5th place!!?

Damn.

Oops!

About Ms. Malkin being so high: I suspect that's from her reprinting all of her hate mail.

We need some dedicated folks to go to some of those other right-wing sites and start cussing up a storm.

Ohhh...all right. ;)

Not too surprised about Scrappleface. If Scott isn't an Evangelist, he's pretty darn close.

"You are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute." [Demolition Man]

Fuck you, Jay. ;)

What, We're not trying for No 1? Dang, I thought this blog was going places. ;o)

The left-leaning blogs are many times more popular than the blogs on the right, which explains some of the higher counts.

From the survey blog post at News Buckit:
"Barring some mass programming shenanigans on the part of Right blogospheric bloggers, this pretty well fits, and goes beyond, the predictions most of us would have made."

Yes, my prediction would be that the right would take the raw data, apply faulty analysis, then not be bright enough to interpret the results -- and that's precisely what happened.

Oh, no -- Lee's being suppressed! Help, help, come and see the violence inherent in the system! The Man is keeping Lee from forming his own analysis and showing that the right-wingers are, in reality, far more crude, foul-mouthed, and vulgar than the leftists!!!!!

J.

Interestingly, the median average between left and right blogs is pretty close in this sample (420 vs. 352), it's just a few very prolific sites on the left which skew the average. On the other hand, those sites are also the most popular. It would be interesting to create mean averages weighted by readership.

****!

It pains me to agree with Lee but Wizbang has been around a long time and has a few thousand post more than many who where "below" us.

Kos leads the way but then they have the most pages.

Really I suspect when done properly the data will not change much but it obvious the methodology is flawed.

Since the data are raw counts, Lee's explanation could have merit, although he presents no evidence that it does.

What we need to see are the ratios of naughty words to total words.

I doubt the liberal blogs have 18 times as many words posted, so I doubt the new data would make the difference wash out. But it might. There should also be an adjustment for whether profanity is allowed in blog comments.

It would make sense that in order to make and accurate comparison between left and right, you'd have to take the same period of time for all blogs and establish a ration between number of curses and number of commenters.

Any way you look at it, however, Kos is going to "win" (if you can call it that) -- do the "phone book" test in their comment threads. Just close your eyes and point. Odds are pretty damn good you'll find a four letter word.

Sorry if I embarrassed you Jay - did you forget your oatmeal this morning?

Oh, no -- Lee's being suppressed! Help, help, come and see the violence inherent in the system! The Man is keeping Lee from forming his own analysis and showing that the right-wingers are, in reality, far more crude, foul-mouthed, and vulgar than the leftists!!!!!

What I said was "The left-leaning blogs are many times more popular than the blogs on the right, which explains some of the higher counts."

I guess I should have added poor reading comprehension skills to the reasons the right got it wrong again. Thanks for demonstrating, Jay.

Byron: "Lee's explanation could have merit, although he presents no evidence that it does."

Before I posted my comment I did a quick check here. I was curious to see if my comment would be debated thoughtfully, or just attacked by some troll. Jay the troll won. The link compares the traffic stats of 2 left blogs and 2 right blogs.

Feel free to plug in sites of your own choice and compare the results. I haven't spent any time really analyzing the question -- but the 2 minutes I did spend were obviously more than the 119 seconds Jay spent on the question...

Think of it as more of a challenge, Lee. I didn't disagree with your theory, just was curious if you were invested in it enough to back it up.

I, quite frankly, don't consider the matter worth more than some giggles -- as well as affirming my own gut hunch. There are some right-wingers who toss off profanities pretty freely (Laurence Simon and Emperor Misha come to mind), but none with the high profile of the big leftists.

J.

There are some rather large problems with trying to answer this challenge. Several have already been listed above, but I haven't seen this addressed: What about all the deliberate obfuscation of many of the 7 words (e.g. f*ck, sh&*, etc.). This happens alot and I don't think its been accounted for.

Also, I would bet money that if you could do this same analysis with the ability to exclude the leftist trolls from the comments of the righty blogs, the righty blogs (all of them) would be significantly lower than they show now! In other words, I'm saying that here, for instance, the lefty trolls are responsible for the majority of the profanity that's used here.

I almost fainted when I read this. Now you righties DO believe in "polls"!! I can't stand it....I just can't stand it. You were against polls before you were for them?

Jay you never ever fail to......**** **

Shiek: I second that, now kiss my ass mother******.

hugh, you never fail to be an idiot. Thanks for not disappointing.

If you can't see the difference between statistical analysis of past, objectively verifiable written words and asking people their opinion on some current topic, then you just may be even more stupid than you appear to be in most of your comments.

"The left-leaning blogs are many times more popular than the blogs on the right, which explains some of the higher counts."

That's one way to try and spin away from the obvious truth that people who have limited intelligence and thus limited vocabularies tend to resort to vulgarity more often as they lack a better way to express themselves. Of course you must have limited intelligence to have a leftist/socialist/regressive worldview so of course the leftist sites have 41 times the vulgarity of the right leaning sites.

And that disparity would be much, much greater (probably 500 to 1 or so) if the right-leaning sites did not allow comments from the other side, as is common on the leftist sites.

Well, (Carlin1). I managed to (Carlin2) off Lee. go (Carlin3) yourself, Lee, you (Carlin4)rag (Carlin5). Why don't you start your own (Carlin6) blog? I bet it'll go (Carlin7)-up inside a month.

J.

(The preceding comment is presented as an exercise in using Carlin's "Seven Words," in order, in proper context, in a single paragraph.)

Hugh, stick around for another 17 minutes for even MORE about polls... and yeah, this is NOT about polls, but statistical analysis, and it's purely for entertainment value. So there.

J.

Jay,

That was (Carlin6)ing funny!

Lee: Traffic stats make your explanation more plausible, but they don't answer the question any more than raw counts of bad words.

We need to compare the ratio of bad words to total words for a reasonable sample of liberal vs. conservative blogs. Number of pages posted might be a good approximation for total words.

It would also be interesting to see separate ratios for blog postings and blog comments. The overall ratio might be mostly a just reflection of blog policies about profanity in the comments. The focus might better be on the kind of language used by the people who put up the original posts.

Sheik:

I"m afraid you don't either nor, more sadly, do you have an ounce of a sense of humor. That's an asset I find sorely lacking in you folks. I was wondering which of you would be first to pop a vein, turn beet red and just have to comeback at me. You win, errr I mean lose.

It was a JOKE Sheik!! A little satire. Ahhhh, what's the ******** use.

All he needs to do is post the number of pages under consideration. The huge numbers for Daily Kos and Huffington Post are clearly due to the fact that they have much larger sites with way more bloggers than anything else on the list. When he says he "even gave the Lefty blogs a 4 blog advantage," its bullshit since those two sites count for dozens if not hundreds of times more content than a Michelle Malkin or an Instapundit.

Give us the total pages and we can do a "naughty words per page" analysis and get a better look. Even better would be the number of words, as suggested above. Then you could say that liberal bloggers use one of Carlin's seven words every 50 words as opposed to conservative bloggers' every 200 words, or something. What would be even more interesting is the number of words actually written by the blogger, eliminating block quotes, especially from news sources, which almost never use any of those words. Instapundit might not swear much, but he doesn't write much either.

After a cursory look, I think we can easily assume that Wonkette is the most foul-mouthed of the high-traffic bloggers.

Ooops;

Jay now I have to have a run off between you and Sheik to see who is more humorless and who pops more veins. Geeez man get a life.

Forgot a couple things:

Now will come the inevitable name calling, attempts (probably by Jay) to rationalize and the usual lecture from the usual lecturers.

There are some right-wingers who toss off profanities pretty freely (Laurence Simon and Emperor Misha come to mind), but none with the high profile of the big leftists.

You did notice Ace on that list, didn't you? His site is dirtier than Pandagon and Shakespeare's Sister (by this calculus), though I doubt he's going to be asked to join Romney's campaign. ;)

Hugh,

As soon as you post something funny, I'll gladly laugh at it.

Here's a clue: If you are the only one laughing, it probably wasn't funny.

See, Jay's comeback to Lee was frigging hilarious!

Your posts...not so much.

See, the FIRST lecture. You're so damn (does that count as a bad word?) predictable, ShakeYour Ass.

So triple posting is supposed to be funny?

Telling me to re-read an unfunny comment is supposed to make it funny?

At this point all I can do is laugh....at you.

I suspect that Hugh's triple-posting was an accident (one that's happened to me more than once) and the fault of a glitch on our page, not his. Accordingly, I'm deleting two of them.

J.

OK, strike the first part of my last comment.

The rest stands.

How's that New Years resolution coming along, Hugh? What was it again?

I will only engage in debate from now on. I will not call any one name(s), nor will I be sarcastic or caustic. I will defend my beliefs always. I will not respond to those, on either side, who want to hurl invectives at one another.

Oh yeah. Good one.

Sheik, Hugh and his ilk fall back on the "it's satire", or "I was joking," after they make a very offensive insult. Lefties, except for rare occasions do not know how to find humor in things. ww

Byron: "We need to compare the ratio of bad words to total words for a reasonable sample of liberal vs. conservative blogs. Number of pages posted might be a good approximation for total words."

True. Another analysis, that would be next to impossible, is to look at the political affiliation of the commenters. If I post a bleeping F-word on Wizbang it counts against a right-wing blog, even though I'm a leftie.

Lee,

That's more or less what I said in my first comment above.

South Park Conservatism, we hardly knew ye.

"left leaning blogs are..." then why are you here all the time p'p'?

Oh yeah, and why is anyone taking this seriously? I know this isn't everyone, but there seem to be plenty of people who think knowing which blogs contain more of a particular set of words is useful knowledge and actually means something.

And what the fuck happened to "South Park Republicanism?" Dead on the vine?

Oops, scarshapedstar got there first.

Jay, I believe you incorrectly inverted Carlin 2 and Carlin 3.

If I post a bleeping F-word on Wizbang it counts against a right-wing blog, even though I'm a leftie.
Lee, you're right. So how do you atone that with the fact that on Kos--the largest blog by far--any right-thinking posts are purged by deleting them and banning the user. That means virtually all of their bad words come from themselves, while some bad words come from leftward-thinkers on Wizbang, meaning Wizbang's #5 ranking is not all right-generated...

Lee, you're right. So how do you atone that with the fact that on Kos--the largest blog by far--any right-thinking posts are purged by deleting them and banning the user.

Yes, Lee, you must atone for the practices of the Kos moderators!

Mantis, that's not what I mean. You know that.

So, wave, there's a way to "correctly" invert 'em?

Sorry, that was going for a cheap laugh. (Not that this thread deserves any better.)

The order I learned them, by rote, from The Master himself, was s, p, f, c, c-s, m-f, and t. He might have changed it around, but that's the sequence I've heard them in every time.

J.

(Who listened to the "incomplete list of impolite terms" from Carlin On Campus and, to his shame, knew what all but two of them meant)

How's that New Years resolution coming along, Hugh? What was it again?

Ouch, mantis. I promised Hugh to stop hammering him with that, since he didn't keep it more than a week.

Which, y'know, is the fate of all New Years Resolutions.

"So how do you atone that with the fact that on Kos--the largest blog by far--any right-thinking posts are purged by deleting them and banning the user."

Didn't the Jay-ster have a recent exchange with a Kos-ter that he wrote about in a blog post here? I don't remember if that was on Kos or not, but Jay's comments weren't deleted.

Sure -- if jhow gets deleted from Kos that wouldn't suprise me at all....

I suspect the myth that Kos deletes comments is just more right-wing bullshit (ding!).

"Another analysis, that would be next to impossible, is to look at the political affiliation of the commenters."

True dat. Except you wouldn't have to bother with that on the lefty blogs. The rightie's comments all get deleted.

At Kos, they're called "concern trolls". I read the comment section there one day and they piled on the only conservative like flies on doodoo, called him a "concern troll" and the next day all his comments were gone. The guy was truly polite, quite mild, adressed actual statements and not the ones who made them and corrected a couple outright lies. For that he was deleted and banned. Yet, comments advocating bodily harm to political figures, over-the-top foul language and stupidity even Lee would blush at are never deleted or challenged.

To be fair, Kos does say that any commenters are expected to be "progressive". In other words, "We don't want to be challenged in any way or you're history".

Lee, I wouldn't brush aside the groupthink so easily by saying it's right wing BS. Anyway, my point was to introduce more variables into the equation you started to formulate, that's all. You're right about the number of pages vs. number of bad words. I'm wondering if there's more to it--like you are--that's all.

Mantis, that's not what I mean. You know that.

Yeah, probably. Still found it funny.

Repent!

Which, y'know, is the fate of all New Years Resolutions.

Which is why people are better off keeping to themselves. And remembering the fable of the scorpion and the frog. You'll never hear me promise to be nice to everyone. ;)

Tony: "You're right about the number of pages vs. number of bad words. I'm wondering if there's more to it--like you are--that's all."

And I meant no disrespect - I was just reaching for an excuse to use the word bullshit (ding!). I don't have any first-hand knowledge of comment policies at left-leaning blogs, so I can't defend them one way or the other -- but I have learned to question that which passes for "conventional wisdom" on right-leaning blogs.

Today we see Jay bashing the use of "polls", but when polls support their cause this blog links to them readily. The right's moral compass sometimes swings in whatever direction suits their purpose du juor, so to me it's just so much .... bullshit (ding!).

heh.

Lee,

I challenge you to spend a month on one of the popular left wing blogs questioning "that which passes for 'conventional wisdom' on left-leaning blogs."

I'd love to hear how you fare and see how that changes your attitude here.

Today we see Jay bashing the use of "polls", but when polls support their cause this blog links to them readily.

To be fair, Jay wrote that he doesn't use polls to bolster his arguments, and I can't remember a time when he has. He makes no claims about anyone else.

Kim, on the other hand, would ask her cats if the Democrats are eeevil and claim their answers reflected the attitudes of the whole country. The cats could respond affirmatively by, say, glancing around indifferently and/or sleeping.

(I have no knowledge of Kim's cat ownership or lack thereof. I mean no disrespect to cats who arrive at well-informed political opinions.)

Actually, Lee
Even in the thread earlier this year on Kos where Jay challenged the diarist on his banning assertions (that rights do it more than left), the Kos crew pointed out that they hide comments that people object to. These hidden comments can only be seen by trusted users, who can then make them public again. until someone flags them as objectionable again. And so forth.

This becomes a tomayto tomahto situation. Either way, comments that Kossacks object to get disapeared.

Wow Mantis:

Were you before something before you were against it, or against something before you were for it? Talk about inconsistence (I dare not use the dreaded word hypocrisy).

In one post, after I talked about humor which was after Jay talked about humor and anyone with 1/10th of an ounce of humor could see I was poking fun - you find it necessary to personally criticize my post.

THEN VOILA, a mere 6 posts later you say, and I quote verbatim: "...is anyone taking this seriously?"

Sooooo mantis, back to the question, Were you against it before you were before it?

2 lectures. no name calling so far. Will await Matis' rationalization.
John Irving:

See above. (Was almost lecture #3)

Just took a look at NewsBuckit, and they've added results for DU, FreeRepublic and other sites. The ratio is now 41-1.

If someone had asked me about this yesterday, I'd have said 10-1. But this? Da-um

Cool. Only one (shown three times on Google) instance of any of those words on my blog, and it was in reference to a profane piece of leftist "art" (a crucifix immersed in urine).

Speaking of DU, they're proud of their inability to formulate arguments without resorting to using profanity:

We're #1 !!!!!!

Yeah, Jay, I've noticed how clean your language is.

Sincerely,

"Fuckwit"

In one post, after I talked about humor which was after Jay talked about humor and anyone with 1/10th of an ounce of humor could see I was poking fun - you find it necessary to personally criticize my post.

I didn't personally criticize your post, I asked how your New Years resolution is going.

You see, the point is, I didn't publicly vow not to call people names or use sarcasm (if I did all I would have left is geek humor and, well, facts).

I do find it curious that your consider your posts to be "humor" while mine are "personal attacks." I was poking fun at you, Mr. Jass. I'm sure it's not the first time you've experienced this.

THEN VOILA, a mere 6 posts later you say, and I quote verbatim: "...is anyone taking this seriously?"

I was speaking about the results, and their potential implications (if one does, in fact, take them seriously). This has nothing to do with whether or not I take you seriously.

Btw, I don't.

Sooooo mantis, back to the question, Were you against it before you were before it?

I have always maintained that I am for "it" and would never have said I was against "it."

What's "it" again?

Mantis:

You made my day. Thank you. We have 3 lectures so far and 1 rationalization. You, I'm sorry to say, have one of each. But it was just as I expected. Where did I say anything about you taking me seriously? You see, it's much cleaner to come clean Mantis. What I'm reading from your comment is that you were not taking Jay's post seriously but you assumed I was. Tsk tsk.

By the way, a terribly, terribly weak rationalization from you. I expected much more. You should really not weasel on this one. It can't hurt that much just to say you're wrong can it? God knows I've admitted it enough times.

Your last line was pretty good though, an actual touch of humor. Try it more often.

Mantis, don't be dissing cat's opinions.

And asti, I never said I don't use profanity. I've repeatedly said that I don't use it CASUALLY. It's done for carefully-considered effect.

In that context, you were attacking me through fundamentalist Christian beliefs, trying to challenge my faith and theologically undermine my statements. Considering how often I had loudly and clearly proclaimed that I am an agnostic, and have no religious beliefs (let alone literalist Biblical interpretations), "fuckwit" seemed to fit the bill quite well. It simultaneously describes just how idiotic your argument is, and pretty well nails the theory that I'm a Bible-thumping idealogue.

And if you STILL don't get why I used that term that time, after I spelled it out, you really, really do deserve the name.

J.

Mantis,

Hugh is likely the only one who considers his posts "humor".

I've never had any difficulty discerning when you are joking. In fact, I think you are pretty funny sometimes...for a lefty (sorry, I couldn't resist)!

Hugh, on the other hand, appears to be one of those people who believes he's funny, but isn't. Even a little bit.

Oh, and since you are for "it", I must be against "it". :-) (the smiley is so Hugh isn't confused.)

Hopefully, Hugh will clear up what "it" is.

Well it simple even for ShakeYourAss.

"It" is what mantis was for before he was against "it". He knows. He just doesn't have the balls or the humor to admit "it."

Jay, I was about to insist that you were incorrect (this is a very important subject to me), but you are, in facr correct.

By the way. There are numerous scientific studies (not polls) which conclude that right wingers and republicans have about 1/10th of 1% of the humor of anyone else in the world.

The comments by folks like ShakeYourAss further support those conclusions. He wouldn't know it if it hit him in the ass, unless of course it comed from someone like Ann Coulter.

What I'm reading from your comment is that you were not taking Jay's post seriously but you assumed I was. Tsk tsk.

You can read it that way if you want, but you're still wrong. Oh, and tsk tsk? What are you, an old schoolmarm? Gonna smack me with ruler?

You should really not weasel on this one.

Weasel out of what? I don't even know what the hell you're talking about anymore. For all I know we're arguing about cheesecake recipes.

It can't hurt that much just to say you're wrong can it? God knows I've admitted it enough times.

And you'll have plenty more opportunities in the future.

"It" is what mantis was for before he was against "it". He knows. He just doesn't have the balls or the humor to admit "it."

What the hell are you talking about? I would assume that you are trying to be funny but, well, no, there's just no way. There's bad jokes and poorly phrased jokes and then there's incomprehensible rambling. You and jhow should go hiking or something. Carry a string tied to the car so you can find your way back.

Mantis:

You finally got "it". The answer was cheesecake.

P.S. Next time mind your own goddamn business. And if you're going to attack have something behind that atttack.

if you're going to attack have something behind that atttack.

I've just been distracting you. Now I'm in ur base, killin' ur doodz!

Crude. 60 second attempt to normalize the results...

using 'shit' as a representative term for profanity and 'the' as a representative term for the size of the site......

then using google to search dailykos for:
'shit' returns 217,000 hits.
'the' returns 1,230,000 hits.
for a ratio of 0.17

and using google to search wizbang for:
'shit' returns 1,540 hits.
'the' returns 20,500.
for a ratio of 0.075

Using these crude metrics, Wizbang contains less than half the profanity of Kos.

Next time mind your own goddamn business.

Ok, from now on I will mind my own business. On the internet. On a blog. In the comments.

Look out!

mantis:

Finally! A good one, especially the link. There may be a shread of hope for you yet.

But I can go one better.

You may be in my base but I am in your head. Why do you have all that tin foil sticking out of it byu the way? Do you use it to communicate with ShakeYourAss?

Here I am all bored and lonely at the top of the page when the all the discussion is actually happening down here.

Mantis, you had me rolling with the cheesecake recipe and the "I've just been distracting you. Now I'm in ur base, killin' ur doodz!"

Another funny image I've seen used for that is a screencap from Rome Total War with a bunch of Macedonians walking through an open gate unchallenged.

Oh, and, fuck. Add that to the blasphemeter or whatever it is that's measuring swear words.

Gosh, Hugh, I don't see how you could possibly be in anyone's head when you still can't seem to get your head out of your own ass!

All Your Humor Are Belong To Me! ...or maybe Mantis, since he's killin' ur doodz!

Herlader,

I love these as well:

No not the seelz!

pyramidz

Lee actually made a good point: much (admittedly without a scientific survey) of our profanity comes from leftist commenters. Hey, when a post somehow got linked on Wonkette some time back, I even learned some new ones.

Precisely what IS a "f*cktard," anyway?

mantis, don't be cruel. I think hugh has Asperger's.

Really Wave? For all of the shit he spews (yes, getting Jay closer to #4), I thought it was ass purgers.

Forgot a couple things:

"Now will come the inevitable name calling, attempts (probably by Jay) to rationalize and the usual lecture from the usual lecturers.

Posted by: Hugh at March 1, 2007 10:49 AM "

Aha...it took a little while but I knew it would happened as predicted ( see above): (3) lectures, (1) rationalization and now(2) name calling. You folks are so predictable. You can always count on those intellectual giants like SCS.

Actually what you forgot to do was leave.

I was thinking bad words like higher taxes, more welfare, illegal aliens and universal health care - not to mention Hill@ry and B!ll, Murth@ and Re!d and especially my favorite, St@benow, were the one we ought to be counting.

Sheik, the mummuies one is awesome, the seals one made me a little sad :(