Does the DIGG community toss conservative stories in the "ghetto" the same way the Nazies tossed the Jews in the ghetto in WWII Warsaw?

Short answer: No. Long answer:

I got into a little online tiff over at DIGG today about whether or not DIGG's conservatives are oppressed in the same way the Jews were in Hitler's Germany. It started when a Digg user, "Analyze," submitted this little gem from his blog, in which he mewls that

Being a Conservative on Digg is analogous to living in the Warsaw ghettos of Nazi Germany.

He also whined that stories from a site called Little Green Footballs, one of the most active communities of mindless authoritarianism on the web, get consistently dugg down. I read his post, thought it was inane, and dashed off the following comment:

"Anybody gets dugg down for posting inaccurate claptrap -- which is most of the conservative voice in the media these days. The LGF view of the world is completely uncritical, ideological and false. The truth is neither conservative nor liberal. It simply is. Instead of blaming all the people who dugg down your stories down in mewling blog posts, why not spend your energy re-examining your simplistic world view?"

Then I forgot about it. Then a little comment spat erupted. A tiny skirmish on the ideological front. The short discussion quickly turned even more preposterous. Here's a couple of out takes from the comment thread from Analyze and another user named Web2Point0:

"This article is very much to the point, especially considering an ominous pattern that I have observed on Digg. I have noticed that articles that defend or speak positively about the Jewish people, the Jewish faith, or the State of Israel, are especially targeted for ugly ranting comments and rapid burial. The same is true of articles by Jewish authors with a conservative viewpoint, such as Debbie Schlussel.

As I have mentioned elsewher(sic), another category of articles that are buried instantly are those that might alert the public to the dangers of jihadism.

The activities of Digg's bury brigade are the electronic equivalent of the Nazi book burnings. I think it was Heinrich Heine who warned that if books are being burned, then people will be burned next. And so it was."

and

By the way, I myself have noticed an appalling amount of Jew-bashing and Israel-bashing on Kos and other leftist sites, and I can't help drawing the connection that the fans of
those sites on Digg tend to be the same ones who openly brag about burying conservative stories.

and

Instead of calling the stories you don't like "inaccurate claptrap" - why don't you get your facts and logic into a comment and make an honest attempt to refute whatever it is you don't agree with?

If you find it impossible to do that, then that means YOU are the one who is mistaken about the facts, and YOU need to re-examine your own negative emotional reactions to these articles.

Well. Well! It isn't every day you get Little Green Footballs, Nazis, Book Burnings, Jew Baiting, Social Software and Debbie Schlussel in one meaty package. So I decided to respond.

First, a little explanation. DIGG is a social news site in which users vote, or "Digg," the stories they would like to see on the front page. Alternatively, users may "Bury" a story they do not like for any reason. What the Analyze, and the other conservatives are complaining about is that their "conservative" submissions tend to get quickly buried, while "liberal" submissions get quickly raised to the top. With that in mind, let's argue.

First, there is only one central set of facts in Analyze's post. The author's submissions, which he claims are "conservatively themed," have x number of diggs and x number of buries. We can look this up. It's a fact. This, he posits as general proof that so-called "conservatively themed" stories are rejected by Digg users, prima facie. In fact, he uses the Digg Community's rejection of his analysis of the trend as evidence of his conclusion.

This is two logical fallacies for the price of one. The first, and most troublesome to his argument is called "Post hoc ergo propter hoc," or "After this, therefore because of this." You are falsely attributing a causal relationship between your political ideology and the rejection of specific stories by the Digg community. Your thinking completely ignores the content of those stories- clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound empirical evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth and fairness. It's like saying: The USA was attacked on 9.11. The USA invaded Iraq. Therefore, Iraq was responsible for 9.11. Who on earth would believe that? Oh, wait...

Then, Analyze makes things worse by begging the question. Rejection of his story making the assertion that the stories he submits will get rejected for being conservative is not proof that anybody rejects anything for being conservative. Though Begging the question is an informal logical fallacy, it is pillar of the kind of magical thinking that led this nation to war. Our intelligence is infallible. How do you know? I have an intelligence report that says so.

And then we get to the real prize at the bottom of the cracker jack box. It is beyond ironic that "conservative" commenters on the thread put forward allegations of antisemitism and "jew-bashing" while comparing their experience on a website to the holocaust. Yet, I cannot detect a single trace of humor in their statements. Can you?

In that context, untangling the assertion that the terminally fact-challenged and bigoted commentator Debbie Schlussel gets rejected because she's Jewish is likely to induce seizures. Here is a woman whose first response when hearing that the shooter at Virginia Tech was an Asian, was to claim that a "Paki was likely responsible", then, when learning the truth, saying," "Even if it does not turn out that the shooter is Muslim, this is a demonstration to Muslim jihadists all over that it is extremely easy to shoot and kill multiple American college students," and then when she felt the heat from the public for her revolting behavior, her response was to call her critics Nazisand take down her assertions without retracting them. So Debbie Schlussel gets dugg down. Why? Because she's a shallow, jingoistic creep who can't hear the truth over the sound of her own voice.

And Analyze gets dugg down, too. He gets relegated to the basement, not because of any label, but because he's convinced that his opinions are facts and that not accepting them as such is evidence of bias. He gets Dugg down because he submits "stories" that assert

"It is interesting that liberals are quick to espouse free speech and minority rights but when given the power, they become like Nazi Germany."

Now, normally, I would Digg Analyze down to the basement. Normally, I would say, "Shoo fly" and get on with it. But really, I think I have to re-evaluate. This kind of thinking deserves its own special day on the bozo throne. I am going to Digg this thread up. Most really corrosive belief systems die in the sunlight. Maybe someday, with enough exposure, the dawn will break over your head, Analyze, and you will realize that no, having your story buried on Digg isn't the same thing as being quarantined, starved and beaten for years in a Nazi ghetto. It's not the same thing at all.