Re: Article on Protein Wisdom

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Jeff Goldstein <jeff.proteinwisdom@gmail.com> wrote:

You are attempting to profit by taking shots at the property of a guy who has been nothing but friendly and accommodating toward you.

If you can't figure out the problem with that on your own, nothing I can say matters.

I know how this article will be used. You do too.

So stop trying to plead your case. Just publish your piece and make your money.

On Oct 3, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:

I don't understand your assertion that I'm simply looking to profit. You yourself ran ads on your site; did you not profit from your own attacks on those who had attacked you? I try to profit from everything I write; I write for a living. To repeat: you yourself profited from being read, and so does every blogger with ads. This attempt to single me out for doing a reasonable thing that you yourself have done is the exact sort of disinformation that I am taking issue with in the article.

As I've said before, I don't have the power to "marginalize" anything. I can only point out the facts. Do you really think that your readers are going to be convinced by my argument? Even now, they've already deemed the article to be a "hit piece," as have you, even though I am still writing it. If this is a hit piece, then every blog post and article that takes issue with someone - including many that have appeared on your blog - is a hit piece. Still, your readers will deem everything I say as besides the point or even false, as they have always done, with only a few people here and there acknowledging the obvious assertions I make - so why worry?

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Jeff Goldstein <jeff.proteinwisdom@gmail.com> wrote:

Doesn't have to be true. That's the perception, because that's how the people who profit from the diminution of my arguments will use it. I know, because I've seen it happen over and over and over again.

Face it: what you are doing is helping to marginalize a site that has always tried to remain open to the idea of free debate. You did no research. You made yourself the story.

And the only reason you're doing it is because you can profit from it.

Nothing wrong with making a buck, naturally. But do realize that in order to do so you are hurting someone who has been nothing but friendly toward you.

On Oct 3, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Yes, that's certainly an unhinged, evidence-free characterization of what I'm doing. I already have plenty of those in my notes, though.

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jeff Goldstein <jeff.proteinwisdom@gmail.com> wrote:

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15367#comment-793129

More commentary that is dead on. On the probability of your piece being posted on Huffington:

"Youre only being used as the lead marionette in a defamation play about an already-hated Other, for an audience of hundreds of thousands of moronically obedient robots waiting for targeting orders (and a few tens of thousands of crazed antisemites). That cant go wrong.

Im wrong about all kinds of shit, I assume, but about the falseness/impossibilty of argumentation (in the classical/Habermas/Hoppe/etc. sense(s)), Im right.

So yeah, dont try it again. Or again again, again. It doesnt work as advertised.
Other things are possible, though. Good luck with those."

On Oct 3, 2009, at 1:01 AM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Jeff-

There's obviously no good reason for you to pull the site simply because it's criticized. And I'm not sure why you object to me making money as a writer; plenty of people you know have done that.

I'm sorry to learn that you're now upset about the piece, but I'm going to write it.

Barrett

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Jeff Goldstein <jeff.proteinwisdom@gmail.com> wrote:

1. Not the case.

2. Not true.

3. Why not point out the elsewhere, then. Instead, PW takes the hit -- all because it's open enough for you to post on to begin with. The safe thing to do is to simply delete dissenting comments. Then, nobody will ever be argued with uncivilly, and therefore nobody will feel the need to write an article about how they are treated uncivilly -- and post it to several sites, including the Huffington Post, where it will be picked up to harm the credibility of my site.

4. Did you bother looking? Or is this really all about you?

And no, they are not in the minority. Per our conversation today, it was obvious you didn't know how long the site had been around, or what it was like beyond your participation in certain threads. I have archives. You could have done some research -- at which point you might have found a story about how, when, and why the blogosphere has deteriorated, instead of a far less interesting story that uses your own personal hurt feelings as a springboard to making a larger point that has little if anything to do with my site.

That you've chosen to use my site as the object lesson -- after I've been nothing if not civil and accommodating toward you -- just reinforces why I don't bother writing online anymore. Why bother? It's all about people looking out for themselves nowadays -- or in this case, somebody willing to burn me to get back at commenters who treated him as an annoyance.

I hope you get lots and lots of traffic, and that it brings you lots and lots of money.

Live large on it, brother.

Meh. Maybe I'll just pull the site. Fuck it. I give up.

Thanks so much!

On Oct 2, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:

I understand your concerns on all of these fronts, but as you'll see from the article and the follow-ups:

1. These incidents are not "cherry-picked", but are instead actually quite representative of the manner in which commenters debate, and in fact, I don't think it would be easy to find any more than one or two threads in which I have been treated civilly or in which some ridiculous failure of logic or intellectual honesty has not been in evidence on the part of my opponents.

2. It is true that there are "thousands of comments where they haven't behaved terribly;" most of these, of course, involve the regulars talking to each other about things upon which they agree. If you look at the subset of comments in which these same regulars are talking to me about things upon which we disagree, the majority are at least somewhat uncivil at the very least, and many of those are exceedingly hostile - I have been called a fascist dozens of time, had my self, my personal life, my work, my capabilities, and my background assailed dozens of times and in a variety of ways, been accused of racism without any evidence given, had it suggested that I was molested as a child, had it suggested that I have no penis or an empty ballsack, been cursed at more times than I can count, and otherwise treated poorly. It is the right of all of these people to do all of these things. Likewise, it is my right to point out that these things have been done. It's your right to express your opposition to my decision to point out these things, just as it's also your right not to express much opposition to the people who did all of this in the first place.

3. You're absolutely correct that "if the discourse on MY site represents, in your mind, a serious problem -- then it's fair to say that the discourse on other sites represents a much much much much much much more serious problem." That is the point of the article - that if it is found here, it must be much worse elsewhere, and that thus we have a very serious problem in this country with regards to our discourse as a whole.

4. I would happily point to any threads "in which the discourse has been sophisticated rather than uncivil," and will mention and link to any such threads that are pointed out to me by anyone who would like to do so. This will sound flippant, but it is true - I do not know where to find many threads of the sort. Even if there are two or three in existence, they are very much in the minority. Again, if anyone can find a thread in which I am dealt with honestly, competently, and civilly, or in which I myself do something that would warrant the extraordinarily viscous reaction that I have received, they are free to trumpet them from Protein Wisdom or anywhere else and I will point to them from my article as well. This is an unusual concession from someone who is writing about people who have attacked him, and, frankly, is a much better deal than some of these people have earned by way of their conduct.

Again, I understand that you expect me to produce something that does not accurately reflect what it is that I am writing about. That's not how I operate.

Thanks,

Barrett

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Jeff Goldstein <jeff.proteinwisdom@gmail.com> wrote:

Cherry-picking incidents where people have behaved "terribly" from among the thousands of comments where they haven't behaved terribly doesn't show anything other than that it is possible to find examples of people acting terribly if one is given a big enough raw material from which to draw.

Regarding the specific incidents: I have nothing to add other than that, unless you think they are representative of the way people routinely act on my site, you should probably avoid representing them as such. Maybe you just rub some of the commenters the wrong way -- and that accounts for the way you're received. Also, are you taking into account that the tone of some of your posts impact the way commenters treat you?

Again, it's your argument. But if the discourse on MY site represents, in your mind, a serious problem -- then it's fair to say that the discourse on other sites represents a much much much much much much more serious problem.

And if you aren't going to cite threads in which the discourse has been sophisticated rather than uncivil, you aren't really doing justice to the site or its commenters, in my opinion.

Jeff

On Oct 2, 2009, at 7:19 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Thanks again for taking the time to do this.

I won't mention anything about you not reading the site. Also, do you have any specific thoughts on those two incidents I mentioned?

Regarding your concerns, I don't have the power, as you say, to destroy the credibility of any person or institution. All I can do is note that, though some of the commenters have shown themselves to be very well-informed and civil, many of them have been neither civil nor well-informed nor even intellectually honest, and then back this up with dozens of examples. What I'm trying to show here is that, since even the best of them can behave like this, America is going to run into a crisis of world perception when the spread of the internet puts a billion foreigners in conversational proximity to a hundred million Americans and everyone starts talking politics. This is a serious problem, and I think that, in illustrating this problem, it is entirely legitimate to point to its symptoms, particularly when the people concerned have acted terribly in a public forum. And if they haven't acted terribly, then I've got nothing to show. But, again, they have.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Thanks,

Barrett

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Jeff Goldstein <jeff.proteinwisdom@gmail.com> wrote:

I'd prefer you not talk about my not reading the site. That sounds like a slap at the people writing on it now, and I didn't mean it that way. I don't much read it now because I don't much follow politics closely right now.

Also, wrt the first quote: it's important you present WHY people have a quick trigger -- namely, that they are forced to deal with a lot of trolls, many of whom attack me personally. My commenters have always had my back, and the quick trigger comes from their having seen how people who come by pretending to argue in good faith quickly degenerate into attacking me, my family, etc.

As for this quote: "There are times when people think they're introducing something we haven't talked about" -- I'd add change "we haven't talked about" to "we haven't already considered and discussed, often at great length."

Listen: it's your piece. But I think you are taking shots at a community that tends to argue nearly all the time in good faith. I guess you have your reasons, but I can't see how hammering one of the rare useful political blog commentary sections helps do anything other than to destroy its credibility -- especially when there are so many more deserving targets.

To your questions.

2. No idea.

3. As far as I know, you're a libertarian and quasi-anarchist. However, your attacks on religion, for instance, align you politically, in some instances, with many on the left. So you should be able to understand how some might leap to the wrong conclusions.

4. I think you like to debate, and I think you are civil in so doing. I don't think you are always as invested in the question under discussion as you are invested in the act of debating. And like any skilled rhetorician you have retreated to semantics when your position weakens. As have I.

5. I was being marginalized by many sites on the right because I criticized them for making certain arguments that, once extrapolated out, I considered dangerous to classical liberalism. Attacks on me from the right became personal and began echoing things many left wing bloggers would write about me in the wake of my having forcefully answered their arguments. I realized at that point that blogging wasn't about ideas; it was about traffic, cliques, influence, and personal aggrandizement.

-- And I could just as easily get all that as a high-class pimp -- plus, I'd get to wear a fur-lined hat and a leather trench in the bargain.

6. No. Not unless I come back under a different name. I've always attached my name to my opinions; but in the world of the internet, that doesn't garner you any additional respect, nor does it mean you'll be taken more seriously. Just ask "Ace" or "Allahpundit."

And what I want to note is this: pw has been head and shoulders above most political sites in its willingness to engage its critics. I've tried to initiate cross-blog debates with feminist sites; I've invited guest posters from leftwing sites to write for my site; and my commenters are ALWAYS willing to debate all comers, even if you don't approve of how they go about it all the time.

This has been an unusual site. When I was writing it, I was never content to throw red meat to a pre-established constituency. Which is why I never made it huge -- but also why I still have very loyal and intelligent commentators who stick by me even if I disappear for a year at a time.

They should be respected for that.

Jeff

On Oct 2, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Jeff-

Thanks for taking the time to talk to me. Here are a couple of quotes I got from our conversation; let me know if these are accurate and if you'd like to expand on any of them, go for it:

I think people have a quick trigger. I don't think what you do is trolling. You're just a victim of the context.

There are times when people think they're introducing something we haven't talked about.

Yeah, and it's not you necessarily, it's people like you. And I don't mean that in a derogatory sense.

I don't read it very often. (referring to PW)

Now, a couple of additional questions for you, if you please.

1. Read over these two incidents and let me know if you think I am right to consider them to be examples of dishonesty or foolishness on the part of the people involved:

MARKETING INCIDENT

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15330 Darleen Click tried to claim that Obama had no respect for the First Amendment because Humana was told to cease sending out marketing materials that referred to future government policy, with this being a violation of the agreement it had signed with the feds upon receiving a contract to sell federal medical treatment. She neglected to mention anything about that agreement.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15330#comment-788190 Carin quoted a news article; her excerpt began with the following sentence: According to a source with inside knowledge of the way CMS regulates marketing guidelines, Medicare providers are only allowed to communicate with plan members about the benefits they have now, not about possible changes to benefits.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15330#comment-788201 Carin agreed with other comments to the effect that I am dishonest, in this case for using the term "marketing" to describe the materials that Humana had sent out: Yea, I found it interesting that BB is changing this issue into code words. It was marketing.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15330#comment-788211 I noted that Carin herself had quoted a news article that used the term "marketing" in this context, and that it was unfair and simply inaccurate to accuse me of introducing the term into the debate when the term had clearly been introduced already.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=15330#comment-788229 Carin responds: And, honestly - BB twists until the argument fits into his nice little package. Humana said it would refrain from certain marketing so all we have to do is call whatever we dont like Marketing and theyre in breach. So, that's her response to that, which doesn't acknowledge her error.

"They did it, too!"

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13135#comment-508729 Big Bang Hunter wrote: Barrett, does it ever occur to you that arguments to the effect well they did it too, qualifies at the level of 5th grade discourse?"

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13135#comment-508736 I responded: Im sorry, BBH, Im going to have to direct your comments to Mythos McGee, who was overheard to have told the duchess:
Remember the laudatory proclamation that Gerry Studds (D-MA) got after he got caught shtumphing the pages? Uh-oh! Blowback!
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13135#comment-508738 Rob Crawford responds: WTF is your point?

2. Is there a good chance that you may someday come back and write regularly on PW?

3. Just to be sure, you acknowledge that I'm not a Democrat or a "liberal," right?

4. Do you think I make an effort to debate in good faith, and do you think I am civil when approached in a civil manner?

5. Was there any incident in particular that prompted you to stop writing regularly at PW?

6. Do you think that you can ever serve as a commentator on the internet or anywhere else without being personally attacked or having your family personally attacked?

And if there's anything else you'd like to note for use in the article, let me know.

Thanks,

Barrett

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

You don't happen to have Skype, do you?

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Jeff Goldstein <jeff.proteinwisdom@gmail.com> wrote:

you can give me a call if you want. I'm picking up my son from school today at 12:30 (he's got a half day for some reason), but I should be around after that.

I don't want PW portrayed unfairly; as it is stands, it is vilified equally on the left AND the right, for different reasons. Which makes me think that, at least when I was running things, I was doing a pretty good job.

303-934-5737

Jeff

On Oct 2, 2009, at 10:22 AM, barriticus@gmail.com wrote:

I'd like to, didn't think you'd be interested. I'll e-mail you back with some questions in a bit.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

From: Jeff Goldstein
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 07:34:36 -0600
To: Barrett Brown<barriticus@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Article on Protein Wisdom

Sure thing.

But maybe you should talk to me rather than Dan, given it's my site?

Jeff
On Oct 1, 2009, at 10:56 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Howdy, Jeff-

Hope all is well with you, the wife, and the young academic.

I wanted to give you a heads up that I'm writing an article that will include my experiences debating at Protein Wisdom, which will be appearing on True/Slant in the next couple of days and probably The Huffington Post shortly afterward, as well as excerpted and linked to from my weekly column here in Brooklyn and a few other outlets. Of course, I'll have nothing but nice things to say about you and Dan Collins (who's agreed to speak to me tomorrow) and a couple of the more thoughtful commenters, and one of the points of the piece is that Protein Wisdom has, overall, the most cerebral regulars of any non-liberal blog, and that this was due in part to the nature of the posts back when you were running the show.

The thrust of the article involves the manner in which certain partisans will engage in ridiculously disingenuous rhetoric in defense of their ideology or allies, as well as making ad hominem attacks on others who disagree with them, and how this is magnified on the internet, particularly when people hide behind anonymity and are amongst like-minded folks, in which case a certain mob mentality kicks in. I'll be citing a couple of examples from Daily Kos, where a couple of blog posts I wrote were received with stupid mob hostility because they either failed to toe the party line or offended their delicate sensibilities, resulting in rampant cryfaggotry. But much of the article will consist of similar nonsense I've seen on the part of some of the more idiotic commenters at PW.

I announced this earlier this evening on PW, and explained that I will gladly link to any refutation of my article and even publish the entirety of any response written by Darleen (or anyone else with posting privileges) at the bottom of my piece. I also noted that every incident I mention will be linked to, with every pertinent comment linked to specifically as well.

Anyway, you'll probably get a spike in traffic if the piece gets picked up by HuffPo, and of course a spike in irritating liberal trolls.

Let me know if you have any questions. Also, as for that True/Slant thing I mentioned, they're paying $250 a month just for signing up as a contributor, and another $250 if you manage to get 15,000 hits over the course of a month. Do you want me to mention you to Coates Bateman, the guy in charge? You could basically write about whatever you want, whenever you want, and you'd retain the rights to everything. Basically, you could monetize the following you already have without having to bother with the nonsense you had to deal with at PW. He'd definitely be interested in having you on board, I think. Let me know.

Word,

Barrett