The Hate At LGF

My good blog buddy, Glenn Greenwald seems pre-occupied with the tone of comments at Little Green Footballs today:

(1) Here's another item to discuss in the next newspaper article about the "Angry Left": members of the Little Green Footballs community last night celebrate the death by Israeli bombing of four UN peacekeepers (UPDATE - the proprieter of LGF is apparently (and understandably) embarrassed by the comments appearing on his site and has therefore re-directed the link I had to that page to another blog. He has not, however, removed the comments from his blog).

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. And I hereby denounce these comments:

the NASCAR family - high shool was as far as these people got and it shows. they like huntin' and fishin' and believe completely that the "sand niggers" must die for expressing their outrage at the good ole'red white and blue on 9/11.
(type "B" useful idiot)

How long do we have to take this fascism? Seriously, let's just take power and lock these fundie militia-dittoheads up at Gitmo. I mean, should we sit on our hands like the Jews did with the Nazis? If Bush = Hitler, it's time to strike back (like the Progressives did in the Spanish Civil War) and take power, and lock up these GOP and Corporate Nazis.

Ariel Sharon is a facsist piece of homocidal garbage and he will burn in hell forever right next to Adolph Hitler. They will make a great pair for all of eternity. As far as I'm concerned, it can't happen soon enough.

Well, bush is a chickenhawk, at least hitler served in the armed forces..... Is that what you mean?

As I have never studied history and never read Mein Kempf, I was shocked to read those passages you quoted. What is known about whether Hitler really wrote that book or whether someone else could have been the author? (Karl Rove's grandfather?) Karl Rove, have been using that same exact playbook to dupe the masses into supporting their evil agendas, the parallels are so great that one cannot help but notice that they have completely succeeded in hi-jacking this country by utilizing the very tactics which Mein Kempf itself addresses.

This is pretty scary. Our government is and has been using Mein Kempf (now substituting Islamics for Jews) as their Real Bible for quite some time. But where Hitler failed, they themselves have succeeded

Another interesting aspect that I keep having nightmares about, a book a few years back, "Why the Air Force had to overthrow the Gov't", about a Hayden type who saw the President's party taken over by "illegals", and the bloody aftermath. And don't think that the good 'ol boys ain't just a itchin to "shoot dem sum hippies/niggers/fags/democrats, etc...it's what they masterbate over". Just how many chief's of state have we actually assinated, or had diposed by the monied interests of this great land we call home?
...so don't be suprized when they have Hillary whacked, because that 23% are the real problem we're facing.

Oh shoot, must have gotten my links mixed up. I apologize Charles, those comments above are from my now ex-buddy's site Unclaimed Territory. I can't possibly allow myself to be associated with such unhinged hate. And I hereby denounce those comments and Glenn Greenwald, just the same!

I am a conservative and a man of principle, after all.

Comments

[Karridine]

Get ON! :D

You also show a decisive ability to DEMONSTRATE the HYPOCRISY inherent in those hateful, leftoid links!

Courageous and principled stand, Sir! If I may be of any assistance, don't hesitate to call on me!

Karridine, BrainSurgeryWithSpoons.blogspot.com

[becky]

It's just a guess, of course, but I do lots of blog reading and I found the comments at Greenwald's sight to be somewhat ...unique and similar all at the same time. I'd be willing to wager he writes his own comments on his blog to make it look like someone is actually visiting it. Seeing how he's so into self-promotion, it seems a logical thing for him to do.

[Jane]

Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan........so fascism comes in all shapes and disguises including mulit-culturalism and progessive liberalism? Who woulda thunk it?

[w3]

I'm not sure what's funnier: GiGi's obsession with random commenters, or his suggestion that we are to assume random commenters are always honest brokers. And the number one item of his day? Isn't that a little dramatic even for puppet theater?

[Dom]

If this is about responsible comments I would like to suggest that we kill anyone whose palm has a short life line so as to spare them pain later.

[richard]

It's true, there are always some a**holes who post deranged comment on blogs, and I think bloggers should readily delete comments that are indisutably, obscenely vile. But Greenwald's commenters tend to be relatively polite and reserved (I find Kos commenters far more irritating). It's easy to dig through tens of thousands of comments and find some bad ones. But let's take a look at just one single thread on LGF, and notice the sheer frequency of rabid comments. Then step back and ask yourself whether it's truly comparable to what you find in any given threat over at Greenwald's blog. Let's be fair and objective. This is in response to the death of the UN workers in Lebanon yesterday. Here goes:
(http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21771_UN_Repairing_Roads_for_Hizballah#comments)

#18 RadicalRon 7/25/2006 06:08PM PDT
Maybe a couple of more UN observation posts getting blown to hell would be appropriate.

#25 mbruce 7/25/2006 06:12PM PDT
The blue helmets of death, like I said a few posts back,the UN is on the side of the enemy,why do we allow them to stink up our soil?

#48 goodbye_natalie 7/25/2006 06:26PM PDT
Seems to me that road would be a perfect place to drop a little test run of Israel's newly acquired Bunker Busters.

#56 SlothB77 7/25/2006 06:33PM PDT
and the UN wonders why the peacekeepers get accidentally hit when Israel goes after Hezbollah. I know 4 UN peacekeepers who
will no longer be building roads for Hezbollah.

#2 400lb gorilla 7/25/2006 05:06PM PDT
Kofi the CHOAD

#20 RadicalRon 7/25/2006 05:14PM PDT
Too bad Kofi wasn't there, too.

24 Pro-Bush Canuck 7/25/2006 05:16PM PDT
Annan Says Israel Attacked UN Post Deliberately
Yah. *snort* If only!

#29 big L 7/25/2006 05:17PM PD
a brush-back pitch from the IDF...to let the skanks know that kidnapping assistance from the UN and the Red Cross meat wagons full of RPGs are definitely standing to close to home plate.

#38 baldylox 7/25/2006 05:23PM PDT
I know it sounds a bit harsh, but I wish that it were deliberate, and that Israel came right out and said so.

#39 sms111 7/25/2006 05:23PM PDT
Dear Mr. Annan,
GO FUCK YOURSELF.

40 Catttt 7/25/2006 05:25PM PDT
War is hell, Mr. Annan. You get that?
Me, I'm shocked at the UN peacekeepers who damaged their penises after trying to fuck goats.

#41 WrathofG-d 7/25/2006 05:25PM PDT
baldy lox:
you think the UN should be attacked?
Their main office is in New York. Just look for the silly building with lots of flags in front of it.

#57 ted 7/25/2006 05:33PM PDT
4 Less child molesters in the world...

#70 goodbye_natalie 7/25/2006 05:44PM PDT
I'd be laughing my ass off if somebody launched one right in Kofi's office while he was groping his secretary.

#80 ronnie 7/25/2006 05:50PM PDT
Kofi Annan (or Monkey in Hebrew ;-) is a filthy anti-Semite - there is no doubt about that.

94 RTLM 7/25/2006 06:05PM PDT
4 less UN terrorist collaborators.
Good Job IDF

#97 Sam I Am 7/25/2006 06:13PM PDT
Can we do the same thing to the UN presence in New York City?
Just wondering...

Do you think Greenwald's comment threads are as consistently and obsessively hateful as Johnson's? Really?

[w3]

Richard,

Bloggers are not obligated to "readily delete" anything. Some bloggers are just as devoted to the concept of leaving their comments wide open as others are to moderation, censoring and deleting. It comes down to a matter of preference.

Not that this would ever happen, but let's say that the goal of a small group is to force a blogger who has been vocal about leaving comments uncensored to abandon this princple. One way they might go about it is to challenge the blogger's principle and see how devoted he is to it by posting the most vile garbage imaginable on his blog and beg to be edited/banned/deleted. They might even bring his family in to it. But enough of hypotheticals.

Now to your question: we're to compare the commenters of LGF with those at Greenwald's blog? LGF gets over 2 million comments in a single day. Greenwald? Well, I know either he or someone in his house is his biggest fan, but even he can't sock puppet his way to 2 million comments in a single day. Are you suggesting that Charles should not only update content enough to maintain his traffic, but he should also look into those 2 million comments he gets every day and clean them up a little? I think that's asking a bit much.

It is not valid to compare the comments of an uncensored site to a censored site to find who has the most polite commenters. Nothing true can be determined by comparing raw data to data filtered through arbitrary criteria.

Censorship may give the appearance of having a more refined, polite readership, but that's only because you threw out the trash.

[rhodeymark]

I disagree with richard that open unmoderated comments should be deleted or worse, hamshered. If it provides justification for people's notion of the "true nature of their enemies" then fine, they serve a purpose. Ain't gonna be no kumbaya anyways. A minor nit, though - Charles provides documentation of UN malfeasance w/ MSM links to rile the lizards. Greenwald? What is he pulling out of his sphincter to get the anti-Semites, conspiracy nuts and Godwin Groupies fired up?
Deep... rich... theories.

[dim_sum]

Charles does get a tremendous amount of
traffic daily, but he does not get 2 million
comments per day. He gets approx 2 up to 4 thousand
a day.

[w3]

dim,

Oh you're right. He has almost 3 million comments total, but only a few thousand each day. My bad. The rest stands and doesn't change my opinion at all that no one is obligated to run a censored blog any more than they are obligated to run an uncensored one.

[richard]

Charles could easily add a warning telling readers that comments expressing joy at the deaths of others are prohibited. On my own site, I have two friends who serve as monitors and zap comments that are blatantly obscene or that encourage violence. This has nothing to do with free speech - everyone has the freedom to open his/her blog and say what they choose. And I have the freedom to run my blog as I choose, not permittng comments that urge death to the Chinese people (I blog about China). If Charles really were bothered by such comments, he would either get some monitors, or at least write his own comment now and then condemning readers who revel in the death of innocents. Most important, he deletes heavily when it comes to comments that are ant-Israel, so that puts a big hole in your "2 million comments" theory. He is a very ruthless censor - of things he doesn't want said on his blog.

[w3]

Richard,

You judge Charles' behavior according to what you would do or how you think a blogger should act, not according to logic. Leaving the comments in place is his preference. Period. That's all you can determine from that by the evidence presented. Anything else is your conjecture or assumption. Charles writes on the bottom of every page:

Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs. Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.

The internet is a pull medium. Don't like it? Don't go back. At any rate, I don't assume that everyone who posts comments on a blog are playing themselves versus a role, so nothing useful can be determined about the authors of the comments.

[richard]

Comments on LGF that describe Moslems as animals and vermin are the norm, not the exception at LGF. All comments that are similarly outspoken of Israel are promptly deleted. His comment registration is closed, allowing him the luxury of having the definitive echo chamber. Once you criticize Israel your comment is not only deleted, you are banned. By the process of attrition, nearly all the commenters there now are of the same mindset. He once banned all commenters who were overly (in his mind) critical of Bush. That's his privilege, it's his blog. But don't pretend that those hateful comments that remain on his blg are there only because Charles is trying to be fair and open. They ARE LGF. They are what LGF stands for, which is why so many look upon his site with revulsion, just as I look with revulsion at comments by liberals that delight in the death of Ronald Reagan. But on Greenwald's site you have to hunt for such comments, and even then they don't hold a candle to the extermination rheetoric of Charles' minions. At LGF, such comments are the very essence of the site.

[Phoenix]

Richard,

What's your point? Are you the self-appointed Sphere Blogatoady? You haven't finished our discussion over at Steel's.

[richard]

My point is simple. Dr. Riehl was making the point that Greenwald's a hypocrite for criticizing the hateful comments on LGF, considering the comments on his own blog. I'm saying there is no comparison: LGF is all about comments that degrade people based on their religion; the posts are short, usually with no text by Charles to speak of, and then he passes the ball to the commenters who provide the shockingly racist comments that have become the sight's main attraction. On Greenwald's site, you have to search long and hard for comments that even approach, in any way, the violence and loathing of the LGF crowd. (Just look at the comments Riehl singled out in his post above, and compare to the ones I pasted from a single LGF thread. See my point? If not, there's no sense trying to have a reasonable discussion, as you have donned blinders.)

No, I'm no "self-appointed Sphere Blogatoady." When I see foolish comparisons like LGF commenters vs. Greenwald commenters, I try to look at what's really there. Riehl is trying to say one is as bad as the other, and it simply isn't so.

[w3]

Again. You provide nothing but your own opinion and assertion. You provide nothing to validate your claim that the site's main attraction is the "hateful comments." You provide nothing to validate your claim that LGF is "all about comments that degrade people based on their religion." Simply put, your perception of LGF is your perception of LGF. One thing Charles has never done is demand that Greenwald condemn comments left on his own blog. Evidently Charles prefers to deflect criticism with humor rather than hyperbolic hyper-hypocritical posturing.

You seem to argue that the best way to gauge the mindset of a blogger is by the commentary left on his site. You never build your case for this on anything except, "if he didn't agree with it, it wouldn't be there." I've pointed out to you that, factually, LGF has a disclaimer which states that no comment left there should be considered the opinion of LGF. Factually, you have no basis for affirming the consequent; it's just the way you feel because that's they way you run your own blog. You also make allegations that "all comments" that are "anti-Israeli" are deleted but you offer nothing to back it up. When George Harleigh was disappearing from Capitol Hill Blue, proof was offered in the form of archived pages.

Greenwald is a hypocrite for other reasons besides the hostile commentary he chooses to leave on his site while he criticizes others for doing the same. For one, Greenwald hides behind aliases while he slings ad hominem attack on his opponents. "Ryan" says we're all just jealous of Greenwald because Feingold read from his blog during Senate hearings. "Ryan" was traced back to Greenwald's IP. "Ryan," doesn't even bother hiding his hypocrisy. As soon as he's finished slinging ad hominem, he goes on to demand that we debate Greenwald on the merits of his case. "You big dummies, address his point," is my summation.

Another reason Greenwald is a hypocrite: he makes insipid, rhetorical demands (his claims that "virtually all" right wing blogs were obsessed with Deb Frisch has been thoroughly deconstructed) for condemnation of certain rhetoric while he defends Deb "Tongue Kiss" Frisch and, quite literally, Matt Hale. I say model the behavior you demand of others. Or, as someone so poetically stated recently, "be the change you seek."

[richard]

I've been watching LGF for years. I know all about it. You are only fooling yourself. Evidence: Just go to the site and see. Charles's "posts' usually consist of a line or two of copy and a large chunk from an article. All the "action" is in his comments. And I know for a fact he bans comments he sees as negative about Israel. Want proof? Just go there and condemn Israel, even in language 1/1,000th as vicious as the comments condemning Muslims. See how long the post lasts. Go and see. If you really want to know the truth.

[Phoenix]

"As the Blogs Turn" by Blogatoady.

Not making fun of you, Richard. I'm just becoming aware of how blog-wars seem to get bigger and bigger. Soon enough someone will have a blog devoted to the Blog War of the Week. When blogs become the news of the blogs, then what about the news? Oh well. I don't blame anyone for fighting for the truth. In fact, it'd be kind of cool if the big newspapers would do this to each other.