To "Happy Valley Heretic" you should stop listening to all of the Air
America programming on AM radio. Then you will be able to hear multiple points
of view and not just what the liberal masters are telling them to say.
This sounds like the typical AM radio listener who never actually hears an
opposite point of view as they are not allowed on the air unless the host
believes he can use them in jest, maybe call them a leeberal and hang up.That was another reason I gave up listening to Hate radio they're
penchant for "ditto" over substance.
Utah is quite unique. News articles and comments on certain subjects are
just not seen anywhere else in this country(re: "Bench/pew" conundrum of
a few weeks ago).Those who come from other places, whether visiting, or
making a home in Utah, find the atmosphere of this DN forum quite fascinating,
and at times, very odd.Lots of great comments and some darned interesting
stuff! The mix is fine, just as it is DN.
Mr. Robinson, judging from the comments here so far some of the more
inflammatory posters are threatened by such an idea. Even though anybody who
wanted to could still read their comments (their free speech would still be
ensured), they wouldn't have the exposure they do now to bicker back and
forth. That would take all the fun out of it for those people.
George, I understand and share your frustration. However, I don’t think
the answer is to create separate comment sections for sympathetic and
unsympathetic, which might only separate people. I think the answer is to
continue to encourage people to show respect in their comments. If we’re
open-minded and a little less prideful, we all can learn something from those
who disagree with us. I frequently am pleasantly surprised to learn things
from opposing views on these posts.But I learn very little from
those who are snarky, disrespectful, and only seem to want to take potshots at
the “other side.” There seems to be a small handful of such people
who regularly post on these boards. They frequently contribute nothing to the
discussion, and only get in the way of a lively-but-respectful adult dialog. I
do wish these people would show more courtesy and respect, but other than that I
often find these comment boards enlightening and educational.
I see the point of the letter writer, but unfortunately it would not be very
practical. If anything, I enjoy seeing all the ignorant, silly rants
people spout off on this and other comment boards. It proves that Dan Peterson
and others must be doing something right. On YouTube, I frequently
go to videos critical of the LDS Church and ask non-threatening, simple
questions in rebuttal. 9 times out of 10 I get replies filled with four-letter
words and vulgar remarks about LDS temple garments or LDS women and kids. That
tells me all I need to know about many of those who attack the LDS faith.
The suggestion has merit. Amazon does something similar. They rate products
with one to five stars. If you want to read reviews from people who think the
product stinks, stick to three-stars and under. Gradually a trend
emerges. Perhaps the suggestion should be to rate general agreement with and
kudos for the article quality and content.
I enjoy Dr. Peterson's articles immensely. I like his books too. I get a kick out of the bashers and pseudo-intellectuals (in my not so humble
opinion) who banter, criticize and moan by way of comments.While
freedom of speech may have focused on political speech in the give and take of a
republican democracy it also applies to each of us having 200 words to spout
what we want, and that's OK too.I actually think that the
British Parliament's Questions sessions, or what ever they call the give
and take on various subjects that the prime minister and leader of the
opposition take part in on a regular basis would be fun for congress and the
president as well as us local rubes to see if we really are as sharp and
knowledgeable as we think we are.Categorize us or not, I think
it's great to be able to comment and laugh or sigh as the case may be.
ATL134 notes: "What goes on in discussion here is tame compared to other
places that I wouldn't waste my time with." This is true. I've
looked at comments that follow stories on other news sites, and they're
terrible bits of personal, foul vitriol that have nothing to do with the subject
matter. As bad as it may seem here sometimes, it's actually fairly civil.
To "FreedomFighter41" wow, you really are going for the full twist and
distortion of what was presented.Since when is it wrong to want to
categorize comments on a private business' web site? It is also an
inconvenience the way that you have to follow people comments. Replies are not
placed directly below the original poster, but are organized by the time of
submission. By your standards the current comment board system goes against
free speech because it is inconvienient the way you have to follow a
conversation.Why do you want to infringe on the DN's free
speech by forcing them to display comments in a way that they may consider and
choose to do? In other words, why do your desires trump the free speech and
expression of the DN?Why are you so insistant on shouting down
somebody who wants to make it easier to ignore your comments?
George,I appreciate the sentiment and understand your frustration.
However, in order for a discussion board to be really effective in
promoting dialog, it must be open. DNews does a fair job of keeping the worst
of the content out while still allowing the expression of ideas. In that I
applaud the mods that control the boards.That being said, I suggest
you become familiar with the voices that are always here. You will come to know
them. Some I really respect and read their posts. Others I have learned to
completely ignore. In this way it is easy to get past the dross and move to the
meat. There will always be those who will be detractors, those whose
partisanship color every post, and those whose opinions are so predictable that
you can easily dismiss them and move on.
It sounds to me like this letter writer wants freedom of their speech and those
who they agree with while impeding the freedom of speech of those they disagree
with.Isn't that interesting? Isn't it interesting that
those who worship the divinity of the Constitution seem to refuse to recognize
what it stands up for? I'm sorry, but in this country we have
freedom of speech. The "inconvenience" of wading through these comments
is part of living in a democracy. If you don't like this then move to Iran
or N Korea. There, you won't have to "wade" through
"inconvenient" opinions. Everything will all be the same.
The DN does have moderators. What goes on in discussion here is tame compared to
other places that I wouldn't waste my time with.
The Deseret News would have to categorize each post. I doubt the DN has any
enthusiasm for dealing with that headache. It’s best to just skim or
ignore posts from those whose posts you find irksome.
Based on who is paying Mr Petersen, the last thing he can afford to be is
objective.Many comments simply point out that his "research" is
hardly research at all, when he's reach his conclusions before he's
even began his research.
I don't think that the usual band of commenters quite understood what he is
asking for. LDS Liberal almost got it, but then had to inject politics into
it.He is not asking for only one side to be available or anything
like that. He would like comments to be categorized into those that agree with
the article, and those that don't. He didn't say he wouldn't
read the opposing view, he just said that he would like to not hae to wade
through the mire to be able to discuss the postive aspects of the articles and
to further the ideas presented. Yes you can learn from opposing view, but quite
often they are barely on topic and often have political agendas behind them.What is wrong with that?
I'm sure it could be done. It appears the question being brought up by
comments today is 'should it be done?'
"I wonder if we could divide online commentary on articles into sympathetic
and unsympathetic sections."======== In other
words;"Liberal" vs. "Conservative".
I agree with you, George. While I am a proponent of free speech and have written
many letters to the editor, what I do write I am not ashamed to attach my name
to. Some of these argumentative rebuttals are people firing off their remarks
while hiding under some psuedo name. They love to bash religions, ideas, and
other beliefs without truly revealing themselves. This is a form of
cyber-bullying, and that is shameless. I applaud those who disagree with respect
and dignity and say what they would say if it were a face-to-face conversation.
Chances are, a majority of those who disagree and say belittling remarks
wouldn't say them if they had to show their face.
Freedom speech does not carry with it an exemption from criticism. It's
value is in the free exchange of discordant ideas.
In other words, you'd rather have your old opinion reinforced rather than
have it challenged? Great. What a tremendous desire to learn. A huge problem
today is that folks just aren't open to hear what the "other" side
has to say. They're wrong you're always right and that's it.Sounds to me like instead of "wading" through comments and
disregarding them as sour grapes you should actually take time to read them and
to understand the other points of view.
George, the Deseret News is *supposed* to be a news organization (hence the word
"news" in the name), not a Mormon Testimonial meeting. If that's
what you're looking for, perhaps you'd do better to read the Ensign.
Yes, some commenters are quite obnoxious, but reading opinions that you
disagrees with can open your mind to points of view you hadn't considered