It’s 12:33AM
The usual late night Digg check before heading off to sleep, just to see if anything catches my attention…
http://digg.com/world_news/Brave_Mujahideen_Warriors_Use_Children_in_Car_Bomb_2
Why is an article with 179 Diggs:
A: NOT been promoted to the Popular section
B: No longer listed in the Upcoming section
I always received the impression that we had the power to choose what became front-page material.
Yes, admitedly the article finally did reach the front page momentarily later, but the principle remains, what happened Digg?
Here it is sitting on 179 Diggs after only 2 hours
Notice how it’s status has not been “Made Popular” despite the number of Diggs in short period.
Moments later in the Upcoming section:
Gone!
Digg was meant to give us the people control, 179 Diggs in 2 hours is more than enough evidence of it – so what happened guys?
UPDATE:
Just tracked another article like the one I was previously refering to:
I dont entirely agree with the articles content, however 202 Diggs and 12 Hours later, still nothing for this article.
March 21, 2007 at 1:04 am
Good job my friend !
Will link it on LGF commentary section and ask lizards to digg you up.
Regards !
March 21, 2007 at 1:21 am
For those who want to read the original story on LGF :
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24863_Brave_Mujahideen_Warriors_Use_Children_in_Car_Bomb#comments
March 21, 2007 at 1:58 am
179 Diggs in 2 hours is not enough “evidence” to make the claim you’ve made. You also need to know the number of buries, which you don’t know, so everything from there on out is just speculation:
If you’d like to speculate that Digg has it in for LGF, or that there’s a group of well-connected Digg users that log on every time an LGF story is posted just to bury it — well then go right ahead.
If instead you’d like to speculate that LGF simply has a lot of enemies that see it as a hate site, well then that does seem to require fewer leaps of logic.
March 21, 2007 at 2:05 am
Hi Duster.
I’m not posting this to say: “Why is LGF being picked on?”, my concerns are that some Digg users (the well connected ones like you say) think of it as their own little playgroud.
I don’t necessarily agree with the content of such articles (like the update I posted just now), however my concerns lie in that enough people have said that they believe this to be front page material, so let it be.
I’m simply trying to highlight that there are/is groups of ‘ultras’ so to speak, that seem to control what we see and hear.
I’m interested actually on whether or not the Digg article makes the front page, just to see how defensive they become.
March 21, 2007 at 2:54 am
It seems very likely that buries are counted more than diggs. Some people have cited a 10:1 ratio of weight, but I don’t think that sort of detail is really available.
The digg admins need some semi-automated way to protect digg from real blog spam. Real blog spam would ruin digg because people then wouldn’t trust the front page. Obviously there must be -some- weighting of diggs vs. buries, and it makes sense that the ratio is determined emperically by playing with the numbers and seeing, in real world cases, which ratios worked best to eliminate real spam without also eliminating not-spam.
Before LGF made a big stink about Digg, and before they signed up en masse at Digg in late Februrary / early March, LGF stories did make it to the front page. After they tried to brute force their way onto the front page, I think they generated, independently, a bunch of “enemies”. These “enemies” are individually and independently burying LGF submissions either because of their brute-force effort in late February, or because they’ve seen them before and think they’re a hate site.
That is my speculation, and of course it is a priori no more accurate than anybody else’s.
March 21, 2007 at 3:19 am
Duster,
You may be right in your analysis but :
The term “brute force” isn’t accurate as LGF has a LOT of visitors and many others 8non LGF “members”) share our ideas.
This makes a heck of a lot of people wanting to bring LGF’s stories to the front page.
It’s obvious that many LGF stories are buried by the same “enemies”, they wouldn’t be able to do without being organized …
March 21, 2007 at 6:59 am
Step one: click on the “Submit a new story” link found near the top of every digg page.
Step two: read guideline #2.
Submit the original source or it’s blog spam.
March 21, 2007 at 12:48 pm
[...] that the ‘bury brigade’ (that have been exposed numerous times and most recently here) may have attacked the story, a trend that has become ever more obvious with stories submitted to [...]
March 21, 2007 at 12:58 pm
digg need to come clean about the entire working of the voting system otherwise yhis will continue!
March 21, 2007 at 6:08 pm
duster:
It’s not true that anyone from LGF tried to “brute force” our way onto Digg. I put the links into our pages that Digg themselves provided, to show the number of votes and let people easily submit an LGF post. And guess what? People started using them, as they are intended to be used. No one “forced” anything.
This “brute force” rumor is simply a smear job, as is the “hate site” accusation. The post mentioned above had nothing hateful whatsoever about it — and LGF is NOT a hate site, despite the determined efforts of people like you to promote that smear.
March 21, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Internet wing.
March 21, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Charles continues to ignore (i.e., he has never once addressed) the fact that when you submit a story to Digg (step 1 of 2), you see very plainly:
* Link Directly to the Source: Save people time by linking directly to the original news story.
Charles doesn’t do that, and yet he cries foul when people bury the LGF submissions. Most (but not all) of his submissions are simple one or two sentence summaries followed by a link to (or a blockquote of) the original news story.
The Digg This button bypasses the step 1 of 2 screen, but the philosophy still applies. Submit links to the original story and the buries will drop drastically (because then only the LGF haters will be burying, but the Diggers who oppose to anything but links to original news story will leave the submissions alone).
Also, just because Charles doesn’t himself use hate speech on LGF, many (but not all) of the commenters on LGF do. And so LGF is correctly labeled a hate site. Charles isn’t necessarily a hater, but he runs a hate site.
Finally, it’s laughable when people throw around terms like “smear” as an attempt to completely discredit the opposing argument.
March 21, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Perhaps, instead of the bury function, Digg should work more like Reddit. Allow users to upvote and downvote stories. Or, another option would be to allow users to hide a story. This would not show the story to the user that hid it. For other stories, perhaps Digg could show the number of hides or downvotes. Then, instead of allowing other users to, in essence, hide what other people can easily see, this may allow the user to decide what the user wants to see.
This may require some additional changes to Digg, such as allowing a user to have a default view of most upvoted, most downvoted, most net upvoted stories, etc.
Just a thought.
March 21, 2007 at 7:32 pm
CJ: That is a bit misleading, after all you encouraged your followers to digg and said (paraphrasing) that you all would establish a beach head ect. because it is your duty to balance digg’s liberal bias. You have an agenda. If digg let groups mass digg stories we would have nothing but LGF and 9/11 truther stories, and nobody would like the site anymore, aside from the cult members of those two groups.
March 21, 2007 at 7:33 pm
LGF is one of the best sites on the Internet because it gives a perspective different from what is given on in MSM. Like the other LGF readers, I don’t hate my country, my neighbors, or people of different religions. I do hate having information kept from me so I cannot make informed decisions about my own life. Someone might not agree with Katie, Rosie, Barbara, etc. and want to learn the whole story before deciding if information is complete.
Mike
March 21, 2007 at 7:49 pm
“Also, just because Charles doesn’t himself use hate speech on LGF, many (but not all) of the commenters on LGF do. And so LGF is correctly labeled a hate site. Charles isn’t necessarily a hater, but he runs a hate site.”
Does that mean if I go to a football game and someone starts yelling out “hate speech”, that the football game has now become a “hate event”? Who is the “hate judge” and “hate jury” that gets to determine what is and isn’t “hate speech”?
March 21, 2007 at 7:51 pm
a footbsll game is not a closed close knit community like LGF, anyone can go to a football, but only certain people are allowed to retain their membership at LGF.
March 21, 2007 at 7:52 pm
excuse my hurried post, but I’m sure you are all intelligent enough to pick up the meaning.
March 21, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Individuals generally decide for themselves what they consider hate speech, and by extension hate sites or hate events. No grand conspiracy — just people making decisions on their own.
March 21, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Comments on LGF are carefully monitored. Anything that qualifies as “hate” speech, or even comes close, is condemned and removed.
The fact that you personally disagree with Charles, or LGF is not evidence of “hate” speech.
Please post SPECIFIC INSTANCES of “hate” speech that you have found on LGF. Let’s see what you’ve got.
March 21, 2007 at 8:03 pm
NuffSaid, please look at the post right above yours.
March 21, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Problem:
You cannot accuse someone of “hate” speech, racism, theft, rape murder, etc. unless you have a clear definition of what those terms mean.
It may be comfortable to let everyone apply what definition they want to the terms that they use in day to day life, but any accusation must be clearly defined.
To quote Mr Pibb:
“Also, just because Charles doesn’t himself use hate speech on LGF, many
(but not all) of the commenters on LGF do. And so LGF is correctly labeled
a hate site. Charles isn’t necessarily a hater, but he runs a hate site.”
I simply asked for samples of this “hate” speech that Mr Pibb claims is so pervasive.
March 21, 2007 at 8:10 pm
And, you will note. . . . . . . . .I’m still waiting.
March 21, 2007 at 8:12 pm
I hate redheads. This site has now become a hate site. Wow that was easy.
March 21, 2007 at 8:13 pm
LGF is no more a hate site than the Huffington Post!! If you deem ‘hateful’ comments enough to brand an entire site, then read the comment on HuffPo or Kos.
March 21, 2007 at 8:13 pm
You’re confusing Mr Pibb with Dr Pepper. It’s ok. Happens all the time.
~
March 21, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Of course LGF is being targeted — so is MichelleMalkin, HotAir, and any other site that doesn’t toe the “Digg Bury Brigade” agenda.
The Bury Brigade Exists, and Here’s My Proof:
http://www.pronetadvertising.com/articles/the-bury-brigade-exists-and-heres-my-proof.html
Here’s more proof:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/internet/0,72835-0.html?tw=wn_technology_software_10
DIGG Topuser baned for posting story: Digg Bury Brigade…
http://donoevil.netscape.com/story/2007/02/28/digg-topuser-baned-for-posting-story-digg-bury-brigade-exists-and-heres-my-proof/
March 21, 2007 at 8:22 pm
“not a closed close knit community like LGF, anyone can go to a football, but only certain people are allowed to retain their membership at LGF.”
This is untrue. LGF has open membership. Registration may be restricted to certain times, but anyone can join and post comments.
March 21, 2007 at 8:24 pm
If in fact lgf is being censored some. a experiment should be run to prove it. Instead of accusations. A post no one could disagree with would work
March 21, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Jeeeze!
I did do that, didn’t I?
Sorry, Pibbster, my bad (I hate it when that happens!)
OOPS! Hate Speech!!
March 21, 2007 at 8:34 pm
LGF IS a hate site.
All Charles does is post anything anti-Muslim he can find. Any story he looks for a way to attack Muslims. To understand an issue one needs to hear both sides. Simply posting story after story of anti-Muslim content it makes it seem that there is only one side to it.
Frankly its a cowardly pathetic unconstructive site full of bigots.
This barrage is designed to dehumanise anyone from the middle east. I’ve more respect for the bigot who walks up to someone and attacks them physicaly than the cowards that use sites like LGF who promote their bigotry from the safety of their computer.
March 21, 2007 at 8:36 pm
“Test it”
Here’s your proof.
Go to Digg and search for “littlegreenfootballs”
Results?????? (one or two posts not yet buried)
Now search and include “buried” results.
About ten ba-zillion?
Explanations please.
March 21, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Examples ourstreets, examples.
March 21, 2007 at 8:43 pm
“All Charles does is post anything anti-Muslim he can find. Any story he looks for a way to attack Muslims. To understand an issue one needs to hear both sides.”
Sort of like an internet “Fairness Doctrine”? Now that I think about it, that’s a great idea! No more freeflowing editorial websites unless they include an opposing view on the very same website! After all, people that read the internet are too dumb to find opposing views on their own, right?
March 21, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I am impressed that some of you on here are trying to defend LGF against the haters. It’s obvious that posting directly to news articles about events in the Muslim world (which is what Charles tends to do) that are ignored by most of the American media is interpreted as being “hateful.” Interesting.
As for evidence, Charles has made multiple posts to his blog showing the burying of his posts happening. All the evidence is there if you want to look. But I suppose that if you want to read it, you’ll have to patronize that “hateful” LGF of which you’re so afraid.
March 21, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Kimberly, nobody is denying that LGF posts are buried at digg. That is obvious to anyone that looks. Please don’t confuse the issue here.
March 21, 2007 at 8:49 pm
“All Charles does is post anything anti-Muslim he can find. Any story he looks for a way to attack Muslims. To understand an issue one needs to hear both sides.”
I also notice that you fail to differentiate Charles’ crusade (pun intended) against Wahabbi Islam. You morph his criticisms of Wahabbi and extremist Islam into hate against all Muslims. Looks like you’re the one that sees all Muslims as the same. Now who’s the bigot?
March 21, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Given that the LGF search function poops out when you try to use it today, it’ll be difficult to show you the URL examples.
But, about 1 week ago there was a thread where multiple posters were trying to use the term r a g h e a d . They were surprised to learn that Charles has a filter that converts all such instances of that word into something innoucous like “muslim.” Later in the thread, Charles explained that without the filter, he’d have to spend far too much time policing the comments to eliminate that sort of thing.
Now, the fact that Charles needs a filter to stop his commenters from appearing as haters is proof that Charles has commenters who are “haters”.
March 21, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Of course Charles has commenters who are “haters”.
HOWEVER; Since LGF is NOT a hate site, Charles has instituted “safeguards” to protect the integrity of his blog. To the extent that he can, he is monitoring the conduct of the participants and applying correction.
Some hate site.
This is simply, spin. Still no evidence.
March 21, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Not everything on LGF is negative about Muslims.
We even look for positive stories.
March 21, 2007 at 8:56 pm
“Now, the fact that Charles needs a filter to stop his commenters from appearing as haters is proof that Charles has commenters who are “haters”.”
What does that prove exactly?
March 21, 2007 at 8:56 pm
# Dr Pepper Says:
Later in the thread, Charles explained that without the filter, he’d have to spend far too much time policing the comments to eliminate that sort of thing.
Now, the fact that Charles needs a filter to stop his commenters from appearing as haters is proof that Charles has commenters who are “haters”.
That is so much bullshit. Why don’t you do a search for the phrase “too much time” I’ll wait. Nevermind, you’re never going to find it.
March 21, 2007 at 9:00 pm
paleo: Are you saying I should do a search for “too much time” on LGF? What is your point?
Mr. Pibb: it proves that: 1) LGF posters were using the offensive term 2) Even Charles disagreed with its use 3) Charles needed to automate the removal of that term because he couldn’t police it appropriately by hand
March 21, 2007 at 9:02 pm
The burying behavior isn’t limited to LGF. The bury mob has decided to extend their vendetta to postings from many popular conservative blogs including Malkin and Powerline. Seems to me that the Digg system has a serious flaw that’s resulting in perfectly appropriate posts being buried by those who just disagree with the content, and the admins aren’t addressing this flaw. If I were the conservative bloggers, I’d be considering calling for my readers to vote to bury every single Digg post that makes it to the front page. After everything started disappearing, the problem would get addressed, I reckon.
March 21, 2007 at 9:03 pm
“1) LGF posters were using the offensive term 2) Even Charles disagreed with its use 3) Charles needed to automate the removal of that term because he couldn’t police it appropriately by hand”
1) Close your eyes and pick a political forum. You’re going to find “offensive” comments no matter if it’s a left or right forum.
2) This seems to give weight to the notion that LGF is NOT a hate site, since the owner takes steps to sanitize it.
3) See my answer to 1
March 21, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Dr Pepper
We can crack Charles’ filter any time we want to. I know that for a fact because I have. (High bit ASCII) The fact that we don’t disproves that statement. We do get trolls, actually moby is more appropriate, whenever registration is left open for too long. Charles can not possibly find all of them out of 3,000 plus comments per day.
March 21, 2007 at 9:07 pm
paleo: You don’t use the entity method to bypass the filter because Charles has come out and said that if you do that, he’d ban you. He said that in the very thread I’m talking about. Don’t try to attribute it to good behavior.
March 21, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Mr Pibb:
1) Charles ROUTINELY (almost obsessively) points out diary entires at Kos that are outrageous, and then tries to attribute that sort of thing to the entire site. Until Charles stops doing that, it’s fair game to do the same for his site.
2) I personally doubt Charles has a lot of malice in general. But some of his commenters do (see #1).
March 21, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Dr P
So you are familiar with that thread – so cut and paste the comment that
he’d have to spend far too much time policing the comments to eliminate that sort of thing.
March 21, 2007 at 9:14 pm
paleo, I’d be glad to if LGF was responding at all to searches today. It isn’t.
March 21, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Dr P
Go to Google
type in
“too much time” site:www.littlegreenfootballs.com
I’ll wait…
March 21, 2007 at 9:18 pm
LOL here you go paleo:
CHARLES: “By the way. The filters are in place to block those words because I don’t want them at my site, and there isn’t enough time in the day to police them manually.”
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24722#c0330
March 21, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Oh, and I’ll wait for you response too.
March 21, 2007 at 9:21 pm
If Kos and DU deleted all the offensive posts, each topic would only have 2 or 3 replies.
March 21, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Mr Pibb:
Please cite an EXAMPLE of a topic that would have only 2 or 3 replies after offensive posts are removed.
March 21, 2007 at 9:22 pm
I don’t see what the big deal is… so digg has been uncovered as a left wing shill. So be it.
March 21, 2007 at 9:22 pm
paleo, cat got your tongue?
March 21, 2007 at 9:24 pm
“Mr Pibb:
Please cite an EXAMPLE of a topic that would have only 2 or 3 replies after offensive posts are removed.”
Pick any topic about Dick Cheney. I’m not going trolling to those nasty places while I’m not on my home PC.
March 21, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Dr P
Sorry, I was reading the comments about Dick Cheney and spitting on his grave from Huffers Post. What was the ?
March 21, 2007 at 9:28 pm
paleo, I posted exactly what you asked for. Charles saying it would take too much time to police the removal of that offensive word. Don’t you remember challenging me to do so? Has the challenge been fulfilled?
March 21, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Mr Pibb, I thought for a second you were the one pushing for examples of everything, but it wasn’t you.
By the way, do you actually hate red heads?
March 21, 2007 at 9:31 pm
We have fallen a long way from a nation of free thinkers when comments from self annointed censors such as the following receive no challenge:
“LGF is correctly labelled a hate site”
Then, in the VERY SAME post, has the foolhardy temerity to say the following!
“It’s laughable when people throw around terms like “smear” to completely discredit opposing argument”.
The total inability to see inherent contradictions in their own belief systems is characteristic of the sort of censors at Digg that this article is about.
So, Dr. Pepper, it’s okay for you to label LGF a “Hate” site, for the purpose of discrediting an entire group of people (Dare I say “hate” them), but it’s not okay when people correctly label what you do as a “smear” campaign?
Oh the incandescent logic of the far left!
March 21, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Hawk59, I then provided a concrete example of how LGFs users are haters. They even use terms that Charles objects to. So much so that he has automated the removal of that term. Even Charles knows LGF’s commenters can go too far.
March 21, 2007 at 9:34 pm
“By the way, do you actually hate red heads?”
No it was sarcasm. But here’s the official PR response for you:
“No, some of my best friends are redheads! I have spoken to Carrot Top and he has accepted my offer of reconciliation. Oh and I’m entering rehab for an alcohol problem.”
March 21, 2007 at 9:35 pm
BTW, if you want to see another example of someone is always using the term “smear,” look no further than Bill O’Reilly. Charles in the above post is acting a lot like Bill does when someone writes something negative about him.
March 21, 2007 at 9:37 pm
And so that addresses your “smear” comment in what meaningful sense? Show me a blog site that allows commentary that does not have extreme comments. Particularly when that site is devoted to something as polarizing as politics.
By your definition there are ZERO political websites, left or right, that do not fit into your “hate” category. But I suspect that you do not see this, which is, I suppose, exactly my point.
March 21, 2007 at 9:39 pm
This meme that LGF is a hate site is being promoted by far-left sites to discredit viewpoints they don’t like. Kos has many attacks on Jews that seem to be left alone and the comments cheer the diarist on. So I could be anti-Semitic and encouraged or point out the flaws in RADICAL Islam and be attacked by secular-progressives…gee, tough choice
March 21, 2007 at 9:41 pm
As I argued above, as long as Charles continues to cite people other than Kos (e.g. comments from the diaries) for examples of “protocols of the daily kos” (as Charles likes to refer to them), then it’s fair to associate the behavior of LGF’s commenters with LGF as a whole too. If Charles didn’t do that on a regular basis, he’d be much less hypocritical.
March 21, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Hawk59, allow me to step you through the liberal train of thought. A poster way up the thread said that because LGF posted alot of “anti Muslim” (really anti-Wahabbi/anti radical Muslim) articles, that makes it a hate site. You see, even if you can get that lefty to admit that LGF only targets Wahabbi and radical ideologies within Islam, it still qualifies as a hate site under the philosophy of multiculturalism. After all, who are we to judge another culture, regardless of its oppression of women and religious minorities? Anything that shows flaws in the multicularlism theory will be labeled as hate by the followers of that theory.
March 21, 2007 at 9:50 pm
My example is a lot less tenuous than an anti-Muslim topic slant (every interesting blog has a slant).
March 21, 2007 at 9:53 pm
“So I could be anti-Semitic and encouraged or point out the flaws in RADICAL Islam and be attacked by secular-progressives…gee, tough choice”
What’s hilarious to me is that radical Islam has thrown the theory of multiculturalism into a Catch 22 situation. So now we have liberals that MUST defend radical Islam according to their multicultural beliefs, so in essense we have liberals that are defending the exact opposite of women’s lib and religious tolerance. The irony is probably lost on them though.
March 21, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Here is the “non-hatred” that comes from the “non-hate” site when commenting on a story about a girl wearing a hijab in a *youth soccer game* in Canada:
“The real problem is that Islam is a vile Death Cult. Ban Islam now!”
“I think they should be permitted to wear the hijab, but all the other players MUST wear pig masks.”
“…the most primitive, intolerant, and unenlightened “religion” ever conceived: Islam.”
“The Axis of Evil:
Mohammed
Islam
CAIR
/Either you are with us or you are against us. It’s that simple.”
“Why do they come to civilized countries in the first place? The kids are victims, damn it, and the parents? Child abusers. Her parents need to decide or get the hell out of Canada.”
” Those muslims just aren’t team players.
You’ve got that right. The team is the human race. And they don’t want to play fair and nice with us”
——————–
Again, this was over a youth soccer controversy. The fact of the matter is, no story is too minor to serve as a springboard to attack roughly 1,500,000,000 people around the world, and more often than not, that’s precisely what happens.
It undoubtedly appeals to lgf-ers inflated sense of importance to think that they’re noble truth-tellers who are being targeted by some conspiracy to silence them, but a cursory glance at what passes for commentary on that site clearly indicates that their tendency towards vicious generalization has given their site a bad–and well-deserved–reputation that a lot of individuals react negatively to.
That’s not organized censorship, it’s people not caring for what you stand for.
March 21, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Thank you Dr. Pepper. I know understand why LGF is being censored from Digg. Good folks like you have decided to become the arbiters of what is allowable in the marketplace of ideas. Thanks goodness for folks like you. Without you, I might be exposed to opposing points of view.
March 21, 2007 at 10:04 pm
I really have no use for Digg, I consider it flawed, just like Wiki-anything…guess I’m old fashioned, or just old.
You had a good idea with what you did. To further prove your point, (I’m volunteering you) : ) Why not find a larger group of stories that vanish, like the one you reported on and report back with your findings?
As for LGF being a “hate site”… hardly. That kind of shrill, hysterical bantering is best left to the children’s groups and so called “bloggers” at Myspace. This is for grown ups.
Really, there are many “hate speech sites” out there, LGF is not one of them, it actually reports the news stories you many not otherwise read about.
March 21, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Tab:
If I alone were deciding which ideas are “allowable in the marketplace of ideas” then your “censor” charge would be valid.
The fact is, a group of people is deciding what a larger group of people see on the front page. That’s the nature of Digg and all social networking sites.
March 21, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Verchiel, when did the liberal mantra change from “No religion is safe from criticism or ridicule” to “No religion except Islam is safe from criticism or ridicule”? Guess those beheading videos and worldwide cartoon riots made you all rethink your dedication to free speech.
Another thing that would be nice to know is whether or not you have accounts at Kos and/or HuffPost, which would make your above post one big steaming pile of hypocrisy.
March 21, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Verchiel quoted some good examples of how LGF’s commenters can express their hatred.
The r-head filter that Charles needed to put in place is another example.
The actual topics that Charles talks about are not examples of anti-Muslim hate. The comments are.
March 21, 2007 at 10:08 pm
While I use Digg, I personally think it is mostly crap. I found that reddit.com is a much fairer site. I only registered for the site about two weeks ago, however one of my blog posts made it to the front page on Reddit about a week and a half ago and it got 12,000 hits that same day.
March 21, 2007 at 10:10 pm
What I wish to know is what are folks afraid of? The stories reported on LGF are from various sources outside of LGF. By a coordinated effort to bury these, it appears that somebody is afraid that the non-party line will be disclosed. LGF is not anti-Islam or anti-Muslim and certainly not a “hate” site. However, it does call attention to items in the world media that you will not see in the New York Times and some of the other Main Stream Media. Even more importantly, it sometimes raises questions as to the manipulation of the media by their overseas stringers who have a dog in the fight.
It is hardly a closed site. It is just not perpetually open. I don’t know what the schedule is that Charles uses to turn registration on, but its been on a number of times that I have visited the site.
And always remember that the best things to read are the things that you disagree with. If they show you where you are wrong, you have gained. If they show you a flaw in the logic of the people writing what you disagree with, you have also gained since you now know the flaw in their logic. My overall suggestion is that you use a brick, shotgun, or what every you have available to dispose of the screen on your TV and then go read. Read “The Protocols”, read Hanna Arrant, read Machiavelli (both the prince and the commentaries on livy), read the Koran, read the Suna, read the Hadith, read the stuff from the Sufis, read Ibn Waraq, turn your computer off at 8 pm and spend 2-3 hours a day reading. Its amazing what you will learn when it is not spoon fed to you over the cable.
March 21, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Ahh, the perpetually aggrieved right, always so put upon.
Get over yourselves. Your “content” isn’t censored, it’s still right there at digg and you can still append your angry diatribes to it. You’re upset because it isn’t made popular. Tough titties.
Just like LGF judges others by the worst examples of a group, so is LGF judged. Thousands of people have concluded, independently, that LGF is filled with ignorant, hate spewing, xenophobic jerkoffs. They digg you down accordingly. Aside from that, most LGF posts are blog spam (see above). Deal with it, whiners.
March 21, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Verchiel
So, this is hate speech? Some of it may be childish, someone failing to be humerous, even careless. If this is your ideal of hate speech maybe you should attend a “peace rally”.
March 21, 2007 at 10:15 pm
“Verchiel, when did the liberal mantra change from “No religion is safe from criticism or ridicule” to “No religion except Islam is safe from criticism or ridicule”?” — Mr pibb
The point is, the actions of individuals are being used as basis to attack all practitioners of the faith.
I take the same exception to people citing the James Dobsons of the world and decrying all of Christianity.
Which is to say nothing of what’s passing as “criticism,” here.
Do you *really* consider accusations of being “a vile Death Cult” that “isn’t on the same side as the human race” a legitimate critique over a controversy involving a headscarf on the soccer pitch?
March 21, 2007 at 10:22 pm
# Shr_Nfr Says:
March 21st, 2007 at 10:10 pm
“What I wish to know is what are folks afraid of? The stories reported on LGF are from various sources outside of LGF.”
BLOG SPAM
” By a coordinated effort to bury these, it appears that somebody is afraid that the non-party line will be disclosed.”
There is no coordinated effort, you’re a paranoic.
“LGF is not anti-Islam or anti-Muslim and certainly not a “hate” site.”
LOL
“However, it does call attention to items in the world media that you will not see in the New York Times and some of the other Main Stream Media.”
Yup, and you’re free to discuss it at LGF or at digg, nothing is censored at digg.
“Even more importantly, it sometimes raises questions as to the manipulation of the media by their overseas stringers who have a dog in the fight.”
Xenophobia and paranoia, a powerful combination.
“It is hardly a closed site. It is just not perpetually open. I don’t know what the schedule is that Charles uses to turn registration on, but its been on a number of times that I have visited the site.”
15 minutes a week. That means it’s open 0.14% of the time. Ha!
“And always remember that the best things to read are the things that you disagree with. If they show you where you are wrong, you have gained. If they show you a flaw in the logic of the people writing what you disagree with, you have also gained since you now know the flaw in their logic. My overall suggestion is that you use a brick, shotgun, or what every you have available to dispose of the screen on your TV and then go read. Read “The Protocols”, read Hanna Arrant, read Machiavelli (both the prince and the commentaries on livy), read the Koran, read the Suna, read the Hadith, read the stuff from the Sufis, read Ibn Waraq, turn your computer off at 8 pm and spend 2-3 hours a day reading. Its amazing what you will learn when it is not spoon fed to you over the cable.”
You’re assuming actual discussion happens at digg in LGF threads. 90% of the chatter is angry denunciations of one foe or another. libards… koslings… bury brigad…
YOUR QUESTIONS AS TO WHY LGF THREADS GET BURIED HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. DEAL WITH IT.
March 21, 2007 at 10:24 pm
“That’s not organized censorship, it’s people not caring for what you stand for.”
…and making sure that nobody else gets to see the ideas that you don’t “care for.”
If Digg merely allowed you to register a thumbs-up or thumbs-down vote, and things got onto the front page when they got enough responses — positive or negative — then it wouldn’t be censorship.
But because “Bury” allows you to keep things off the front page, it has the same effect as censorship. It’s similar to college students taking all the conservative newspapers from the on-campus dispensers and trashing them to prevent other people from being exposed to ideas that they don’t like.
It’s immature, it’s totalitarian, and it’s blatantly anti-free speech. Digg needs to remedy the situation unless it WANTS a reputation for playground politics.
March 21, 2007 at 10:30 pm
“So, this is hate speech?” — chickasaw2
“vile death cult,” “child abusers” pitting Muslims as being opposite humanity, all seem pretty hateful to me. How about these nuggets regarding a US diplomat contacting a Palestinian finance minister:
“They made contact?
Did they use a j-dam?”
“Other contact I can think of involves cruise missles, napalm, and nukes.”
“I’d rather see a MOAB dropped right on top of the PA HQ.”
Or these:
“We must be fair and acknowledge that there is much more to Islam than just the pursuit of death.
There’s wife beating, slavery, lying, stealing, and totalitarianism–to name a few of its other virtues.”
“Make no mistake about it: Mohammed was profoundly evil and they consider him “the model human being.”"
“This indoctrination of Islam needs to be put next to Baal worship in the dust of human history. All of it…militant and moderate. I have no respect for any of it.”
“CAIR, take your inhuman, death cult out of the USA NOW!”
“Satan has found a willing host to destroy the earth with. It’s name is Islam.”
“i say we warm up the b-52’s and b-1s, load the 80 mega-ton bombs on board, and light up bagdad and iran…..the sick, cowardly and depraved camel humpers will understand that!”
“islam is so insidious and predatory and devious.”
——————
If that isn’t “hate,” I’m not sure what is…
March 21, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Verchiel
So, you found these items at the this site. Now you condemn the whole site, because of these items of a few. Yet, you criticize them for judging all, by the actions of a few.
March 21, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned
March 21, 2007 at 10:55 pm
The burying of LGF appears to be done for a very specific reason & purpose. Other blogs that make the front pages are _not_ held to the same standard (regarding what constitutes “blog spam” or “link to the original article”).
March 21, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Much has been said about LGF posts being ‘Blog Spam’. and THAT is why the ‘diggers’ bury the posts. The argument being that if the original link was posted then the posts would be ‘dugg up’.
However, a search of the ‘popular’ stories in the politics sections shows that several stories on the list come from the blogs “thinkprogress.org” and a few from “americablog.blogspot.com”.
An examination of a few of these stories show that they are – surprise – a ‘couple of paragraphs of commentary’ followed by LINKS TO THE ORIGINAL STORIES.
In other words, they are the same format that LGF’s posts tend to be. And LGF’s posts are called ‘Blog Spam’ and must be Dugg Down. Yet these blogs stories get dugg up to the popular list.
Of course, the stories at the other two blogs have different topics than LGF stories tend to have. Such as these on thinkprogress.org:
VIDEO: Top Bush Official Reveals White House Never Investigated Plame Leak
or
CAUGHT ON TAPE: Gonzales Lies Under Oath
or
Gore: If The Crib’s On Fire, Don’t Speculate The Baby Is Flame-Retardant
or these on americablog.blogspot.com :
Tony Snow says president must let his senior advisers testify under oath
or
Crazy Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) says Walter Reed scandal is “overblown”
or
FOX News needs to come out of the closet
The lies keep piling up. If you ‘have to’ bury LGF because it’s ‘blog spam’ and not original links then the same is true of ‘thinkprogress.org’ and others. Yet it doesn’t happen.
The ‘big lie’ keeps getting exposed.
March 21, 2007 at 11:08 pm
“So, you found these items at the this site. Now you condemn the whole site, because of these items of a few. Yet, you criticize them for judging all, by the actions of a few.” — chikasaw2
——————
Your “few” characterization is extremely questionable. Further the comparative size of the populations we’re talking about hardly makes for a neat 1:1 analogy.
Even so, not sure where I condemned much of anything. I pointed out that the preponderance of a certain caliber of “commentary” has given the site a reputation that people on Digg have taken to acting upon.
Do I think lgf is a hate-site? Maybe not along the lines of Stormfront, but I definitely think it traffics in rampant attacks–not on terrorists, or even fundamentalist Islamic radicals–but on the whole of the global Islamic population. That, to me, is hate, defined.
That said, I’ve never called on the site to be closed. They have every right to exist and say what they want. It they were being attacked by hackers to shut them down, I would find it deplorable.
As it stands, Digg is a third party that has a function that certain people are availing themselves of. It’s a forum that has its own unique features that are used–and yes, abused–in relation to a great many sites, think progress and huffpost as much as lgf and hot air. In all of those cases, that’s part of the medium as it was created, not censorship.
March 21, 2007 at 11:27 pm
“So, you found these items at the this site.” — Chickasaw2
Does this mean that you find your prior “you call this hate speech” incredulity to be a touch misplaced?
March 21, 2007 at 11:31 pm
““CAIR, take your inhuman, death cult out of the USA NOW!”
“Satan has found a willing host to destroy the earth with. It’s name is Islam.”
If that isn’t “hate,” I’m not sure what is…”
_________________
“Drive the Jews into the sea”, perhaps? Crashing airplanes into buildings, perhaps? Need more examples of real hate?
March 21, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Verchiel-Does this mean that you find your prior “you call this hate speech” incredulity to be a touch misplaced?
No.
March 21, 2007 at 11:36 pm
chip Says:
March 21st, 2007 at 10:49 pm
“Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned”
Are we just throwing out random Bible verses now? Most people that use that verse to excuse any and every action don’t even have a clue as to what it actually means.
March 21, 2007 at 11:49 pm
“No.” — chickasaw 2
—————–
I shudder to think what it takes to cross your “hateful” barrier, then.
What does it require, explicit threats of violence to specific individuals? Or is it just when those comments lack the necessary “civility” that so many people think is the key to appropriate discussion out here on the intertubes….
March 21, 2007 at 11:55 pm
# Mr Pibb Says:
March 21st, 2007 at 11:36 pm
“Are we just throwing out random Bible verses now? Most people that use that verse to excuse any and every action don’t even have a clue as to what it actually means.”
Well, I’ll leave it to a guy that tries to rationalize that LGF isn’t filled with xenophobic haters to interpret the bible for me. Sounds like it’s right up your alley.
I especially loved your comment above:
“2) This seems to give weight to the notion that LGF is NOT a hate site, since the owner takes steps to sanitize it.”
That’s like saying a toilet doesn’t get filled with shit because you have to flush it and clean it occasionally. You have to sanitize it *because* it gets filled with shit.
March 21, 2007 at 11:58 pm
[...] Why is Digg Being Censored? It’s 12:33AM The usual late night Digg check before heading off to sleep, just to see if anything catches my […] [...]
March 22, 2007 at 12:08 am
“Well, I’ll leave it to a guy that tries to rationalize that LGF isn’t filled with xenophobic haters to interpret the bible for me. Sounds like it’s right up your alley.”
I know you were hoping to use that verse to excuse any and every action under the sun. Sorry I had to ruin that fantasy for you. It’s pretty sad that you think someone else has to interpret the Bible for you anyway. Try doing some research behind verses before you attempt to use them as ammo. You might come across as a little less clueless.
“That’s like saying a toilet doesn’t get filled with shit because you have to flush it and clean it occasionally. You have to sanitize it *because* it gets filled with shit.”
I eagerly await your condemnation of Kos and HuffPost using that same criteria. Of course you probably have accounts at both places or somewhere similar, which makes you just another hypocrite.
March 22, 2007 at 12:11 am
IMO, the problem is that Digg’s controls aren’t sufficient to deal with “political” spin. A “thumbs up” and “bury” buttons just don’t cut it. I proposed a solution here: “Concerning a Digg-style site for political news.”
March 22, 2007 at 12:12 am
Mr Pibb Says:
March 21st, 2007 at 8:49 pm
“I also notice that you fail to differentiate Charles’ crusade (pun intended) against Wahabbi Islam. You morph his criticisms of Wahabbi and extremist Islam into hate against all Muslims. Looks like you’re the one that sees all Muslims as the same. Now who’s the bigot”
That would be fine if the site did differentiate between all muslims and extremist but it doesn’t.
Look at the top current story.
“Muslim Students Kill Teacher for Desecrating Koran”
No differentiation between muslim and extremist muslims in the story quoted. All muslims are portrayed as being suicide bombers or terrorists. This is not a construtive attitude and it only encourages hatred. This kind of ignorance will only make the problem worse but I guess thats all the chickenhawk teenagers on LGF want so they can masturbate over death and destruction from their comfortable homes.
LGF ARE bigots.
Not saying it should be censored or whatever but don’t go crying when the truth is pointed out to you.
March 22, 2007 at 12:17 am
All this is going to come down to a civil war in this contry. Too many brainwashed people vomiting hatefull doublespeak and controlling information. If there is a “fairness in media” law passed, then free speach has been silenced. Has anyone ever read Animal Farm? The “news” today is about brangelina and other infotainment, not about real things happening in the world. I didn’t see ANYWHERE about the riots in Holland except on LGF. That is NOT hate speach, it’s NEWS. The problem with liberals is that they don’t know what it’s like to go hungry, I mean like in a war, hungry. Freedom isn’t free, it may be a cliche’ but it is true. When we loose our freedom of speach, the rest is already falling, and we have to start all over again.
March 22, 2007 at 12:20 am
“Look at the top current story.
“Muslim Students Kill Teacher for Desecrating Koran”
No differentiation between muslim and extremist muslims in the story quoted.”
Did you follow the link to the news story titled “Muslim pupils kill teacher”?
Looks like your criticism should be leveled at new.com.au instead.
March 22, 2007 at 12:21 am
Verchiel-What does it require, explicit threats of violence to specific individuals?
type of speech which is used to deliberately offend an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group. Such speech generally seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them.
I would use this as my guide, yet it might not need to offend, the first examples you used from the LGF site and from which I based my first post were as I said, careless and I will now add pointless. Yet, I do not see the hate you seem to see.
The wikipedia definitons of “hate speech”is so varied I could find it any article written about a person, place or thing. I would think that people who really hate would act upon that hate. When is a stupid opinon hate speech? When is any thing said that offends someone else hate speech? I’m sure I can label anything as I wish, if I can find the right definition that I need.
March 22, 2007 at 12:21 am
LGF is a hate site. It is an echo chamber for neo-con bigots to allow their latent discriminatory/bigoted streak to run wild, anonymously (I mean, besides Charles). If you were to replace every instance of the word “Muslim” with “Jew” and “Islam” with “Judaism” in every post, the site would be instantly derided as anti-semitic and it would be a foregone conclusion that the site is evil and Charles Johnson would be persona-non-grata amongst his fellow bloggers.
Nay, because Jews are a protected minority while Muslims are not, he gets away with it. The entire purpose of the site is to promote hatred of Muslims and Islam, to blur the line between “regular Muslim” and “Islamic terrorist”, to dehumanize Islamic middle easterners and to paint them all as savages subhumans.
Because Johnson himself doesn’t advocate nuking Mecca on the front page, nor uses terms like “raghead”, “sand nigger” or “paleostinians”, nor openly advocates genocide against Muslims, the site seems almost respectable at first glance. When you unfortunately read the comments for each front page post, the true ugliness of LGF becomes apparent. That Charles doesn’t monitor his comments and delete and ban the the people who post the truly terrible comments, he essentially endorses them. Sure, he will delete some of the awful things, but only when those become public or are pointed out by others as being awful. If you think about it, if Charles deletes only as many obscene comments as necessary to maintain LGF’s patina as a mainstream neoconservative blog.
If LGF isn’t a “hate” site, then there are no “hate sites”. That we should respect and not oppose LGF should mean that we allow Stormfront.org the same free reign to pollute the web.
I can’t bury you fast enough, Charles. Rot in hell you genocidal shithead.
March 22, 2007 at 12:26 am
“I can’t bury you fast enough, Charles. Rot in hell you genocidal shithead.”
Sounds like hate speech to me. Oh wait, you’re a lefty so it doesn’t count.
March 22, 2007 at 12:26 am
“# Mr Pibb Says:
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:20 am
“Look at the top current story.
“Muslim Students Kill Teacher for Desecrating Koran”
No differentiation between muslim and extremist muslims in the story quoted.”
Did you follow the link to the news story titled “Muslim pupils kill teacher”?
Looks like your criticism should be leveled at new.com.au instead.”
The “story” is on LGF Carlie obviously agrees with the headline or he wouldn’t have posted it. Any story that backs up the theory that all muslims are violent is posted on LGF. You said that the site differentiates between muslims and extreme Islam. Where is the differentiation in that story?
March 22, 2007 at 12:28 am
“That Charles doesn’t monitor his comments and delete and ban the the people who post the truly terrible comments, he essentially endorses them. Sure, he will delete some of the awful things, but only when those become public or are pointed out by others as being awful.”
Again, if you don’t apply that same criteria to Kos, HuffPost, etc, you’re just another hypocrite.
March 22, 2007 at 12:29 am
“You said that the site differentiates between muslims and extreme Islam. Where is the differentiation in that story?”
You mean the story that LGF lifted directly from news.com.au? Are you now accusing news.com.au of bigotry?
March 22, 2007 at 12:33 am
“I can’t bury you fast enough, Charles. Rot in hell you genocidal shithead.” – twisket
Wow the hate speech from those accusing hate of others is incredible. LGF is an information site that is informing people how dangerous radical muslims can be. I for one am glad to get the truth that is covered up by liberals like the person I quoted. Heck I had not even heard of any of those muslims slurs before this person felt the dying need to put them all out in his hate filled response.
Makes you wonder if all these people burying LGF are radical muslims themselves with how much hate every response of theirs is filled with.
March 22, 2007 at 12:35 am
# Mr Pibb Says:
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:29 am
“You said that the site differentiates between muslims and extreme Islam. Where is the differentiation in that story?”
You mean the story that LGF lifted directly from news.com.au? Are you now accusing news.com.au of bigotry?
He lifted it for a reason. It fits his agenda.
Yeah news.whatever that is a bigoted headline.
Again where does Charles differentiate between Muslims and etreme Islam in that story?
Answer is he doesn’t. By not doing so it suggests that all Muslims are the same .
I’ve no problem with freedom of speech say what you like but don’t cry when your exposed as a bigot thats all.
March 22, 2007 at 12:36 am
Charles has poured so much hatred and ignorance into the world he deserves some of it back, I think.
March 22, 2007 at 12:37 am
# Mr Pibb Says:
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 am
“I know you were hoping to use that verse to excuse any and every action under the sun. Sorry I had to ruin that fantasy for you. It’s pretty sad that you think someone else has to interpret the Bible for you anyway. Try doing some research behind verses before you attempt to use them as ammo. You might come across as a little less clueless.”
I thought the words spoke for themselves. Strange, you still offer no interpretation. I’m waiting with giddy anticipation.
“I eagerly await your condemnation of Kos and HuffPost using that same criteria. Of course you probably have accounts at both places or somewhere similar, which makes you just another hypocrite.”
Well, when Kos or Huff start gearing up on rhetoric that calls for the murder, nuking and/or genocide of a billion people then I’ll be right there with the condemnations.
And before you start spinning my comments I’ll say this:
I want to kill terrorists that want to kill us. I think that Islam is “backwards” in many ways- in my opinion they’re going through their own dark ages. But the solution offered by the goobers at LGF is nonsense. They think the only way to solve our problems is by dropping bombs or being the Iraqi national SWAT team. We will not find our way out of this by waging a “forever war”.
March 22, 2007 at 12:37 am
twisket Says:
If you were to replace every instance of the word “Muslim” with “Jew” and “Islam” with “Judaism” in every post, the site would be instantly derided as anti-semitic and it would be a foregone conclusion that the site is evil and Charles Johnson would be persona-non-grata amongst his fellow bloggers.
Ms. twisket,
You are the problem. Please leave the United States now, and never return. Any idiot knows that the MSM is anti-Israel. Even the Jewish ones believe their lies. Muslims, extreme or not have a religion that permits forced conversions, by example of actions, and denied in commentary after the fact. In written words they are also permitted to lie to further their cause of global a caliphate. Those moderate muslims who do not choose to perform these written instructions have a greater chance of raising children that will choose to follow a radical path than Jewish children of Zionist parents. That is a fact, not hate speech. I would love to give you an example of hate speech to your face, but that would be sinking to your level, and solve nothing. Please consider my invitation to leave my country.
March 22, 2007 at 12:38 am
“Charles has poured so much hatred and ignorance into the world he deserves some of it back, I think.”
Worst excuse, EVER.
March 22, 2007 at 12:40 am
Reverse LGF and you get this.
http://littleblueballs.blogspot.com/
March 22, 2007 at 12:41 am
“Again where does Charles differentiate between Muslims and etreme Islam in that story?
Answer is he doesn’t. By not doing so it suggests that all Muslims are the same .”
Are you saying that any person that reads his short summary of that article will automatically think “all Muslims are like this story from Nigeria” just because he didn’t say “extremist”? I tend to give people a little more credit with their intelligence than you I suppose.
March 22, 2007 at 12:41 am
“Sure, he will delete some of the awful things, but only when those become public or are pointed out by others as being awful.”
Bullshit.
He deletes what he wants, and if it is pointed out by someone what difference does it make? If he saw it first, he’d delete it. He doesn’t delete because people ask him too- Lord knows, there was a terrible row about that.
So.. the criticism went from “it’s blog spam”, then onto “it’s a hate site”, and now “it has haters commenting”.
-Blog spam might work if other blogs were buried (besides conservative ones)
-Hate site might work if you could produce ONE link to Charles making a hateful comment – but you can’t.
-Haters commenting might work- but … that would knock out any blog with open comments.
(and yes, “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”.)
He’ll delete them if he happens to see it, but if it stays up, it doesn’t mean he endorses them.
Next bullshit excuse please!
March 22, 2007 at 12:44 am
“Well, when Kos or Huff start gearing up on rhetoric that calls for the murder, nuking and/or genocide of a billion people then I’ll be right there with the condemnations.”
I guess you don’t hang out there much if that’s your reply.
March 22, 2007 at 12:44 am
“# Mr Pibb Says:
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:41 am
“Again where does Charles differentiate between Muslims and etreme Islam in that story?
Answer is he doesn’t. By not doing so it suggests that all Muslims are the same .”
Are you saying that any person that reads his short summary of that article will automatically think “all Muslims are like this story from Nigeria” just because he didn’t say “extremist”? I tend to give people a little more credit with their intelligence than you I suppose.”
You said that LGF differentiates I said it didn’t now you say the differentiation is infered. You lose.
March 22, 2007 at 12:45 am
“Charles has poured so much hatred and ignorance into the world he deserves some of it back, I think.”
Must be nice to be a lefty and not be subject to the rules and norms you try to impose on others. Kinda like John Edwards’ mansion and Algore’s electric bill.
March 22, 2007 at 12:49 am
GW Says:
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:33 am
“LGF is an information site that is informing people how dangerous radical muslims can be. ”
Be honest, how many times have you read posts at LGF that characterize all muslims as evil or advocated their annihilation?
LGF is platform for xenophobes that enjoy expounding their own hateful, monochromatic world view.
I have personally participated (at digg) in threads that were spinoffs of the exact same source that Charles posted- none were buried. It’s not the source story, it’s LGF that gets the stories busted. If Stormfront posted a link to the cure for cancer, I’d bury that too.
March 22, 2007 at 12:49 am
“You said that LGF differentiates I said it didn’t now you say the differentiation is infered. You lose.”
Actually someone posted a quote from Charles saying exactly what you’re wanting him to say. I guess you want him to paste it to every single post he makes though.
March 22, 2007 at 12:55 am
Here ya go chip:
“The vast, vast majority of Muslims want to get along and live a comfortable life just like everyone else,” he says. “But the mainstream media shies away from showing the public the real face of Islamic extremism. They don’t want to offend. And they are influenced by some strong advocacy groups that are funded by Middle Eastern countries, which are actively engaging with the mainstream media to promote a point of view.”- Charles Johnson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801431.html
March 22, 2007 at 12:56 am
# Mr Pibb Says:
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:49 am
“You said that LGF differentiates I said it didn’t now you say the differentiation is infered. You lose.”
Actually someone posted a quote from Charles saying exactly what you’re wanting him to say. I guess you want him to paste it to every single post he makes though.”
Not every single post but how about in the headline not buried in the comments and posted by someone else. How about differentiating between Muslims and extremist Muslims as you claim he does.
March 22, 2007 at 12:58 am
[...] linked up by LGF. For some reason, it’s ranking on digg was suppressed. That story unfolds here. One would think that 400 and some ‘diggs’ would get you a popular rating. Appantly, [...]
March 22, 2007 at 1:01 am
chip, the bottom line is if you’re judging a site by it’s user comments, then Kos, DU, HuffPost, and plenty others fall right into that same criteria. For some reason, lefties only get bothered by certain kinds of “hate” while other kinds are permitted. The anti-Catholic Edwards bloggers comes to mind. For some reason, lefties rallied around their hate speech. Oh, it was anti-Christian and not anti-Muslim so again, it’s ok.
March 22, 2007 at 1:08 am
” Mr Pibb Says:
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:01 am
chip, the bottom line is if you’re judging a site by it’s user comments, then Kos, DU, HuffPost, and plenty others fall right into that same criteria. For some reason, lefties only get bothered by certain kinds of “hate” while other kinds are permitted. The anti-Catholic Edwards bloggers comes to mind. For some reason, lefties rallied around their hate speech. Oh, it was anti-Christian and not anti-Muslim so again, it’s ok.”
I’m not judging the site by the users comments I don’t bother reading most of them. Its the premise of the site I have the problem with. Posting stories that don’t make the headlines is fine. Posting stories about Islamic extemism is fine also. Its posting stories that portray all muslims as violent psychopaths I have a problem with. As in that headline “Muslim Students Kill Teacher for Desecrating Koran”.
I don’t think LGF should be censored I actualy believe in freedom of speech say what you want but be prepared to be criticised for it to.
What does “chip” mean you trying to be Condescending or something? Your the one supporting an obviously bigoted site son.
March 22, 2007 at 1:10 am
chip- “be honest, how many times have you read posts at LGF that characterize all muslims as evil or advocated their annihilation?”
Actual blog posts? Or even actual comments from Charles?
zero.
Liar.
March 22, 2007 at 1:13 am
And even in the comments section there are people that call them on the “all muslims” or any kind of “annihilation” talk. Alot of times it’s me, so don’t lie and say they don’t.
/’cept IF~ and he gets the left so riled I think it’s pretty funny myself
March 22, 2007 at 1:13 am
# Michelle Says:
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:10 am
chip- “be honest, how many times have you read posts at LGF that characterize all muslims as evil or advocated their annihilation?”
Actual blog posts? Or even actual comments from Charles?
zero.
Liar.
Muslim Students Kill Teacher for Desecrating Koran
March 22, 2007 at 1:16 am
Outstreet- oh no.
Any -normal- person would differentiate. The fact that -you- don’t points out who the hater is.
March 22, 2007 at 1:17 am
Muslim students did.
Your point is? Think the Amish would kill for desocrating the koran?
March 22, 2007 at 1:19 am
“Michelle Says:
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:17 am
Muslim students did.
Your point is? Think the Amish would kill for desocrating the koran?”
So would the headline
“Christian Slaughter at Columbine High School” sound ok to you?
March 22, 2007 at 1:21 am
If they did it for the glory of G-d, you damn right I want to know about it.
March 22, 2007 at 1:22 am
# Michelle Says:
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:16 am
Outstreet- oh no.
Any -normal- person would differentiate. The fact that -you- don’t points out who the hater is.
From reading LGF there is no differentation hence my point sweetheart.
March 22, 2007 at 1:22 am
# Mr Pibb Says:
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:01 am
“chip, the bottom line is if you’re judging a site by it’s user comments, then Kos, DU, HuffPost, and plenty others fall right into that same criteria. For some reason, lefties only get bothered by certain kinds of “hate” while other kinds are permitted. The anti-Catholic Edwards bloggers comes to mind. For some reason, lefties rallied around their hate speech. Oh, it was anti-Christian and not anti-Muslim so again, it’s ok.”
I said it before and I’ll say it again; the “liberal” sites you mention don’t have posters that paint all muslims as evil and call for their annihilation. You can find that every day at LGF.
March 22, 2007 at 1:23 am
outstreet- then you don’t actually “read” LGF. Or you would know it’s not true.
You skim the headlines, skim the comments and get whatever bigoted idea you want from it – hence calling LGF a “hate site”.
March 22, 2007 at 1:25 am
Oh no chip- they just have posters who say that Jews control the world and it doesn’t matter if people are trying ONCE AGAIN to annihilate them.
They are Jews, it’s alright. /crazy koz/huff/leftie dumbass
March 22, 2007 at 1:26 am
“Posting stories that don’t make the headlines is fine. Posting stories about Islamic extemism is fine also. Its posting stories that portray all muslims as violent psychopaths I have a problem with. As in that headline “Muslim Students Kill Teacher for Desecrating Koran”.”
How does that article portray all Muslims as violent? You seem to be seeing things that don’t exist.
“What does “chip” mean you trying to be Condescending or something?”
“chip” means I’m responding to the poster above using the name “chip”.
March 22, 2007 at 1:28 am
# Michelle Says:
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:10 am
“Actual blog posts? Or even actual comments from Charles?
zero.
Liar.”
Typical wingnut BS, set up your strawman and knock it down. But wait…
# Michelle Says:
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:13 am
“And even in the comments section there are people that call them on the “all muslims” or any kind of “annihilation” talk. Alot of times it’s me, so don’t lie and say they don’t.”
Now you’re equivocating. Sure that happens, but not only is your characterization a little lenient, it also exposes that it does happen, and quite often. Instead of being chastized, they often get a chuckle or an “attaboy”. Statistically, your agument’s a loser.
Case in point:
”
“/’cept IF~ and he gets the left so riled I think it’s pretty funny myself
March 22, 2007 at 1:30 am
“I said it before and I’ll say it again; the “liberal” sites you mention don’t have posters that paint all muslims as evil and call for their annihilation. You can find that every day at LGF.”
So all other hate is acceptable except hate against Muslims? Edwards anti-Catholic bloggers are a-ok? Don’t worry, I know the answer. Liberals rallied around the bigoted bloggers as soon as the story broke. Kos and HuffPost are bastions of Jew hating. Apparently you don’t see any of it.
March 22, 2007 at 1:30 am
#” Michelle Says:
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:23 am
outstreet- then you don’t actually “read” LGF. Or you would know it’s not true.
You skim the headlines, skim the comments and get whatever bigoted idea you want from it – hence calling LGF a “hate site”.
Anyone can spend an hour online and make a site based on demonising one section of society and creating hatred for it.
http://littleblueballs.blogspot.com/
I don’t skim the headlines or base my opinion of it on the comments its the premise of the site to blame and demonise muslims at every opportunity without differentiating between Muslims and extremists. Thats the problem with it and thats why its a hate site.
March 22, 2007 at 1:32 am
Seems to me it’s only people that are calling LGF a hate site that are saying that pointing out islamic extremism means it’s “all muslims”.
They automatically believe that.
Who is the bigot?
/rhetorical- don’t expect the bigots to admit it.
Let me see… second time I had to whip this bad boy out today…
“The vast, vast majority of Muslims want to get along and live a comfortable life just like everyone else,” he says. “But the mainstream media shies away from showing the public the real face of Islamic extremism. They don’t want to offend. And they are influenced by some strong advocacy groups that are funded by Middle Eastern countries, which are actively engaging with the mainstream media to promote a point of view.”- who said that?
Charles Johnson
Link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801431.html
March 22, 2007 at 1:33 am
Outstreet- no you base your opinion on picked over comments from a stalker site. Nice.
March 22, 2007 at 1:34 am
# Michelle Says:
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:25 am
“Oh no chip- they just have posters who say that Jews control the world and it doesn’t matter if people are trying ONCE AGAIN to annihilate them.
They are Jews, it’s alright. /crazy koz/huff/leftie dumbass”
Ya, sure, just like LGF those sites post 5, 6, 7 threads a day that castigate jews for some isolated crime then pile on with hundreds of comments bashing jews in general. *boggle*
You’re head is buried too far up your ass to even smell the truth, let alone see it. That’s what makes you a good little wingnut. Spin on, little wingnut!
March 22, 2007 at 1:34 am
“Its posting stories that portray all muslims as violent psychopaths I have a problem with. As in that headline “Muslim Students Kill Teacher for Desecrating Koran”.
Your grasp of English seems pretty weak. Where exactly in the headline “Muslim Students Kill Teacher For Desecrating Koran” does it say “all muslims are violent pyschopaths” ? The headline is a FACTUAL one – muslim students in Nigeria did indeed kill a teacher for “desecrating the Koran”. Are you saying that we should never mention crimes motivated by religious extremism ?
Are you just afraid to admit that the followers of islam seem more likely to kill for religious reasons than say, Hindus, Buddhists or Christians.
If Christian groups were murdering people of other faiths because they desecrated the Bible or drew cartoons of Jesus would you not expect to see it reported ? LGF gives us the facts about what islamists are doing around the world because the MSM refuses to do so.
March 22, 2007 at 1:35 am
Posting stories that don’t make the headlines is fine. Posting stories about Islamic extemism is fine also. Its posting stories that portray all muslims as violent psychopaths I have a problem with. As in that headline “Muslim Students Kill Teacher for Desecrating Koran”.”
Uh, just MAYBE muslims should stop acting like violent psychopaths….then there would be no stories to post.
Oh, and I suggest a visit to the list of worldwide attacks committed by muslims since Sept 11, 2001 located at wwww.thereligionofpeace.com. I printed it out two summers ago….it was 194 pages long at that time.
March 22, 2007 at 1:36 am
# Michelle Says:
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:33 am
Outstreet- no you base your opinion on picked over comments from a stalker site. Nice.
Please point out to me where on the site Charles differentiates between all muslims and Extreme Islam. Particularly the “Muslims Kill teacher” story. Not buried in comments or quoting a different site.
March 22, 2007 at 1:39 am
“I don’t skim the headlines or base my opinion of it on the comments its the premise of the site to blame and demonise muslims at every opportunity without differentiating between Muslims and extremists. Thats the problem with it and thats why its a hate site.”
Hmmm, your reading ability seems on a par with your grasp of basic English. LGF has carried many favourable stories about both moderate and secular muslims who disagree with the Global Jihad that the islamists have launched.
March 22, 2007 at 1:39 am
Is the line true?
Did they kill for allah?
Yes.
What’s your problem? Take it up with allah.
March 22, 2007 at 1:40 am
Okay- y’all have fun. I’ll check back later to see if someone found an actual quote from Charles saying that it’s all muslims- as a matter of fact y’all keep looking over the posts he makes FOR and ABOUT moderate muslims – sure wish there were more of them…
(not that you’ll find one, but I’ll come back to see you hem and haw around it anyway- it’s pretty funny)
The point has been made ad naseum that comments are pretty much unmoderated, but he gets what he can off.
Hold Huff and Kos up to the same standard and you’d have an argument.
ttfn!
March 22, 2007 at 1:40 am
Terry Johnson you make a good point. But this story with all the others is used to stir up hatred for all Muslims and does not differentiate between normal Muslim faith and extremists. Of course such crimes should be publicised but with some balance. When you collect all negative stories together about one group it suggests all Muslims behave this way.
March 22, 2007 at 1:43 am
I don’t very often find anything on the front page that is actually news worthy; it seems to me that most of the front page stuff is just gossip and not news… so in the past month I haven’t once read the front page anymore, I head to the last page and start there now
March 22, 2007 at 1:43 am
bordergal : Uh, just MAYBE muslims should stop acting like violent psychopaths….then there would be no stories to post.
Oh, and I suggest a visit to the list of worldwide attacks committed by muslims since Sept 11, 2001 located at wwww.thereligionofpeace.com. I printed it out two summers ago….it was 194 pages long at that time.
Looks like the LGF propaganda worked on you.
What countries did Muslims invade recently?
America has invaded two killing hundreds of thousands of people.
March 22, 2007 at 1:43 am
# Mr Pibb Says:
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:30 am
“So all other hate is acceptable except hate against Muslims? Edwards anti-Catholic bloggers are a-ok? Don’t worry, I know the answer. Liberals rallied around the bigoted bloggers as soon as the story broke. Kos and HuffPost are bastions of Jew hating. Apparently you don’t see any of it.”
No, contrary to the black and white logic that you proffer, that isn’t the case. I never claimed that hate there was acceptable. But that kind of fallacy is typical from the right. Sure, I’ve read haters on Kos and Huff. But they come nowhere near LGF when it comes to volume. I’ll criticize haters everywhere but I know for certain that I’ll find multiple haters in nearly every LGF thread.
March 22, 2007 at 1:45 am
Terry Johnson
Yeah? I can’t see any you got links?
March 22, 2007 at 1:46 am
“Of course such crimes should be publicised but with some balance.”
So every time a Sunni suicide bomber kills a bunch of Shia children the headline should read “Islamist Militant Kills Children but Millions of Others Didn’t” ?
And BTW what is the difference between “normal Muslim faith” and “extremists” ? Where are the extremists getting their ideas if not from the Koran ?
March 22, 2007 at 1:52 am
# Terry Johnson Says:
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:46 am
“Of course such crimes should be publicised but with some balance.”
So every time a Sunni suicide bomber kills a bunch of Shia children the headline should read “Islamist Militant Kills Children but Millions of Others Didn’t” ?
And BTW what is the difference between “normal Muslim faith” and “extremists” ? Where are the extremists getting their ideas if not from the Koran ?
You can interpret the Koran anyway you like just like you can the Bible. Just because extremists decide to interpret it one way doesn’t mean they all do. There are 1.2 billion muslims in the world are they all terrorists in your eyes? Do the murderers of abortion clinic doctors or the God Hates Fages people represent Christianity to you? To base you opinion of a huge diverse group on a small minority is idiotic.
March 22, 2007 at 1:54 am
I’ve stopped using Digg since I noticed how it buries any stories that are even slightly to the right. The ones that make it to the front page disappear quicker than a donut at a police station.
March 22, 2007 at 1:56 am
Sorry, ourstreets, I’m not such a regular reader of LGF that I know all the posts that Charles has listed that support secular muslims but they are a common occurance on the site.
I would also suggest that if negative stories about a “section of society” are all it takes to make a hate site then where does that leave the BBC who endlessly report bad news stories about the American military ?
LGF believes that because of misguided political correctness, the fear of islamist backlashes and Saudi slush money much of the MSM tries to either ignore or whitewash news of islamist extremism.
Do you not think that so many examples of violence from the extremists of just one religion are not worthy of comment ?
March 22, 2007 at 1:57 am
The point you are all missing. . . .(yeah, I’m back). . .is that the students in question identified themselves as Muslim and stated that that was the reason for their conduct.
Nobody looked through their pockets to find their “Muslim Membership Cards”. Nobody said DEATH = ISLAMISTS.
Sorry gents, Michelle wins.
March 22, 2007 at 2:03 am
Terry Johnson
If you say so but I haven’t seen any in support of secular muslims if they do exist then they are a tiny minority. Its just that all LGF does is post negative stories portraying all muslims as violent which is obviously not true as there are 1.2 billion of them. If he differentiated between extremism and regular muslims then that would be ok but he doesn’t.
March 22, 2007 at 2:04 am
Dear ourstreets,
Why is it the crimes of islamists are always compared to the tragic deaths of abortion doctors by a few (very, very few ) Christians ? Are you seriously comparing the London bombings, the Madrid bombings,the bombings in India, the Beslan school massacre, the slaying of Buddist teachers in Thailand, the stonings of adulterers in Saudi, suicide bombings in Iraq, the murder of tourists in Egypt, 9/11, the slaughter in Darfur , the beheading of schoolgirls in Indonesia, etc., etc. etc with a few crazies in the USA ?
How much of the Koran have you read ? You seriously need to learn more ..
March 22, 2007 at 2:07 am
Terry Johnson
Do you think all the 1.2 billion Muslims are terrorist?
March 22, 2007 at 2:14 am
The Bible was used to justify many crimes as is the Koran. These books can be interpreted anyway one wants. Terrorism is mostly political and economic using religion as a tool to gather support.
March 22, 2007 at 2:20 am
ourstreets, i hear what you’re saying and your intentions are obviously noble but one has to ask why are there so few secular muslims ? The Left in the USA are always going on (rightly) about the seperation of Church and State but don’t seemed concerned about 1.5 Billion people who don’t seperate politics from religion. People might also wonder about a religion that advocates the death penalty for apostates (i.e. those who leave that religion). I , in the West, was always taught to question religion and Christianity has certainly undergone some scathing questioning over the last century or two so why should islam be exempt from this process. Why did the American press publish photos of a “work of art” called “Christ In Piss” but refuse to publish a cartoon of Mohammend ?
March 22, 2007 at 2:28 am
Oh, come on now, outsider. You know as well as I do that the New Testament preaches love and forgiveness and that many Christians consider the Old Testament as something that doesn’t apply to modern life. How many Christian suicide bombers are there ? How many muslims have been killed in the Christian West by Christians screaming “in the name of Jesus” ? And yet all over the globe Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans and Christians are dying at the hands of islamists – why ??
If we want comparisons let’s compare Jesus and Mohammed. Jesus was a man of peace who said “Turn the Other Cheek” , Mohammed was a warrior who ordered the deaths of those who insulted him..might that be a hint as to why islamists use violence so much ?
Again you need to learn more about islam – islam is a complete way of life – it includes politics, economics, sexual relations everything…
March 22, 2007 at 2:31 am
Terry Johnson
Yeah there is a minority which take offence and are violent but all religions are like that. Islam does need to sort itself out and get rid of this minority but sites like LGF are increasing the divide between Christians and Muslims.
Where are the secular Muslims? Look at the huge majority of them who are not involved in violence. Secular Muslims are speaking out but you won’t hear about them on LGF.
Most Christians don’t follow every single part of the Bible why do you think Muslims do for the Koran? The Bible says you should cut off your hand if it sins, how many Christians do that? How many Chistians follw its harder for a rich man to enter heaven than through an eye of a needle, or even though shalt not kill??? I’m sure some Christians could interpret those ideas in many different ways. The huge majority of Muslims are peaceful people just cos it says something in the Koran doesn’t mean they all interpret it that way just like the Bible.
March 22, 2007 at 2:32 am
Terry Johnson
Christians don’t need suicide bombers they got rockets and planes to do it instead.
March 22, 2007 at 2:36 am
“Do you think all the 1.2 billion Muslims are terrorist?”
No. Do I think islam is a hugely flawed “religion” that has ambitions to be the one faith on Earth ? Yes !
The scariest thing about islam is how someone can be a “moderate” muslim one day but then after becoming more “devout” they then become extremist very quickly. When Christians get reborn they tend to become kind of boring and just go on about ” serving the Lord” but when muslims become extreme they walk into cafes or train stations and blow themselves and others to bits. Read some of the historys behind the London suicide bombers or Richard Reid The Shoe Bomber or some of the Al Queda people – they started off “moderate” muslims but then they got more involved and then BANG !!! Doesn’t that start to tell you something about the very nature of a religion that does that to people ?
March 22, 2007 at 2:40 am
“Christians don’t need suicide bombers they got rockets and planes to do it instead.”
Oh come on, you can do better that that ? Really ? What army is that ? Are all the US Military Christians ? Are all the Christian countries of the world in one big Christian army ? Are they fighting in the name of Jesus or for their country ? Can you really not see the difference ?
March 22, 2007 at 2:45 am
Outstreets – The reason there is no support for “regular” Muslims on LGF is because they won’t identify themselves.
Until recently, they have remained mute in the face of the horrible crimes being perpetrated in the name of their prophet. Only in the last few days has a moderate Islamic entity come forward to denounce the actions of the radicals.
Guess who was one of the first to announce their existance and praise them for standing up for regular muslims?
(insert Jeopardy theme music)
March 22, 2007 at 2:45 am
“Yeah there is a minority which take offence and are violent but all religions are like that.”
Examples please of Christians, Jews or Buddhists killing people because their holy books were
“desecrated” ? Examples please of Jews or Hindus marching thru London carrying banners that say “Those Who Insult Judaism ” or “Hinduism” WIll Be Beheaded” ? Examples please of other religions that advocate death for those who convert to another belief system. You’re getting out of your depth here – you really need to do more research on this “religion” that you’re so intent on defending.
March 22, 2007 at 2:46 am
Terry Johnson
Extreme Islam is fcuked up I agree. But not all Muslims are like that. The New Testiment is full of violence for anyone who doesn’t follow Christ.
You ask why extreme Muslims blow themselves up while extreme Christians become boring?
Thats the hub of the question. I think its down to political and economic reasons. The middle east should be the richest most prosperous place on earth but the people have been ensleved by cruel leaders supported by the west . They see their wealth stolen from them by the west and they live in terrible conditions. This misery is hijacked by others with their own political ambitions.
If Christians were living in massive poverty, huge unemployment then they would be violent to. Been interesting talking to you Terry but I’m in a different time zone to you gotta go to bed!!!!!!!!
March 22, 2007 at 2:52 am
outstreet- you just outed yourself.
March 22, 2007 at 2:59 am
NuffSaid
The last few days you need to read more than LGF guess the propaganda got to you.
March 22, 2007 at 3:06 am
“The New Testiment is full of violence for anyone who doesn’t follow Christ.”
Care to reference a verse that calls for a believer to harm another simply because they don’t believe in Christ?
The only violence found there are references to God’s actions toward unbelievers. On the other hand individual believers are commanded to turn the other cheek and pray for those who persecute them.
Moreover, even if we were to expand this discussion to include the OT one would be hard pressed to find anyone (Jew or Christian) who took seriously God’s call to fight the infidels. The Islamic communities problem is there willingness to adopt ancient commands to kill and conquer to present actions.
March 22, 2007 at 3:09 am
“If Christians were living in massive poverty, huge unemployment then they would be violent to. ”
Goodnight, outsider, try to read up a bit more on islam. Knowledge is Power. And in answer to your quote above I’d ask you to ponder the Christians of East Timor who were occupied by the muslim military of Indonesia from the mid-1960s until the late 1990s. In that time a third of the East Timor population were killed by the Indonesians yet not a single Indonesian civilian was killed by the East Timorese, not a single suicide bomber from East Timor blew up Indonesians . So why do muslims do it ?
Finally your claim that the West turned the Middle East into misery is a complete lie. The vast majority of the Middle East has been in misey for almost a thousand years when the muslims over-ran the Christian lands of Syria, Egypt and Libya, they also overran Iran and Turkey. In 1683 the muslim armies were on the verge of over-running Europe but were defeated at the gates of Vienna. Don’t believe the Leftist lies, just study history.
March 22, 2007 at 3:15 am
quote-
Again I reiterate: this is not a home for “round em up and kill em all” advocates, and those who wish to post such sentiments should start their own blogs and be held accountable for them.
/quote
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21493#c0152
But according to some, Charles is saying that it is all muslims and he advocates annihilating a billion people.
The comments are pretty much un-moderated – that’s what you get with free speech. Some people say stuff you don’t agree with. The stalker sites only show you those comments you know… they don’t show you the comments where other lizards take them to task on their extremism.
Again- … nice. Such a persistence in your *gasp* hatred of all things LGF.
Search until your fingers fall off and you won’t find Charles saying it is all muslims. But it’s damn sure not a “tiny minority”.
March 22, 2007 at 3:17 am
Terry Johnson
Are you suggesting that Muslims are inherintly violent?
March 22, 2007 at 3:24 am
[...] is digg being censored comeclarity asks [...]
March 22, 2007 at 3:40 am
[...] 21st, 2007 by mcclaud So I was reading another blog about Digg censoring LGF articles, and man, do the fucktards just roll in. Pro- and [...]
March 22, 2007 at 3:44 am
oooh I’m hurt~
*snicker*
March 22, 2007 at 4:13 am
Hey, one last thing… I missed up thread where it was asked where muslims were invading other countries… Wish I would have saw that at the time.
Let’s see… not counting when they invade other muslim countries? (kuwait)
Not when they are killing muslims within their own country (iraq)
How about when they just persecute others like the Christians in Lebanon?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000143.php
Or the Sudanese Christians?
http://www.rightgrrl.com/2000/colon/gen.html
Do the “separatists” count? Buncha death and destruction there:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22muslim+separatists%22
And you guys say -we- have fallen for propaganda? That is pretty funny.
March 22, 2007 at 4:30 am
So the underlying argument is basically:
Things I like are good, things I don’t are bad, and things I hate, are hateful. Therefore LGF is obviously a hate site, because I hate it. Other people cannot be relied upon to make a proper judgement about LGF, unless they judge it hateful. In which case, they will not want to see it on digg. Or anywhere. I act for people of reliable judgement.
By extension, any other person who listens to anything produced or relayed by LGF, is a hater. Since they don’t agree with me.
Definitions of hate are irrelevant, since I know I hate it.
March 22, 2007 at 4:50 am
How hard is it to understand that the LGF Digg submissions are NOT TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE!
Digg requires the submission to point to the original news item, not LGF’s post pointing to that item.
End of story.
March 22, 2007 at 4:59 am
I’d have to take that with a grain of salt considering the amount of blog & paper articles in digg, Herr Bongoman, though it is touching to know that a dedicated group has the will to bury these ‘illegitimate’ submissions in such a narrow field outside their interest.
Oftentimes LGF articles are a combination of inforamtion from several sources with original analysis. That does not exist in originality anywhere else.
End of story.
March 22, 2007 at 5:07 am
Perhaps, in the interests of clarity, Bongoman, the digg assembly should release a list of approved heralds that may be pointed at. Just in case, say, a meteorite hits the moon & exposes the man made of green cheese, well, I would wish to know which is the ‘original’ newspaper or source I am allowed to submit. I don’t want to spend all my time burying the wrong ones.
March 22, 2007 at 5:30 am
Pat if you’ve got to ask for a list of what’s original source and what is blatant regurgitation then you don’t belong on Digg anyway. Leave the burying of those improper Digg submissions to us — we’ve got it taken care of.
As the past month has shown, all the whining in the world by Charles, LGF and its members have had zero effect on Digg policy. In fact improper LGF submisisons are buried faster than ever. LGF cannot and will not dictate what goes on at Digg.
End of story.
March 22, 2007 at 5:57 am
Hey duster, thanks, you’ve just said it all without me having to ask.
It would be silly in the extreme to set oneself up for an organised bury war. A war of attrition helps no-one. You’re walking on thin ice assuming you have some special right to work burying & to leave it to you… maybe you have a special bury button marked ‘duster is god’?
March 22, 2007 at 6:15 am
An organized bury war that buried blogspam from both the left and right would be great. I say, “bring it on.” Seriously. Digg doesn’t need that crap from either side.
Sadly LGF — despite all the users it claims to have — has been embarrasingly unable to combat those who are burying its improper submissions. This is true even though there’s no organization on the part of the buriers. So, either LGF doesn’t have the numbers it claims to have, or its users suck at sticking up for their cause. I think it’s the former, but it may be the latter.
But by all means, bring on that bury war. Let’s rid Digg of political blogspam from all segments of the political spectrum.
March 22, 2007 at 6:27 am
duster you’re still a few bricks short of a pallet, mate. you’ve just said you’ve got a right above others to decide what gets buried & inferred a group ‘we’ into that process. So what really makes you think that if – & I say if – you did incite a bury war, that it wouldn’t be burying the stuff that you’re digging? You’ve got a nice cute but naive impression that the ‘other’ side would be burying something you also didn’t like & had no interest in either. How does this war that you’re asking to bring on work in this fashion.. it sounds just about the silliest thing in history.
Secondly, it is still a largely unproved assertion that LGF is blogspam. If there is analysis, or material from several sources, then spam it aint. By all accounts, & by your definitions, you yourself would probably qualify as blogspam.
March 22, 2007 at 6:37 am
Yes that’s exactly what I said. That I have a right above all others. Since the rest of that paragraph stems from that lie (please quote where I said I have a right above all others), let’s move on to your 2nd point.
LGF fits the Digg definition of blogspam — submissions that point to a blog that basically just encapsulates a link to a news story with nothingness. That’s repurposing of existing stories, and that’s against Digg’s Terms of Use (have you even visited their Terms of Use page?). Why do I need to quote “several sources” when it’s right there on Digg’s own page.
Also, have you ever submitted a story to Digg? Haven’t you noticed the “link to the original source” directive? There are only 4 rules on the submission page so it shouldn’t be that hard for you to find.
That you don’t agree that it is blogspam is irrelevant, largely because so many other Diggers know it’s blogspam. And they bury it appropriately.
March 22, 2007 at 6:43 am
Also, when LGF links together multiple news stories, or when it otherwise contributes a non-trivial amount of original content (sorry, but snarky 1-liners don’t count for much), then that LGF post SHOULD be submitted to Digg. Same is true for the lefty political blogs.
Your estimation of just how many of LGF’s posts contain non-trivial original content, though, is obviously very different than what most Diggers think.
March 22, 2007 at 7:04 am
duster did you not say:
“Leave the burying of those improper Digg submissions to us — we’ve got it taken care of.
… LGF submisisons are buried faster than ever. LGF cannot and will not dictate what goes on at Digg.”
FYI the construction is an imperative. An order, in other words. And there’s no such word as ‘repurposing’. Do not spam the world with nothingness & inflict your awful torture of the english language upon others.
Yes, strangely enough I have, like many others, submitted to digg. I think you’ve got everything arse about in your holy jihad to rid the world of bad stories… blog submissions are perfectly allowable on digg. See the FAQ
http://digg.com/faq
13.Is it okay to submit blog posts as stories on Digg?
Blog posts are fine, as long as they’re not plagiarized. (See a definition of plagiarism.)
“Plagiarism is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work. Unlike cases of forgery, in which the authenticity of the writing, document, or some other kind of object, itself is in question, plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution.”
(Digg’s link to definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism )
Your argument appears to hang tenuously from satisfying wiki’s definition of plagiarism where the blog does not attributed the source. If you’re such a y’know, stickler, for digg’s policies, that’ll make you feel a whole lot more at rest, won’t it?
March 22, 2007 at 7:46 am
duster my original reply is awaiting moderation because I threw a second link into it without thinking. You can read it when it is done.
As far as your next post goes… LGF is getting buried on digg regardless of content. Regardless. That implies prejudice. Nothing to do with content. In that regard, your argument that burial is because of ‘blogspam’ value – as you charmingly put it – is obviously wrong. It is ideologically driven. For such a case I would even to hesitate to claim that ‘numbers’ are on your side, or to speak of the majority. Rather it appears to be an attempt to hide it from the majority. As has already been said.
March 22, 2007 at 8:30 am
Take the Leftist “I am an Expert on Islam and those who Hate Islam test” –
#1 Mohammud was a pedophile (according to US laws). True or false.
#2 If you are Muslim and you change your religion to something else the penalty is death. True or false.
#3 In the Q’uran it says that a man may beat his wife if she is disobedient. True or false.
#4 In the Q’uran a man may have up to four wives and this is legal even today in ALL Muslim majority countries. true or false.
#5 Saudi Arabia did not abolish Slavery until 1965. True or false.
#6 According to Scriptures, hell is filled mostly with women because Mohammud said they were wicked. True or false.
#7 In most Muslim countries a womans testimony in court is only worth half of that of a man. This comes from Muslim scripture. True or false.
#8 The Crusades of Europe were started becuase The pope had a vision of jerusalem. True or false.
#9 Not all Muslims are Fundamentalists. True or false.
#10 in a recent poll by pew research what percentage of people in Middle eastern countries thought Suicide bombing was “sometimes or always acceptable”? 10%, 2% or 40%?
Heres the answer key: #1 True #2 True #3 True #4 True #5 False. it was abolished in 1969. #6 True #7 True #8 False The crusades started as a defensive action against attacks by Muslims on Christian Countries. #9 False. The Q’uran is the literal word of Allah therefore all Muslims belive its true word for word.
#10 40% Look up pew research web site for confirmation.
All these things are real and if anyone has questions, ask. Then maybe you’ll figure out why people dont like Islam so much.
March 22, 2007 at 11:32 am
The same power that allows people to promote stories also allows people to block stories. Simple as that. And besides, if you write anything that is blatantly slanted to the right-wing or religious zealotry, it will be buried by Digg’s avid left-wing tech-hungry audience. They’ll bury anything that promotes religion, yet worship anything with “Steve Jobs, Kevin Rose or SONY sucks” in the title.
March 22, 2007 at 12:17 pm
[...] Why is Digg Being Censored? « inside the cynic Why is Digg Being Censored? « inside the cynic [...]
March 22, 2007 at 2:08 pm
ourstreets Says:
So would the headline
“Christian Slaughter at Columbine High School” sound ok to you?
——————————————————————–
Bad analogy. The Columbine killers weren’t Christians (in fact they targeted Christians) and even if they were, their faith played no role in the killings. Did the Muslim students’ faith play a role in the killings? Yes, that’s why it’s included in the story. I guess you would prefer the politically correct sanitized version where we get the story but with no mention of religion, so that it turns into some unknown religion. That way we can all feel better about multiculturalism.
March 22, 2007 at 2:13 pm
chip Says:
No, contrary to the black and white logic that you proffer, that isn’t the case. I never claimed that hate there was acceptable. But that kind of fallacy is typical from the right. Sure, I’ve read haters on Kos and Huff. But they come nowhere near LGF when it comes to volume.
———————————————————————————
I’m sure you have proof to back up that assertion.
March 22, 2007 at 2:19 pm
totaltransformation Says:
Moreover, even if we were to expand this discussion to include the OT one would be hard pressed to find anyone (Jew or Christian) who took seriously God’s call to fight the infidels. The Islamic communities problem is there willingness to adopt ancient commands to kill and conquer to present actions.
———————————————————————————-
Nowhere in the Old Testament does God say to indiscriminately make war against and kill all unbelievers.
March 22, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Seems that Digg has come up with a modern version of “book burning”
March 22, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Digg sucks.
March 22, 2007 at 3:27 pm
That didn’t come to my mind. Maybe I’m dumb. Good point!
March 22, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Well, bias is bias…whatever the flavor. If we can just see that the “LEFT WING and the RIGHT WING” are both part of the same bird we might get past this shell game that is bein played on us by the power brokers (religious and political) on both sides. I have watched it for nearly 6o yrs and it hasn’t changed a witt. They convince us that we need to choose sides against each other for this cause or that one and it accomplishes one thing…it keeps the “common man?woman” from uniting and speaking in one voice against all the terrible things that are foisted upon us by the establishment.
“A man with a gun who says he is a pacifist is jest a well-armed liar”
BTW I own several of em.
March 22, 2007 at 3:50 pm
# duster Says:
March 21st, 2007 at 2:54 am
“Before LGF made a big stink about Digg, and before they signed up en masse at Digg in late Februrary / early March, LGF stories did make it to the front page. After they tried to brute force their way onto the front page, I think they generated, independently, a bunch of “enemies”. These “enemies” are individually and independently burying LGF submissions either because of their brute-force effort in late February, or because they’ve seen them before and think they’re a hate site.”
No offense, but it sounds here very much like you are trying to justify your own unethical conduct with respect the burring LFG posts…. grasping for strawsin order to place unethical buries in a positive moral light. Two wrongs don’t make a right– especially when the initial wrong has no basis in fact, and is only used as a false pretext.
March 22, 2007 at 3:58 pm
This is really part and parcel of the far left’s mindset that they should be entitled to have a greater vote than everyone else, especially the stoopid, uneducated collective masses– just like the our old friends from 1917 Russia.
March 22, 2007 at 4:53 pm
elvisnixon – yeah they were for the masses before they were against them. Same problem in Oz – you’ve got a so-called Labor party that grew out of the workers & is supposed to represent them; but nowadays they think the workers are a bunch or redneck racists so have to tell them what is good for them & make all the decisions that these rednecks are not capable of doing correctly for themselves. Since they are a special elite.
March 22, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I have come to learn that we are DEEPLY AND SERIOUSLY under fire for free speech. Tha’ts because the masses are pissed and people are waking up, and that’s not a good thing for the powers that be. You’re going to see alot more of this. CENSORSHIP is here to stay. Blogs buried in the Abyss of BFSTN. (Bum F— Skid to Nowhere). You only think your blog is being seen. What ever you do, don’t become controversial. Don’t expose the lies and the darkness. People’s websites go offline for no good reason. Emails disappear or are altered in space.
Are we really surprised?
TAKE BACK YOUR COUNTRY !!!!!!!!!
GET EDUCATED AND STAND UP.
Thanks for exposing Digg.
I will pass this along.
March 22, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Digg frequently hides stories — especially anti-Digg stories. For example, this one was on the front page briefly (see the Digg entry here, where it still has 164 diggs), then disappeared entirely off the popular pages.
You get what you pay for. Digg is free. And it’s about worth that much. Some interesting stuff there, yeah … but it only has the illusion of being directed by users.
March 22, 2007 at 6:11 pm
The whole point of Digg would seem to be “let people read it and react to it” regardless of content. People can read a pro-Hitler paper and disagree with every point made. Taking it off their plate is paternalistic and weak. It kills dialogue before it even has a chance to start.
March 22, 2007 at 6:15 pm
The bankers don’t want us to know how the world really works
March 22, 2007 at 8:44 pm
This discussion reminds me of Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. All opinions are equal…except that some are more equal than others. If you haven’t read it yet, please do; then compare the characters’ behavior to your own, and perhaps you’ll learn something.
The longer digg allows this abuse of their system to persist, the more credibility they will lose.
March 22, 2007 at 9:23 pm
I hate it when they censored my digglet. I used to like pokemon a lot
!
March 22, 2007 at 10:47 pm
These attacks on LGF are spurious.
Webster’s Dictionary is not a “hate” publication because it includes the “N” word.
The Highway Patrol is not responsible that some people speed.
Charles is not responsible for the rare bigoted comment that appears on his blog. He clearly sets a higher standard and holds his members to it.
Either hold all blogs to the same standard (which puts LGF low for bigotry and inaccuracy), or acknowledge your bias; you have made the decision to oppose conservative thought and attack anyone that opposes your agenda.
March 22, 2007 at 11:08 pm
LGF sucks ass. Quit your bitchin the search for victimhood is pathetic. Maybe people bury it cos its crap. Comparing it to book burning just shows how sad the lizards are.
March 23, 2007 at 12:06 am
Wow – from a digg question this has become a religous quasi-war. How amazing. with over 200 replies you should be able to take this to the digg boys and ask for an explanation.
Now I don’t care who’s religion but when someone is slamming another’s religion – it sucks. Man that suck real bad.
Let people believe what they want to believe. And when someone starts to point fingers to some general group as the source of all evil then start looking at who is point because that dude’s no good.
Now did anyone hear back from Digg about this issue? Cos while we’re all embroiled in the religion bashing the topic was Digg…
[;-]
March 23, 2007 at 1:51 am
When people point fingers to death and destruction in the name of religion it isn’t slamming another’s religion.
The religion is slamming itself.
March 23, 2007 at 2:20 am
[...] last posting Why Is Digg Being Censored admittedly stirred up a bit more than expected, but focussed on the political stance of Little [...]