The daily digest of Twin Cities culture | Secrets of the City

"Should news sites have comments?"

No! Only trolls post comments.

Er, wait a minute....

Keep the comments. They're occasionally entertaining. People reading them will learn quickly if their sensibilities are too tender to handle them and will move on or stay.

I think it serves a useful purpose w/o the registration.

When considering the options of more free speech or less free speech, you gotta opt for the former.

And imagine how many marriages have been saved by those boards. If someone didn't have a place to go to bitch about Bill Clinton or Bushco, or gun control or stadium funding under the cloak of anonymity they might be kicking their dog or beating their kids.

This isn't about free speech. The first amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to leave comments on other people's websites. That doesn't mean I don't think they should be allowed to, just that introducing a "free speech" meme into some discussions just muddies the waters.

It's funny how every comment on the Strib Web site has something to do with "Commie Libs" and their "tax-and-spend" policies...even if the story is about something unrelated.

But yeah, this is more of a moderation issue. Keep 'em, but the webmaster should get his hands dirty in the process. I used to run a few newspaper websites and would check the comments throughout the day. If there were racist or offensive remarks, I would nix them. In other words, if they did not contribute to the debate, then they were gone.

It's no different than if you were speaking in person and someone was saying those remarks. You'd either deck them or leave.

Isn't it instructive who's for editing/deleting/"moderating" comments, and who isn't.

How about this? -- When considering the option of more interaction or less interaction, you have to opt for the former.

Depends on what you mean by "have to." "have to" as a business model? "have to" as an ethic? "have to" as a legal requirement?

I think yes for the first, kind of for the second (but following whatever process and moderation suits them), and not at all for the third.

Isn't it instructive who's for editing/deleting/"moderating" comments, and who isn't.

Isn't it instructive who puts "moderating" in scare quotes.

1. I'm not asking the government to do anything.
2. In a free society, people should be allowed to comment whenever and wherever they like and everyone would allow them that latitiude, regardless of the nature of those comments.

Thos are contradictory. If you think people have the second right, then you have to have a way to guarantee that right, which leads to #1.

I don't think you've put much thought into the logical or rhetorical construct of #2.

There's no contradiction. You've been conditioned to believe that anything that happens in socieity is because the government made it happen with some law or regulation. People have free will and sometimes things happen in spite of government, not because of it.

There's no contradiction. You've been conditioned to believe that anything that happens in socieity is because the government made it happen with some law or regulation. People have free will and sometimes things happen in spite of government, not because of it

This is a complete non-sequitur.

I'm for comments. If the Strib or PiPress forces me to register to READ the news, then it wouldn't be out of the question to require it to comment on it.

Also, they should hold people accountable for what they post. In Kurtis's example, the person who alleges that the girl killed her own dog should be held accountable for the results of those words. It may bring some civility to the wild west of newspaper comments.

more interaction or less interaction

I prefer quality over quantity. I don't think I'm alone with that opinion.

But that's subjective.

So only the brightest commenters can comment or the the most relevent or the most staid or the most popular or the ones who are relatively less offensive?

Not necessarily. But if you have to back up your words with your name, you're a little more likely to comment in a coherent, intelligent, well thought out way, thus bringing the quality. This includes comments that are less on topic, but humorous. Obviously, there are exceptions to this.

People are more likely to let their crazy show when they don't have to be held accountable.

I wouldn't feel qualified to make such a diagnosis.

free speech is one of the things that makes our country great. great writing and good editing is what makes a newspaper great. if you let any random commenter smear feces all over the bathroom walls of your paper, you are allowing an inferior product to reach the market. what you cut out is often as important as what you put in.

also, all kidding aside, how did Dennis Tester fare in the military with his self-described free speech at any and all costs, do not submit to the collective, I am a self-employed independent thinker, to hell with your chain-of-command rhetoric? and if he comes back with his, "you wouldn't know because you never served" BS, I'll be disappointed but not surprised.

I just find it interesting how much Maz hates how so many people work for the government, and yet everyone in the military works for the government...

I think political trolling should be added to the DSM, for reals.

I don't know if Bush Derangement Syndrome has been accepted as a formal diagnosis but The Times did this story about French people obsessed with Nicholas Sarkozy

Well, it's not really my Web site; it's Matt's. But I do get paid to provide content and moderation.

Yeah, I know. I was just sucking up to you Max.

It seems like he doesn't think the private companies should be legally prevented from moderating boards. They just "should" in some vague altruistic way. But then, to be fair, he also thinks Christian home schoolers "should" allow me to come in and teach their children Darwinism, liberalism, homosexual rights, safe sex, and a deep appreciation for Cheap Trick's "Live at Budokon." I mean, he did say "In a free society, people should be allowed to comment whenever and wherever they like and everyone would allow them that latitiude, regardless of the nature of those comments."

(he=Maz)

Hey, free market here. You want unmoderated discussions, go to another discussion or start your own newspaper

Right on max, but what if no one comes to the site anymore because it is boring? I think mnspeak took a hit when it made us register.

Live @ Budokan is one thing, but keep your safe sex talk away from my children.

OK, Douglas, I remember that, I do read a number of articles on my lap top though, and haven't seen that for months. I jsut assumed they dropped it. Maybe they bumped up the number of articles you can view.

Live @ Budokan is one thing, but keep your safe sex talk away from my children.

Yeah, grote doesn't want anyone undermining the free love indoctrination he's worked so hard on all these years.

CDS is nowhere near the level that BDS has reached. It's not even close.

You obviously slept through the 90s and the Democratic primary season.

It's fair to say, in my estimation, there's no comparison. I think the level of hatred, suspicion and vitriol against Bush is in a class all its own.

Umm, what about Limbaugh?

I've made it a policy as of today not to answer any post directed at me that starts out with "Uhhh," or "Ummm" or some variation.

I think the level of hatred, suspicion and vitriol against Bush is in a class all its own.

How many times has Bush been impeached? The irrational hatred of Clinton got him impeached -- for having an *affair*. I could not disagree with the above statement any more strongly.

but if the news site allows for comments, then allow all comments.

It's not a question of whether they disallow comments or not. It's about registering to make comments. Everyone is allowed to comment all they want, they just need to register to do it.

If someone is bold enough to accuse a young girl of murdering her own dog for attention, he should be bold enough to stand behind that accusation with his name. If he's too ashamed to make such a statement with his name attached, then perhaps he shouldn't make the statement at all.

BDS describes the way normally rational, thoughtful people have their eyes glaze over and become foaming at the mouth crazy at the very mention of George Bush. It goes far beyond the realm of political attacking and into some nether world where otherwise working brains turn rabid.

And if the Obamessiah gets elected, I plan to suffer ODS.

And if the Obamessiah gets elected, I plan to suffer ODS.

The good thing about that is: Under and Obama administration, you might get health care coverage for it.

BDS describes the way normally rational, thoughtful people have their eyes glaze over and become foaming at the mouth crazy at the very mention of George Bush.

Sounds exactly what happens when you mention either Clinton to most of the people still willing to call themselves Republicans.

I mean: Vince Foster (and just one of many), communist spies, Mena.

I have no idea. Personally, I do not read the Strib or PiPress comments or have the urge to comment myself. The few I've peeked are scary. I'm only debating the merit of having name & registration required commenting on a site that attracts a very large amount of readers, and posts sometimes controversial topics. In a perfect world this would work well, and people who only wanted to spout hate would shy away from it.

In reality, you could just register with a phony name. But I do believe that requiring registration helps a great deal, as long as it's accompanied by moderation.

Btw: why don't the writers comment on the stories they write? Or do they? I haven't noticed it on startribune.com or twincities.com.

I've not seen it on Strib except for some of the blogs. I think the comments probably just depress the writers.

BDS describes the way normally rational, thoughtful people have their eyes glaze over and become foaming at the mouth crazy at the very mention of George Bush. It goes far beyond the realm of political attacking and into some nether world where otherwise working brains turn rabid.
Yeah, but I think the context is important. Here in MN, and especially in the Democratic bastions you will encounter huge doses of BDS. Back in the day, in Republican flavor country, I encountered huge cases of CDS. Like the realtors tell you location, colocation, location.

Like the realtors tell you location, colocation, location.

That could be part of it.

But also, you generally don't see conservatives take to the streets in the same numbers.

But part of it could be personal. I'm a rather reserved guy, and when I see people I could stand with in most cases seemingly change personalities with little provocation I tend to move away.

When the young people with the plastic covered clipboards come to the door and talk about the environment, the moment they mention the president, they start sounding to me like someone with BDS.

I wanna slam the door in their face while yelling "get away from me." But maybe I'm too sensitive.

I understand where you're coming from Jason, but wouldn't hosting unmoderated comments also put an organization in the realm of liability?

I am going to premiere the thesis of my forthcoming policy paper here on MNSpeak: Bush was the best thing to happen to the US (and especially to Dems).

Imagine if Kerry had one in 2004.... the economy would have sunk any chances for Hill or Obama. Bush has salted the earth for his party so badly that it'll take years for the GOP to recover. On a non-partisan scale, Americans have seen what can happen to us when we let our fun-loving executive rule unchecked.

I agree with acalhoun on one item. Bush was the best thing to happen to Dems. The dems are so heterogenous and disorganized that they need(ed) an outside force to galvanize them into something akin to one mind. Bush is that polarizing force. If they can't win the oval office now, they perhaps never will.

Never underestimate the lack of memory and attention span of the masses.

The masses are going to remember the guy who tells them how embarrassed they all make him

So shoot the messenger.

Rat...it's a new era of thought. linking is thinking.

Obama's a Bud man.

Obama doesn't hate me I'm multi-lingual.

to give it the appropriate non-context

He seemed to be speaking in complete sentences to me. Full paragraphs. I don't know how you take that out of context.

Sorry my French is a little rusty, Senator. I'll strive to do better.

I think his point is that our long held ethnocentricity is going to be harder and harder to maintain as this motherfucker goes worldwide. i think the fearmongers call it globalization.

He also said it with an air of levity.

Well he better get damn serious, because he's on the road to losing 40 states.

he's on the road to losing 40 states
Bush misplaced 'em first.

Well he better get damn serious, because he's on the road to losing 40 states.

And you're going to do everything in your power to make sure he does, you eager little lapdog for the right. Ooh! An Anti-Obama meme on Fox News! Must spread!

When did fanning hatred for Obama become a higher prerogative than your so-professed liberal values?

Wow, this thread took a hard left...I mean right...or is it left? Shit.

No worries, Kurtis

Rat seems to think a politician should be punished for telling the truth.

What I think doesn't matter. But I know it's going to happen.

What is this based on, Rat?

Intuition.

I love that line in all its variations.

I'm functionally illiterate in the language of love, but I make up for it with my remarkable oral skills.

McCain is used to coming from behind

Well, at least he and I have that in common.

However, McCain is used to coming from behind, and is one mean dog when he is put in a corner. Never count him out.

At that point, Obama will have his Reaganesque "there you go again" moment, and McCain will be history.

See! I truly suck at all things tubed.

:-(

Well he better get damn serious, because he's on the road to losing 40 states.

Has that view been vetted, Rat? Be careful or the echo chamber will be calling you a troll.

Wow, it looks like Obama recaptured 9 states in the official Rat Poll.

Noodleman is either an excellent practitioner of irony or he's living in a dream world. No 9/11? Would have happened no matter what. Great Satan is Great Satan regardless of the demons steering the ship.

Perhaps if Kerry had won then Jessica Alba would be doing my laundry as I type.

And, of course, Osama would be dead by Gore's own hands, we'd have flying cars that run on vegetable oil, universal healthcare, no crime, and Dick Cheney would have shot hunting partner Scalia, and the bullet would pass through him killing both Karl Rove, and Tucker Carlson.

It. Would. Have. Been. Paradise.

Noodleman is either an excellent practitioner of irony or he's living in a dream world. No 9/11?

No irony. It is my firm belief that had Gore won in 2000, there would not have been a 9/11 attack in the United States.

Why not? Because the Clinton administration was following intelligence they passed on to the incoming Bush administration but which was ignored by the Bush-Cheney-Haliburton Axis-of-Evil. There was also, you can admit without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, more incentive for the Bush cronies to profit from of a rise in the price of petroleum and no-bid contracts in Iraq, neither of which would likely have happened had there been no 9/11 attack.

Regardless, Noodleman's Tokyo photos are awesome. Ee desu yo.

BDS

Where's the hate? That term gets thrown around too loosely.

I think I found where budjr is hanging out... there is a commenter on the Strib site asking whether or not all the babies born at Regions the other day (16 in 17hrs) are US citizens...

Hate might be a bit of a strong term for his malignant neglect of Barry O. It seems more like a persistent negative bias bordering on dislike.

Talks about assimilation. The picture of the mom:
Pang Yang held her 18-month-old daughter, Syndney Lee, and her newborn daughter, Cecilia Lee.

I don't know what's scarier, a guy with no experience, no accomplishments and total ignorance of economics as president or his wide-eyed disciples. Probably his disciples because he's just acting. They believe it.

Now, now, Maz. I know it's been a long eight years, but it's nearly over.

don't know what's scarier, a guy with no experience, no accomplishments and total ignorance of economics as president or his wide-eyed disciples. Probably his disciples because he's just acting. They believe it

But he is going to have manna from heaven and a program in every pot. He is reaching his peak. The public is smarter than the polls are showing at this point. We have not seen a debate, he has only given very vague policies in broad terms and his record is what, a Jr. senator from IL. He is a very good speaker and is obviously extremaly intelligent but what are his policies and who will he benefit. Don't get me wrong McCain needs to get up and state what he is for and push back. Let the games begin.

Now, now, Maz. I know it's been a long eight years, but it's nearly over

This is where the democrats are making a big mistake. I don't like bush at all but that does not mean that I will blindly vote for Oboma or run the ticket for the Dem's on a party line vote, not happening. They better come up with something better than bush bad Oboma good. It is going to be about the independents and they don't give a shit about the last eight years, we all know it sucked but what now.

barackobama.com has his statements on all the issues. None of them are "Bush bad." Go read.

I know his policies and follow them. His health car is similar to most of the democrats policies on health care. He is shifting on Iraq which may be marginally smart but he will piss his base off with that one. However, he is not connecting to the middle class independent voter yet. He may and he is skilled but he is not a god to the independents who will decide this election. It will come down to the debates. When I say Bush bad him good, obama is always playing the McCain is just another term for George bush, well that is already old and tired. The better come up with a better one than that.

I do think it's a mistake to keep hammering on the McCain=Bush trope

It is bad strategically because they already have the bush hater vote. He wins if he moves to the middle, does not piss off the white educated independents and shows how his policies will affect their taxes. It was very interesting the other day on one of the Sunday talk shows, they showed who would benefit from McCain's tax policy as it stands, well I did not benefit. I am below the upper class and above the lower class that would also benefit. It is at that point that Oboma becomes viable with the middle class. We are piratical voters and will split the ticket and do vote on pocket book issues. If I have to pay more for A in taxes but actually receive B in benefits then well I might vote for the guy but at this point I won't.

I do think it's a mistake to keep hammering on the McCain=Bush trope.

Maybe in those specific terms, but I don't think it's an over all mistake. People overwhelmingly oppose Bush's policies: Iraq, the economy, tax cuts for the wealthy, social security, elimination of the employer based health insurance system, for starters. Yet, on each of these, McCain supports the Bush policy option.

I don't think it's a mistake to highlight that fact.

Actually, not true. He's still sticking with the 16 month time table, but he has always said that the specifics were subject to adjustment based on advice from the military brass.

Considering that that the Iraqis themselves are now insisting on a withdrawal timetable, and the fact that even with whatever modest reductions in violence, the American people STILL overwhelmingly favor our withdrawal, he has no reason to shift.

I agree in principal in what you are saying but it is like a polititian being aginst apple pie and kids. I think most people me included think,thought and will always feel the war in Iraq was a huge mistake.
frurthermore, we where lied to. The real qestion is how do we get out in a manner that does not collpase the middle east and persian gulf.

You're all wrong. The election will be decided over the price of gas. When the voters hear McCain say he's for drilling here, and drilling now, and Obama say he's against it, the independents will shift into the McCain column in huge numbers.

Don't worry. You don't see the Obamessiah for the lying fraud that he is, so I don't expect you to understand when I have questions about why a historically evil regime supports his candidacy.

:)

We've craftily employed them like that.

I'm learning.

And, last tim I checked, NK doesn't have a vote here.

We've craftily employed them like that.

Well, I hope they get some compensation. Hate to think they're doing it on the cheap.

Then Obama would tell people that drilling for oil doesn't mean finding oil and that even if they found it, it wouldn't equate to cheaper gas for maybe ten years, and they would say "oh."

More likely they'd say, "what are you, a moron?"

Replace once with if/when.

Once they find oil, they'd still have to actually build the wells, extract and refine the oil. That isn't done overnight.

So, in your estimation is it a signal to start now, or just forget it?

Bush didn't sit in the same room and have a meeting with Kim Jong il, did he?

That's what they're talking about. The President of the United States doesn't sit face to face with little bitches like Kim Jong il.

And especially if the outcome isn't set in stone months before the meeting.