God bless it, Breitbart.com goes to war on the left's closed-mindedness

Also amusing is this — "The Left's War on Comment Sections" — from Breitbart.com:

The internet was born open but is becoming closed everywhere. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the rush to shutter readers’ comments sections at major news organisations. Cheered on by intolerant, snobbish cultural elites, news organisations from The Verge to The Daily Beast have, in recent months, informed their readers to take their opinions elsewhere.

Dozens of progressive blogs and news outlets are following suit, citing "abuse" and "harassment" as the primary reasons they no longer want to hear the opinions of their readers. But that’s not what is really going on.

So … I hear you cry … what is really going on? Breitbart is ready with the answer:

Psychologists have long been aware that political extremists have the most negative reactions to contrary information. Combine that with [leftist "cultural elites"] disdain for free speech, a core cultural authoritarian value, and you get a frantic rush to remove the opinions of ordinary people.

I love it. "Ordinary people." That sounds a bit elitist itself, but never let it be said that Breitbart.com is self-aware.

What intrigues me about this article is that a few years ago I posted a comment on the right-wing FreeRepublic.com. I doubt my comment survived, for when I went to post a subsequent comment, I was informed by a FreeRepublic editor that my comment was unwanted, and thus both it and I had been banned. A regular commenter here, Peter G., informs us that his observations are banned at RedState.com, and I can only assume they're banned elsewhere in the pseudoconservative blogosphere.

This is not to argue that "progressive sites" are, on the whole, much different. As for sheer numbers, I can't say, but the level of thin-skinnedness out there can be breathtaking. To wit, after I once critiqued the hysterically progressive Stonekettle.com, I went to see what wisdom its scribbler had on his main page — his Facebook page. But there was nothing to see, you see, for Stonekettle's proprietor had banned me from even accessing his FB page (which I didn't even know was possible). He was — is — that terrified of criticism. (By the way, I had no intent to leave a comment. I was just curious.)

That leads us to the real divide here, which Breitbart, unsurprisingly, fails to mention. Some sites — the intellectually shallow, emotionally infantile sites, such as Stonekettle and FreeRepublic — ban commenters or even readers simply because the sites can't handle criticism. Other sites, however, have banned commenters because of an onslaught of abusive language, harassment, and so on. This, Breitbart does acknowledge, but also dismisses. Yet the second type of censorship is entirely legitimate; no respectable site should tolerate unrespectable comments, which merely detract from the subject at hand.

I have been lucky. Criticisms roll in here — which are most welcome, indeed the most welcome — but abuse has been exceedingly rare. In the past few years I believe I have banned a total of maybe three or four commenters for having relentlessly committed that sin. They were quickly un-banned (though I doubt they realized it). I just don't like bans. Period. Still, when it comes to distracting abuse, that's a different matter — which Brietbart has so characteristically twisted out of all recognition.

Want to have some fun? Link to this piece in Breitbart's comment section. I'd love to hear from its unabusive readers.

 

Comments

[EcoLogic Lee]

Sully didn't have comments, and I thought that was fine. The Rude Pundit "doesn't give a shit what you have to say" (I love TRP)

On the other hand Daily Kos (where I hang out - also under the name of EcologicLee) thrives on comments and user contributions and there are a fair number of disagreements. I have posted articles from The American Conservative with being banned or even HRed

I have participated in debates regarding GMOs and other issues. There are limits - The site exists to promote "more and better Democrats" so you can't promote republicans, but that's about it.

[Raven Onthehill]

Ah, the inalienable right to troll.

[Peter G]

Now I am become Superpatriot298, destroyer of orthodoxies.... Ah for the good old days when I used to drive by the right wing sites like Redstate and ask inconvenient questions. I'd occasionally get in four or five increasingly troubling questions before someone cried Troll! and that persona was banned. They've got me permanently banned now. On the flip side I may proudly boast that I am likewise banned at Crooks and Liars for essentially the same offense, pointing out orthodoxies that don't work when questioned. Some places like being bubbles. But I like to prick bubbles.

[Bob]

I've never bothered to comment on huge sites or conservative sites. It seems too much like spitting in the ocean and there really are too many ill-tempered illiterates that lower my faith in humanity. If that's elitist, so be it. On this blog all the other commenters consistently make interesting points and are worth reading. There should be more of them. Maybe when the presidential campaign heats up people will feel more like expressing opinions.

The Breitbart piece states "Psychologists have long been aware that political extremists have the most negative reactions to contrary information." This contains a false equivalence. There have been studies to distinguish between "ideological extremism" and the "rigidity of the right." While it's extremely difficult for humans to avoid "confirmation bias," liberalism and left wing extremism are not linked to psychological traits like inflexibility, close-mindedness or intolerance of uncertainty. Those are conservative traits. The term "authoritarian progressives" is hilarious because it's an outright oxymoron. The New York Times makes a similar mistake, no doubt in the name of "balance." Again, I'd recommend anyone interested in the psychology of politics read 'The Republican Brain' by Chris Mooney for an excellent overview.

[Bob Puharic]

Yeah I've been kicked off National Review online and Walter Russell Mead's pages for daring to question those who said Obama is a leftwing communist Jewish homosexual pornographer, or something.

[eric]

The decision to have a comments section or not is up to the discretion of the sites owner. As Lee points out the Daily Dish was notable for its lack of a traditional comments section but had 'curated' reader comments selected from readers email. It was a nice system for thoughtful focused discussion. At the same time I visit other sites that have open comments sections edited only for frankly abusive or inappropriate comments, and that can also be a good platform to prompt discussion amoung readers over a long comments thread.

Depending on what the site is going for either format is valid. The only thing I have an issue with are sites that edit/censor their comments sections not for abusive/trolling comments, but just for ideological heterodoxy. The most aggregious I ever encountered was an anti-vaccine blogger who scrubbed her comments section clean of any dissent, no matter how civil, even when it was simply links to PubMed for relevant clinical studies. It resulted in a comments section filled with nothing but a herd of credulous comments.

It would be unsurprising if certain partisan websites left and right would demand similar ideological purity. And those comment sections are universally worthless.

[Another Matt]

The American Conservative and their writers generally have an open (but actively moderated) comment policy. Lots of liberals have found it a welcoming place.

[eric]

Yes, TAC is a model for a well run comments section, quite lively as well.