Silencing dissent — in America
By JR Hoeft | Wednesday, August 6th, 2008 | Catch-AllThere has been a disturbing trend over the past few weeks in the U.S.: when you hold a strong, alternative position to Democrats, be prepared to be shouted down or silenced.
Such has been the case on Blogger and Twitter.
First, on Blogger, certain Republican blogs, including Virginia’s own SWAC Girl and Contemporary Conservative were identified as “Spam Blogs” by Obama supporters to Google. This caused the algorithm to automatically shut these blogs down for a period of time before Google finally realized what was going on and corrected the problem. However, as Jason writes in June, we see that this tactic is nothing new for Obama supporters.
Second, on the new “#dontgo” Twitter conversation, which was created to advocate for Congress to return to work on an energy solution for the country instead of going home on vacation, apparently several Democrats are trying to stifle the conversation. Here’s an example of what’s being said:
Sinfonian: Apparently we normal-thinking people can Twitter bomb the right-wing morons by putting #dontgo in our Twitters.
They haven’t been successful yet, but you can certainly see on the stream that they’re trying.
So this is what Democrats have come to? Instead of discussing the issues, seek petty technological alternatives to stifle the debate?
Combine this with the recent past actions of Democrats, I think it’s pretty clear that they think the first amendment only applies to them.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
5 Responses to "Silencing dissent — in America"
Joe Lieberman agrees with you.
“So this is what Democrats have come to? Instead of discussing the issues, seek petty technological alternatives to stifle the debate?”
Yes. That simple. Look how many time comments are deleted or blocked on Lib blogs, look how Liberal special interests go after EMPLOYERS and sponsors of people they don’t like and don’t get me started on the socialisat “Fairness doctrine”
So, yes. They are a bunch of whining, bullying cry babies.
The recent launch of the fake website voteday.org for Democrat Bill Day was a typical Nixonian dirty trick by the zealots on the GOP side. So, neither Party’s hands are clean when it comes to taking steps to stifle debate.
Citizens of sound character from all points in the political spectrum must speak out against this sort of tactic. To political operatives and zealots, the use of these dirty, dishonest tactics are all just part of the game; but this is NOT a game.
In an email to the Executive Director of our Virginia Democratic Party, I offered these thoughts:
“…there seems to be a concerted effort to use inflammatory rhetoric about Republicans on Democratic oriented blogs. I know that both sides do this from time to time, but in the last month, sites like Richmond Democrat, Cobalt and a few others, have repeated this destructive, dehumanizing practice of referring to political opponents as various animals, stupid, terrorists and robots.
As a Virginian who has worked very hard, sometimes for Democrats and sometimes for Republicans, I realize that there can be good people on all parts of the political spectrum. However, the use of dehumanizing rhetoric is a dangerous and irresponsible step. If one reviews history, regimes often describe their opponents in increasingly non-human terms, (like calling Vietnamese “gooks”), because when followers can think of the enemy as less than human, it is easier to take the next step to killing them.
I urge both parties to reflect on the fact that, especially here in Virginia, we often blend our politics, so on one campaign you may have some neighbors with you, but on another campaign those same friends may be working for another team. We can be political competitors, without casting the other side as the enemy, or using dehumanizing, inflammatory rhetoric. Besides, by maintaining civility and focusing on the issues, we pave the way for building successful coalitions in future elections.
For example, I worked on Tim Kaine’s team because I had gotten to know him and Anne, back when I worked for his opponent, Jay Katzen. Because Tim and his family were always cordial and friendly to me while I was on the opposing team during the Lieutenant Governor’s race, I told Tim that should he run for Governor, I would be glad to pitch-in to help; and I did.
Those in leadership positions in each of the political parties have an obligation to set a high standard of civility. After the election we must be able to come together and work on common ground issues, and to do that, we must not have cast the other side in such disparaging terms that we have fomented lasting hatred among the political factions.
Please do your best to provide sound counsel to the zealots so that a rigorous debate of the ISSUES can be had, and that we do not degenerate into the use of dehumanizing, inflammatory labels that sew the seeds of potential violence and erect barriers to achieving progress through coalition building on common ground issues, after the election.”
[...] the left squashes dissent and ousts those who aren’t Obamaphiles, it’s clear they think if anyone doesn’t [...]
Tyler, it’s one thing to put up a faux website, and another to get a blog labelled “Spam” to Google. The faux website does not, in any way, “stifle debate.”
Leave your response