I understand many will feel this is a mistake. I think it's a discussion that needs to be had, and here's why: The info was allowed onto RedState, one of the most prominent Republican blogs.
I tried to post this comment, just to see how controlled that process is:
Red State has a reputation for being a prominent Republican blog, not a site where spurious stuff is allowed to propagate. Why has this comment been allowed to be posted and then remain on this site for over 2 weeks? Certainly RedState mods could remove it if they wanted to. Why you have not would seem to be a relevant thing to wonder, as well as why a quiet effort on the part of named parties via legal counsel has not sought to compel removal. How are people supposed to see this bombshell and not discuss it further? Mr. Erickson-comment please?I could not post it in private browsing mode. When I turned off private browsing and tried again, I got this message:
Sorry, you must be logged in to post a comment.That means RedState requires registration, meaning they have the ability to ID the poster, at least a profile with an email address, meaning they could follow up if they wanted to. I advance moderate on this blog, and do so after-the fact at Gun Rights Examiner. And RedState has far more resources and access than I do.
I think the responsibility is on RedState to explain. They obviously chose to allow the comment to be posted and then to remain on their site. While it's been pointed out the comment poster relied on a lefty blog, Red State has consented to host his charges.
I think it is unrealistic to then expect others not to discuss something with such potential implications that a major website, owned by a prominent conservative publishing house, has seen fit to propagate. And agree with it or not, many leaders "conservatives" listen to are raising loud warnings on this very subject--as today's top-of-the page headline from WorldNetDaily illustrates.
Like it or not, the discussion is upon us. I call on RedState to explain themselves in this, and either remove the comment in question or explain why they continue allowing it to stand.
5 comments:
You're not really familiar with the way redstate works, I guess. Anyone can register at redstate, but comments don't get deleted unless they're illegal or very profane. They do wield the ban-hammer fairly rigorously though for breaking the site rules.
In this particular case, the post in question was a comment, made October 16th, on a post from July, when the previous last comment was over 3 months before.. So the odds are that absolutely nobody actually saw the comment. I certainly didn't, and I read the thread when it was originally put up in July.
But even if they had seen it (unlikely in this case), the maximum that would have happened would have been some ridicule.
BTW, when you called on Redstate to explain, did you actually, you know, 'call on them'? Erick Erickson's not exactly hard to find, there's a contact link at the top of the page, and the one time I had occasion to use it I had a response in a few hours. I suspect (but don't know) that an email to erick@redstate.com would probably get to him, that would follow the pattern of the email addresses of a few other folks I've seen there, but the contact@redstate.com should certainly get to someone.
The "homintern" situation has a ring of truth but the main thing is that it answers many questions. A revelation. What else could explain the ratings, endorsements, and contributions to blatant enemies of 2A, and the constant negotiating rights away? All in total disregard of the interest and wishes of most members. Perhaps RedState allows the comment to stand because they are also tired of the back stabbing, not just r's against d's, but endorsements, ratings, and contributions to those with a history and voting record of being anti 2A.
As a freedom-minded person, I don't a damn what folks do with their genitalia as long as mutual consent is involved.
That being said, the Bad People will use any hook they can get in you to get your to betray yourself and others.
If folks have something to hide, they can either pre-empt the Bad People by disclosure or continue to be subject to the grey/blackmail.
But the answer re the NRA may be simpler still: they can preserve the toys of 80% of their membership or more by throwing "the fringe" under the bus.
It's about time to fire up the membership cards, boys and girls....
David, you will not find a bigger fan than in me, but this whole conversation is insane. All it's done is clog up the sipsy street website with a bunch of gay bashing comments. Being a pro gay rights gun owner (actually, just pro rights in general), I find this to be at best a distraction, and a worse a means of alienating a large portion of the pro gun libertarian movement. We are all here for one purpose and that's to further freedom for all. I don't need to be reminded that unfortunately within our movement there are a bunch of gay haters. I find Mike's typical assertion of "my best friend is gay, I just happen to think he will burn in hell" to be disingenuous, and the whole idea that The NRA is pandering to the left to cover the leaderships supposed homosexuality to be completely and utterly absurd.
I know you have a great deal of respect for Mike. I for one have lost a great amount of that respect over this ridiculous post.
What would "red state" have meant to
any of us before 2000 (I think that's the time the MSM inverted color symbology)
How can a "conservative" site collude in this? It's not a minor as it might seem; for one thing it not so subtly promotes the liberal, left, socioengineering, what have you, principle that there's nothing that isn't really a matter of convention.
Post a Comment