Change.org

A little while ago an anonymous reader suggested I post to Change.org because it was somehow an instrumental place to post for loud-mouthed progressives. (see the comments under this topic)

I gave it a shot and found it is the place for limp wristed hippy wannabes to whine politely.

On my first post at Change.org (for which I received multiple compliments) I was reprimanded for using the word "rape" to describe what the banks and the recent right wing administration has done and continues to do to poor people. I already cross-posted this here.

Then came this e-mail:

Alan,

There has been a new response posted to the following discussion on Change.org:
Conflicting Interests in Obama's Housing Plan

----------------------------------------------
Alan, please refrain from using the word "raping" as a verb here. It's extremely violent and unnecessary hyperbole that is upsetting in its imagery.

posted by Leigh Graham
----------------------------------------------


Click the link below to view this discussion.
http://uspoverty.change.org/blog/view/conflicting_interests_in_obamas_housing_plan

"Alan, please refrain from using the word "raping" as a verb here."?!? So I could say "the rape of the poor by the rich continues" but not "the rich are raping the poor"?

Now here's the first bit that makes me angry (other than being given a stupid order by a stranger): She did not post this on the forum but sent it to me personally, but via a blind e-mail that made her reply appear as if it were a post. I responded to her the only way available to me (the reply address for the e-mail is "mail@change.org" so I could not reply directly via e-mail) by posting her comment and a rebuttal which unfortunately I did not save a copy of. My response was that I was offended by her censorship and argued that there was class warfare being conducted and just like war in Darfur, this type of rape was being perpetrated against the poor by the rich. I explained in detail how rape was the perfect analogy for what's going on both because it is horrible but also because it can be repeated unlike most other acts of war that involve killing people. I did not use any commonly acknowledged profanity (unlike here in this blog) and the argument was well crafted.

I even argued that she should feel free to delete any of my language they find disagreeable as long as they put "[censored]" in its place.

Rather than reply in the forum Leigh Graham deleted the rebuttal and sent me this e-mail:

Alan Miller,

Your comment on the blog entry entitled 'Conflicting Interests in Obama's Housing Plan' has been removed from the Poverty in America community on Change.org by an administrator.

---------------------------------------------------------------
REASON: Alan, As I thought, your word choice has upset other readers. I was sent an abuse report and asked to consider deleting your comment. I am going to do so. My site, my rules, and I find your English degree pales in comparison to a rape survivor's emotional health as justification for using the word versus not.
---------------------------------------------------------------

If you have any questions please read the Terms of Service or contact us at help@change.org.

- Change.org

I replied to the e-mail notification despite the fact I'm sure it vanished into nothingness at change.org, but here it is anyway:

Censorship is censorship.

Welcome to post freedom America

"My site, my rules." [self censored obscenity]. That's not Democratic, it's not politic, and it makes your forum worthless. If you can't argue then don't host a public forum. If opinions cannot be expressed in commonly acceptable language (i.e. if you can say it on the radio and not get fined) then expression is restricted and violated.

This is why I won't post on stupid, bullshit, politically correct sites like this. This is why the Democratic party will lose again to the Republicans. The Republicans make up a problem and then talk about it with fiery, populist rhetoric. The Democrats are so afraid they might offend someone even though they are totally right, all their language is watered down, milky, and devoid of passion or righteousness. Rather than call a spade a spade they feel they have to call it "that triple lobed playing card emblem." It's bogus, it's weak, and it's typical. Better not use the word "puppy" as a noun because someone might be allergic to dogs!

I don't want anything to do with a bunch of pussies like that. I will not be party to censorship of any kind, especially when it is of this overly aggressive politically correct variety. All change.org has managed to do for me is make me angry. Fucking worthless.

They Turned Out the Lights

Hmmph. Here's a little science that most conservatives will ignore because... it's science*:

It is not the military surge that has brought peace to the areas of Iraq where it has "succeeded." It was a surge in sectarian cleansing. The night time lights in Iraqi cities were analyzed and it was found that, starting before our "surge" began, the level of light in various ethnic areas of the cities were dimming. Why? Because as they fled, the victims of this cleansing turned out the lights. We have "achieved success" in Iraq by letting the Sunnis to run the Shiites out and the Shiites to run out the Sunnis. What was that about us not being able to leave because there would be a civil war and horrible bloodshed? Mightn't it have been quicker, cleaner, and a hell of a lot cheaper to have just let them take care of this themselves? They did it anyway, but we were trying to stop them.



*Actually, conservatives will ignore this information (if they ever encounter it as I doubt it will be reported on Fox Noise without a mighty heapin' of venomous scorn) is because they were first told that the "surge" has "succeeded." (Why do I feel it so necessary to put sarcastic quotes around all the key words used by this administration?) I think you should listen to this story from the fantastic radio program On the Media from WNYU for a better explanation than I can give in short here. Here's a short excerpt from the transcript that speaks specifically to why I think conservatives would probably ignore this study of night lights in Iraq:

SHANKAR VEDANTAM: The researchers, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler, brought in a bunch of Republicans and told them about the Bush Administration’s claims that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the 2003 U.S. invasion. And then they provided the volunteers with essentially a correction of that information.

About 34 percent of conservatives believed that Iraq had either hidden or discarded the weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion, but after they heard both claim and refutation, 64 percent of conservatives believed that Iraq had had the weapons of mass destruction.

In other words, the refutation caused more people to believe in the Bush Administration’s claim than they did before.

There are more studies about that show that conservatives respond differently to the world than liberals (or non-conservatives), specifically in the case of new or contradictory information. Now if I were to hear I was likely to deny the truth this week just because I believed something wrong last week, I would try really hard to correct for that. Conservatives can't work like that, at least not easily.

There is so much about this out there. Odd how Fox Noise (or any major media outside of NPR) has completely failed to report on this. The findings really are quite striking and if you look at the studies, they're very well done. The right wingers are, as always, impuning the messenger and the message but what doubt I've seen has been towards individual tests. It seems odd that so many different studies could reach the same conclusion. If you've ever had any involvement in science you know that one spends a great deal of time removing any external cues or prejudices in the design process of the test. Here is a case where there may be a small bit of doubt as to whether the analysis is biased. I kind of don't think so. (I wonder if that makes me a conservative?)

And I think this is really interesting: