I think moderated threads are a necessary evil. I have likened it before to the difference between a caveman community with only public places and a more advanced community where there are still public gathering places (unmoderated threads), but you can also build a house (moderated threads) where you have the ability to invite or exclude based on your own personal wishes. Caveman societies (except Afghanistan and Western Pakistan) eventually evolved and built houses so that everyone wouldn't be forced to press together and tolerate everything no matter how heinous.
Once you build a house, the question becomes....who do you let in? If the idea is to be as inclusive as possible, to throw large parties where stimulating discussion can flourish, the better approach IMO is to invite as many people as possible and only throw out those who are criminal, disgusting, completely prevent the carrying on of normal or intelligent conversation, or have intolerable body odor. TP isn't a criminal (I define "treason" a bit more narrowly than jla I guess <g>); he is a bit of a nitwit when he gets so reflexively partisan, but that is hardly disgusting (at least not to me); and his body odor is no worse than many of the rest of us as far as I know.
That leaves me with considering whether he completely prevents the carrying on of intelligent conversation. I don't think he adds much, but I also don't think he subtracts by preventing us from having intelligent discussion. In a way conservatives might do well to view him the way many liberals view Pat Buchanan: as an extremist buffoon who can mostly be ignored but who, once in a blue moon, says something worth thinking about. Just as Buchanan often tends to make liberal causes seem more palatable, TP to me makes the conservative point of view seem more powerful by the very ineptitude of his statements and positions.
Kick him off? Hell, jla ought to thank him. <g> |
