It would seem a weekly event the thread asking for definition of progressive, asking who would not fit under the big tent. No answer was ever forthcoming except that the owner and mods did not feel it their place to determine what people wrote on their blog.
Self definition of progressive then seemed to be the criteria for fitting under The Big Tent.
Blogging for F4J – acceptable, maligning female politicians [see numerous posts on Belinda Stronach]- acceptable, adhering sexist and politically derogatory labels to feminists [again see PB diaries around abortion,Elizabeth May]- acceptable, debating a womans’ right to choice [many blogs, tags-abortion,Elizabeth May]- acceptable, defaming a persons reputation and all who associate with him – acceptable.
Whether or not Roberts’ post was wrong has been discussed throughly, what I would like to know is how it was worse than any of the previous examples?
The Big Tent is either Big enough to handle and accept all sides of a controversy and to allow free speech OR it moderates views and speech.
If PB has decided on the latter will we soon be in receipt of a policy clearly defining the progressive views and values the mods and owner find acceptable?
A policy on what will be acceptable blog topics, words used, groups and/or persons that can be maligned freely?
It would seem echo chamber is in the eye of the beholder.