The trouble with autocracy, though, is that it tends not to appeal to the populace you want to attract, unless it is exercised very carefully. East Germany comes to mind as an example....which way was the traffic going over that wall?
In this case, the content that was being complained of was political in nature. Sure, the person who was causing the problem was a dolt, but he was expressing his doltishness in a politically charged way. Exclusion in that context is different, very different, from autocratically excluding a stalker or a poster who is a nonpolitical nuisance.
Think about it. You had a secret ballot and an overwhelming majority didn't want to throw out the bum. The proponents were asked to present a case, to provide illustrations of the offensive content, and they didn't. They just ranted about treason (a preposterous charge) and failed to respond to several requests to even link to the offensive posts and explain why they merited exclusion. I respect the posts and opinions of the people involved and often agree with them politically, but I thought their behavior in this instance came across as childish.
If they feel they can waltz in, bitch about somebody, not back it up, then leave in a huff, then good riddance. If they want to intelligently discuss why someone's conduct can only be dealt with by excluding them, then their pleas might have been welcomed or supported more readily.
EDIT: One more question: How do you think that John Ashcroft would have handled the request to exclude TP? |
