General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The real reason a very loud few are posting hostility toward Glenn Greenwald at DU: [View all]Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Someone posted a link to something that is less tinfoily than what is usually posted on that site, I guess. What is wrong with letting us click on the link ourselves and come back to talk about the article in question rather than the site. Let us all see for ourselves. Or do you think it will cause blindness or mental instability if I see anti-vax posts? Clearly not the best website but hardly worth bothering to alert. They are right about the cult of authority having the potential to drown out any other viewpoints.
I choose to decide for myself. If I link to a bad website, I would hope sane DUers would engage in conversation, explain what the problem is rather than rush to alert.
I post a lot fewer articles these days even though I read lots of things I think DUers might be interested in, but why bother if I am just going to be called names and alerted on everytime I post something that isn't on the approved list (something I have never even seen). I don't think I am alone.
In the days before the alert system, I often read rightwing posts here. Lots of things Palin, Fox, O'Reilly, Freepers, Cavers et al have to say gets posted here -- often from rightwing sites. Almost none of us defend them. We enjoy reading what the morans have to say at times, so we can rip them. Every once in a great while, they say something halfway intelligent. Not often though. Because I enjoy objectively discussing and learning more about almost any subject, I am more offended by the censors deciding what I can and cannot think, say or link to than I am by the occasional post from a rightwing site.
Clearly, I am not the only one who feels this way; nevertheless, it is clear this makes no difference to you. IMO, driving paying subscribers away from DU hurts DU way more than a link to some site you don't approve of.