I just spammed nine attempted comments from a would-be participant here calling himself by the confidence-inspiring name of “Muh.” As sometimes happens, he discovered us and began posting comments everywhere. Here is a representative sample:
1. On the “Frontrunners” post: “The funniest part about Ted Cruz is that he pretends he’s an outsider and the rubes fall for it. But one look at his resume and you can see this guy is as well connected as anyone. If only everyone who ever met him didn’t hate him, he’d probably already be President!”
Why it was rejected: This is a pure political comment, with no ethics content whatsoever. That’s not what this blog is here for. Go to Mediaite, the Daily Kos, or Politico for gratuitous, cynical, fact-free candidate-bashing.
2. Comment on the same post: “This article, well you can see where the author seems to be. You want to talk about these three, and you leave off Ted Cruz who’s basically talked about nuking the Middle East? Give me a break.”
Why it was rejected: Accusing me of pro-Cruz bias, or pro-anyone bias, based on this or any post is unjustified. I chose those three because they are far and away the front-runners, and for no other reason. I have not shied away from ctiticizing Ted Cruz. If a commenter is going to accuse me of bias, he or she had better check the blog archive first. And Cruz said no such thing.
“Give me a break” is in the class of other disapproved rhetoric such as “LOL!” and arguments beginning with “Uh…”
3. Same post: “Oh lordy, looks like we have a house-conservative here.. The National Review? Half of those clowns who come against rump made their living doing basically the same thing, and now it’s come home. I mean, look at the list of names of people writing those essays. It’s a joke. I’m not a Trump fan, but that National Review wanna-be takedown is a big fat nothing, the power elite trying to scramble and keep their influence using clowns like Glenn Beck and Erick Erickson to make their case.”
Why it was rejected: The comment strongly suggests that Muh’s an idiot. I didn’t endorse the National Review, defend it, or have any commentary at all about its anti-Trump issue. It could be the worst garbage ever published, but my point was that ad hominem attacks are not the way to rebut it. This clown takes that to mean I’m a National Review supporter? He’s either putting words in my mouth, which I revile, or too dumb to comment here.
4. On the Flint post: “Progressive totalitarianism? Hold on there bud, let’s not just pass it off to progressives. The right is constantly yelling for Obama to be thrown in jail, he’s a traitor. Hey, Ted Nugent even said he should be hung. Wouldn’t that be funny, hang the black guy? So don’t worry, there’s plenty to go around.”
Why it was rejected: a) Call me “bud” at your peril, jerk; b) This is a “they do it too” comment, a mash up of about four rationalizations; c) “the right” is not constantly doing anything of the sort; d) If Ted Nugent is a representative of conservatives, then Melissa Harris-Perry represents all liberals.
Someone who thinks this is intelligent, useful or fair debate doesn’t belong here.
5. Also on Fiint: “Well, there are going to be massive systems, you know we live in an industrialized society. Someone has to be in charge, and we can look at all of the examples of profit-making companies doing lots of stupid stuff too.”
Why it was rejected: Not a substantive argument, and more rationalizations. “It is what it is”, “Everybody does it”, “They’re just as bad,” and “Ethics Surrender.” I don’t need people who “reason” like Donald Trump here. If someone won’t use rational arguments, you can’t have a coherent discussion with them.
6. On the Frontrunners again: “They’re conservatives. Thinking out of the box ain’t gonna happen. Their big idea…let’s get the establishment to band together and make the case against him, to people who hate the establishment! Come on Glenn Beck, be the hero!”
Why it was rejected: The first two sentences ar gross generalizations and bigotry, non-substantive, non-constructive. The rest–I almost let this one pass, but since I was banning him anyway, it went out with the rest of the garbage.
There were some others, a couple of which would have made it if the commenter himself hadn’t proven unsuitable for intelligent human contact.
Lessons to Muh and his ilk:
- Don’t come on here to take potshots at candidates, or to wave someone’s banner.
- This isn’t a political blog, though political topics are often raised in an ethical context. Don’t treat it as one.
- You get some leeway here once you have demonstrated that you are sincere and trustworthy. That means not starting out by being insulting, snotty, accusatory and generally disrespectful to me. I’m your host.
- When I use hyperbole, which I do on occasion, I have sufficient evidence all over the blog that it isn’t really my belief. If you assert that Ted Nugent, a lunatic, represents U.S. conservatives, I will have to assume that you are either a fool or lying, because that is obviously false, and I have no other evidence to indicate that you don’t really believe that.
- Calling me biased politically or ideologically based on one post will get you banned, unless you are able to back up that position with substance.
- Insisting that I shouldn’t criticize X because Y has also done something worthy of criticism is not a valid comment.
- Read the About, Comment Policies, and Concepts and Terms sections above the banner before writing your first comment. They are there for a reason.
Ethics Alarms 
The obvious LACK of bias is one of the primary reasons why I come here for perspective. Too bad he couldn’t resist shooting his mouth off long enough to feel this site out; it’s a great place to learn.
This was a purely partisan warrior visiting to make his narrow points, not to learn or teach—to name-call and demonize. Their minds, such as they are, are mired in certainty: they just want to announce their camp. I spam these people all day long. This one was unusually prolific and mounted a carpet bomb attack.
“.. This one was unusually prolific…” and that is saying something! There have been a few over the years that have made me feel sane by comparison.
The more I learn, the more uncertain I become, particularly about politics. I think that’s a good thing, at least for now.
It’s kind of sad that you have to suffer such dross, but it is inevitable when you have a blog. It could be about cat videos, and you’d still have these sorts of myopic near-bots who’s brain never really finds enough interest in anything outside their self-programmed reality to come up with a cogent observation.
It must be a bit like living in a virtual reality that you don’t know is virtual.
But I think you missed out on the pic, You should’ve stolen Curmie’s “Depart Wretch” (with permission, of course) for this post. That would’ve made it epic.
How about this gentle sentence?
“Bless your heart, it would be best to spend some time away from each other…forever.”
Or the title of a book by Charles Grodin. “It would be so nice if you weren’t here.”
By the way, thanks for never banning me.
I’d probably end up banning Charles Grodin. I threw a shoe at the TV screen once because of him.
I have the same impulse, not always at Charles Grodin, although he’s always good for it. Some of my favorite angry shoe throwing moments were experienced when Anthony Weiner was the go to guy for liberal jack ass quotes. Even before the whole creepy sex tweeting started. Sometimes I miss those innocent days.
Or, “you ought to stop by when you don’t have so much time”, or ” next time you’re in town, drop me a line”.
“Call me “bud” at your peril, jerk”
“I’m not your buddy, friend!”
“I’m not your friend, guy!”
“I’m not your guy, buddy.”
“I’m not your buddy, friend!”
“I’m not your friend, guy!”
“I’m not your guy, buddy.”
“I’m not your buddy, friend!”
“I’m not your friend, guy!”
“I’m not your guy, buddy.”
-Terrence and Phillip
We want more money!
It is entirely up to you to set your ‘rules’ as ‘host’ as it is up to your followers as to whether they access your site and/or contribute. I have noted your sensitivity to any suggestion you might be biased, and how you tend to see any such suggestion as criticism. In my culture we tend to acknowledge our ex ante bias more readily (I am to some extent biased on everything I am interested in) and see claims of total absence of bias sometimes as tantamount to ignorance, disinterest or even on occasions dishonesty. Being so widely used English can be a dangerous language when we fail to realise that words can have subtly different meanings in different places for different people. Working in India I made a mistake in calling a colleague ‘smart’, which I intended as a compliment but he heard as an insult. ‘Jaw jaw’ certainly beats ‘war war’ but it is still hard.
I state my biases, Andrew. I have biases; I look for them; I try very hard to minimize the impact of them. I have no problem whne a sign of bias is pointed out.
I do not like my integrity or honesty being challenged, when the allegation of bias is that I am, for example, criticizing Donald Trump because I am secretly trying to assist Ted Cruz. I expect a substantive rebuttal or argument—“I can just ignore your opinion because you’re biased, because if you weren’t you wouldn’t right this” is an insult.
Is “smart” another word for Pakistani? Yeah, they don’t like that.
My reaction on reading this post is to wonder to what extent I’ve been guilty of the same sins.
Probably not rudeness to our host – but I better take the 5th on the rest, and try to do better in future. I shouldn’t rely on Jack’s forbearance, and he shouldn’t have to be in a position to show any.
Sorry. My apologies, no excuse, I’ll make an effort to improve.
Well, don’t let it happen again, bud.
Don’t worry, I’ve got rudeness to our host covered.
Ahh, the joys of being a bitter misanthrope.
Mmmmaybe everyone should go back and take a look at the About, Comments, etc., sections every now and then. Yes, I’ve gotten away with a LOT of crap, and so have a few other folks here, but it’s the host’s prerogative to start strictly enforcing the rules – on notice of course, or maybe declaring for a particular thread that’s going to get messy “The rules will be strictly enforced for this thread.”