Note to DPF: stop playing victim and take some responsibility for your blog

Written By: - Date published: 12:15 pm, August 31st, 2009 - 61 comments
Categories: dpf - Tags:

It seems I’ve hit a sore spot with David Farrar over the business of death threats to Sue Bradford. He’s now claiming I’ve dived for the gutter. At the risk of starting a flame war I’d like to point out that if I was aiming for the gutter I’d turn up in the comments section of his blog.

Because despite his protestations he quite clearly facilitates the kind of thuggery that leads to this kind of threat.

Here, for example, are three comments made about Bradford on Kiwiblog yesterday:

Somebody needs to check the authenticity of these death threats against Comrade Bradford, I would not put it past the maggot to make them up in an attempt to gain the sympathy vote for her anti smacking bill.

Oasis split up, Kennnedy’s buried and Bwadford’s in (unjustified) fear of her life. It’s been a good week so far.

Being called a nasty piece of work by Supreme Whore Commissar Bwadford sounds like an honour.

You’ll note that none of them have attracted any comment from Farrar but I can tell you that if anything like that was written here about anyone (from the left, right or whatever) the comment would be deleted and the poster would be banned.

But not at Kiwiblog.

I’m sure David will say he’s too busy to read all comments but I’ve noticed every comment that is critical of him personally gets answered so I doubt that’s true.

Rather than provide a space for this bile to self-validate, David should (as I said in my last post) condemn it. He’s got the ear of these thugs and he should let them know their behaviour is unacceptable. They won’t listen to the Standard but they might listen to him.

But instead he writes a post in which he downplays the threats (what else could “While I am not sure I would classify the tweet as a literal death threat” be interpreted as?), remarks upon helping the police with a death threat made on his blog (I should bloody well hope he would!) and then spends the rest of the post engaging in a hysterical attack on me for being mean to him.

Nice one David, you seem to think personal responsibility is only for other people. How about you take some yourself and clean up that breeding ground for hate you call a blog?

61 comments on “Note to DPF: stop playing victim and take some responsibility for your blog ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. snoozer 1
    31 August 2009 at 12:57 pm

    If Farrar stopped providing a breeding ground for hate what would he have? Pictures of boobs from around the world and long stories of his latest trip or media appearance.

    reminds me of that scene in the simpsons:

    Carl: You ain’t thinking of getting rid of the dank, are you, Moe?
    Moe: Ehh, maybe I am.
    Carl: Oh, but Moe: the dank. The dank!

  2. graham 2
    31 August 2009 at 12:58 pm

    at least he is man enough to publish his name for all we know you are sue bradford

    • snoozer 2.1
      31 August 2009 at 1:14 pm

      For all I know, you’re Captain Bligh.

      Why should I take seriously anything you say when you can’t prove you’re not a tryannical 18th century naval officer?

    • Craig Glen Eden 2.2
      31 August 2009 at 1:24 pm

      graham, you are such a tough guy, why don’t you put up your full name and address. Stick to the issue tough guy the post is about inappropriate blog posting and the role blog sites should play in censorship. And hey when all said and done how do we know that you are not Farra’s Mother?

    • toad 2.3
      31 August 2009 at 1:51 pm

      graham, there will be lots of different reasons for people not wanting to post or comment on blogs using their real names:

      1) Public servant have to be seen to be politically neutral.

      2) People blog in work time and their employer would disapprove.

      3) There are wingnuts who will track bloggers down throught the electoral roll and harrass them

      Are three obvious ones that spring to mind. Nothing to do with being “man enough”.

      How would you fancy a late night in-person visit from the creature that calls itself Hurf Durf that hangs out at Farrar’s troll farm.

      • IrishBill 2.3.1
        31 August 2009 at 2:09 pm

        Don’t worry Toad, I’m big enough and ugly enough to look after myself. My main reason for anonymity is that I don’t want to become known entirely as a “that blogger from the standard” or, god forbid, one of those “celebrity bloggers” like David or Russell Brown.

        The Standard is just a small part of my life and by staying anonymous I get to keep it that way. Readers can judge me on the quality of my writing and ideas and if they don’t like that too bad. I don’t get anything out of the standard other than the chance to have a bit of a public rant (maybe if I wasn’t anonymous I would be able to cash in a bit as a pundit as other bloggers have.) so I don’t feel I owe anyone my name if I don’t want to give it.

        [lprent: ditto. I’d have preferred to be anonymous as well. But as I was the domain name holder, I couldn’t be totally anonymous.

        However there really aren’t that many people who know who I am in real life.

        You usually have to be a family, a programmer or a political activist to know what in the hell I look like. lprent is my personality on the net. It is nice to be able to display the nicer parts of my personality there rather than my usual acid personality facets that I display when I’m working. ]

        • Adolf Fiinkensein 2.3.1.1
          31 August 2009 at 3:57 pm

          Don’t worry Irish. Tou’re quite safe.

          You ain’t no celebrity.

        • mike 2.3.1.2
          31 August 2009 at 8:32 pm

          “I’m big enough and ugly enough to look after myself”

          I knew it – your an EPMU bova boy…

  3. IrishBill 3
    31 August 2009 at 1:07 pm

    snoozer, I disagree, as much as I dislike his politics Farrar has a unique insider view of the current government, a lot of experience in the beltway and a good understanding of the process of government. He’s also got an amazing ability to produce mountains of copy.

    I’m not saying he shouldn’t blog from a right-wing perspective; I’m saying he needs to clean up the comments from the fringe nutters rather than give them a home. It would be good for his credibility and for the credibility of the right (especially the National party) and also for the credibility of the blogosphere.

    My concern is that he lacks the maturity or the political judgment to do so.

    • Swampy 3.1
      31 August 2009 at 9:22 pm

      This is all so high and mighty, “the credibility of the blogosphere”. What credibility? This is the political left trying to make out how politically pious they are. The Green party tries it on all the time.

      Turn the tables and sooner or later some leftie will be claiming their rights to free speech under the Bill of Rights, their rights to peaceful protest, to burn flags, etc etc etc.

  4. tc 4
    31 August 2009 at 1:08 pm

    DPF thrives on all of this like a badly behaved child craving attention.
    It takes all sorts and the unreasonable all know where they can have their views published, at kiwiblog. Having seen the man interviewed he’s rather underwhelming and not worth the effort even though TVNZ gave him such a soft touch instead of a grilling he deserved he still wasn’t convincing and I found him a little scary in a way all good catholic boys would understand.
    I’m guessing JK would be ‘comfortable’ with it, as I am comfortable that the KKK existing on the same planet as me but what can we do about that.
    Just a sad by product of free speech meeting the blog culture and like all badly behaved children I ignore him.

  5. graham 5
    31 August 2009 at 1:24 pm

    why do you guys hide your real names are you labour party presidents or something

    • Tigger 5.1
      31 August 2009 at 1:26 pm

      David Garrett, is that you?

    • RedLogix 5.2
      31 August 2009 at 1:40 pm

      No but from what he’s already said graham is a dairy farmer in Southland somewhere (and that’s general enough not to be an attempt to identify him). I’ve no reason to think graham is not a bona fide person with an opinion like the rest of us.

      He’s still learning however to use a spell checker, the rudiments of punctuation, grammar, debate and constructive argument, well enough to put together readable comments. In the meantime we’re trying to discourage him from dropping angry little one-liners all over the threads. Kind of like house-training a puppy, either he’ll learn soon, or get permanently banished to the kennels.

      [lprent: He already knows what it is like. Complained about it in e-mail as well. He did not like my response (your one is benign by comparison). However he didn’t piss me off enough that time to perma-ban him. ]

      • aj 5.2.1
        31 August 2009 at 4:05 pm

        Ahh thats interesting, he’s possibly the same person who appears in the letters column in the local rag, full of misinformation and barely contained venom and dislike for Bradford.

    • Scott Yorke 5.3
      31 August 2009 at 1:42 pm

      graham – Pot kettle black.

      What’s your full name then?

  6. schrodigerscat 6
    31 August 2009 at 1:42 pm

    As a dairy farmer from Southland, does he live in a subsidised house in Wellington?

  7. Ianmac 7
    31 August 2009 at 1:46 pm

    Last year I sometimes read DPF but the comments were so rabid that now I don’t bother. A pity really as other points of view are valid, or could be.

  8. Bart 8
    31 August 2009 at 1:49 pm

    I now just read Farrar’s posts but don’t bother going into the comments. He often gives a good account of the right’s view, and I often find myself agreeing with him.

  9. greenfly 9
    31 August 2009 at 2:04 pm

    Mr Farrar is mild-mannered and kindly to all and sundry, no matter how despicable their comments, – until you imply that he is carrying too much weight. At that point he will ban you for life.

  10. no leftie 10
    31 August 2009 at 2:32 pm

    “if anything like that was written here about anyone (from the left, right or whatever) the comment would be deleted and the poster would be banned.”

    And that’s a good thing?

    David can speak for himself (and is) but why the need to crush views you don’t agree with? A lot of the comments on Kiwiblog are drivel but it’s a blog – surely you don’t go there looking for wisdom.

    How about letting people have their say? Disgree and fight back by all means but deleted and banned?

    • IrishBill 10.1
      31 August 2009 at 3:49 pm

      Abuse and threats aren’t views.

      • no leftie 10.1.1
        31 August 2009 at 5:08 pm

        That’s the crux of the ideological debate here isn’t it. Your comment earlier….

        “he needs to clean up the comments from the fringe nutters rather than give them a home”

        Why?

        I suspect DPF doesn’t feel the need to maintain such rigid control over the views of others.

        “Lacks maturity”? For allowing others to have their say without hitting the delete button whenever they say things he doesn’t agree with.

        I would have thought respecting the views of others is sure sign of maturity.

        [lprent: Exactly the point about the sewer that Irish was making. Not only is there a high density population (ie thick), they also display a lot of the traits of a little gang shouting down any contrary opinions – including using that nice little bully device – the kudos system.

        In other words many people in the sewer do not respect other peoples views. Here they are required to because we enforce a standard of behavior that prevents the ‘level’ of debate dropping to a mutual wanking society.

        We don’t actually delete many comments here unless you’re already banned for stupid behavior.

        When I see stupid behavior, I usually leave a nasty black comment on it and flag them for auto-moderation. But you know that – it is where your comments go at present*.

        Bad behavior includes going off and making stupid comments about groups of people purely for effect – eg homophobic, sexist, racist etc. You can say opinions about those things without being stupid about it. The banished who seem to frequent the sewer usually were not.

        *Ummm I should review your setting. I’ve been letting through most of them – so I guess you’ve worked out the standard now.]

        • IrishBill 10.1.1.1
          31 August 2009 at 5:48 pm

          Once again, abuse and threats are not “views”. We are happy for commenters to hold some pretty far-right views here without moderating them (just ask Redbaiter) but we don’t tolerate the level of abuse David does. That’s because we refuse to give the nutters who regularly use that kind of language any validation. If they have a point to make they can make it without resorting to filth if they can’t we show them the door.

          People get banned here for their behaviour not their politics.

    • Pascal's bookie 10.2
      31 August 2009 at 4:41 pm

      no leftie, deleting someone’s comments and banning them from a blog isn’t preventing them from having their say, nor is it crushing their views.

      They can go start their own blog. But they don’t have to cause dpf is quite happy make them welcome on his.

      • no leftie 10.2.1
        31 August 2009 at 5:48 pm

        “deleting someone’s comments and banning them from a blog isn’t preventing them from having their say”

        This has to be a joke – a very bad one.

        [lprent: there are a lot of other media outlets, blogs, talkback, letters to the paper, …. So not joking. ]

        • Pascal's bookie 10.2.1.1
          31 August 2009 at 6:27 pm

          As Lynn says, nope, not a joke.
          Blog moderation is not a freedom of speech issue. the only way it could be is if the state was moderating blogs and deleting content it didn’t like. If it’s the blog owner doing it it’s absolutely fine.

          TV3 wouldn’t let me have a half hour to rant on the network. The Catholic Church will defrock priests who say certain things from the pulpit. Newspapers decline to run ads and letters. None of this is stopping people from having their say.

          Especially today when it is so damn easy to set up a blog and write whatever the hell you like.

          Saying that someone can’t write some things on your blog isn’t oppressing them in any way shape or form. It just isn’t.

          To claim otherwise is the joke.

          • no leftie 10.2.1.1.1
            1 September 2009 at 8:36 am

            Thank you for the lesson in doublethink – where BLOCKING people’s views allows people to express their views.

            Very illuminating.

            Oh and the “joke” remark was irony intended to point out the absurdity of the statement “deleting someone’s comments and banning them from a blog isn’t preventing them from having their say”.

            • Pascal's bookie 10.2.1.1.1.1
              1 September 2009 at 9:06 am

              What have you got against property rights? Are you sure you’re not a leftie?

              It’s quite simple and there is no double think. A blog owner can stop you saying shit on their blog, but that doesn’t stop you expressing it elsewhere. It’s very easy to say it elsewhere. So the view is not being suppressed.

              If I ask you to publish something, and you refuse to do so, are you oppressing me? Do I have a right to demand that other people use their freedom of speech to publish what I want to say? It’s absurd.

              Just say it yourself, no one is stopping you.

              And for the record, dpf does ban people and I’m pretty sure he’s deleted comments, so you’re wrong on all counts.

            • felix 10.2.1.1.1.2
              1 September 2009 at 9:06 am

              Which part of “free speech” are you having trouble with, guy?

              Can I bowl round to your house anytime I like and do whatever I want, disregarding your wishes? No?

              But I have something to say! Stop oppressing me! I demand the right to stand on your couch and shout at you!

              See the problem?

              Do you not understand that a website is private property?

              Do you think every website owner in the world owes you a soapbox? Why? Get a blog and make the rules. No-one’s stopping you.

              edit: snap

  11. Brett Dale 11
    31 August 2009 at 2:55 pm

    I think the Standard look in their own back yard and some of the comments directed at certain people and certain countries and cultures for that matter.

  12. randal 12
    31 August 2009 at 4:27 pm

    actually dpf reminds me of a map of tasmania.

    • outofbed 12.1
      31 August 2009 at 4:43 pm

      Randal
      I know I am going to regret this but however..
      In what way does DPF remind you of Tasmania?

      • Akldnut 12.1.1
        31 August 2009 at 9:00 pm

        oob I think he’s refering to aussie slang about whats hiding in a womans pants, A map of tassie & a C%#T!

  13. Red Rosa 13
    31 August 2009 at 4:44 pm

    Certainly there are some robust comments posted here – many, maybe most, posted by the Right!.

    But they pale by comparison the worst of the Kiwiblog rants. As previous commentators have pointed out, some of these are scarily like the rabid American Right. From the people who gave you Timothy McVeigh…….

    It is worth exploring this a bit more. If there is an American Communist Party these days, they could probably meet in a phone box. But there are plenty of well paid Michelle Malkins and Ann Coulters to crank up the Rebel Flag Wavers and the Patriots.

    And the Republican Party certainly isn’t slowing them down.

    No doubt, all said better recently on ‘The F Word.’ post. These people are alive and well in NZ.

  14. singularian 14
    31 August 2009 at 5:52 pm

    It’s laughable that with so many ‘smart’ people posting here that you have so little understanding of the psychology of the interwebs, unless………

    Words used by OP and ‘left’ commetors on this thread –

    gutter, breeding ground for hate, creature, troll farm, fringe nutters, rabid, bile.

    Who’s indulging in the language of hate again?

    catchpa – crashing – you ain’t wrong.

    • felix 14.1
      31 August 2009 at 5:58 pm

      How would you accurately describe the comments section of Kiwiblog?

      What words would you use?

      • checker 14.1.1
        31 August 2009 at 6:10 pm

        How would you accurately describe the comments section of Kiwiblog?

        “Partisan” “Trollish” “Occasionally insightful” “Opinionated” “At times vile” “Bizarre”

        ….. or in one word “Standardlike”

        • The Voice of Reason 14.1.1.1
          31 August 2009 at 6:54 pm

          “Standardlite” more like.

          I’m, ahem, comfortable with the moderation on this site. It’s quality versus quantity. Kiwiblog is just a spew of right wing bile most of the time, lightened by occasional bursts of intelligence from the more thoughtful righties and those lefties who can be bothered trying to lift the debate out of the gutter.

          • Mothers4Justice 14.1.1.1.1
            31 August 2009 at 7:25 pm

            Speaking of the gutter where is that dad4justice bastard as he needs another smack in the head?

  15. vto 15
    31 August 2009 at 7:46 pm

    Its pretty rare that I read dpf anymore. All too predictory and its easier to have a contrary view and something to harangue folk about on here.

    Rabid right and loony left are equal in their hatreds from what I have seen. It’s just that the rabid right let it all hang out more easily.

  16. Scott Yorke 16
    31 August 2009 at 8:51 pm

    There is a difference between The Standard and Kiwiblog.

    DPF’s posts are often interesting and informative, even if I often disagree strongly with them. But the comments left by readers often make me want to be ill. All too many are homophobic, misogynist, or racist. I’d have said calling Sue Bradford a maggot was a low point, but there are too many others to compete for that title.

    Now I admit I often find the level of debate in The Standard somewhat lacking in subtlety, and the insults dished out are often petty. But more often than not the insults tend to be directed at the ideas expressed by others, not the people themselves.

    And I know there will be exceptions to this. But they’re infrequent. I could go on to Kiwiblog on any given day and probably find 20 or so posts that clearly cross the line. You’d be lucky to get more than a few a day on this site.

    That’s the difference.

    DPF can do what he likes with his site. But we’re also entitled to judge him by the behaviour he condones, and often actively enables.

  17. Mothers4Justice 17
    31 August 2009 at 9:03 pm

    So say all of us.
    Sin Bin Thanx.

  18. willaspish 18
    31 August 2009 at 9:23 pm

    It’s reassuring to see Dave and his Farrasites sticking to the script.

  19. Mothers4Justice 19
    31 August 2009 at 9:31 pm

    Indeed, Farrasites are not to be confused by Standardmites.

  20. outofbed 20
    31 August 2009 at 9:43 pm

    I See D4J has discovered the Torr network

  21. Swampy 21
    31 August 2009 at 10:31 pm

    This blog The Standard was originally set up to counter Kiwiblog in the political spectrum. Every so often the Standard tries to convince us that they hold the moral high ground in the political blogosphere, by seizing opportunities to create some kind of issue around something happening on another blog, most often Kiwiblog.

    Essentially, this appears to suggest the views of the Standard is that the EFA should have gone a lot further and banned political blogging as well.

    • felix 21.1
      31 August 2009 at 10:59 pm

      I haven’t noticed anyone trying to ban you and your late-night spamming sessions, despite your having next to nothing constructive to add to any topic and very little demonstrated interest in engaging in thoughtful discourse with anyone.

    • Pascal's bookie 21.2
      1 September 2009 at 5:15 am

      “Essentially, this appears to suggest the views of the Standard is that the EFA should have gone a lot further and banned political blogging as well.”

      This comment suggests swampy is a halfwit.

  22. randal 22
    2 September 2009 at 11:59 am

    swamp is flogging red herrings. posting death threats has nothing to do with the EFA. swampy is either a mate of humpty dumpty or he is just another ignorant map of tasmania.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.