This is the opposition?
"I don't know anything"
"These people are bad people"
"I like winning"
"Vilifying Mike McCurry is really important"
These quotes are taken straight from Matt Stoller's speech on net neutrality at this past weekend's Yearly Kos convention in Vegas. Don't believe me? Check out the video.
So Matt's has been blogging nearly every day on an issue that he openly admits he doesn't understand all in the hopes of scoring political points and mobilizing the Democratic base. Why even bother with a debate focused on the issues, when the other side just wants to "vilify" and "win".
No wonder their so called "grassroots" effort fell flat when it was time for a vote in the House. If they were so effective in grassroots why did Net neutrality lose resoundingingly 269-152 with 58 Democrats voting against NN? Could it be that the only people who really care about this issue are Matt's friends here in DC? If you look at Google Trends data, it sure doesn't look like a national groundswell of support.
I started NETCompetition to have a real and principled debate about the future of the Internet and will continue to do so. I also think it helps to try and understand what it is one is talking about.
Point?
I'm not really seeing your argument in this post, Scott. He talks about "[liking] winning", which isn't really a condemnable offense...unless of course you're putting this blog up in hopes of losing? This post proved nothing; you merely looked a video then picked at every little thing, no matter what it was.
What's your point? Where's your "real and principled debate"?
bad faith
Scott,
I was kidding about not knowing anything. What I got across to the crowd is that I'm not a wonk, but I know bullshit when I see it. The fact is that your work on this issue is immoral, weak, and unAmerican. You are dishonest with your arguments, and consistently show bad faith in how you describe this issue as well as how you describe the people involved.
I do appreciate the personal attack, but you do have to realize that I am only one of millions of people who have engaged on this issue. Thank you for proving, through your selective quoting, that you and your backers are engaging in bad faith arguments to ensure more telco welfare for your clients.
good faith
Matt,
I trust that everyone that disagrees with you in life is not "immoral, weak or unamerican."
I have learned over the years that many people tend to resort to name calling and demonization when they have run out of substantive arguments or knowledge.
I look forward to disagreeing without being disagreeable.
good faith?
He didn't call you "immoral, weak [or] unAmerican". He called your arguments "immoral, weak and unAmerican". There's a difference - especially when you're clearly writing for your organization; this isn't a personal blog of yours. He's not defaming you publically, he's just calling your arguments unAmerican.
As bad as ad hominem attacks are, it's just dishonorable to try to pin one of those attacks on your opponent. It's a bad argumentative technique too.
Kidding?
A know-nothing political hack who destroys the Internet by stuffing it into the wrong regulatory framework in order to raise his personal profile among the Kossack faithful isn't exactly setting the moral rectitude bar very high, Stoller.
"A know-nothing political
"A know-nothing political hack"
Didn't we just talk about ad hominem attacks? Scott just talked about how "many people tend to resort to name calling and demonization when they have run out of substantive arguments or knowledge.". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though, his remark wasn't noted until 18 minutes after your post. So it was okay then.
"who destroys the Internet by stuffing it into the wrong regulatory framework"
You mean the framework that it's been in for years, before the FCC's reregulation? I didn't hear anyone but the phone companies lobbying to get this changed before 2005...Not conservatives, not liberals, not Republicans nor Democrats.
"in order to raise his personal profile among the Kossack faithful isn't exactly setting the moral rectitude bar very high, Stoller."
But a man who relates the Daily Kos (and the Left) to the Communists is of high moral standing? I thought this site wanted "a real and principled debate". Let's try to keep it reasonable.
That's what he called himself
Stoller admits he's a know-nothing, I just affirm his self-description.
But your second point is the crucial one, and it's probably the Number One Big Lie coming from the Google- and Free Press-backed coalition:
The Internet has not been regulated by the telco framework, ever. A very small part of the Internet's access network - dialup and DSL - was under this framework for a while, but the FCC reclassified it a year ago. So now the whole Internet is regulated under a common framework, and that framework is the same one that most of it has been under all along.
Why do you people insist on lying?
Plenty of people noted the disparity in the ways that Internet access via cable modem and Internet access via DSL were regulated and complained that it was unfair. And many people noticed that the lightly regulated cable modem access was superior to the heavily-regulated DSL access.
If you had followed this issue for any length of time - and not just gullibly swallowed everything Stoller and Moby and Alyssa Milano say about it - you'd know that.
And anyway, what does Jessica Simpson think about Internet regulation? Doesn't she get a vote, too?