Monday, August 13, 2007

MyLeftWing Bans Francis L. Holland Over MAMZ Articles

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Well, Maryscott O'Connor has banned me from MyLeftWing. One need only read the last diaries I published there to discern the reason why. She was feeling heat from the partisans of Markos Moulitsas. How can it be otherwise, when she specifically states that the motive for her banning me is my series of exposes about Markos Alberto C. Moulitsas Zúñiga, in which I relentlessly criticized DailyKos for its overwhelming whiteness in the context of a diverse Democratic Party?

Maryscott O'Connor accuses me of "lying" about MAMZ. This is a pretext. In her statement banning me, she cannot and does not cite a single assertion of fact that has proved to be false. She cannot do so. What I Learned at MyLeftWing

The simple fact is that every assertion I have made in "The Indictment of Markos Moulitsas by Justice and History," and elsewhere, has been supported by public documents, commercial websites reporting on their own activities, and MAMZ's own statements against interest (confessions).

If anyone wants to publish a critical biography of MAMZ - the first one - then I am the writer who has developed the information that makes this a realistic possibility.

What I have really done at MyLeftWing is that I have repeatedly whacked the DailyKos hive, stirring the droves of subservient worker bees into a fury. Things will never be the same because, in the process, I have redefined Markos Moulitsas. He is not an immigrant. He is not poor. He is not a progressive. He hated gays in the military. He supported Reagan, Bush and Henry Hyde and ridiculed Bill Clinton for not having served in the military. Markos Alberto C. Moulitsas Zúñiga has steadfastly refused to name a single member of his biological family, even unto the present. That fact along is a source of enduring curiosity.

What strikes me about the whitosphere in general is perhaps that it is all too human. They hate to engage in self-criticism and to be challenged in their comfort. In the progressive whitosphere, one is permitted to criticize Republicans, but not white progressives. Unfortunately, most of what ails Black America ails us as much because of the behavior of white progressives as because of the behavior of white Republicans.

If I wanted to join the Republican Party today, I would be welcomed on the same terms as were offered to me by the progressives: "Only criticize the other side." But, when it comes to the problems affecting Blacks, both sides of the white Republican/progressive dichotomy often share similar characteristics. They are utterly unwilling and unable to look inward and acknowledge their own role in the current state of affairs.

Unlike DailyKos, there are some Blacks who blog in relative contentment at MyLeftWing. However, they must follow an unwritten rule: "The locus of the problem lies elsewhere."

I'm going to quote now from one of comments posted vaguely in my defense and in the defense of free speech, responding to the act of banning:

I should be the last person in the world to stand up for Mr. Holland (6.50 / 8)
But once again, I have to disagree with you on a meta issue. To me, this is a pretty awful place to decide to draw the line on free speech. You've regularly defended those here who make a career of attacking other posters personally and viscerally, who say things no civilized person should say to anyone but Bush or his enablers, or maybe Nazis. But you ban FLH for exaggeration and for attacking the biggest bully on the blog block.

FLH didn't lie; he exaggerated. He was a sophist, not a fabricator. I never once heard him criticize a fellow poster here in a mean or offensive way. While he wasn't good at learning from criticism, he was very good at taking it with grace; he understood he was being an asshole, and didn't begrudge anyone calling him one. If you were respectful to him, he was respectful to you, no matter how your political views differed from his own. The only people he ever attacked were the powerful -- Markos, and then you. That's not so different in my book from attacking Bush or our Congresscritters. Again, one heck of a place to draw the line on free speech.

He WAS abusive to you, but only after you threatened to ban him, something IMO you should never have done -- such threats have a chilling effect on free speech that is in many ways worse than actual banning. Besides, as a blog proprietor you should be able to take those kinds of attacks; in fact, IMO, it's your job to do so. I don't buy your logic that a blog proprietor should be able to chase someone from his/her site simply because he/she is annoyed by that person. You're maintaining a private site as a public space; therefore, you shouldn't kick the homeless people out of the bus station unless they're actually violating some tangible rule.

I understand I have no chance of changing your mind, but I'm saying my piece anyway. Would I have banned him if it were my blog? Certainly -- but only after I had banned a whole bunch of other people who continue to pollute this site to this day with their vicious personal attacks. To do otherwise, in my view, stinks of rank hypocrisy.

ProgressiveHistorians: History and Politics Of, By, and For the People
by: Nonpartisan @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 16:55:04 PM CDT Banning Discussion

No comments: