Ask Not For Whom the Cluephone Rings
June 22, 2005 2:48 AM   Subscribe

GoDaddy.com no longer condones torture. It is now obvious to me that this is no trivial issue and it is one that our Government (both executive and legislative branches) needs to consider carefully. [update for Monday's fpp]
posted by Heywood Mogroot (40 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: original thread still on front page, please go comment there.



 
So now, torture is bad, but arresting and holding people with no legal recourse is still OK. What a loser. He probably got a bunch of mail from customers who threatened to yank their accounts and decided it was time to do some serious back pedaling.
posted by doctor_negative at 3:02 AM on June 22, 2005


So now, torture is bad, but arresting and holding people with no legal recourse is still OK.

No, even on Monday Parsons backtracked/amplified his argument to agree that McCain's call for proper due process was a good idea.

btw, the opensecrets.org database only lists a single $500 contribution to a Republican congressman for 2004, so the guy doesn't really appear to be that much of a partisan, perhaps just someone who has been listening to too much Limbaugh. His original article, kindly saved by MFer FlamingBore, records the position he had to climb down from. Parsons still keeps with the Senator Durbin complaint, but it looks like the America-haters are on that case, now.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:08 AM on June 22, 2005


Strikes me as a weasely backtrack. While I think he's utterly wrong, I'd probably have more respect for him if he'd stuck to his guns.
posted by rhymer at 3:13 AM on June 22, 2005


While it's good that he no longer considers the issue "trivial", you still have to question the judgement that had previously lead him to think it so.

Obviously he got enough angry email -- much of it, no doubt, promising to end business relationships -- to make him "reconsider" his stance on the issue. I'm none too impressed.
posted by clevershark at 3:34 AM on June 22, 2005


Geez, such cynicism. Isn't this what "we" want? To change people's minds, to get them to really rethink their positions, through reasonable discussion?

While I think he's utterly wrong, I'd probably have more respect for him if he'd stuck to his guns.

I may be a simpleton, but I have more respect for someone who can admit they were wrong.
posted by tr33hggr at 4:02 AM on June 22, 2005


clevershark -- it's tough to know where he's coming from.

Someone who just listens to Rush and the random snippet from FOXNEWS would likely crank out that post. It's a shopping list of frames ...
  • The "dark day" of 9/11
  • Contrary to the America-haters' claims, America did not deserve it.
  • Our military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and "other places" have kept the terrorists off balance and on the defensive.
  • We must destroy any foreign element that threatens the sacred US soil (body fluids?).
  • The detainees in Gitmo are the sworn enemies of the US
  • Durbin likened our actions at Gitmo to those of the Nazis etc, "a ridiculous exaggeration and inappropriate comparison" since they killed many millions and we haven't killed anyone
  • the interrogations at Gitmo are "very mild". It is important to remember that the practices of the M.E. are very brutal.
  • Key prisoners haven't talked, perhaps because our methods are too weak.
  • Given the type of individuals we have incarcerated at Gitmo (they would love to gouge out your eyes --- and most certainly my eyes).
  • Critics (like Sen. Durbin) just think it's terrible that our military would deprive a prisoner of sleep, or allow him to get cold enough to shiver, in order to protect our country -- so we should close the prison.
  • I was watching The Beltway Boys (a political talk show on Fox) this evening. One commentator on the show even suggested that we install a camera in each cell at Gitmo to make sure there are no abuses. Once again, this man needs to remember that the people in those cells are our sworn enemies. They are lucky to be alive. We could have handed them over (he doesn't use the technical term of rendition) to governments in the mideast, and we would have gotten the intelligence out of them overnight.
  • We need to do whatever it takes (within reason of course, because that's the American way) to win this war.
  • After writing this article, I've once again watched a video showing people jumping to their deaths, one after another, from the World Trade Center.
Sounds more like textbook case of FOXNEWS on the brain.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 4:02 AM on June 22, 2005


Well, I certainly sent him a longish email detailing just why his originally stated position was so offensive. Obviously this is what made him change his mind.
posted by Decani at 4:15 AM on June 22, 2005


tr33hggr writes "Geez, such cynicism. Isn't this what 'we' want? To change people's minds, to get them to really rethink their positions, through reasonable discussion?"

You may choose to believe that this is what actually happened, or you may choose to be skeptical of this "rethinking".

That being said, didn't GoDaddy also get a lot of tongues wagging a few months ago for yanking anti-Minutemen web sites?
posted by clevershark at 4:15 AM on June 22, 2005


No doubt clevershark, I'm not in a position to say I believe his switch was driven by his heart or mind rather than his wallet. But I'd like to think we can give someone a chance, rather than jumping immediately on the "he's doing it for publicity/money" bandwagon. Isn't that akin to calling Kerry a flip-flopper as if it's always a terrible thing?
posted by tr33hggr at 4:46 AM on June 22, 2005


And just to reiterate, I have more respect for/would rather have a president that is able to look back and recognize error in judgement, atone, apologize, and change course, than a maniacal idiot who refuses to back down from any position, no matter how ludicrous or dangerous.
posted by tr33hggr at 4:48 AM on June 22, 2005


A little off topic, I realize. But to the point, ideologically, I think.
posted by tr33hggr at 4:49 AM on June 22, 2005


you may choose to be skeptical of this "rethinking"

Look at all the premises Bob's got fucked up above. He's a poster child for the 70% of the Republicans who still feel going into Iraq was a good idea, and who think liberals are America-haters who just want to see Bush fall on his face wrt Iraq.

These people simply do not have a good grasp on reality; largely, IMV, thanks to the Republican propaganda outlets like FOXNEWS and Limbaugh who keep spinning this shit six ways from Sunday... GIGO.

Parsons admits it was Durbin who prompted the rant, IMV Bob was fully bought into the frame that Sen Durbin is just another america-hating 5th-columnist PC-police liberal who didn't understand the facts surrounding Gitmo, that our military still needs to break down these cold-blooded killers to more effectively hunt down their compatriots before they kill us.

fwiw, I still detect some passive-aggressiveness with his posts late last night:

So far, I'm very happy to tell you that there's been minimal impact on Go Daddy's business. In fact, sales for the past few days have been up. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the Blog article -- one way or another.

As an aside, I believe your buddy Dick Durbin gave a tearful apology yesterday in front of the Senate. What do you think Bob, was he sincere? Can only liberals be sincere?


So he is still apparently fully bought into the whole molly-coddling America-hating frame wrt Durbin. Plus he has yet to really come out against torture for any reason other than it doesn't work as well as psychological approaches.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 4:55 AM on June 22, 2005


You're all mad.
You got what you said you wanted,
but all you really wanted was a fight.
You say you respect people more if they can't change there opinions.
Since when was dogmatism such a desirable character feature.
If he was motivated by nothing but money he would never have posted the article.
I'm really shocked to see so few of you saying
- "He's admitted he was wrong; good for him; I'll keep my hosting with GoDaddy."
In fact, all you're now doing is trawling past articles so you can continue to hate him.
Welcome to LiberalismFilter. Burning repentant witches since 1999.
posted by seanyboy at 5:02 AM on June 22, 2005


Just gone back to the original article.
heh. I like the name "Chav Naive"
posted by seanyboy at 5:06 AM on June 22, 2005


I have more respect for/would rather have a president that is able to look back and recognize error in judgement, atone, apologize, and change course, than a maniacal idiot who refuses to back down from any position, no matter how ludicrous or dangerous.

But that's sticking to his guns, and that's admirable.

Right?
posted by dreamsign at 5:11 AM on June 22, 2005


Wrong, IMHO.
posted by tr33hggr at 5:19 AM on June 22, 2005


may be a simpleton, but I have more respect for someone who can admit they were wrong.
posted by tr33hggr


i'm with tr33hggr and seanyboy on this.

i understand where you other guys are coming from, but they have hit the nail on the head here.

if you don't give a person credit when they admit being wrong, what will it take?
posted by nola at 5:19 AM on June 22, 2005


Sorry, but he blew it with his first posting. Although his new post has a somewhat repentant tone, I'm not into redemption; either he's a complete idiot or he's lying. Given that he's a businessman, I'm vastly more inclined to believe it's the latter. His carefully-worded repudiation of his previous sentiments have that Tilex with Bleach(TM) PR-sanitizing stench about them.

Either way, it's irrelevant at this point; he's lost my business. I don't particularly care what his beliefs are; but if you're running a fairly visible company, be prepared for a backlash when shooting your mouth off. His comments reflect on his company, and today's backtracking has only highlighted the impression I've always had of GoDaddy: weaselly.
posted by Floach at 5:24 AM on June 22, 2005


What's with his "abstract of text as page title", I've never had to use tinyurl on a page not titled by a machine before.

Oh yeah, he referred to a connection between 9/11 and Iraq in his original post, thus earning the ignorant twit badge, and his (in)sincerity is of little importance to me. I'm with Floach, dudn't matter, bye.
posted by Jack Karaoke at 5:32 AM on June 22, 2005


nola, it's not entirely clear Parson's admitted anything substantial. He backed off of torture because he was told it doesn't work as well as less inhumane methods, not because it is counter-productive and/or self-defeating.

He says he never advocated the use of torture yet he argued that we should not try to prevent abuses in Gitmo, that the detainees are lucky to be alive, and that if we wanted to get the information we could ship them to a Mid East ally and we would have the information out of them the next day.

He also linked in the Iraq thing in the global war on terror; if anything that has detracted from our ability to prosecute the fight against AQ.

For the first page of his comments he refused to apologize, instead saying he was only clarifying his remarks (he finally broke down on the 2nd page).

He draws pride from the 50%+ of his readership that supported his original position, and still does, with the legerdemain that they too now think torture is bad.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he still seems to be claiming that our "interrogation methods were based on humiliation and mild physical discomfort".

In short, it is difficult to figure out exactly where Parsons is coming from, still, other than he has promised to keep the political rants out of his blog going forward.

On the plus side he did come out to support due process for all detainees.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 5:33 AM on June 22, 2005


The only thing better than a FPP filled with people asking why it was worth generating a FPP about the personal thoughts of a random CEO is a follow-up thread clarifying those thoughts!
posted by VulcanMike at 5:33 AM on June 22, 2005


"Not everyone was upset about the article. In fact, I heard from a good number of readers who were very supportive. Based on the survey that is taken at the end of the article, about 40% of those visiting the blog indicated that they liked the article. Those that disliked the article however were far more likely to comment. Many dissenting readers commented several times, and voted each time they commented. Adjusting for those who voted many times, my guess is that the split is at least 50-50."

Translation: I was right, but right doesn't make rich, so, what the hell. Opinions about the matter are split anyway. So, even though I'm right, I'll appear to be a nice guy and thank everybody who gave me their liberal shit, hoping to stop people taking their business elsewhere.

Stupid fucking hypocrite.
posted by acrobat at 5:38 AM on June 22, 2005


if you don't give a person credit when they admit being wrong, what will it take?

"Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:41 AM on June 22, 2005


As someone who is non-partisan, yet somewhat left-leaning, I have taken occasional joy in seeing rabid right-wingers taken to task for their words. However, I think what most of us "liberals" really want is for these guys to wake up and change their minds.

We often complain that one of their worst traits is their inability to admit when they are wrong. Yet now a right-leaning person has done just that, and now he is verbally crucified anyway.

Has the left become as heartless and cynical as the right?
Can people never be satisfied? I guess some people expect that if he was sincere he'd shut down his business and go work for Greenpeace.

I understand a healthy skepticism of what might be construed as simply a face-saving PR move, but this doesn't smell like that. He's not a politician. After all, I'm sure he's now probably getting a backlash from the right for "catering to liberals" or some such crap.

What we really need is for more so-called "righties" to do just what Bob Parsons just did: state that he made assumptions and was wrong. When they do that we should at least applaud the effort because this is something we need to see more of. If we just blow it off and call it a lie, we discourage such admissions from others. Think about it, if every time someone on the right comes forth and admits they were wrong and we attack them anyway, why should we ever expect change?

If we've really become this cynical and hard-hearted, then we've become the enemy.
posted by omnithought at 5:51 AM on June 22, 2005


The original FPP is still on the, you know... FP. Updates like this belong in the original post.
posted by mkultra at 5:56 AM on June 22, 2005


tr33hggr : "Geez, such cynicism. Isn't this what 'we' want? To change people's minds, to get them to really rethink their positions, through reasonable discussion?"

The two aren't in opposition. If what "we" want is to change people's minds through reasonable discussion, but "we" don't believe that he's changed his mind, but is packpedaling for financial reasons, then this isn't what we want.

tr33hggr : "I may be a simpleton, but I have more respect for someone who can admit they were wrong."

There we are in total agreement.

seanyboy : "You're all mad.
"You got what you said you wanted"


As you mentioned in another thread, and, as countered in another thread: I don't recall all of us saying we wanted him to recant. I believe a good portion of us wanted to move our business elsewhere. You're ascribing goals to us that most of us haven't voiced, and then saying we're crazy by not being satisfied by the conditions that you assumed incorrectly were what we wanted.

seanyboy : "You say you respect people more if they can't change there opinions. "

Er, no, rhymer does. If you follow "You all" with "You", the logical assumption is that you're referring to the plural "You" again. We do not say we respect people more if they can't change their opinion. Rhymer does.

seanyboy : "I'm really shocked to see so few of you saying
"- 'He's admitted he was wrong; good for him; I'll keep my hosting with GoDaddy.'"


Then you probably have an underdeveloped sense of cynicism/realism. People say things all the time that they don't mean. You may consider us all evil for not believing every apology in the world to be automatically sincere and heartfelt, but any amount of watching people caught in scandals will show you that, if what they did was illegal, 99% or so apologize, and if what they did was not illegal but might hurt business, 95% or so apologize. If you honestly believe that everyone who gets caught in a scandal apologizes from the bottom of their heart, you have an advanced sense of naivette.

That said, I'm not saying he didn't mean it. I don't know. But the odds are stacked against his recant being sincere.

seanyboy : "Welcome to LiberalismFilter. Burning repentant witches since 1999."

So if lambasting someone is burning at the stake, and you're lambasting us..."Seanyboy, burning witches since August 5, 2002".

nola : "i'm with tr33hggr and seanyboy on this.

"if you don't give a person credit when they admit being wrong, what will it take?"


I'm with tr33hggr (a person who changes their mind deserves more respect than a stubborn bastard), but not with seanyboy (he said he changed his mind, therefore he really did change his mind). The two positions are related, but not the same. And, what will it take? Well, something that demonstrates sincerity. I don't know what that is. It's a tough situation, and I don't envy Bob's position.
posted by Bugbread at 5:56 AM on June 22, 2005


omnithought : "Has the left become as heartless and cynical as the right?
"Can people never be satisfied? I guess some people expect that if he was sincere he'd shut down his business and go work for Greenpeace. "


Parts of the left have always been cynical. And other parts of the left have been non-cynical hippies and Marxist revolutionaries who are either ineffectual and totally removed from reality, or effectual in fucking up parts of reality. I've always found the cynical side of liberalism to be more effective and useful. The problem isn't cynicism, it's blind cynicism, an inability to accept some things as sincere. From what I can tell here, it's less an issue of bad, blind cynicism as realistic, guarded cynicism, i.e. not necessarily taking things at face value, but not denying the possibility that they may be true.

As far as "heartlessness", I dunno. I hope folks still have a heart, but I don't think "having a heart" means "accepting all statements at face value".

And while I mentioned that it would take something that demonstrates sincerity to prove his sincerity, I'm not going to be silly and say "work for Greenpeace" or the like. That's just as silly as the naivette that says all statements should be accepted at face value. I'd say that the followup has moved him from the position of "jackass" to the position of "probable jackass". I suppose a few columns in the future about Gitmo that make sense would be enough. It's not like I want blood or anything, just something that makes me believe he's sincere. And I won't say he's lying, just that I suspect that he may be. So, yeah, I haven't let him borrow the keys to my car to take my daughter out on a date, but I haven't put him on the "evil bastard, never to be trusted" list either.

Remember when you were a kid, and you did something bad, got caught, and apologized? Your teacher wouldn't be as angry as when you were doing what you shouldn't have, but she wouldn't immediately switch back to normal, either. She'd have her suspicious eye on you, and as you continued to not do bad stuff, that eye would become more and more forgiving, until she was sure of your sincerity, and then the eye would be off you. Basically the same kind of situation here.
posted by Bugbread at 6:10 AM on June 22, 2005


The original FPP is still on the, you know... FP. Updates like this belong in the original post.

No, no, not enough people would have seen it there. It's very important that we all know exactly what Bob thinks about everything. I look forward to posts about Bob's views on the new Iraqi constitution, the search for Bin Laden, next year's congressional elections, the possible Hillary run for the White House, the ethics of stem cell research, the need for space exploration, and whether he likes pancakes for breakfast. Because who wants to buy hosting services from somebody you don't know as well as you know your own family? It takes a lot of work to keep up with the political and social views of everyone from whom you buy goods and services, but it's worth it, right? Because it means you wake up in the morning with a smile; you know you're living right.
posted by languagehat at 6:16 AM on June 22, 2005


Actually, I give him a lot of credit. Standard weasel speak uses the word "if" as often as possible, and he doesn't.

He stands up and says "I did this. I said this."

That's much better than 95% of the GOP.

Remember: If somebody says "I'm sorry if I offended you", what he's really saying is "And, of course, if you are not offended, then I'm in no way sorry for what I said."

If someone was really trying to apologize, they would *know* that they did, in fact, offend, thus, there's no reason to qualify it. Or, in short:

"I'm sorry I offended." Apology.
"If I offended, I'm sorry." Bullshit.

And, because I'm in a bad mood, I really am sorry if you are stupid enough to believe anything a GOP supporter says, and so are the thousands of innocents who've died because of them.

(Hint: Real apologies don't assign blame to other parties, either.)

Finally: Apologies aren't the end, they're the start. You apologize, you make amends, then, you don't do whatever it was you did wrong again.

This gent is at the first part of the process. Cynical me says he'll be bashing traitor liberal commies before the month is out, but he does earn the credit for starting, and, who knows, maybe he will turn out to be an upstanding guy who was misinformed.
posted by eriko at 6:27 AM on June 22, 2005


Y'know, when my father worked for RIA, GoDaddy was in his territory. Parsons wanted to link to subscriber content for free, under the theory that RIA would get a ton of traffic from GoDaddy. My father explained to him that RIA sold their tax software on a subscription basis, and had no interest in giving it away for free. Parsons became angry and demanded to speak to his supervisor. When my father told him that he was the supervisor for the territory, Parsons peppered him with "So, what, you own the company? Let me talk to whoever owns the company."
My impression of Parsons is that first he was a brazen and moronic jackass, and now he's a chastened and moronic jackass. The "Well, he recanted, isn't that what we want?" is kinda bullshit, as he didn't really recant and his opinions are still woefully uninformed. I still won't be doing business with them, while I do realize that his dipshit factor has been mitigated. He wanted controversy, he got too much of it, and now he's got his wounded ego out there for us to pity.
posted by klangklangston at 6:38 AM on June 22, 2005


Welcome to LiberalismFilter.


we are indeed to the left of Edgar Ray Killen, all of us. that, I am ready to concede.

also, what languagehat said. who cares what the heck this godaddy gentleman thinks about shit that clearly flies way above his head? if he gives good service, stick with him. he listens to Limbaugh and thinks "we're making progress in Iraq"? tough shit. maybe my butcher thinks that Berlusconi is the greatest statesman since Julius Caesar and the new Christina Aguilera cd is better than Manon Lescaut, but he still sells tasty Chianina beef.
posted by matteo at 6:39 AM on June 22, 2005


Languagehat:

I know where you're coming from, and I agree with it in part. However, here I think the difference is between "keep[ing] up with the political and social views of everyone from whom you buy goods and services" and "intentionally ignoring the political and social views of everyone from whom you buy goods and services". To use an extreme example: I wouldn't investigate the private life of every mom-n-pop store owner to determine if they're members of the KKK. But if someone brought it up to me (with evidence) that they were, I wouldn't continue shopping at the store.

Researching the political and social views of everyone you help support financially (i.e. everyone you give money to) is one far extreme, but being willfully ignorant and blind to them is the other far extreme. I aim for the happy middle.
posted by Bugbread at 6:45 AM on June 22, 2005


Geez, such cynicism. Isn't this what "we" want? To change people's minds, to get them to really rethink their positions, through reasonable discussion?

No, you poor naive little man. "We," want nothing more than to keep the stupid rhetorical tennis match of moral faux-superiority going, since "we," enjoy that ever so much more than actual, y'know, change.
posted by jonmc at 7:03 AM on June 22, 2005


Matteo: hey dude you know what, chianina tastes even better if you eat it while the butcher is happily paying for Aguilera cd and worshipping Berlusconi...as he's giving you the good and taking the shit for himself. Which makes the chianina taste schadenfraudelicious.

Yet your money is only marginally going to reach the buttero attending the chianina cows..it's going to go into the circle of those sellings fools their fools gold..and know what..if people demand more fools gold, sooner or later the will be less demand for good stuff..including chianina.

I prefer to reroute money toward less foolish people when by luck or analysis I happen to meet some.
posted by elpapacito at 7:07 AM on June 22, 2005


Parsons: Many readers pointed out that the methods being used at Gitmo were not only inhumane but also were not very effective. So I checked the references that I was provided and sure enough I was wrong.

I admire this guy! He is not deep thinker, true, but he has an intellectual honesty and lack of dogmatism that are way too rare these days.

I saw an article about a year ago (wish I could find it) about some scientist, a big name in his field, whose signature theory had just been disproved by some young upstart. A reporter called him for a reaction and he said something about how exhilarating it was to be proven wrong. He understood the search for truth.
posted by LarryC at 7:10 AM on June 22, 2005


I'd give credit to Parsons for recanting. I'd rather he mentioned what in particular moved him, or what his stance is now on Guantanamo, but if he wants to be private about that, it's his prerogative.

I'm still frustrated by his fear of the word "torture." Hey guys, they're playing music at levels that could give you hearing loss and throwing temperature changes that could put you into shock at these guys, but at least they're not touching them. Ignore that "defiling holy books" thing too, psychological games aren't torture either. He's done a great job of defining a line by claiming that whatever they're doing, it's not torture. That's great, but where's the line? Is it ever ok to cross it? It'd be cool if he'd cite someone who actually has a pretty good definition of what constitutes torture. This whole "I don't know what torture is, but I'd know when I see it!" attitude kind of sucks.
posted by mikeh at 7:23 AM on June 22, 2005


I think it's safe to say that it makes business sense for Parsons to print a retraction, regardless of whether or not he really means it. This fact alone makes it difficult or impossible to know his true motivations.
posted by afroblanca at 7:26 AM on June 22, 2005


Welcome to LiberalismFilter.

No, welcome to the "Internets."
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 7:28 AM on June 22, 2005


Strikes me as a weasely backtrack. While I think he's utterly wrong, I'd probably have more respect for him if he'd stuck to his guns.

Yeah, just like Bush. I assume you didn't vote for FlipFlopper McGee last election either?

I have more respect for someone who is actualy willing to get informed on a topic and change their opinions to meet the actual facts.

It would be better if they read up on the facts in the first place, though.
posted by delmoi at 7:29 AM on June 22, 2005


But if someone brought it up to me (with evidence) that they were, I wouldn't continue shopping at the store.

But would you post it to MetaFilter?

Damn, that Chianina beef sounds good.
posted by languagehat at 7:29 AM on June 22, 2005


« Older This whole post is probably NSFW...   |   Bullying Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments