Having read the thread now, I’d just like to say that formerly dp in comment #5 gets my vote for the best recap. But then, that one does favor me, so I’m biased.
I don’t have the original post that set off Dan in the first place, but I did keep my (unfortunately long) response that I posted the night the thread died. To be fair, the first one was less measured than this follow-up. So, with the disclaimer that if you’ve seen this before, don’t waste your time, here it is. (I also feel pretty dumb while looking back on it; in hindsight it’s obvious that I should have just said nothing)
1. Sincere apologies to everyone involved in the thread for causing any risk, however small, of it being shut down. It’s a great thread. In general, I don’t post much, but I’ve probably learned more about politics here over the past decade than everywhere else combined, and I tremendously value the contributions of everyone.
2. Morty: thanks (a lot). I’m glad that at least one person saw the reaction to my post as a bunch of people fanning themselves after their monocles popped off. Not to undermine the apology above – I defer to the majority opinion that what I said could somehow be read as going beyond the pale. Even though I don’t see it, it still means I’m guilty of miscommunication. So . . .
3. Threats: I’m honestly unsure where you think I’m threatening you, Dan. Did you really think I was saying I would have my wife beat you up? If so, I hope you mocked me mercilessly for that. I’m not sure exactly how she’d respond if you “said it to her face,” but it would probably involve a look of surprise followed by some kind of hurt, and then an attempt to politely find someone less unpleasant to talk to. I shouldn’t have said “I’d like to see you do it,” though, because I don’t literally mean it; I don’t wish that harm on her, or (presumably) you. It was a dumb rhetorical attempt to get you to see that you never would, being too decent of a person.
4. Stifling your speech: I was at most trying to redirect your proposed self-stifling. You yourself suggested that you should perhaps refrain from political commentary beyond the occasional sarcastic comment for professional reasons. I suggest that, IMHO only, you might have more to worry about professionally from sarcastic comments than from expressing more sophisticated political speech. I doubt that ESPN, for example, cares at all whether a writer is a Libertarian, Communitarian, or Rastafarian, but they may be concerned if someone posts ad hominem diatribes on a public website about a (very large) group of potential viewers.
5. Playing fair: To save the thread from certain annihilation*, I see that you’ve removed my post and your response(s?) but have left portions of yours as quoted by others, and the follow-up messages from others scoring the blows landed. I’m kind of happy about that, since I’ve been at work and would never have been able to see it otherwise, but it does seem like you’ve selectively cut things to make it look like I’m a deranged loon who threatens people, and you’re a poor victim of speech repression. But since you left it behind, I can respond to this:
I’ll happily say this anybody who asks. Your wife may or may not be an effective teacher, but she’s part of a special interest group that wishes to prevent accountability and choice.
I don’t find anything offensive about that; in fact, I completely agree, and I think she probably would too. Do you not see, though, how that is a completely different statement than what I quoted in the threadkiller post? Truly, measured on the insultometer, they bear almost no similarity at all. I won’t re-quote it, but I will refer you back to post 6972 to compare and contrast.
*You probably won’t believe me, Dan, but I had no intention of continuing a flame war. I said my piece.