Dear Dawg with respect to your post in our comments section,
This is not about freedom of expression per se as we are already on record as understanding the limitations to that right.
The question is: what is the responsibility of members of a community to one another? And this is why the little show trial you had was so disgusting. Apologize or be banned. This is Maoist re-education at its best.
Who but the most defeated of individual without any sense of personal autonomy could bend to that especially if they felt it was being motivated by the likes of Kinsella and Cherniak? Robert’s comment was full of shit we all decried him for that we even educated him on that. End of story. Or at least that should have been. But you little kids needed to make clear your virginal purity.
Which of course is bullshit because there are dark places in your hearts somewhere –unless of course you now have achieved transcendence into a God.
And the reference to Apartheid was about just that: (1) censorship of this type is futile and (2) how injuriously offended people deal with the perpetrators of those offences. The wisdom of the TRC was that Apartheid was a complex social beast which was not the property of any individual but rather the property of a social totality which spanned vast swaths of time and geography reaching way down into the very soul of the West and its colonial endeavors (see any connection to anti-semitism?). The TRC made young activists all very sick. The elders defended its (TRC) wisdom. You all should grow up. Purity is for babies and Gods and you my little Dawg are a man. Learn the difference.
“Attack the argument, the emotion but not the man.” Given your apparent foundness for Maoist re-education here is a suggestion: write that on a chalk board, tie it around your neck and repeat it outloud as you walk down the public streets.
Canadian Observer 
March 7, 2007 at 8:16 pm
“Apologize or be banned. This is Maoist re-education at its best.”
Enjoy your masturbatory self-righteousness, by all means. But stop lying. No such ultimatum was ever made. We watched the whole show unfold with horror: the comment, the remonstrations at My Blahg, the pleading of friends at Paladiea’s Diary thread…the whole nine yards. In the air, like the traffic outside, and about as relevant, were the self-interested huffings and puffings of Cherniak. (Kinsella’s involvement was mimimal–one entry at his place. Big effing deal.)
No one who knows me could imagine that anything Jason has to say could move me a quark-length in any direction at all. His contribution, such as it was, was so obviously self-aggrandizing that it played no role, other than to offer patent rationalizations to such as you who imagine that otherwise we’d have just let that anti-Semitic crap lie around and stink up the place. What the hell could Cherniak and his buds do to us? It’s just the blogosphere.
Talking about not worrying overmuch if they came again for the Jews was bad enough. Spending a day defending that putrid comment was worse. I didn’t think, in fact, it could get any worse than that. But I was wrong: a small but doughty band of wankers is now trying to deflect the shitstorm in our direction. Good luck with that. We have our principles. All you’ve got is a frantic political onanism that reminds me, quite a bit, of Cherniak’s.
Screw you both.
March 7, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Um we have had zero communication with Robert. We are telling you how it looks from the outside. If you wanted it to look different perhaps you should have opened up the process and made it transparent. But then this is why people hate Star Chambers.
Now just admit that you were wrong, apologize to all the PB community and we can all move on.
Or dig-in and stick to your authoritarian guns.
Like that logic, we learned it over at progressive bloggers.
In solidarity,
GG
March 7, 2007 at 11:24 pm
With all due respect. we weren’t wrong.
March 8, 2007 at 12:35 am
It remains unfortunate that progressive blogger Robert McClelland is not on the PB blogroll.
From what I understand now is that Robert was banned because:
– some of his comments, when taken out of context, was perceived by some as anti-semitic
– he’s not willing to apologize for these comments
At the same time:
– PB do not believe Robert is anti-semitic.
Now, explain to me how you make these things rhyme, and then conclude that Robert is not progressive enough to be on the PB blogroll anymore: IT.DOES.NOT.MAKE.SENSE!
So shame to you, moderators.
PS: Of course it’s just my opinion – let’s not forget we’re all entitled to have one
March 8, 2007 at 1:30 am
And the process is transparent. Dawg just explained it to you, for one thing. Also it’s not a secret that the moderators discuss including or excluding bloggers who apply, and recommend to Wayne Chu what we’d like to see done.
Now you can’t say you don’t know.
March 8, 2007 at 3:25 am
There are solid reasons for why people might be concerned about banning. I think Mike from Rational Reasons articulated them very well at several threads over at Cherniak’s blog.
Some of these issues also have to do with whether people even perceive PBs as an online community and feel they want it to set some broad standards.
Ideally, a discussion could be had that encouraged people not to use accusations of sexism, racism, anti-semitism, and so on lightly…We might also encourage people to challenge members of their OWN political group and/or ideology so that serious issues aren’t reduced to rhetorical weapons in partisan games.
In any case, I think Dawg makes solid points as to how thing unfolded…I believe it was his own blogmate that encouraged him to apologize or at least be receptive to the complaints.
I find it odd that you use the following: “Attack the argument, the emotion but not the man.” Perhaps, you might try this yourself if you would like to faciliate discussion.
March 8, 2007 at 3:34 am
I just want to emphasize that I don’t think accusations of anti-semtism were made too freely in the case of RM. As well, the people who first challenged him were people that were connected to him. It was unfortunate that Cherniak got involved…I actually give him more benefit of the doubt though than others as to his motives.
My above suggestion relates to ways we might avoid these issues being used solely as silencing mechanisms in the future.
March 8, 2007 at 4:32 am
Timeline:
Sunday RM comments on his own post about anti-semitism after being accused of anti-semitism
Sunday PM: PB starts its deliberations on RM
Monday: Cherniak picks it up and contacts CJC
Monday afternoon: NDP renounces RM
Late monday afternoon: Kinsella and Cherniak publish NDP renouncement.
Monday evening: PB convicts RM and bans him.
So yes lets please take the emotion out of this. Sound and furry signalling exactly nothing except save a bleating goat. We would ban you all, but that it not our style.
And please do fuck off.
Yes that is right we are unreasonable. The left would do well to dwell on that statement you might find that it would give you the stones to win some elections. But hey that is much harder than the standard troupes that have walked you into the “and also ran status.”
March 8, 2007 at 4:37 am
Also stop framing the issue as anti-semitism. The issue is what is an anti-semitic comment and what is an anti-semitic ideology. The difference really does matter. Do any of you have any real world experience or trainning?
March 10, 2007 at 2:40 am
Man oh man, eh? I’ve followed this sucker. I think the NDP Blogging Dippers basically choked, to use some jock terminology. And I think the Liberal bloggers are not far behind.
I think Kinsella has this amazing ability to intimidate people. Cherniak is just laughable. I never know whether I want to hug him, pick him up, LBJ style by his large ears, or boot him in the ass.
I’ve read the questionable thread. McClelland’s remark was crabby. Mean. Unkind. But anti-Semitism? Against the Jews? The guy said, basically, fuck it I don’t care at this point. I read him as frustrated with the conversation.
The natural reaction of a free man, when facing down the kind of intimidation employed by Doctor Dawg and progressive posse, is to push back. I think McClelland did that. He said fuck you.
Again: cranky, belligerent. But hateful toward the Jews? Shit. Let’s leave the fascism to the amateurs like Kinsella.
March 10, 2007 at 2:44 am
Yah it really is disgusting. We really do not know what else to say save that we are profoundly sad.
March 10, 2007 at 2:06 pm
“The natural reaction of a free man, when facing down the kind of intimidation employed by Doctor Dawg and progressive posse, is to push back. I think McClelland did that. He said fuck you.”
OK, Maudlin, would you like to establish a timeline to back up that fatuous comment? Hint: Robert told us all to fuck off before the ProgBlogMods made any public pronouncement at all. You can check out Paladiea’s Diary thread for yourself. But I guess it’s more fun to just invent conspiracies and slag the moderators, isn’t it?
March 10, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Doctor Dawg
What, exactly, is in dispute? McClelland had a shit storm at his blog, including some commentary that apparently offending some folks.
He was asked to apologize. He said no. He was dumped by you and your posse. What have I misunderstood?
March 10, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Dawg see timeline, comment #8. You people dropped the ball now just apologize to all of us and we can move on. See comment #2. You all are in the docket now Dawg.