Peaceblogs
March 18, 2003 9:54 AM   Subscribe

Peaceblogs.org (courtesy of jpoulos).
posted by liam (62 comments total)
 
Bad poetry writing teenage vegans and self-obsessed nerds banding together will no doubt bring about world peace.
posted by bondcliff at 10:07 AM on March 18, 2003


A great idea. It's encouraging to see how bloggers are becoming the new activists, writing passionately and supporting causes that they think are important. It's the next step of public discourse.
posted by will at 10:15 AM on March 18, 2003


Regardless of your stance, you have to admit the above comment^ was pretty damn funny.
posted by dhoyt at 10:15 AM on March 18, 2003


Gah, I was referring to bondcliff's comment, not will's. Damn simultaneous posting....
posted by dhoyt at 10:16 AM on March 18, 2003


Better to light a candle...

Good job, jpoulos!
posted by ColdChef at 10:19 AM on March 18, 2003


Regardless of your stance, you have to admit the above comment^ was pretty damn funny.

Nope. Just from your stance.
posted by eyeballkid at 10:23 AM on March 18, 2003


speaking of bad poetry...

They'll never be happy
Til we all speak Iraqi
And all our kids
Smoke wacky baccy


bad freeper...no tax cut!
posted by mcsweetie at 10:23 AM on March 18, 2003


I think the site should include a section of drubken hate mail received from warbloggers.
posted by whatnot at 10:26 AM on March 18, 2003


Definitely, whatnot. But with no names or links, so they can't do it for publicity.
posted by Ufez Jones at 10:43 AM on March 18, 2003


Nope. Just from your stance.

You're right, I wasn't thinking. I forgot any humor divergent from the stale Bush-Is-Stupid comedy stylings should be discouraged, or that a little objectivity is too much to ask. People, please remember--jokes are not allowed in the next few days. We must instead remain stubbornly single-minded and unironic--just like the Bush cabinet!
posted by dhoyt at 10:47 AM on March 18, 2003


Metafilter: self-obsessed nerds banding together.
posted by Skot at 10:50 AM on March 18, 2003


Bad poetry writing teenage vegans and self-obsessed nerds banding together will no doubt bring about world peace.

Very funny.

Even from my stance.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 10:51 AM on March 18, 2003


Bad poetry writing teenage vegans and self-obsessed nerds banding together will no doubt bring about world peace.

No. People killing other people will no doubt bring about peace. After all, it's worked so far over the milleniums, right?

Nah, that's not quite accurate, now is it. Warbloggers sitting on their fat asses because they're too cowardly to even have the courage of their convictions and instead hiring other people to go kill children will no doubt bring about world peace. After all, it's worked so far, right?

There's some more "humor" for you, "dhoyt".

Ha ha. Ha ha.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:43 AM on March 18, 2003


I'm not a Bush-supporter or a "warblogger", f_and_m, you little ray of sunshine. Nor was Bondcliff's comment funny because war casualties are somehow funny. It was funny because he managed to capture a comical little image of how many bloggers are often depicted (bad-poetry writing teens, etc).

Sheesh, do you *ever* smile at anything? Or is it all a smug ~wink?
posted by dhoyt at 11:53 AM on March 18, 2003


Wow. For a site that started YESTERDAY, the list of peacebloggers grew pretty quickly.

[this is good]
posted by ColdChef at 12:00 PM on March 18, 2003


PS: f_and_m, unless you are posting to MeFi from Baghdad, taking time out from your job as a human shield--spare us the "courage of their convictions" crap.
posted by dhoyt at 12:02 PM on March 18, 2003


Warbloggers sitting on their fat asses because they're too cowardly to even have the courage of their convictions and instead hiring other people to go kill children will no doubt bring about world peace.

Sorry, would you mind telling me what a "warblogger" is? Is that someone who is helping wage war by being on a list of pro-war websites?

Wow. For a site that started YESTERDAY, the list of peacebloggers grew pretty quickly.


Surprising, especially considering the grueling process one must go thorugh to quallify for the list.
posted by bondcliff at 12:03 PM on March 18, 2003


Surprising, especially considering the grueling process one must go thorugh[sic] to quallify [sic] for the list.

Well, I think jpoulos was considering a swimsuit round, but nobody wants to see Kafkaesque in a thong. But I can't wait until the talent competition, cause I can twirl a baton like a muthafucker.
posted by ColdChef at 12:18 PM on March 18, 2003


For a site that started YESTERDAY, the list of peacebloggers grew pretty quickly

Those peace girls are simple minded and easy lays, so the smart boys hop to it and ride the peace train into their shorts. Heck, if I was still a horny adolescent I'd be carrying a condom filled protest sign too.
posted by HTuttle at 12:22 PM on March 18, 2003


Surprising, especially considering the grueling process one must go thorugh to quallify for the list.

That seems a little rough.

Obviously, this is a step in creating some sort of community of people, brought together by their dislike for this war. The participants can in no way effect change in physical terms on the conflict. What they can do is be counted as opposed to the war.

That's all. It doesn't have to be earth-shattering.
posted by Kafkaesque at 12:24 PM on March 18, 2003


The way this discussion is going is a perfect illustration of at least part of the reason why, even though I'm (when all is said and done) against this war, I am not branding myself a "peaceblog."

I consider jpoulos a freind, and have absolutely no doubt that his intentions are good, but I've got my reasons.

The first reason is because I don't think it will do a damn bit of good. I don't think Bush and his crew are big blog readers. So if it isn't actually gonna affect things, what does this all amount to? A buch of people patting themselves on the back for having the right opinion. Forming a clique around it. I'm not one for throwin' up the colors.

And then what? Do we declare those who disagree with us "enemies?" Start mocking them from our blogs. Hell, foldy and mcsweetie's comments here have showh that the freeper crowd does not have a monopoly on condecending self-righteousness. I'm willing to bet that chest beating of that sort has converted more people to the right than the left. Ever since 9/11, I've had enough overheated rhetoric and zealotry from all quarters to last me a life time. You could even make the argument that that's what caused the whole mess in the first place.

So however well-intentioned, that's where I see this going. So thanks, but no thanks.
posted by jonmc at 12:28 PM on March 18, 2003


Put this on, Kaf. *twirls teal thong bikini*
posted by ColdChef at 12:30 PM on March 18, 2003


For a site that started YESTERDAY, the list of peacebloggers grew pretty quickly

[this is meaningless]
posted by Dennis Murphy at 12:31 PM on March 18, 2003


Guys, I note that bondcliff has signed himself up (under the inimitable slogan "War is like, bad, and stuff", which you really do have to admit is pretty damn funny), so I think that's where the "grueling process" thing came from.

Not much anyone can do about that sort of thing in a self-identifying group, but that's the way it goes - there will always be detractors who self-identify to mock the endeavor, as well as supporters who agree with but don't care to self-identify as part of the group.
posted by yhbc at 12:38 PM on March 18, 2003


bondcliff: i saw your attempt to be on the list for the troll that it was, but i still put you on there. there's an "approval" process only to keep out porn sites and those who would seek to undermine the site by intentionally submitting those sites whose opinions directly contradict PeaceBlog's stated intention.

I'm not looking to play censor or to scrutinize anyone's politics. I just want a place where people with similar opinions can find each other.
posted by jpoulos at 12:40 PM on March 18, 2003


The first reason is because I don't think it will do a damn bit of good. I don't think Bush and his crew are big blog readers. So if it isn't actually gonna affect things, what does this all amount to? A buch of people patting themselves on the back for having the right opinion.

Jon, my junk-food scarfing pal, I think you've misinterpreted jpoulos's intention. I don't think it's a self-serving thing at all. And I don't think he's trying to change the President's mind ("Whoa! Adampsyche is Anti-War? Time for a new strategery!").

I think it's like kaf said above: "It doesn't have to be earth-shattering."

Peaceblogs is just a way for people to know that others feel the way they do. It's no different from any other like-minded gathering place.

On preview, what the blogfucker said.

*searches for a jonmc sized tiara and scepter*
posted by ColdChef at 12:46 PM on March 18, 2003


FWIW, I'm not exactly pro-war. I'm not entirly anti-war either. I have mixed feelings about it. I think a lot of people do.

So yeah, I think I qualify for your list because I too, wish for peace. I can't imagine anyone doesn't. I'm sure even our Prez, whom I dispise, would rather have peace if he thought he could. I also think it's way more complicated than a lot of people seem to think. Too many people see it as black and white.

Which is why a list like that just seems so pointless to me. Who the hell doesn't want peace? I realize you're trying to do something that you feel will make a difference, I just see it as nothing more than what jonmc discribed.

I'm of the belief webloggers aren't quite as important as most of them seem to think they are.
posted by bondcliff at 12:51 PM on March 18, 2003


Interesting points, jonmc, but I've joined, for the same reasons as I would join a protest march.
posted by romakimmy at 12:51 PM on March 18, 2003


To add to ColdChef, it's also a way for peacebloggers to get news from each other that may not be coming from mainstream channels, and then to get that news out to people outside the peaceblogger network. Seems like a worthwhile cause to me.
posted by soyjoy at 12:54 PM on March 18, 2003


Chef, I have no doubt that's what poulos intends, but I can see it going ugly real fast. This thread has already had some bellicosity and nastiness. That's to a large degree (that and the fact that most activists of any stripe are generally speaking unpleasant and humorless) why I don't get involved in politics much. That and I always wind up feeling like I'm being examined by some inspector with an ideological checklist on a clipboard that I could never hope to pass.

Is jpoulos that kind of person. Of course not, he's probably one of the most fairminded people I've ever met, but these groups have minds of their own.
posted by jonmc at 12:58 PM on March 18, 2003


I think a peaceblogger movement is worthwhile for no other reason than to stand in opposition to the whole "warblogger" thing, which seems to have gotten an awful lot of attention.
posted by jennyb at 1:03 PM on March 18, 2003


it seems no dissent is good enough for the pro-war beast that can't be fed.
posted by mcsweetie at 1:03 PM on March 18, 2003


Who the hell doesn't want peace?

Dead Italian futurists.

"We will glorify war—the world’s only hygiene—militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman. "
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:05 PM on March 18, 2003


>I don't think Bush and his crew are big blog readers.

That probably isn't the point. Why can't there be a peace community for the sake of discussion and commiseration?
posted by skallas at 1:06 PM on March 18, 2003


"Bad poetry writing teenage vegans and self-obsessed nerds banding together will no doubt bring about world peace."

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
-- Margaret Mead
posted by ?! at 1:08 PM on March 18, 2003


good one PinkStainlessTail. those futurists were some wacky bastards.
posted by poopy at 1:09 PM on March 18, 2003


I have conflicting feelings towards the war, only in the broad sense am I against it, and have no love for the anti-war protestors I have seen, nor am I a big joiner.
Having said all that, my motivation for happily including myself on this list is simply the fact that, overall, I feel this war was imposed on the American public, and most of the rest of the world, with it's launching a foregone conclusion by the Bush administration, something I resent in a democracy.

I'm not looking to do anything by adding my site to the list but be known as one of the people who feel the same way.
Any larger goals of simply signing up to something would be silly, and I think these people are well aware of that.
posted by dong_resin at 1:13 PM on March 18, 2003


haha! *snorts coke through nose* best laugh i've had all week-- thanks!
posted by xmutex at 1:22 PM on March 18, 2003


You didn't have to tell me you were snorting coke.
I figured that one out for myself.
posted by dong_resin at 1:38 PM on March 18, 2003


I admire jpoulos, but I think people should at least consider the possibility that fighting to preserve the status quo is not the same thing as fighting for peace. I found this message from Tom Watson, who is a member of Parliament from the Labour party, very telling:

Another sleepless night, another tense day in parliament.

Yesterday I ended up three down from Robin Cook when he made his resignation speech. What I would have done to have moved to the end of the row, but once you're in, you're in. His speech was typed (so he must have been writing it for some time) and his hands were quivering (it must have been very difficult).

To hear his moral case for no conflict contrasted to the moral case for a conflict put to me earlier in the day by the PM of the Kurds in Northern Iraq. "We have had 35 years of tyranny, and this is our last chance" he told me.

I also met a woman who had witnessed her sister drenched in petrol and set alight by Saddam's Republican Guard. 100 people were made to witness the event and threatened with being shot if they tried to extinguish the flames. She talked about the acid pools and the torture chambers. She told me how 21 members of her family died in the chemical attack at Halabja.

Why am I writing this? Well, it's because I'm now convinced there is not a moral case for inaction.

Every option has consequences, even the status quo. So our deliberations today will be to find the least-worst solution to this cursed problem.

I know for many of you it's simply easier to categorize everyone who supports military action as bloodthirsty hawks and warmongers. But for me and many others, nothing could be further from the truth. I abhor war in all of its forms. But I consider myself a moral person, and for me in all cases the moral choice that must be made is the one that in the long run minimizes human suffering to the greatest possible extent -- not only for the west, but for Iraq itself. While nobody has a crystal ball, reasonable people can conclude that allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power will lead to far more death, suffering, and destruction than the coming action to remove him. To me, that's the very definition of moral. To me, that's the very definition of "peace."

So please try to bear that in mind before labelling yourselves the sole proponents of "peace."
posted by pardonyou? at 1:41 PM on March 18, 2003


I'm repeating myself, but pro-peace(or anti-war)!=pro-Saddam.
posted by romakimmy at 1:53 PM on March 18, 2003


[this is meaningless]

This thread has already had some bellicosity and nastiness.

Relatively speaking, it's been one of the most tame I've seen in recent weeks, and that's saying a lot.

Good for you, J-Po.
posted by adampsyche at 2:13 PM on March 18, 2003


If I believed this war was being fought in the interests of the Iraqi people, I'd be all over it. I think the only thing military force is good for is the interruption of genocide.

But human rights is actually just the last thing Bush had left to cross off his laundry list of justifications for this war. It went from harboring terrorists (sorry, no evidence), to nuclear weapons (manufactured evidence), to chemical & biological weapons, to "drones" (duct tape and balsa wood), to...what was that again? Oh yeah, the civilians.

It's not about "blood for oil". I castigate "the left" for thinking too small. It's about geopolitical dominance in the region. Just as the neoconservatives have been advocating for years. All the human rights arguments made recently are just manipulation. America has never made policy on the basis of human rights.

I agree with dong_resin that it bothers me--a lot--that this administration has done nothing but lie to us about its motives. This causes me (along with our abandonment of Afghanistan) some trepidation about what we're going to leave Iraq to, when Iran and N. Korea draw our attention away.

I despise--despise--Saddam and all his kin. But I'm with Chris Hedges, who actually went into the secret police headquarters, saw the videotapes stored there, and witnessed the meathooks humans once swung from. There is no justification for piling atrocity on atrocity.

That said, I understand the temptation to pursue war here. All I can say is that it is the same temptation that befell the first French Republic, and indeed most great Republics in history. Think of Gandalf, contemplating taking up the Ring...

"I would take the Ring, out of the desire to do good. But...through me, the Ring would wield a power to terrible to imagine".

Empires aren't born to do evil. They are born by the conscious manipulation of free people's understandable desire to free the world--by force.
posted by simian at 2:14 PM on March 18, 2003


If I believed this war was being fought in the interests of the Iraqi people, I'd be all over it. I think the only thing military force is good for is the interruption of genocide.

But human rights is actually just the last thing Bush had left to cross off his laundry list of justifications for this war.


I guess I would ask you why your own opinion pivots on Bush's justification, if the net effect will be the same? I am not a Bush supporter, and I think he and his ham-handed administration bungled any opportunity to obtain broad worldwide support. But even that wouldn't have changed the outcome -- it would have been the same war, with the same result, only with some more soldiers from different countries.

My moral judgment doesn't depend on the stated reasons for ridding the world of Saddam Hussein. The fact that he will be deposed is enough for me.
posted by pardonyou? at 2:21 PM on March 18, 2003


I guess I would ask you why your own opinion pivots on Bush's justification, if the net effect will be the same?

Because the net effect won't be the same. At least, I don't think there's any historical precedent for it, and it goes against my understanding of both practical politics and human nature. I could be wrong! (Please?)

Saddam will be deposed--of that there is little doubt. Best case: He is assassinated on the first night of battle. Very little bloodshed.

Put aside the inevitable (to my mind, based on what I've read) chaos that is going to erupt when Kurd, Shiite, and Sunni start going for each other's throat. I believe, based on what I think is driving this whole effort, that Iran and possibly Syria are next to go. North Korea may force our hand at any time, though. And by force our hand, I mean nuke Seoul.

Perpetual war will inevitably a) corrupt our republic (more) and b) do more harm than good--eventually. That, in my moral judgement, sucks. It sucks even more given the "ham-handed" diplomacy of the administration, which will accelerate both problems.

You are focusing on the 'sameness', which I note requires some narrowing of the mental lenses. Some people have put it this way: right war, wrong man. Which makes it the wrong war.
posted by simian at 2:39 PM on March 18, 2003


Sorry if that was less than elegant. In a nutshell, I think that motives matter very much in this case. Other's motives put their actions in context, which is necessary for a full appreciation of the potential consequences.

Although the war may produce a beneficial end, narrowly construed (the removal of Saddam) it has already done such damage to the international community that the risk of more catastrophic problems has grown considerably. Already, more damage than the narrow end justifies. And that's the tip of the iceberg...
posted by simian at 2:45 PM on March 18, 2003


I'm repeating myself, but pro-peace(or anti-war)!=pro-Saddam.

Rommakimmy, is Lupo asking/telling the men of the military to throw down their weapons? Is he asking/telling folks for them to rise up & revolt against the President? Is he signing up folks to create a means to undermine teh government?

He is exercising his right as an US citizen, representation, Freedom of Speech.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:32 PM on March 18, 2003


Did not see this Rommakimmy...Interesting points, jonmc, but I've joined, for the same reasons as I would join a protest march....errrr

ColdChef, I think my thong-bikini is pulling too tight...
posted by thomcatspike at 3:38 PM on March 18, 2003


pardonyou, I have do doubt many folks out there do see that the war is morally justified. The point of Peacebloggers, however, is to stand in opposition of the lunatic right-wing fringe of Warbloggers (LGF, Instapundit, Tim Blair, Andrew Sullivan, you know the deal) who support the war for immorral reasons. Do these people actually give a shit what Saddam Hussein does to a bunch of arabs? Hardly. They support the way because it will result in the deaths of arabs, not because it will liberate them. That is the morally reprehensible position, and that's the position peacebloggers are standing in opposition to.

Are warbloggers really desperate to stop Saddam's dreadful human rights abuses? Hardly. I doubt many have supported the efforts of groups like Food not Bombs or Voices in the Wilderness - they probably write these groups off as "leftist terrorist sympathisers" or some bullshit.
posted by Jimbob at 3:49 PM on March 18, 2003


The poin of Peacebloggers, however, is to stand in opposition of the lunatic right-wing fringe of Warbloggers

I think a peaceblogger movement is worthwhile for no other reason than to stand in opposition to the whole "warblogger" thing

People have joined, and will continue to do so, for a variety of reasons, each as personal as their own blogs. Myself, I pay absolutely no attention to the warbloggers™ and their ilk. I could care less about the attention they get and I personally would hate to see PeaceBlogs become the subject of a nasty flame war, thereby compromising any legitimacy it has in the first place.

Granted, some are signing up to piss them off, and that's fine, but please don't pigeonhole this project for your own personal reasons when others' may be comletely different.
posted by Ufez Jones at 4:27 PM on March 18, 2003


I preferred warbloggers back when, sick of the little farting noises they made all day, their moms took away their Action Men and they segued straight into spluttering into their tear-drenched Mowgli pillows.

How very war-like and fearless to sign up for a quiet, peaceful initiative like jpoulos's. That'll show'em!

Bah. Jane's fighting shits, the lot of them.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:29 PM on March 18, 2003


Those peace girls are simple minded and easy lays, so the smart boys hop to it and ride the peace train into their shorts.

HTuttle's war preparations obviously entail stocking up on gallons of hand cream for onanistic purposes. Because that's the only sex he'll be getting for the foreseeable.
posted by riviera at 6:42 PM on March 18, 2003


I haven't taken a U.S. history course in a few years, but I seem to recall a pretty heavy emphasis on studying what people wrote during the American revolution.

Maybe no one who signs up for this site will write the next "Common Sense," but you never know.
posted by Cyrano at 6:52 PM on March 18, 2003


Those peace girls are simple minded and easy lays, so the smart boys hop to it and ride the peace train into their shorts. Heck, if I was still a horny adolescent I'd be carrying a condom filled protest sign too.

Boy, you sure could have fooled me. That statement was very adolescent.
posted by bas67 at 8:26 PM on March 18, 2003


kudos to jpoulos for a wonderful effort. I fail to see why people quietly and tastefully taking a public stance for peace should inspire such controversy or be the subject of mockery. Go figure.

...and htuttle, I am really hoping that you simply forgot to include some disclaimer or tag marking your statement as satire...otherwise, it paints a very unflattering view of you!
posted by madamjujujive at 9:43 PM on March 18, 2003


Anybody else using mozilla 1.3 having trouble getting this page to look right? Probably just me...
posted by Space Coyote at 10:23 PM on March 18, 2003


Yeah, apparently peace blogging folks all have 21 inch monitors running at ultra-high resolutions.

Then again, I feel kind of silly bitching about some website's design width when innocent people are about to die for reasons neither I nor they probably understand. *shrug*
posted by canoeguide at 10:57 PM on March 18, 2003


I'll help you out canoeguide. This guy on American TV keeps saying the reason is because they're "evil doers."

Hope that helps.
posted by ?! at 5:31 AM on March 19, 2003


Maybe no one who signs up for this site will write the next "Common Sense," but you never know.

Again, the most disappointing aspect of the pro-war arguments I've seen here and elsewhere is their relative lack of content and tendency to consist mainly of insults (e.g., anti-idiotarians). Sheesh.
posted by adampsyche at 6:14 AM on March 19, 2003


Granted, some are signing up to piss them off, and that's fine, but please don't pigeonhole this project for your own personal reasons when others' may be comletely different.

Oof, sorry, I felt I needed to justify my original comment in light of Ufez Jones's response. I wasn't trying to pigeon hold the project at all, just presenting one reason (among many) why it might be worthwhile. Among the many other stated reasons, it might bring some attention to blogs that are in opposition to war, present a different viewpoint in an organized cohesive fashion.

I haven't signed up, not because I don't think it's a worthwhile endeavor, I do, but because I don't update my blog enough to feel comfortable publicizing it in that way, so I honestly had no agenda with my comment other than what I just clarified.
posted by jennyb at 9:06 AM on March 19, 2003


Apparently, many many Brazilians are peace lovers.
posted by ColdChef at 1:43 PM on March 21, 2003




« Older SETI @ Home   |   bookwormariffic batman Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments