Where Did All The Classic Liberals* Go? [UPDATED]

How do we define a classic liberal* as opposed to a Liberal**?

Princess Bride, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

*liberal: adjective 1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas. 2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

**Liberal: noun supporter of political policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.

Notice the clear difference between those two definitions and how the noun is capitalized and the adjective is not. Today’s Liberals** have bastardized the word liberal* to the point that they are no longer liberals* and have morphed into partisan Liberals**. A simple example of a 21century Liberal** is a very partisan person that only supports Liberal** policies and would like to see the Democrats win more elections; therefore, they only support the Democratic Party and they only vote for Democrats.

Partisan: a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.

I wonder if there are many classic liberals* left in the United States or have they have all been swallowed up by Liberals** who are essentially progressives hiding behind a false facade. Progressives with a false facade preaching classic liberal* ideals like a willingness to respect opinions different from their own and open to new ideas but their actions scream the same kind of totalitarian core that extreme progressives ooze from every pore, open intolerance.

Case in point, Madison Wisconsin’s Liberal** Democrat ex-mayor Dave Cieslewicz.

Cieslewicz began a blog a while back called Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos and labeled it “a safe place for moderates in a polarized world”. Cieslewicz told readers that “it’s not easy being in the middle” and also shared his Principles of Moderation so we know where he is coming from. Cieslewicz tells us in his About post that “Anyone who refrains from demonizing his opponents and is looking for a place to get away from the hard lines and hard feelings of the left and right is welcome here”; here is my question, is this self-proclaimed classic liberal* Madisonian able to keep to his principles?

Demonize: portray as wicked and threatening.

Since Cieslewicz’s first post in December of 2020, he has regularly posted blogs and covered a wide range of topics. The commentary on his blog has been very sparse to non existent until I came on to the scene back in February 2021. I was referred to Cieslewicz’s blog in a blog post from another Madisonian blogger David Blaska of Blaska Policy Werkes. I read Cieslewicz’s Principles of Moderation and his About pages and my first thought was, this is an old fashioned Liberal** that actually honored classic liberal* ideals that I, as an independent that has voted on both sides of the political aisle my whole adult life, should be able to comfortably engage in debate and after he told me in his about page that “anyone who refrains from demonizing his opponents and is looking for a place to get away from the hard lines and hard feelings of the left and right is welcome here” I felt here’s a place for me to converse directly with a classic Liberal politician.

That was then.

To be honest, I have tried to engage with Liberals on their blogs in the past and I haven’t had very good luck with them actually being willing to respect or accept opinions different from their own or being open to new ideas it seems that I always hit a wall of intolerance and hypocrisy which has led me to question where did all the classic liberals* go?

I chose to give Cieslewicz’s blog a chance. I’ve shared my agreements and my disagreements with things Cieslewicz has written, I even nominated Cieslewicz as an Ethics Hero on EthicsAlarms.com for his It’s OK to Reject Critical Race Theory blog post. When writing about my Ethics Hero nomination on Ethics Alarms, I wrote in part…

=======================================
For a prominent Liberal such as Dave Cieslewicz to stick his neck out against critical race theory like this in the Madison progressive bubble is quite significant….

Do we or do we not want to encourage behaviors and attitudes that are inline with our ethics and morals? Yes or No.

Do we or do we not want to discourage behaviors and attitudes that are not inline with our ethics and morals? Yes or No.

I choose yes as my answer for both of those questions and I do it every day. I choose to encourage people to stand up for what’s ethically and morally correct regardless of what they have done in the past. I also choose to discourage behaviors that I think are devoid of ethics and morals. Why do I do these things; because I believe people can change their behaviors and I have no problem being a catalyst to these kinds of changes.

=======================================

Above I wrote, “that was then”; well folks, this is the disappointing now that followed.

A disturbing trend has taken hold at Cieslewicz’s blog, it appears that I am in the midst of a de facto banning from the Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos blog. One hundred percent of my comments go into moderation and [UPDATE: only a rare few] make it out of moderation. In a email conversation with Cieslewicz back at the beginning of March he did inform me that he changed the settings for comments and they all go through moderation, what’s changed is now [UPDATE: most of] my comments are stuck in that moderation black hole. To be completely fair, there were a couple of comments over the last couple of weeks that agreed with Cieslewicz’s position that got through moderation but now the rest are stuck in that moderation black hole with no explanation from Cieslewicz as to why and I took the effort to asking him directly via email, all I get back is the sound of crickets in the night. It appears that a de facto banning is in effect from a person claiming to be a moderate supporting classic liberal* ideals, well the one classic liberal* ideal is being ignored, willingness to respect opinions different from one’s own and now the same kind of intolerance and censorship that progressives are pushing are in full view.

If I can’t trust that a self-proclaimed moderate that professes to support classic liberal* ideals will actually uphold the principles that he shares on his own blog, what can I trust from the political left?

To be completely fair and allow you the reader to make up your own mind based on the actual facts, below are the comments that I posted, word-for-word, that have been swallowed by the Cieslewicz’s moderation black hole, I’ll also share a link to the blog post where the comments were posted. I’ll be back at the end…

=======================================

These are some closely related excerpts from my June 7, 2019 blog post…

———EXCERPT 1———

As I came to understand it, the core of King’s dream was to make the statement inscribed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” more than just a meaningless moral platitude, he wanted it to be part of our core beliefs, an integral part of our everyday life and become an automatic part of our decision making process.

———EXCERPT 2———

“I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.” [Martin Luther King Jr.]

What’s this “American Dream” King spoke of? We’ve spoken the words for generations but do we as a society really know what it is? Wikipedia tells us that..

“the American Dream is a national ethos of the United States, the set of ideals (democracy, rights, liberty, opportunity and equality) in which freedom includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, as well as an upward social mobility for the family and children, achieved through hard work in a society with few barriers. In the definition of the American Dream by James Truslow Adams in 1931, ‘life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement’ regardless of social class or circumstances of birth.”

———EXCERPT 3———

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character..” [Martin Luther King Jr.]

This dream has been b a s t a r d i z e d so badly in the 21st century that it in some instances it’s being completely ignored. Our society is in the process of completely shifting into the unethical abyss of identity politics and those identities now appear to be the core of all things socially motivated and a lot of things politically motivated. Identity politics are beginning to override everything else. Identity politics have divided our culture into tribes of self-centered bigoted groups of people that “feel” entitled simply because of their identity. These self-isolating identities are things like male, female, choice of gender, gay, straight, black, white, Latino, Asian, race, ethnicity, police, authority, victim-hood, conservative, liberal, progressive, socialist, the list goes on and on.

———EXCERPT 4———

King wanted race to be completely removed from equality in opportunity and not have people prejudged based on the color of their skin or race. What we are seeing now is that if tribes of people don’t get what they want from others, like illogical equality in outcomes, they falsely claim that they’re being oppressed and publicly smear anyone that disagrees with them; it’s unquestionably bigotry, tribal discrimination, and in some cases open racism.

—————————

There’s more in the blog post if anyone cares to read it.

It’s OK to Reject Critical Race Theory

=======================================

Dave wrote, “There is no other way to describe Emily’s attitudes then as bigoted.”

How can you determine a persons actual attitude from a single written passage on public forum. I think it’s completely fair to say that Emily’s words were bigoted* but saying that Emily’s attitude is bigoted is taking a step into the the position of making an unqualified psychological evaluation of a persons character without an in-person evaluation – this is unethical.

*Bigoted: obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

People need to let go of their bigotry and return to civil discourse instead of the vigilante style of cancel culture persecution that’s emerged in recent years.

This is not a new problem, but it is a problem that has gotten significantly worse in the 21st century. Here is a couple of excerpts from letter to the editor that I wrote to The Wisconsin State Journal on June 18, 2011.

“Opinion bigotry” is out of control in politics. Politicians and their constituents seem to no longer have any tolerance for opposing opinions. Debating merits has been replaced with demonizing the messenger. Respect, integrity and truth have been replaced with “the ends justify the means,” and we are all responsible for it.

We must have respect for others’ opinions, have personal integrity, support truth and stop “justifying” bad behavior, even if it is on our side.

We must all remember the people supporting the extreme progressive ideology and cancel culture we are seeing are not our enemies they simply differ in opinions; however, the ideology these people are support is an enemy to the United States Constitution and therefore an enemy to the people. Crush the irrational ideology not the people supporting it.

Bigotry

=======================================

Dave wrote, “If I thought liberals were mostly wrong about the Covid bill and liberals and conservatives share the blame pretty much equally on the transgender athlete issue, let me award the prize for intransigence on gun control to the Republicans.”

The facts of the matter is that the COVID bill and transgender athlete issue are not Constitutional issues, gun control is. I wrote above that “some things are literally a matter of “fundamental principles or basic rights”, you can’t just ignore actual facts in favor of no drama” gun control is literally one of these and ignoring this fact in favor of no drama is signature significant.

The fact is that the Constitution specifically enumerated gun rights and gave gun rights to individuals, “the people”, and clearly stated that that right “shall not be infringed*”.

*Infringe: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

Dave wrote, “About 80% of Americans (and most gun owners) support some mild forms of sensible gun control, like universal background checks and keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people without criminal records. And yet these measures get blocked routinely because a tiny group of extremists hold the unsupportable position that Second Amendment rights are absolute.”

I don’t know where you are getting your statistics especially your statement “and most gun owners” from but it’s not a tiny group of extremists that oppose these measures, it’s a massive group of gun owners that believe whole-heartedly that such measures are literally a direct infringement on their Constitutional right. By the way Dave, using the word “sensible”, meaning anything you disagree with is not sensible, is really a direct insult to those that feel that their 2nd rights are being infringed upon and that is not “sensible”.

We can disagree on these kind of things, that’s one of the great treasures of the freedoms we share in the United States. Personally I think the measures that are currently in place for instant checks are infringement enough and the anti-gunners out there need to stop trying to eat away at the fringes of the 2nd amendment.

In my opinion, the 1st, 2nd, and 14th Amendments are actively being eaten away by anti-Constitutional totalitarian minded fools. They’re fools because when their goals are achieved and those amendments are so limited that they’re essentially unenforceable quaint anecdotes of history, Liberty will be gone and the United States of America will be no more. Remember the prophetic words of Martin Niemöller…

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.

These are not the views of an extremists, they are the views of a person that has sworn their life to defend the United States Constitution and won’t rationalize that oath away due to irrational social pressure.

I saw an interesting evaluation of gun crimes vs gun ownership a few years ago and here was the conclusion of the data, remember this is based on actual FBI facts…

From the FBI data we can calculate that in the year 2106 there were 0.003% of existing firearms used in murders, here is the calculation (11,004 /350,000,000)*100=0.003%. Also we can calculate that in the year 2016 (using the calculated number of rifles 519), 0.000148% of existing firearms used in murders were rifles [UPDATE: May 2, 2019] Assault styled rifles are a smaller percentage of this, here is the calculation (519 / 350,000,000) * 100 = 0.000148% . So we now have an anti-firearm movement (anti 2nd Amendment movement) that wants to ban or limit availability of firearms to 100% of the people based on the illegal use of 0.003% of firearms, or better yet based on the illegal use of 0.000148% of firearms – this is not logical.

If you want the source for that just ask.

After I read this a few years ago I looked at FBI data and it really doesn’t change enough over the years to make any kind of significant difference in the percentage conclusions that were made in that evaluation. When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, facts talk, BS walks.

Apocalypse Never

=======================================

https://stevewitherspoonhome.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/chasmwallscanbe-bridged.jpg

When it comes to gun rights; differences are reconcilable as long as one side of the chasm is not perceived as literally trying to strip the other side of Constitutional rights they’ve had since the dawn of the United States. Great care should be taken when heading down the very slippery slope of infringing on the rights of individuals in the United States.

Apocalypse Never

=======================================

Dave, Other than your bigoted statement, “CPAC, the annual freak show of conservative heavy breathers” this was a pretty good blog post. Remember Dave …

https://stevewitherspoonhome.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/chasmwallscanbe-bridged.jpg

Dave wrote, “At the 2021 follies in Orlando, CPAC built its entire program around the theme of cancel culture. The program was almost totally devoid of any discussion of deficits, government overreach, national defense or any other legitimate conservative policy idea. It was all about stoking the culture wars.”

That’s a fair assessment if you actually watched all of the CPAC presentation. I’m really curious, did you actually watch all the speakers at CPAC to come up with your conclusion or are you parroting what you’ve heard from pundits? I suspected, heard and could have easily predicted that they would criticize President Biden a LOT and I heard that was a theme but I truthfully didn’t watch any of it; maybe I should look up the speeches on YouTube to see if your evaluation of the program is reasonably accurate; although, it’s not the kind of biased partisan presentation that I would choose to sit through.

Dave wrote, “Cancel culture — intolerance for ideas — is a cancer eating at the core of society and democracy. Barack Obama is a key ally in the fight against it.”

I’ve been talking about the cancer eating away at our society for a while now and I equate the 21st century’s cancel culture to outright bigoted persecution of those with differing opinions. You can find many references to this problem in my blog posts. These illiberal totalitarians in the political left have completely flushed their ethics and morals with their totalitarian leanings and they’ve become the very evil that they have professed to be against.

Cancel Culture Is Real

=======================================

I’m back briefly.

Please note that I reposted the comment above to the Cancel Culture Is Real blog and removed the word “bigoted” which means “obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group”. I fully believe that the use of the word is accurate but it seemed to me that the black hole moderation began after I posted that comment so I tried reposting it without the word.

Side note; Cieslewicz used the word bigoted to describe a person, not their words like I did, he actually called the person bigoted in his blog post titled Bigotry which I linked to above. If Cieslewicz de facto banned me for using bigoted to describe his words then he is openly engaging in hypocrisy but since he has refused to tell me why he’s de facto banned me he’s hiding behind his silence and that is a cowardly thing to do.

Now back to the comments stuck in the black hole of moderation…

=======================================

Harvey M. Jacobs wrote, “To the extent the present status of private property is dissatisfactory (and I believe it is)”

You’re being way too general; how do you think the present status of private property is dissatisfactory? Stick your neck out and be specific otherwise a dialogue truly cannot begin.

Harvey M. Jacobs wrote, “it is incumbent upon those who are dissatisfied to force upon us all renewed social dialogue about a new form of this ever evolving social and legal institution.”

No Mr. Jacobs, it is not right to force your version of a renewed social dialogue upon society. Walking into this with an attitude that others must discuss it is a my way or the highway attitude and it will shut down dialogue. It is incumbent for those that want to open a dialogue about such things to in fact open that dialogue with classical liberal* ideals at the core of the discussion. Just because you want to open a dialogue doesn’t mean that everyone is going to jump on board with the dialogue as you want it to be portrayed.

*liberal: adjective 1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas. 2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

https://stevewitherspoonhome.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/chasmwallscanbe-bridged.jpg

This Land is Whose Land? (Part 2)

=======================================

The current ongoing national rhetoric against the filibuster is blatantly hypocritical and now they are immorally playing the race card. This is a Senate rule not a law and as I said above I don’t really care what they do as long as the rules apply equally to both sides but the blatant hypocrisy in this political climate is really angering me.

Here is a very good read that highlights the blatant hypocrisy surrounding the filibuster and the utterly immoral rhetoric aimed at those that currently support the filibuster.

Democrats Cannot Erase The History Or Hypocrisy Of The Filibuster

Stand and Deliver
[UPDATE: MARCH 30, 2021-THIS COMMENT WAS APPROVED TODAY]

=======================================

I’m back.

Personally I think Dave Cieslewicz is a decent guy and I fully understand that we don’t agree on everything, which is true with most people but we can work together for a better tomorrow. I fully understand that I’m not always right and I actually learn from my mistakes; so knowing that, feel free to share your thoughts as to why you think Cieslewicz has de facto banned me based on the principles he shared on his blog and the words I wrote in my comments. Cieslewicz started a blog, opened it up for comments and now he’s actively censoring comments he doesn’t like for one reason or another. It’s become really clear to me that I’m not welcome commenting on his blog anymore. Did I somehow violate this statement, “anyone who refrains from demonizing his opponents and is looking for a place to get away from the hard lines and hard feelings of the left and right is welcome here” and demonize my opponent?

If there are any changes in the de facto moderation taking place at Cieslewicz’s Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos blog, I’ll update this post.

[UPDATE: 09/20/2021] After some discussion with Dave Cieslewicz over at Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos, he has begun to allow me to post limited comments on his blog again.

Now it’s time to circle back around to the main topic of this post, where did all the classic liberals* go?

It’s becoming increasingly evident that many of the self-proclaimed moderates and classic liberals* have succumbed to the extremist progressive movement in the United States and those people that once held to their classic liberal* ideals have begun to shift or have already shifted their ideology and have become totalitarians or they’re remaining silent out of fear of what the totalitarians will do to them if they challenge the hive mind. We see this every day across the United States. People like Dave Cieslewicz have shown the courage to stand up against the extremists about their critical race theory but yet he shows us his intolerance for opposing opinions and that piercing the ideological bubble of his blog is not going to be acceptable, this is just as illiberal, as in anti classic liberal*, as the illiberal things he’s written about on his blog.

Liberty is Dying a Slow Death in the United States of America and there are to many individuals out there that are completely ignoring the fact that they are a small piece of the totalitarian puzzle in the United States. Like the “good” Germans in the 1930’s and 1940’s, there is a huge swath of people in the United States that are promoting, tolerating and enabling totalitarian progressives and when their Liberty is gone they’re going to be asking themselves, “how could this happened in the United States of America”?

Strong Leaders Are Needed To Inspire Nationwide Grass Roots Movements To Support The Constitution & Confront Totalitarianism

Wake up people!

P.S. I might have to fix some of the formatting after this is posted.

7 thoughts on “Where Did All The Classic Liberals* Go? [UPDATED]

  1. “One hundred percent of my comments go into moderation”

    The Gotch knows the feeling!

    Former Mayor BikeShorts embraces an ethically elastic/tangential relationship with the truth.

    C’mon, who couldn’t get behind the Classic Liberalism of a Claude-Frédéric Bastiat all day long?

    ” ‘Opinion bigotry’ is out of control in politics.”

    Sugarcoat, whydontcha.

    Its wicked step-sibling (IMO larger and FAR more pervasive and societally disruptive/destructive) is Belief Superiority.

    Not too much of a stretch to see it as a type of mental illness which requires its adherents to don Weapons Grade Thickened Industrial Strength Hardened ideological blinders to filter out any-n-all incoming information which won’t support preapproved selections from the Lefty World View Cafeteria.

    The Gotch

    Like

    1. Did you notice that that “”‘Opinion bigotry’ is out of control in politics.” was written 10 years ago in June of 2011? That was back when the progressive extremists were really just getting the tires rolling on their long slide down the slippery slope into the abyss of totalitarianism.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. We now have an intelligentsia which, though very small, is very useful to the cause of Hell.”–C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

        Written eight (8) decades ago; you think things have gotten better, stayed the same or gotten worse?

        The Gotch

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Gotch asked, “you think things have gotten better, stayed the same or gotten worse?”

          Clearly my perception is that things have gotten worse, much worse.

          I’ve heard it said, and I think it is reasonable true, that logic dictates that there is always going to be a percentage (whatever that % is) of a given population that is going to be clinically insane, criminals, violent, or just plain irrational. As a given population goes up those percentages stay “relatively” the same (as in very low percentages); however, the actual physical number of clinically insane, criminals, violent, or just plain irrational people increase.

          Extrapolating that; logic also dictates that as access to readily available, instant gratification, news/media sources increase the number of times any individual news/media consumer is exposed to news about the clinically insane, criminals, violent, or just plain irrational people will dramatically increase because there is a higher number of clinically insane, criminals, violent, or just plain irrational people doing crazy things in our society. Therefore; the perception is that things are getting crazier.

          Those things are reasonably true but what they don’t include is the number of people that are completely consumed (read brainwashed) by the irrational false propaganda that’s intentionally disseminated by political propagandists at those readily available, instant gratification, news/media sources. The percentage of people consumed by irrational propaganda does not stay relatively the same, as exposure to irrational propaganda increases the possibility of being brainwashed by the irrational propaganda increases exponentially. Therefore; as irrational propaganda increases and more people are brainwashed by that irrational propaganda the appearance of many, many more insane people in our society dramatically increases. Constant exposure to irrational propaganda is how a brainwashed cult of hive minded people is built.

          “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” Malcolm X

          The political left in the United States started a irrational propaganda war, yes war, in the 21st century, more specifically sometime in 2008, and hasn’t let up since. They started this propaganda war for pure partisan political purposes. What we are seeing now is the direct and indirect effects of that irrational propaganda war that has morphed into an out-of-control irrational propaganda social war. The result of that out-of-control irrational propaganda social war is there has been a major increase in apparent irrational propaganda based brainwashed individuals (cultish hive mind) in the United States.

          There is a point in the brainwashing of the masses where the overall break with reality of the population becomes irretrievably broken, I believe we have reached that tipping point. The social justice warrior cult has already won the minds of the majority of the masses and this is exactly how the United States of America will be destroyed if something drastic is not done soon.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Interesting post on Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos this morning, it’s titled The Right Tries to Cancel More Books. It’s a decent post from the viewpoint of a left leaning self-proclaimed moderate Liberal that mildly rationalizing behaviors from the cancel culture, which I have recently started to call the vigilante persecutors. Within that post Cieslewicz wrote the following two paragraphs…

    But, still, when you look at those eight titles, it’s mostly stuff that challenges the status quo when it comes to acceptance of racial or sexual identity. I’m not totally on board with identity politics either, but I’m never in favor of shutting down the conversation.

    If we’re liberal — in the classical sense — we should be for maximum free speech. Society only moves forward with a strong and respectful exchange of ideas. Shutting down thought is always a horrible idea.

    My reply to this blog post is as follows…

    Personally I don’t think any of the books mentioned should be banned. The free market of ideas in the USA has been under fire for a while now and it has got to stop.

    Dave wrote, “I’m never in favor of shutting down the conversation”

    “Never”?

    Really Dave?

    Based on the recent history in the comments section of Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos, which Dave personally moderates, I have a really hard time believing that you just wrote that statement. The evidence suggests that the statement “I’m never in favor of shutting down the conversation” might not be telling the whole story in a completely truthful way.

    Dave wrote, “If we’re liberal — in the classical sense — we should be for maximum free speech. Society only moves forward with a strong and respectful exchange of ideas. Shutting down thought is always a horrible idea.”

    You are saying the right words but actions can speak much louder than words.

    The free market of ideas in the USA has been under fire for a while now especially in the 21st century and it’s got to stop; and yes, that includes stopping the ongoing censorship restricting the free market of ideas in blog comments.

    NOTE: That comment is currently stuck in moderation along with the other ones mentioned in this blog post.

    There appears to be some level of personal hypocrisy that Cieslewicz doesn’t acknowledge. I’m not too sure this is the kind of character trait that Cieslewicz wants to present to the public. The ball is in Cieslewicz’s court to reform and change his ways.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I sent an email to Dave Cieslewicz about him de facto banning me from posting comments on his blog…

    Dave,
    I had honest hopes of dialogue on your blog and I gave you and your blog an honest try but I’m not wasting any more of my time with it. You like so many other so-called “classic liberals”, Liberals, progressives and partisan Democrats have succeeded once again in shutting down discussion with someone that sometimes disagrees with you. You should be ashamed of your hypocritical behavior where you publicly state that you’re for classic liberal ideals but actually engage in classically illiberal behaviors. Your actions of shutting down uncomfortable debate have made your blog irrelevant to me, it’s not likely that I’ll be back and that’s on you.

    If you want changes in your life or the world around you, the changes must begin in you.

    I encourage you to share your opinions on things I write on my blog even if you disagree with me and you can do it anonymously if you like. As my commenting policies state, Anonymity as a commenter will be honored.

    I wish you well with your blog.

    Goodbye.

    Poll for others
    Since the results of commenting on political left orientated blogs has been exactly the same on every left leaning blog I’ve tried, should I continue to try to offer comments on politically left orientated blogs or just give up on trying to communicate with what truly appears to be a hive mind?

    Like

Leave a Reply to Steve Witherspoon Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.