Guardianistas hit the high notes on our latest edition of Alternative Ink

|
(17)

Last night’s Alternative Ink, the biweekly show that we at the Bay Guardian do on BFF.fm, may have been our best show yet. In addition to featuring great music exclusively by queer artists, we covered a lot of editorial ground, from chain stores and the Guardian’s impending move into the Westfied Mall to new developments on Google buses and Sunday meters to teacher tenure, Pride, and PG&E’s scary pipelines (when our audio mysteriously cut out for little while ... hmm)  to whistleblowers and World Cup mania. So give it a listen here.  

Comments

If you don't like criticism, just delete it! It's the liberal way.

Posted by Chromefields on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 7:59 am

SFBG doesn't like having its stereotypes skewered.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 8:16 am

I deleted the comments, because of what I percieved as an attack on the queer community that was particularly ill-mannered. Steve disagreed, and told me I should let comments that directly address the article (as long as they aren't "beyond the pale") stand. 

To address the comment that was deleted directly (that questioned highlighting queer artists) the reasons we highlighted queer artists is because this is Pride week, a rather obvious reason, I'd think.  

Posted by Joe Fitzgerald on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 10:09 am

They were attacking the tendency of SFBG often commentate that someone is "gay" or "black" or "female" or whatever you think makes them more desirable somehow than a straight white male.

It's exposing excessive political correctness in your editorial policy. A truly enlightened and post-prejudicial journal would not deem race or sexual orientation as being worthy of mentioning at all, any more than eye color or height.

It is not being prejudiced to point out card-playing, identity politics and political correctness.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 10:28 am
So

In a nutshell, Steve has directed me to leave up "douchey but fair" comments, per our policy.

http://www.sfbg.com/privacy-policy

COMMENT POLICY

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, comments are the sole responsibility of the individual commenters. SFBG reserves the right to delete any comments that include hate speech, libel, plagiarism, threats, personal attacks or off-topic assertions, and inappropriate language in order to protect the integrity of the site and its users. We do not edit comments for content.  

Posted by Joe Fitzgerald on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 10:11 am

Tim in particular was an advocate for allowing a broad range of opinions here.

Steven is a little more emotional and temperamental than Tim, and so more prone to be tempted by censorship, but he appears to be exercizing an appropriate measure of self-control here.

An advocate who seeks to suppress criticism has already lost the battle for hearts and minds.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 10:33 am

Joe was just a little butt-hurt for a while, but I forgive him. The echo chamber is sometimes a confusing place in which to articulate unbiased thoughts. And let's face it, at the SFBG, if it's black, or hispanic (but definitely not Asian), or gay, or some macabre genital innie/outie hybrid, it goes to the front of the line. Content of character need not apply.

Posted by Chromefields on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 11:27 am

Personally I disagree with our comment policy of letting some of the more troll-ish things stand here.

I've noticed that on articles where someone relatively calm (though questioning) or supportive comments first, a flow of discussion happens in the comment section. In an article where someone throws down an insult or highly agitating comment right away, it tends to stifle other comments. I see it happen again and again.

In that way, this agitating, angry speech actually stifles the freedom of speech of others -- it supresses people from expressing themselves. I'd much rather have a more robust comment section filled with many different ideas than a few really angry critical comments from the same five people who haunt the comment sections of every damn blog in the city. I see the same regular commenters, or commenting style, on SFist, Streets Blog SF, SF Gate (until you see them banned), and elsewhere. It's just sad to see, I wonder why those commenters feel the need to pipe up on every blog in SF. 

Posted by Joe Fitzgerald on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 1:26 pm

FreedomWorks pays them by the word.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 1:42 pm

- Joe

"Pure bullshit".
- Steven Jones in the comments section of "Business Tax Breaks SF Jumped Nearly 17 Million Last Year" (June 23).

I understand your hesitation in regards to some of the more "trollish" (I hate that word) comments on this site. But the door swings both ways. Some of the biggest "trolls" here come from the progressive side of the fence. Just look at the articles this week. And if you want to talk about people banned from SFGate, you just need to look first at Lilli. Or his "Troll Barriers" bull here. Or Marcos when he insults people when he has no valid rebuttal to an argument (see same article as above).

Like one of the earlier posters said, the BG is keeping up Tim Redmond's legacy of free speech (outside of the really outrageous of course). I disagreed vehemently with a lot of what Tim wrote, but I (and a lot of other people) did, and still do, respect that he allowed all sides to speak their mind and refused to censor those who agree with the progressive line.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 6:33 pm

trolls here, and both claim to be leftists. They post critically, rudely and incessantly.

While many that Joe terms as "trolls" are merely exposing the flaws and omissions in Joe's writing, of which this article is only the most recent example.

The great vulnerability of the left is the way they manage to be absolutely convinced they are right, even when they are blatantly wrong. It's an unfortunate combo because it leads them to try and censor all criticism - a strategy employed on a vast scale in the communist nations of eastern Europe and, to this day, elsewhere.

If you have to suppress criticism and build a wall to stop people escaping, then your ideology is bad and wrong. Don't punish the messenger for saying that.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 6:05 am

When Steven and Marke double down on supporting the corrupt nonprofits that are very effective saboteurs and spies and continues to allow the SFBG comments blog to be overrun by trolls, I've got to wonder what side of politics they are really playing on.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 6:24 am

And that the left should never compromise to get things done?

No wonder you are out in the cold

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 6:47 am

Yes, the SFBG should require registration and ban the trolls.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 7:04 am

back to a real person. Lilli would simply register dozens of accounts

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 7:32 am

And then it will just be Marcos, pathetically posting all by himself on an unread webpage.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 7:34 am

And things ain't like they used to be/And this ain't the Summer of Love...

Posted by Chromefields on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 6:23 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.