I understand that Lefty Blogs has delisted Howling Latina. And other supposedly Democratic blogs are dropping the site from their blogrolls. The reason? Howling Latina is a proud advocate of PUMA. She dares to be a dissenting voice.
I thought the Democratic Party was a big tent. Have we gotten so out of whack that we only want to hear from the people we agree with? Heck, if that were the case, I’d be removing a pile of blogs from my blogroll - and don’t assume that the list would only be Republican ones.
When we start down the path of censoring the voices within our party, there is little that separates us from the Republicans. If your sensibilities are offended by those with whom you disagree, there is a simple answer: don’t read them.
Individual blog operators have the right to do whatever they want with their blogrolls. But I disagree with the decision by Lefty Blogs to remove Howling Latina because to do so, is an attempt to silence someone. (And we’ve seen plenty of that over at Blogger.)
It’s just not right. And because it’s my blog, I’ll continue to keep Howling Latina listed.
91 Comments
Huh. I hadn’t heard about the delisting by LeftyBlogs. That’s pretty lame. But as to individuals - well, if I’d linked her as a regular read, I’d take it down, too. It’s not the PUMA (and please, can we punish whoever came up with that acronym?) thing - it’s that she’s just . . . “lost the plot” might be a kind way to put it. I once wrote that I quite admired her writing (and linked her in that entry), but now she’s just embarrassing (in that fellow Democrat way).
I wonder if Lefty Blogs has removed any other PUMA blogs? I haven’t heard anything specific about that. I do know that we’ve had an influx of blogs hosted here at wordpress.com because of what happened at Blogger.
What is PUMA?
An acronym for Party Unity My Ass, which is the phrase apparently chosen by a group of people who cannot get over the fact that Hillary Clinton lost the primary.
I have read Howling Latino, and she is malicious in her attacks on our nominee. It is one thing to voice your support for Clinton, but another to continue these divisive attacks that only serve to strengthen our opponent. Plain and simple, it is over, and it is time to get behind Barrack Obama.
Free speech, tb, gives you the right to say that it’s time to get behind Obama and Mimi the right to say the opposite. Like I said, if you don’t agree, don’t read. But censorship is a dangerous path.
It is also free speech that allow bloggers to remove Howling Latino from their site. It is also free speech that allows you to be critical of those bloggers. It is free speech that allows me to say that her posts derail party unity. Finally, it is free speech that allow you to say to me that free speech gives her the right to decide when it is time to get behind Obama. So it is safe to say that we both believe in free speech.
My issue, as I said earlier, is not with the blogs who remove her. It is with Lefty Blogs, who purport to represent all of the left side of the blogosphere. Taking her from the list is censorship.
I tend to focus on the positives. The Howler and I both like the Governor.
Lefty Blogs has the same rights you do, Vivian, to promote or not promote a particular blog, based on whatever standards it chooses. In the end, the truth wins out, and it will here.
LatinA.
(thank you)
~
I wouldn’t really call this an issue of free speech/censorship, as those are really issues that involve the exercise of power by the gov’t. What Leftyblogs is doing is exercising really poor judgment (I don’t think any of us would say it was censorship if, say, Leftyblogs declined to list BearingDrift) and failing to live up to their own claims. So lets nail them on that, and not mistake it for a censorship/free speech issue.
Typical. The party of “Free Speach” also attacks people like Imus and Randi Rhodes when they do not fall in line. In those cases they go after their employers.
Oh, wait, some Dems have done that too… Well at least gone after bloggers’ employers. Some left bloggers have done that too. You know who you are, SubPrime.
Squeaky, in addition to amusing us, demonstrates why this isn’t an issue of “free speech”, but one of judgment.
MB - you’re the lawyer so I will defer to your opinion (at least on the issue of censorship
)
spotter - I have to disagree. This is what is on the front page of Lefty Blogs:
Now, if they said “this is the place to find out what’s happening in a selected part of the progressive blogosphere, I’d have no argument. But like it or not, the PUMAs are a part of the progressive blogosphere.
The cartoon reprinted I understand had a lot to do with the de-listing.
I have taken exception to her blog and writing many times recently, as other have. “Barky” is not respectful. Ascribing actions and motives to the Obama campaign that are not their doing, or would otherwise not turn a Democratic head, is a poor way to be ‘Left’.
Quoting sources like WorldNetDaily because they suit your needs is not progressive. Criticizing anyone who dares to see the reality of Obama as the nominee means that in some cases, posts will be deleted, which is not progressive. Using talking points straight out of the Republican playbook is not progressive.
Some may argue that taking her off an aggregator is a free speech issue, but she was and is not acting like a progressive, or a so-called ‘Lefty”. To the exclusion of almost every other subject, it’s all “Barky” all the time. She is not an advocate of anything other than her candidate getting to run for President/VP.
People who eventually de-listed her pleaded with her for months to do this in a different way. To no avail.
Bottom line? She is not progressive, therefore, if LeftyBlogs wants to remove her, that’s their business. She is not only no on the team, she is screaming in the parking lot.
I think you have confused freedom of speech with freedom of association.
Mimi is free to continue writing anything she wants. If some of us choose not to associate with her, that is our choice.
Mimi has the right to say anything she likes, but we are iin no way obligated to facilitate her bad behavior.
No one has “censored” anyone.
You start to get into dangerous territory when you treat blog-rolling like an endorsement if you’re a group like lefty-blogs. If you’re going to de-list one blog because you disagree with the content or tone of their blog, the tacit implication is that you do endorse and agree with the content of other blogs. And lets face it: we have a few good blogs out there, and a lot of decent blogs, but we have a handful of really crazy people blogging nowadays, too.
Who has stopped her from posting? She can do what she wants and apparently does. Others who choose not to be associated with Mimi have a right to do so. I’ll put a link on my site, not because I agree with her, but because I like watching the trainwreck and will continue to point out that she is dead wrong.
I’m with you here:
That said, I think Mark makes an argument that, at some point, becomes dispositive. At some point, our present actions outweigh our history and as much as we might try to claim our history, we’ve become something else (see, e.g., Mickey Kaus).
In HL’s case, I credit her past writing pretty heavily - I was quite the fan. That’s a large part of why I think LeftyBlog’s decision was a poor one - she’s still (to me) obviously part of the “progressive blogosphere” that they claim to list. I think she should still be there. But If she keeps on doing what’s she’s doing (whatever it is, it’s not progressive anything - it’s ugly, foul, and petty), I don’t think she’ll have much of a claim to be part of the “progressive blogosphere”. The difference between me and Mark, then, is that he thinks that she’s crossed that line and I don’t. But I see it approaching.
I plan to delist you, Silence Dogood, for making the understatement of the year. Freaking neocon.
BlogNetNews looks better every day
http://www.blognetnews.com/virginia/
Vivian, no one has silenced Howling Latina. It’s Leftyblogs decision, not hers. It’s at their discretion. Who are we to tell them what to do?
However, I’m not sure if you’ve seen her blog lately. I bring you this: http://howlinglatina.blogspot.com/2008/08/precious-one.html
A cartoon of Obama masturbating in front of a mirror.
Or this:
“This is a post-racist America and everything The Chosen One might’ve said and done is absolutely moot when he decides to change the jingle of his jive song and dance.”
I’m all for free speech, and I’m sure that LeftyBlogs is as well. However, that doesn’t mean they should HAVE to carry any and every blog that calls itself part of the progressive blogosphere. Because, from where I’m sitting, Howling Latina has firmly removed herself from that group. Instead, deciding to align herself with those that seek to defeat Obama.
Well, that’s stating the obvious, don’t you think? It’s also entirely beside the point, I think.
“We” are LeftyBlog’s audience and reason for existence. I think that’s a fair bit of standing.
Allright, you start the petition up. See how far that gets you.
So progressive=lock step?
(PS - MB, I fixed your comment @2:29)
Petition for what? LeftyBlogs (in my view) made a bad judgment call, a number people are expressing that opinion, and that’s that. You can try and demean those opinions out of relevancy, but it seems a little silly, no?
Progressive, Democratic, Liberal…I think we know what we mean when we say these things.
If you honestly think that her blog has some merit or something positive to say to advance the long term causes of progressives in this country, then by all means, link to her. But don’t expect everyone to have the same opinion as you.
One thing I know about the “progressive blogosphere” is that on any given day, no one agrees with anyone. But I go back to where I started: is the Democratic Party a big tent or not? It seems to me that quite often it is the latter and not the former.
As for the cartoon - I never noticed that it was supposed to be depicting masturbation. Kinda like some folks thought the McCain Moses ad was just funny and not about the anti-Christ. In other words, sometimes is it about our frame of reference.
Sean, you keep ascribing these actions/desires to others that no one has expressed (e.g., starting a petition up, expecting others to have the same opinion, etc.). Why?
~
Thanks, Vivian.
Oh - and yes, I do think HL says things that advance the long term causes of progressives. How about this post on restoration of voting rights? Or this one about Kaine being VP?
Mark Brooks: your words are incredibly pompous and judgmental!! Who are you to say that HL is not a progressive? Unbelievable attitude….
Vivian has it right:
“But like it or not, the PUMAs are a part of the progressive blogosphere.” and
“So progressive=lock step?”
Again, thank you Vivian for doing the right thing and posting this story!
MB, you’re really not paying attention. Or your just not willing to.
I said about the petition because you said this:
“We” are LeftyBlog’s audience and reason for existence. I think that’s a fair bit of standing.
I have a feeling that many of Leftyblogs audience would find a lot of what Howling Latina says to have a negative effect on both the presidential race and to poltical discourse in general.
As to others having the same opinion, it’s from the same cloth. If you think her blog has merit and you want to link to it, fine. Do that. But don’t get angry when others don’t have the same opinion that you do.
As for the cartoon, good god, what did you think it was? There is absolutely nothing lost in translation there. It’s disgusting.
I didn’t think anything about the cartoon. I saw a man sitting on the toilet. So yes, things can get lost in the translation.
And BTW - Lefty Blogs doesn’t show graphics so tell me - how could they have been offended by the picture?
I probably wouldn’t have delisted her, but I really can’t blame Leftyblogs for doing so. The cartoon is truly offensive. Vivian, I don’t see how you couldn’t have noticed that it featured Obama masturbating on a toilet, erect penis and all, and that one of the thought bubbles included a statement that has since been discredited.
HL doesn’t just criticize Obama, whom she invariably refers to as “Barky.” She also denigrates and attacks his supporters, and brings in quotes and accounts from right wing screeds as her support. I was hoping she would eventually come to her senses, but she instead dug in, and now we hear complaints that the people she’s spent so much time excoriating and demonizing have had enough and decided to bounce her from the list.
I have to ask. From your point of view is there NO line which cannot be crossed? If there’s a line which can’t be crossed where is it?
Ok. Follow the bouncing ball, Sean. You asked a question, and I answered it (I quoted it, even). Then you followed that up with a snarky little “start a petition” slap that didn’t really make sense in any way except as an attempt to demean the expression of an opinion in the first please. I suppose it’s the same disjointed logic that led you so imply that I was getting angry that someone had a different opinion. Which is just silly.
~
Sleepless, Mark Brooks is many things, but pompous and judgmental are not among them.
…………..if you look at the picture, and I cannot BELIEVE I am describing this, it’s a guy sitting on a toilet looking in a mirror while hope is coming from his mid-region and there is moving motions drawn in that area. It’s clear as day what the intention is: Obama is in love with himself. What did you think it meant?
And, that is not at all the point I was trying to make. It’s about the content that she has on her page. AGAIN, if you think it’s great stuff, link to her blog, by all means. But don’t expect everyone to agree with you. You have your own blog roll, so does everyone else.
MB, I’m not going to get into an argument with you because you have shown the inability to follow one.
Simple premise broken down for you:
You have your opinions. Other people have their own opinions as well.
And with that, Sean, you have successfully completed an argument with yourself. Take a bow.
Sean - I have been very clear that what one does with their own blogroll is their business. What I think is wrong is Lefty Blogs delisting her. I have given examples of her writing recently about progressive causes, yet instead of responding to that or to my question about whether being a progressive means lock step, you have chosen to ignore it. And the fact that Lefty Blogs does not show graphics means that in order for them to have delisted her, it took intervention on the part of others.
No, I didn’t get the picture. As I said, I saw a man sitting on a toilet. Forgive me but male masturbation is not something that hits my consciousness. So while it may have been clear to you and to others, it was not clear to me.
As for the line, Carla - well, perhaps I don’t see it as a fixed one. It depends on the circumstances, just like everything else. There are quite a few things that I see in the so-called progressive blogosphere that offend my sensibilities (and no, I’m not going to give you a list) and I don’t mention them. Instead, I just avoid visiting the sites that display such things.
The problem I’m having right now is that it is as y’all are OK with taking down HL, because she says things that you don’t agree with. To be perfectly honest, that scares the crap out of me.
It, um, may help having a penis? It was pretty obviously manual auto-ejaculation. The clue is that you can’t see what his right hand is doing because it’s obscured by the left arm. Also there’s a faint blur drawn in to indicate the motion around the words “hope.” I thought it was pretty tasteless. If they had shown the penis, I would have said it was downright offensive.
I’m not for kicking anyone out of the party because of what they believe or delisting on principle or blah blah blah. I think the party’s big enough to support a plurality of points of view; if we can have anti-abortion Catholics as Democrats (and we have one of them as our Governor) then in my opinion we can have people who aren’t buying into Obama. However, it’s pretty clear that as much as I respect Mimi’s point of view, she doesn’t respect mine. The very premise behind “party unity” my ass is that the tent is that the tent isn’t big enough to hold both the Obama supporters and the Clinton supporters, and Mimi isn’t being too subtle in telling the Obama supporters to drop dead.
Does she have a right to be tasteless? Yes. Does she have a right to stick her fingers in her ears and go “la la la?” Yes. Does she have the right to self-identify as a Democrat and a progressive. Yes. I’ll happily call her a Democrat. But I’m not going to go so far as to say that she’s a good one.
Vivian,
She has not only crossed the line but has shredded any sense of credibility that she has ever had.
It’s obvious that you have crossed over and supported Obama yet, that’s up to you and your perogative.
But put that picture that she posted in your mind and change the person on the toliet to Ted Kennedy, Mark Warner, Brian Moran or any other Democrat and ask yourself - is this appropriate behavior for a Democrat? Is that the way we treat others in the party?
Obama is the nominee and HRC is fully supporting him. Hell, even Taylor Marsh is now on board.
Sorry, with “Democrats” like her- we sure as hell don’t need Republicans!
Quoting worldnetdaily, Faux News, No Quarter, and using right wing rhetoric do little to give her any credibility. Demeaning supporters of Obama- who happen to be good Democrats is offbase too. The insults and name calling is out of order.
And, as I have said- it goes both ways, I got pretty ticked off when I heard people insult HRC or her supporters. I don’t agree with Reagan much, but I think his “11th commandment” stands true here.
If she is indeed a PUMA, she needs to get the hell out of the party- and sorry if the door hits her where the sun don’t shine. As I have said before, I love my party and have seen the darkest of days for Democrats (1994 anyone??). I don’t want to go back to that.
We have TOO much at stake this year at so many different levels.
By keeping her on your blogrole, you are condoning her behavior. It’s your blog, but I commend Richmond Democrat. Cobalt6 and others who stood up and said “Enough”!
Now that’s just crap. There are any number of reasons to link people/places, and expressing approval is but one of them.
From Tom Joad’s Place:
“I’m putting Howling Latina up in this post because everyone else is de-listing Mimi…Booooooooooo to those blogs (your censorship is not appreciated) and how dare you Lefty Blogs for wanting the Democratic nominee as President.”
http://tomjoadsplace.blogspot.com/2008/08/blog-spotlight-hl-express.html
Probably my favorite post on this subject yet.
Eh, there’s a self-righteousness about some of these folks making proclamations about de-listing that’s tasteless. And let’s be honest: a lot of Democrats who are Obama supporters are every bit as tasteless as Mimi. None of us deserve to be commended today. None of us occupies enough moral highground to be in a position to praise or condemn in the first place.
Mimi got to express her opinion. Others got to express theirs. The two opinons are by their very nature irreconcilable because there’s no middle ground. So this isn’t praise worthy or even note worthy. This is just the way it has to work out.
I think you left out a line,
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for the kinda nuts HRC dead-enders who posted lewd and disgusting caricatures of the party’s nominee, and called other Democrats vile names, and made false accusations, and refused to accept the results of a fair democratic process long after their preferred candidate had already bowed out,
and I didn’t speak up, because I am a sane and rational person who believes in democracy.
“Quoting sources like WorldNetDaily because they suit your needs is not progressive.”
What difference does it make what the source is? (That is known as an ad hominem attack — attacking the source of the information in an effort to show that the information is false, rather than actually finding evidence that contradicts the information provided by the source in question. If they quote something that is untrue, then post the truth, with your sources.
One little aside, Vivian, when have the Republicans “[censored] the sources within [their] party”? It seems that it was those dissenting voices in the Republican Party that derailed Harriet Meyers and the Amnesty for Unlawful Immigrants bill (McCain-Kennedy). Many voices in the Republican Party also railed against the Prescription Drug benefit, too, though not as effectively.
MB,
I don’t think you should express approval as a reason to link.
On my favorites tab, I have “Bearing Drift”. I’m a Democrat but often find their “dissenting” voice to be interesting.
I don’t read things that I just agree with. There have been many credible criitiques of Barack Obama that give credence to the dissenting opinion. These are done using empirical evidence and facts, not lies, insults, and smears.
Hell, I don’t even think Ben @ NLS has crossed a line this far.
I’m not sure I understand you then, ProudVADem. Does your link to BearingDrift mean you condone the behavior of their resident clown?
No, she said it’s on her favorites bar. It just means she doesn’t want to have to type it out each time.
Thanks Spotter!
I don’t have a blog, thus no blogroll.
Like a broken clock that is right twice a day, even Bearing Drift gets it right once in awhile.
Ah. Thank you. That answers half the question, anyway.
Silence,
I agree and I have not been afraid to rip anyone who makes (or made for that matter) personal attacks against the great Senator from NY.
Trust me, my right wing brother and I had a VERY heated Thanksgiving discussion when he chose to make unfair and crude remarks about HRC. I have and wiil defend her as I will any Democrat.
As far as I’m concerned, both side crosse the line several times during the primary and it ticked me off. Thankfully, this is now over and we can look towards November.
Like Larry Flynt- Mimi can say whatever the hell she wants. The first ammendment is a great thing. Her blog is in the same sewer as Flynts magazine as far as I’m concerned.
This is a tempest in a teapot.
I don’t pretend to know why Mimi Schaeffer felt obligated to burn her bridges once Hillary Clinton lost the nomination, but she did. Mimi has repeatedly attacked and insulted every supporter of Barack Obama. That was her choice. She has done everything she can do to offend, and she finally succeeded.
That was her intention Vivian, she meant to offend. Who is she to complain that some of us have taken offense? Why are you so upset on her behalf? This is what she intended.
Many of us no longer care to associate with her. Period. Those who want to continue associating with her, well that’s their right.
It’s as simple and American as this: everyone do what they want to do.
Sean - your post @6:09 got hung up in my spam filter.
Can somebody please tell me how Lefty Blogs became aware of the graphic when it is a text-only site?
Howling Latina was delisted because she ran a profanely racist cartoon on her site. She can support whoever she wants in the upcoming election. And she can promote racism to her heart’s content. What she cannot do is expect the support of the progressive blogging community when she promotes medieval notions of racial heirarchy.
The Richmond Democrat,
I fully sympathize with your point of view, but I have to back up Vivian on this one. I am bending over backward to approach Mimi in the spirit of friendship and understanding. I don’t actually believe that what’s in her heart is represented by this hateful tantrum, but only time will tell. Until then, I still will call her a friend and will wait to see what she will do.
Skepticalbrotha,
As I said before, everyone should do what they want to do. But let’s not pretend that Mimi Schaeffer is some poor, innocent victim who was blind-sided by her de-listing. Two months ago Mimi embarked on a systematic campaign against not only Barack Obama, but also anyone who supported him. Mimi deliberately set out to offend and create hard feelings among Democrats. She did so with malice in her heart. She has drawn precisely the reaction she hoped to.
I will be interested to see if you can make sense of her behavior, but for myself, I prefer not to associate with her in the future.
Wait. What cartoon was that?
If this is the standard by which blogs are listed on a blogroll, then I might as well remove 99% of them. I don’t condone calling John McCain “McSame” or “McLame” so there goes most of the blogs on the left. I don’t condone calling Tim Kaine “Timmy” so there goes most of the blogs on the right.
Just a reminder - I said that individual blogs have the right to make their own decisions about who to include in their blogroll. My beef is not with them - it is with Lefty Blogs.
Vivian,
Do you believe what Mimi is doing is deliberately inspired by hate or rather some adrenaline rush from the nomination fight playing itself out? You know her personally, what do really think?
Mark:
I think that everyone is just guessing about the reasons Leftyblogs dropped Mimi. Here’s my guess: her posts became too offensive and irrational in tone and style. Her posts were no longer debate: they were fighting words meant only to cause ugly fights, not debate. I don’t think she was dropped for supporting Hillary Clinton or even the PUMAs. She was dropped because of her constantly escalating attacks and attempts to start fights, that’d be my guess.
You are certainly free to disagree with that decision and I don’t mind debating the point with you. In the end, it was Leftyblogs’ call to make in so far as Leftyblogs goes, and my decision as far as my own blog goes. I am comfortable with my decision.
skep - I don’t know Mimi personally so I really have no idea about her motives.
Woohoo! I still make the cut! (Now stop, before you get to something like cursing.)
~
SB - whatever it is, I don’t think it can be fairly ascribed to some post-primary adrenaline rush. I’ve definitely written some things in which the tone was set by exactly that, so I know what you’re talking about. And it’s what I was hoping explained things over at HL’s place for a while. But this far down the line? It ain’t adrenaline. I admire your sincere and credulous outreach to her, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a reasonable response.
RD -
Were you speaking to me?
I had said that it was LeftyBlogs’ business to do what they felt they needed to.
??
No, I think it was MB (Mark Blacknell).
Ah. Richmond Democrat, I think we’re in general agreement about how we see the problem* - we’ve just come down differently on whether we think she’s irreversibly crossed that line out of the progressive camp.
*Except I very much disagree that it’s an issue of freedom of association (or of speech). Those are freedoms with respect to the gov’t, not to private actors (which we all are, here).
MB:
I agree, and you are correct in your analysis of the freedoms. Because there is no government actor, there really isn’t any issue of rights. The question really is whether those of us who have de-listed Mimi Schaeffer were ever under any obligation to link to her in the first place.
I think that Mimi’s goal was to provoke a fight among Democrats. I don’t think she succeeded. Instead I see a relatively calm and respectful discussion about what it all means.
As far as whether or not she’s crossed a line out of the progressive camp, well I suppose it depends on how you define the progressive camp. But phrase the question a little differently and ask if she’s left the Democratic Party’s big tent, and I think that the answer is much clearer. Mimi is actively working to defeat the presumptive nominee of the party. It’s a choice she made consciously. We didn’t kick her out: she left.
The real question seems to me to be, if you leave under those circumstances is it possible to come back? I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I don’t think Mimi Schaeffer is to be trusted anymore.
Deliberately left off the list
That criteria would eliminate almost everyone.
Hmmm. That’s not really something I think is really a useful discussion. As noted above, I think she’s lost the plot, but I don’t bear her any ill will. And heading down that discussion topic road will only be hurtful. Not interested in it.
Now, with a bit of modification, I think *that’s* a topic that may well be worth some exploration. Lots of self-appointed Progressive Democratic Blogs in VA have gone well out of their way to do real damage to the candidate who turns out to be the nominee in a given contest. Should we trust them?
In Portuguese “Obambi” sounds REALLY more offensive than it looks because in Portuguese the same word used for deers is a offensive slang used against gays. I also don´t like Ms Clinton(*Really*). And I see bad taste on that cartoon, but not racism. Only black guys masturbates?
But I like Mimi´s Blog, and c´mon, you can´t deny that she supports progressive values.
Working to get John McCain elected president is not supportive of progressive values.
I never said I was okay with HL being taken down because she says things people don’t agree with. I meant it was predictable that as insulting and objectionable as she has been behaving in the past few months I can’t condemn the decision. She was determined to incur just such a response. That much was obvious from her relentlessly negative attacks on Obama AND his supporters over the past few months. She wasn’t merely expressing differences of opinion, but was reprinting anti-Obama screeds lifted directly from right wing blogs and commentaries, was taking snippets of information and drawing the most negative connotations about Obama and Obama supporters she could find, was extremely insulting to Obama supporters, adopting right wing terms like “Obamatrons”, “Obamaniacs”, etc. She was insulting and disrespectful toward anyone who disagreed with her.
If it were the government which de-listed her I’d be up in arms in a heartbeat, but that’s not the case. It was other people, all self-described progressives or Democrats or liberals, who were saying that enough was enough. In other words, they decided she crossed a line.
I asked whether there was a line. I never said there’s a firm, immutable line, but that a line may be justified under some circumstances. So my question for you is - is there a line? And if it isn’t this, then what is it?
Yes they have. And how many of them have been shunned?
My line isn’t the same as your line, someone else’s line is different than both of ours. So your question has no answer.
I fixed the blockquote on your post. And that last sentence you quoted wasn’t directed at you, it was directed at everyone who felt that way (thus the reference to “y’all” )
MB @ 5:13 I didn’t say Mark Brooks was pompous and judgmental….I said his WORDS were. May I quote his words: “Bottom line? She is not progressive…” I believe that’s a judgment, isn’t it?
Where was the outrage when Senator Clinton’s anatomy, family, etc., was villified and slewn all over the internet and media? This lack of tolerance for another’s opinion (HL’s) to the extent that her blog will be removed from LeftyBlogs is really just FEAR of another’s opinion. It shows weakness and unsuredness.
Again, Vivian, you are the true big-tent Democrat and an excellent defender of the Democratic Party’s principles.
Please show me a Leftyblogs blog that was involved in this:
“Where was the outrage when Senator Clinton’s anatomy, family, etc., was villified and slewn all over the internet and media?”
I criticized certain aspects of Clinton’s record, but never attacked her gender or her “anatomy.”
Please show me another Leftyblogs blog that has behaved anything like Howling Latina.
Howling Latina’s cartoon is not merely tasteless, it feeds an age old stereotype of the sexually depraved black man. Southern politicians have promoted this stereotype to great affect for over a century. As late as 2006, the GOP ran commercials targeting Harold Ford, suggesting that he was lusting after white women. The Connecticut blue blood George HW Bush, enlisted his Confederate pit bull Lee Atwater, to develop the Willie Horton campaign, which famously suggested that Michael Dukakis would unleash the black rapists of white women, on society at large. Howling Latina’s cartoon resurrects the nasty stereotype of a black man who has uncontrollable, twisted sexual urges. If you don’t understand the history of this genre of political demagoguery and think that I am simply overreacting, go to some of the black blogs and you’ll see that people are outraged by Howling Latina’s cartoon. She can hate Obama all she wants. But to promote this sort of racist nonsense out of reflexive anger and frustration, most assuredly calls into question her “progressive” philosophy.
Vivian,
This has to be some kind of record for your site. Congrats on sparking an interesting and useful debate.
Vivian, you know I’ve always supported free speech. I’ve defended some people who hold views mighty unpopular with the left. But there is a difference between censorship, which is the government or other entity silencing somebody, and the exercise of editorial discretion.
BTW, I don’t think it’s only the government that can practice censorship. If I come to your house in the middle of the night and threaten or harm you for your views, even if I’m a private individual, I am censoring you. I am silencing you through intimidation.
If somebody was to do that, I would fight it with every ounce of my being.
But using judgment on who I list or delist from my blogroll is my right. I have many, many blogs listed that I disagree with. And I have cordial relations with and like many of those on my blogroll. I delight in our differences. But I took Howling Latina off my blogroll a long time ago, before this whole tempest. It’s not because she is a PUMA. Although I’m not one, I can sympathize - I was a Hillary supporter.
But increasingly, I disliked her tone, her lack of respect for others, and her general nastiness. That cartoon of Obama, which everybody is referring to, probably was the final straw for a lot of people. It was racist and vicious. She was already off my blogroll but if she hadn’t been, I’d have taken her off it then.
Again, that’s just my editorial judgment. You are free to disagree with it. Just as you are free to disagree with the judgment of Lefty Blogs. But they had a right to make their decision. I don’t think it had anything to do with what she said, but with the increasingly shrill and disrespectful way she says it. Again, they have the right to editorial discretion. We all do. That’s not the same as silencing somebody for their views or making the tent smaller.
I wish I could live in TripLBee’s world where people don’t know that 99% of the world’s men have masturbated furiously in the bathroom at some point in their lives, regardless of race, religion, socio-economic background, marital status or sexual orientation. Come on. Just because the man’s black doesn’t mean that everything negative about him is feeding into a racial stereotype.
As long as we’re on the topic, while there was a racial component to the ad you referenced in Tennessee, most people outside the Volunteer State aren’t aware that Ford’s problem with the ad wasn’t that it implied that he sleeps around with a lot of younger white women; his problem was that he actually *does* sleep around with a lot of younger women (of all races), enough so that thousands of people knew about it before the ad even hit.
I wish I could live in a sanitized world where the hit job on Harold Ford was really more about the fact that he was a bachelor than about feeding the fear that he would unleash a lusting army of black men on the virtuous white women of Tennessee. I wish I could live in a world where I was so unaware of racial stereotyping that the Obama cartoon was a pleasant reminder of the fact that men masturbate, and not a subtle (or not so subtle) attempt to remind fence sitting white voters that Obama is as sexually depraved as most black men. What a nice world that would be.
I have to agree with TripLBee about the Harold Ford ads being racist. My husband’s from Tennessee and very proud of it. But he found the ads offensive.
Harold Ford is a bachelor. His private life really should have been off limits. He broke no wedding vows. Was not untrustworthy. I’m pretty sure lots of Republicans aren’t virgins when they are single.
The ad was about race and interracial dating. Likewise, the portrayl of Obama was racist and disgusting to boot.
Yeah. We’re about…what, six weeks? away from people saying that the implication that Obama may not be strong on foreign policy credentials only feeds into the stereotype that black people don’t understand the complexities behind the tenuous relationship between human rights and globalization viz. Sino-American trade relations. Why waste time refuting the message behind the cartoon that Sean Holihan concisely and correctly identified — that Barack Obama is in love with himself, the GOP’s message du jour — when we can simply ignore the debate and label it racist.
Vivian,
While I respect your opinion, I would like to point out a few things you said two years ago with regards to Waldo removing a blog from his aggregator:
On Waldo’s site:
“‘No one has been censored. Rather, they have been denied access to a site which you created, you maintain and you, ultimately, control. They are still free to post whatever they like, as often as they like on their own sites. If that is the definition of censorship, then I need a new dictionary.’
That would make two of us that would need a new dictionary, Norm.”
On your site:
“As the result, Waldo removed the blog from the aggregator. I wholeheartedly support his decision. Contrary to the postings of some others, this isn’t about censorship. This is about common decency. The exact same decency that keeps out of the blogsphere profanity-laden posts. The image was profane.
I would take it step further and say that Waldo, who has graciously hosted Virginia Political Blogs on his servers at no charge to the rest of us, should enact a code of sorts that prohibits anyone from participating in the aggregator who does not agree with the rules of basic decency.”
Just a little perspective.
Similarly, it is one thing to block a commenter because you disagree with his opinions, and another to block him because of profanity. I think it is profane to show a cartoon depicting anyone, especially a presumptive presidential candidate, masturbating. The idea could have been better conferred showing Obama kneeling over a pond and falling in love with his own reflection. (Of course, this may assume too great a knowledge of Greek Mythology, but we can hope.)
“Go to some of the black blogs and you’ll see that people are outraged by Howling Latina’s cartoon.”
I don’t doubt it. But I have to ask, is Vivian not “black enough?”
I’m not casting aspersions on Vivian at all. In fact, I appreciate the fact that she’s opened up her site to this kind of discourse. I stated the abovementioned quote to make the point that my assertion that the cartoon is conjuring up grotesque racist stereotypes, is not a paranoid, isolated point of view.
Wow - lots of stuff I need to respond to but these in particular:
Different circumstances. First, Waldo’s aggregator is more like a blogroll, which I have repeatedly said each blog owner has the right to make their own decision. Lefty Blogs is not just blogrolling those included, not to mention the monetization of LB.
Have to say I didn’t see the racist component of the ad, either. And it certainly wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been accused of not being “black enough.”
I think I’ve given reasons why they were wrong on this - and heck, I even gave them an out. Change the heading as I mentioned above and I’ll let them off the hook, just as I have the bloggers.
Gotta get back to work.
I’ve been patiently hoping that you’d find something you have in common with Barack Obama, I was just hoping this wasn’t it.
HL is an ignorant hack who can’t refute any solid argument made against Hillary Clinton. Not only is she irrational, but her “views” make little political sense, and 99 percent of them are just recycled talking points. Who cares if she is de-listed from sites? Anyone with a functioning brain wouldn’t want to be associated with someone like that either. The woman doesn’t even understand basic politics, ranting and raving about Barack Obama like some disgruntled stalker…and not only has she insulted various elements of the Democratic base, but she still claims to be a Democrat. What a joke.
John - personal attacks are not welcome here. Please refrain from that. Thanks!
Ditto, vivian …
6 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] It appears that Vivian Paige agrees with me (although I do take exception to her assessment of Republicans). addthis_url = [...]
[...] Paige has the details of this silly mess. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site. RSS [...]
[...] blogger Vivian Paige, a good friend, is having a discussion on her space about the above graphic used by blogger Howling [...]
[...] really. The debate is raging in the Virginia blogosphere, however, after Howling Latina was apparently removed from the pioneering political blog aggregator [...]
[...] Latina rankled a few feathers, chief among them it seems, the prominent Hampton Roads blogger Vivian Paige: I understand that Lefty Blogs has delisted Howling Latina. And other supposedly Democratic blogs [...]
[...] Leftyblogs creator Kari Chrisholm’s note to the Virginia blogger who sparked a debate over the delisting of a PUMA blog. Vivian [...]
Post a Comment