is nothing anti-Semitic about opposing nuclear weapons or supporting the work of the UN. Colin Powell stated the matter quite clearly; Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. Israel would like you to think it is, but it isn't. Anti-Semitism is based on Israel's race. Criticism is based on Israel's deeds.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/index.html

[Bluebear]

19. My faith in freedom of speech is whole, it is complete.

I think it's a shame that it is even being discussed what is being "allowed" at DU. Lo, all these years later, can the member not determine for himself/herself what is too crackpot a source to believe or not believe? Are we so concerned that we will "look bad" or that Michelle Malkin will cite an anonymous message board post here as being representative of DU? Thank you for reading.

[geek tragedy]

22. Sadly, many members are completely unable to determine

for themselves what is a crackpot or racist site. That is proved by the number of articles posted from filthy racist websites here.

DU already has a policy against using racist websites as sources. We're not debating that policy.

We're providing examples of sites that violate DU rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

30. Racist sites are already forbidden at DU. This is a list of sites that

violate DU policy.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

48. Not wanting Nazi filth at a progressive website is like being a Nazi?

Curious logic.

[hiley]

99. exactly !

...

[bpilgrim]

35. lol

:wow: the commissar's in town, eh

peace

[geek tragedy]

37. My goal is to prevent the far-right from infiltrating progressive circles.

A progressive website shouldn't be linking to and thereby supporting organs of the fascist and racist right.

That's DU policy. Not my policy.

[bpilgrim]

42. same as it ever was, eh

we know all about it, never works, though

fyi

peace

[lonestarnot]

101. They sure as hell infiltrated a move on meeting tonight see my post on

page one.

[geek tragedy]

104. Do you have a link? eom

[lonestarnot]

128. No I don't because I don't know how to link stuff.... LOL

I'll kick it to the top of the page or try. It will be near the top.

[geek tragedy]

140. At least tell me the forum. Doh! eom

[snot]

28. I'm completely with you, Bluebear. nt

[geek tragedy]

34. Again, I'm trying to point out sites that ALREADY VIOLATE DU RULES.

The sites I listed are racist hate sites and not allowable sources here.

[Bouncy Ball]

53. IF THEY ALREADY VIOLATE DU RULES

THEN WHY THE NEED TO COMPILE LINKS?

Do you not trust the moderators to do their jobs?

[snot]

73. I respect

your intentions, which I'm sure are the best.

However, I still feel no need to be protected from speech, no matter how hateful or false. No system is perfect, but I trust this system of peers to do a pretty darn fine job of warning me re- items or sources that should be discounted for whatever reason.

For what it's worth, however, I do see value in a GROUP rating system evaluating reliability of various sources.

[geek tragedy]

91. I'm just trying to make the rules clearer--they're already there.

Changing the rules and adding a new technology is not the point of this thread.

[snot]

109. Maybe you can help me out . . .

quite possibly I'm missing something . . . but I just looked at the rules and did not find anything prohibiting citations to racist or insane sites. The closest thing I found was:

"members should avoid using racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted terminology. This includes gender-specific terms such as "bitch," "cunt," "whore," "slut," or "pussy," and terms with homophobic derivation, such as "cocksucker," which are often inflammatory and inappropriate. One common exception is the use of the phrase "media whore," which is permitted."

[Bouncy Ball]

114. He's just trying to be able to say

DUers are OK with racist websites. Yes, it's twisted and convoluted, but keep reading further down when he starts saying that very thing even in light of the fact that NO ONE here ever said or insinuated such a thing.

Hmmmm..

[geek tragedy]

116. That's part of the problem. It's policy and rules, but not spelled out

with any specificity.

An article in LBN or GD based on an American Free Press article, for example, will get locked and/or deleted.

[Bouncy Ball]

119. Well, then, it sounds to me like we don't have a problem.

Sounds like the moderators are doing their job quite nicely, then.

Why do you think the moderators don't do a good job?

Why do you think you need to compile a list for them? They CLEARLY already know how to do this stuff, as you just gave evidence of it!

[madeline_con]

63. Thank you for the vote...

of confidence in our intelligence. :kick:

[atommom]

78. I agree.

[eridani]

23. What really happened has a lot of useful stuff--

--fortunately, that site provides links to the original articles, so it isn't necessary to link to WRH and expose people to the anti-Semitic tripe also found there.

[TankLV]

24. Fox news, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, any major newspaper.

Clearchannel.

[geek tragedy]

33. You have links proving that those sources violate DU rules? eom

[lvx35]

27. this is politically impaired.

A lot of these sites drive a Lot more hits than DU, and people who frequent these sites post here. I think instead of terms RACIST and CRAZY, you should define sites which build theories on speculation which is not appropriate for mainstream political discourse, although if people make it their reading material on their own, that's fine.

[geek tragedy]

32. I sure as hell hope that your typical rense or tbrnews reader doesn't

come anywhere near DU.

Again, racist sites are already banned here. This thread is to help construct a master list of unacceptable sites.

That is perfectly consistent with this site's mission.

[lvx35]

40. Then you sure hope DU stays small.

Rense.com has three times the reach of DU:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&compare_sites=rense.com&y=r&q=&url=democraticunderground.com
meaning three times as many people go to it in a day. And a lot of liberals are looking to connect the dots, because the Bush admin is so secretive, and sites like rense provide a highly speculative way to connect the dots, yet people still enjoy hearing the theories. the readers of sites like Rense are big boys, they can think for themselves and decide what's a goofy conspiracy theory and what's not.

But dems can not afford to get elitist and declare that they are better than the other people who hate bush. We do not have the political capital.

[geek tragedy]

43. There are a lot of racists and clinically insane people on the Internet.

That explains Rense's appeal.

I repeat: This is about figuring out which sites violate DU policy.

The DU policy against racist sites has been around for a long time.

[lvx35]

44. What on earth is racist about it?

Is this one of those things where criticizing the policies of certain countries makes a site racist, while other countries can be critiized? For instance I see whatreallyhappened, which is endlessly critical of Israel's government is on the list as "racist". But Does that mean sites like pekingduck.org, which is critical of China's CCP, or sites that are critical of the theocratic regime in Saudi Arabia are also banned? I think you've got to really clearly define racism here, but I don't see it.

[Behind the Aegis]

50. WRH

It is not about criticizing ANY country, it is about advancing anti-Semitic or racist notions. WRH has had quite a few of the former. IT is not allowed as 'primary' source in the 9-11 forum for that very reason.

[lvx35]

64. Yeay, but sites have focus.

I don't to waste too much breath defending WRH, suffice to say to that I've heard him make two points: 1) Israel sucks. 2) Israel does not represent jews the world over, and criticism of the policies of israel is NOT antisemetic. The latter is totally correct.

http://stormfront.org/

is what a racist site looks like. You should know the difference.

[geek tragedy]

66. WRH links to articles he describes as evidence of "Jewish control"

of the world media.

That's how the stormfronters talk.

He also links frequently to libertyforum.org--and those assholes ARE stormfronters.

[lvx35]

87. No they're not.

They're Libertarians. They support free speech, even for Stormfronters, nation of Islam, israeli extremists, or aybody else they disagree with. But they don't like them, they argue with them.

[geek tragedy]

96. Yes, and their forum has been taken over by the Stromfront crowd.

Counsels against an "anything goes" approach, no?

[Behind the Aegis]

69. I do know what they look like.

But WRH has had anti-Semitic references, some have linked back to Rense and one to David Duke. Do you think HE is a racist? And, I agree, criticism of Israel's policies is not ALWAYS anti-Semitic.

You do understand not all racists come out and call them racists, right?

on edit: Damn grammar issues!

[madeline_con]

71. ".... anti-Semitic or racist notions ..."

Are anti-Israeli GOVERNMENT sites automatically labeled anti-Semitic?

[geek tragedy]

76. How about theories that Jews are ripping off American consumers

through a "Kosher scam" or that "Jews control the media?"

WRH has linked approvingly to articles making those claims.

[madeline_con]

106. You really think...

we're too dumb to figure out the slant of sites?

(I'll admit I've posted some links, and found my foot firmly entrenched in my mouth.)

I do see your point as to the item being presented as "news", BUT some items are merely presented. They may be true news to some, and subject to ridicule by others.

Why not just calm down, and report any perceived problems to the mods if you are personally bothered by something? :)

[geek tragedy]

110. Again, my original hope was to help clarify the rules by providing

examples of what counts as a racist and unacceptable site.

[madeline_con]

120. I get it...

apparetnly, I'm not the only one here who sees it as needless meddling with a perfectly good forum.

Who's twisted your bloomers? For real, what's the problem here? Have you been attacked or offended?

[geek tragedy]

127. Many folks are concerned about Freepers infiltrating us.

My concern is that the fascist right is doing so.

Linking to a site is an implied endorsement of its credibility.

[lvx35]

141. The right is infultrating us. HALLELUJAH!

actually they are trying to join us. Good! Lets embrace, educate, and bring them into the party. Lets listen to them and accept them, and explain why we don't use sources based on speculation, but we don't condemn them for what they choose to read either.

[Behind the Aegis]

84. Did I say that?

NO! I clearly said..."It is not about criticizing ANY country, it is about advancing anti-Semitic or racist notions." (added empahsis) I then went on to say...And, I agree, criticism of Israel's policies is not ALWAYS anti-Semitic."

[madeline_con]

95. Re: "Did I say that?"

"NO! I clearly said..."It is not about criticizing ANY country, it is about advancing anti-Semitic or racist notions." (added empahsis) I then went on to say...And, I agree, criticism of Israel's policies is not ALWAYS anti-Semitic." Behind the Aegis

Let's review...
"It is not about criticizing ANY country, it is about advancing anti-Semitic or racist notions. WRH has had quite a few of the former. IT is not allowed as 'primary' source in the 9-11 forum for that very reason." Behind the Aegis



I missed the part that you went on to say.

[Behind the Aegis]

107. Is this an apology?!

[madeline_con]

113. "Is this an apology?!"

No.

I was trying to point out the disparity between what I replied to and your revision of it.

[Behind the Aegis]

126. ok

You inferred incorrectly what I said. There was no revision, just added information.

[madeline_con]

136. "... just added information."

After my reply. So you see,how was I to know what you meant based solely on what you said?

Anyway, must we keep up this little snit? :)

[geek tragedy]

56. Here's a few links just to scratch the surface of the bigotry:

http://rense.com/Datapages/auch.htm
http://www.rense.com/Datapages/protodata.htm
http://www.rense.com/general66/prot2.htm
http://www.rense.com/general53/zions.htm

Yuck.

[lvx35]

72. And here, my freind is the Demon Livergood and UFO Gods

http://www.rense.com/general66/mexufoandflyhum.htm
http://www.hermes-press.com/cabal_index.htm

Two more things off rense, detailing UFO fleets and the demon Livergood, with his plans for world domination. There is so much more like this.

Rense publishes whatever crap he can find to connect the dots, and people love it. I think it would be a lot more effective, regarding the protocols for instance, to publish how they were found to be frauds, and their role in Hitlers "education" when he was in prison than to just condemn them without explanation.

[geek tragedy]

83. So Rense is racist AND crazy. All the more reason why his site

shouldn't be considered a credible source of discussion here.

[lvx35]

132. Hate the reference, love the referer.

I'm not upset that you don't allow these sites to be used as sources, I'm upset that your marginalizing people who choose to read them by calling them crazy and racist. I'd rather pull these people into the party than condemn them. Don't you remember when the right wingers used to be the big conspiracy nuts, with Clinton's murders and whatnot? What happened with them? They got less goofy commentators like Rush Limbaugh who used a lot of the conspiracy stuff, but toned it down. And where are they now?

[geek tragedy]

138. I don't mind left-wing fringe sites that much. It's the fascist rightwing

sites that get my goat.

[charlie]

47. You're throwing a wider net

than just listing sites that violate DU policy, though. As far as I know, there's no prohibition against sites that are "too crazy" in the rules. If someone links to Skolnick or Capitol Hill Blue, do you want to see the thread shut down, the URL banned? Me, I'm okay with just rolling my eyes and passing.

[geek tragedy]

57. That's a good point. CHB at least is entertaining even though

they're never right.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

39. Huh? Racist and Neo-Nazi sites are already banned here.

Everyone who reads the DU rules knows that.

The point of this is to point out sites that clearly violate DU rules.

[starroute]

117. I don't know that -- and I don't altogether believe it

There have been a couple of times recently that someone's posted an anti-war article by paleocon Paul Craig Roberts and said "Isn't it great to have a few conservatives on our side," and I've responded, "The guy's also a racist -- look at these articles by him at vdare.com."

Nobody ever told me I couldn't do that or deleted my posts. Or is vdare somehow not listed as a racist site despite being blatantly white supremacist?

It seems to me that at one point there was a rule (perhaps only informally) that if you were going to link to a questionable site you had to indicate that you knew it might not be reliable and explain what your purpose was in referring to it. Something like that could be viable and could help keep down the level of crap.

But the real point is that we're grownups here and generally do know what we're doing. We don't need a NetNanny to lay down prohibitions for our own good.

[madeline_con]

74. "Who died and made you commissar?"

:rofl:

[snot]

38. I don't get this.

I've been reading here regularly since 11/3/04, and I personally don't recall seeing ANY cites to sources that seemed "so over the line that they lack any credibility whatsoever".

Sure, some sites are worse than others, but even the worst site occasionally imparts information, even if only unintentionally.

Can anyone give a concrete example of an actual problem resulting from such a citation?

I generally manage to avoid or brush off the rare posting that's really ugly, and I'm perfectly capable of doing that on my own, thankyou.

These days, we've got too many other Big Brothers already; the LAST thing I want is another one here.

[geek tragedy]

41. Tbrnews.org has suckered a lot of people with its hoaxes here.

Its Voice of the White House forgeries were cited regarding Gannon (White House orgies) and the total number of US casualties in Iraq.


As I said, this is not about policy. Its about which sites clearly run aground of that policy.

[snot]

54. So could this not be adequately addressed . . .

by a rating system such as the one I mentioned above (see Post # 5)?

Alternatively, how about we set up such a rating system, and when someone posts with a cite to a site rated 0 stars, the Admins can contact the poster and point out the low rating, but if the poster still wants to proceed, s/he can, but the Admins can reply to the post, pointing out the low rating for the benefit of the rest of us?

[geek tragedy]

59. Rating systems are too complicated--and you'd get fights.

The ban on racist sites works. Letting people know which sites run afoul can save moderators and posters time and aggravation.

[Stray Roots]

77. Ratings work just fine on Kos

I prefer open moderation, it makes it hard for people with narrow agendas to take charge, and personally i don't agree with you about alot of these sites. Many of these sites post a few wingdings but mostly good material.

[geek tragedy]

88. I can guarantee you that someone posting stuff from Tbrnews.org

and other racist websites would get their asses banned from Kos, and rightfully so.

[Stray Roots]

100. That is ok

I don't know what that has do with anything though. The existence of banned sites doesn't mean these sites should all be in the same category, and indeed I don't think they should be.

[Stray Roots]

93. Many of the sites listed are merely inconsistent

in editing out racist material. Their articles aren't all racist in nature. I think most of these sites should not be banned outright but should be judged by the individual article. It makes life harder for the mods, but that is what they are there for. I notice an ideological bias in your list.

[geek tragedy]

121. Yes, I am ideologically opposed to the fascist right.

The great majority of racist sites linked to here are:

1. Anti-Jewish sites; and

2. Anti-Muslim sites.

Moreover, there's an unfortunate deal of overlap between conspiracy theorists and Jew-baiting rightwingers. Promoting conspiracy theories is one way that far-right agents of influence try to gain currency in progressive circles.

[Stray Roots]

130. Many of these sites publish mostly nonracist

articles. The mods can filter the racist shit. If you are worried about antimuslim bias, how come you don't include Arutz Sheva, Frontpage mag, and Jpost?

[The Magistrate]

You Might Want To Read This, Ma'am

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4081298&mesg_id=4081298

[geek tragedy]

70. I did read it--the discussion of a list there actually sparked the idea

for this thread.

And I am a Sir, even on gin-soaked weekends.

[Bouncy Ball]

90. He wasn't talking to you.

He was talking to snot.

[snot]

122. Thank you; this is helpful. nt

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wonk]

51. Maybe this would best be left to the DU admins if they want

feedback from the peanut gallery on what sites should and shouldn't be allowed to be linked to from here.

Anyways, this thread doesn't seem particularly productive to me so far.

my 2¢

[bicentennial_baby]

60. It's Wonk!

A rare sighting indeed! :hi: Good to see you!

[geek tragedy]

65. You're right--it hasn't been as productive as I had hoped.

Too many people who want the right to post links to racist websites.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

82. Whatever you say.

[Lannes]

52. Your intentions are good but I dont believe its for us to decide.

For some of the reasons already listed.

[pox americana]

62. How about the O'Reilly rule of thumb

If Rush or Bill wouldn't consider it credible, we shouldn't either?

[Lannes]

67. Not sure where you are going with this.

[pox americana]

75. I don't see good intentions, I see a deeply anti-progressive agenda.

Hope that helps.

[Lannes]

80. I was trying to be diplomatic

Its better than being shrill.

[geek tragedy]

98. Your problem is with the DU rules then--they're the ones who

banned racist sites.

Funny how you think that racist websites are appropriate sources on a progressive website. That doesn't sound like any progressive I know.

[Bouncy Ball]

112. Funny how you are twisting this around to

say that we are ok with racism, when actually what we are ok with is the moderators doing their jobs.

Funny how NO ONE here EVER said they are ok with racist websites.

I find it interesting how you are drawing illogical conclusions and putting words in people's mouths.

Is it time, geek? Are you finally feeling ready?

[Bouncy Ball]

118. Go re-read the posting rules.

It says you cannot use racist, homophobic, sexist TERMS, etc.

It says nothing about websites.

Moderators are left to judge things like that, and if you ask me, they do a damn fine job.

ARE YOU SAYING THE MODERATORS AREN'T DOING THEIR JOBS????

What a FUCKED up thing to say!!!!!

So when did you stop beating your wife? :eyes:

[geek tragedy]

68. Try this: If it's so racist that it's banned at The Free Republic then

it shouldn't be allowed at DU.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bouncy Ball]

81. LMAO

:rofl:

[Bouncy Ball]

86. ...

[Solly Mack]

94. Has anyone seen my wubbie?

I've lost my wubbie.

[Solly Mack]

111. My poor lost wubbie. Nobody cares

[Solly Mack]

129. If a Wubbie gets lost in a flame war, and no one responds, can you

still hear the Wubbie laughing?

[Bouncy Ball]

131. LOL, you are having too much fun!

I am giggling at you.

[Solly Mack]

135. The Wubbie likes to giggle too.

Say...you wouldn't happen to recall Mike Corelone's son's name in Godfather wouldcha? Tony, right?

Don't know what made me think of the name Tony...is that right?

[KTM]

97. Ick. No thanks.

You've got a fire on over something, but I dont think its the conpsiracy theory thread that got ya going... regardless, this isnt the way to address it. I'll join the chorus in saying you are painting with a HUGELY broad brush.

For every instance you've cherry-picked to say each site is racist, I can find 20 links from the same site that arent. I'm smart enough to seperate the wheat from the chaffe, ok ?

We don't need no thought control.

[Bouncy Ball]

102. Did you say "fire?"

:rofl:

[geek tragedy]

103. Which sites do you disagree with--or do you disagree with the idea

of banning racist websites?

[Bouncy Ball]

105. I disagree with the idea of you

telling everyone what they can and cannot link to. As many have said on this thread, we ARE adults and we ARE able to separate the wheat from the chaff (taking that from a DUer right above this) AND we have moderators for a REASON. People should use the alert button if they think someone has posted a link that is racist.

Period.

Trust the moderators to do their jobs. How's that?

This whole thread is quite interesting. You COULD, if you twisted things enough, go off somewhere and say "DUers are RACIST! They ALLOW links to racist websites! I even tried to say something, I tried to stop it and they said no!"

:D

[Bouncy Ball]

125. I want to suggest something to anyone reading this:

This is a clever little thing, this.

1. Suggest that DUers compile a list of racist websites we should never link to, to "help" the moderators.

2. Then, when DUers insist that such a list is not necessary, start to complain that DUers are ok with racist websites. REALLY what they are saying is "we are adults, we are able to judge, and we have moderators who do that job, too, so where's the need?"

Set up straw man, knock him down.

But geek, you made a mistake. Right in the middle of the thread, when talking to snot, you admit that in GD or LBN, any thread linking to American Free Press is locked or deleted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4086895&mesg_id=4087852

You also admit here and there that most other websites like that, when used here, are gotten rid of.

Here are more examples of geek admitting this isn't a problem:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4086895&mesg_id=4087781

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4086895&mesg_id=4087548

So essentially you admit this isn't a problem and the moderators do their jobs quite nicely.

I am only left to wonder why you want to set up the straw man of DUers being ok with racist websites.

Hmmmm.

And finally, all in one post, a lovely example of EXACTLY what I described:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4086895&mesg_id=4087103

[Tinoire]

137. Fox, NYT, CNN, Jerusalem Post, Israel Insider, AIPAC

Fox: If you need to ask, we have no conversation

NYT: Ask Judith Miller and the other vermin

CNN: corpotate ass-lickers faking whatever footage is necessary to reinforce what Fox says so grossly.

Jerusalem Post: Rupert Murdoch. I really hope no one needs go ask.

Israel Insider: For dark humor entertainment propaganda purposes only.

AIPAC: Well sheesh, just watch their new "2005 Strategic Tour" where no less than Sharon comes to warn us, under the happy eyes of Frist, DeLay, Michael Ledeen and Condi Rice (to name but a pathethic, bi-partisan few), that, gasp, "Iran could be only months away from an atomic bomb :scared: Oh yeay, "See for yourself. Step into a one-of-a-kind-reproduction of Irans nuclear program. NUCLEAR PROGRAM" :scared:

In other words, you know all the mother of conspiracy theorists, the pushers of "1999-2003-there are WMDS in Iraq and 2003-2004-if we don't find them in Iraq, 2005-we'll find them in Iran".

How on earth did any progressive ever forget those?

[Moderator]

142. Locking

This thread has played itself out, going considerably off-topic and degenerating into a flame-fest.

DU Moderator