Some may question this tactic but I for one think this is very much in the spirit of Taki himself and jolly good fun. Too bad I can’t comment.

I still visit Takimag and enjoy Taki’s columns in particular, having read them in the Spectator for years. It seems to me that Spenser is the only person running the site, so anything too taxing of his time and attention goes by the board. This results in a rather amateurish effort, witness their video efforts. This is too bad as there are some really first rate minds involved.

I have no idea what their budget constraints are, so perhaps I’m being a bit hard. Still, how tough can it be to find just one adult to monitor and edit one’s comments section?

“We cherish lying, but you people who aspire to a higher morality should hold yourselves to a standard we can never acheive. Therefore, we will make up lies, pretend to be you, and spew our garbage onto the American landscape.”

As a description of the average right-wing troll, I couldn’t have done better myself. Salut.

Why not just censor the racists, or the boors, or nobody at all? Reason’s blog does okay, and I don’t think they take down anything unless users are being defamed through impersonation.

Political leftists play for keeps. They are willing to lie, perform deceptive acts in a coordinated fashion and do so in a wicked way – all in the pursuit of victory. …”

Mr Stooksbury, you made it appear that he said, “Obama won because leftwing trolls wrote mean comments…” and “So the Democrats won because they cheated…”

Those of course, are lies, because Mr Breitbart never said those things.

Mr Stooksbury, you said, “When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When both the facts and law are against you, argue louder.”

You left out a MAIN LIBERAL TACTIC, which is look into the camera and LIE with a straight face, while pretending to be something they are not.

As far as I can tell, the first post, and the first 9 replies, above, bear this out.

If there are any LIBERALS here, that would be the signal for them to attack me personally, or create the ILLUSION that I don’t think that there are Republicans or Conservatives who lie.

If there are replies from haters of Conservatism, expect comments like, “Well, you’re not very smart, or you’re crazy.” Or, my favorite, “We cherish lying, but you people who aspire to a higher morality should hold yourselves to a standard we can never acheive. Therefore, we will make up lies, pretend to be you, and spew our garbage onto the American landscape.”

We conservatives refer to these as SEMINAR CALLERS and SEMINAR BLOGGERS.

It would do no good to tell you to look into a mirror, because like vampires, your dishonesty is invisible to yourselves.

“There is no reasonable disgreemant allowed on right wing blogs.”

Pretty clearly not the case here, shark, as I think you’d agree.

Funny too, this magazine is so identified as being of the “paleo” stripe of right-wingery/conservatism, and yet it sounds like it’s one of the most open and courteous conservative spaces around. Not unlike how Buckley used to be with Firing Line inviting and treating all and sundry fairly. And yet look at what his magazine became.

Seems to me you have to make a distinction, shark: Maybe … right wing-blogs or spaces infected by neo-conservatism … and those that aren’t.

Indeed, aside from a few of their substantive positions maybe it’s just the *way* that neo-conservatives seem to conduct themselves that is most off-putting to me. I have no problem being steadfast and even aggressive going after or defending a position—look how greatly Buchanan does it—but I have a serious problem with the scorched-earth verbal tactics of the neos. No different from those of the New Left really, which of course is fitting.

It’s almost as if they seek to win their arguments by merely driving everyone out of the debate with them out of disgust and unwillingness to descend to their level.

Cheers,

Oh the humanity!

There is no reasonable disgreemant allowed on right wing blogs. They make fun of you and if that doesn’t work they ban you. No one is allowed to present a contradictory point.
Right wing blogs are an extension of right wing radio, they are not the opposite of left wing blogs. Right wing blogs, like all right wing infortmation pushing, is a long form of the two minute hate. “This sucks and here is who to blame for it”, could be the title of any post on a right wing blog except there is no need to say who is to blame. It’s always Goldstein.

Volokh is also really bad with comments. They are enabled for most things. But if the topic is Israel then it is usually disabled. And far from “stopping trolls” it seems only to be a measure in controlling the discussing.

I don’t mind the practice of banning abusive or nonsensical commenters. It’s just a form of housekeeping. I have heard many accounts of paleo-cons banned from large “main stream,” conservative sites. This seems unconscionable to me if the commenter is advancing reasoned argumentation,

You simply don’t find this on the vast majority of Left-Wing sites, where you’re allowed to say more or less whatever the hell you want and are expected to stand or fall by the strength of your arguments and the validity of the evidence you use to back them up.

But since this is undeniable, and embarrassing, the response of hacks like Breitbart is just to lie about it and project the worst faults of the Wingnutosphere onto the Left. Black is White, Up is Down.

Predictable just about covers it.