It’s almost as much a drag to have to explain a gnomic conceit as it is a joke, but Jeff and SEK were there. I placed it under ineffective erasure because the simple fact that referencing it as verboten highlights it, as is evident from the comments. As I mentioned, my issue isn’t with Gleen’s homosexuality, but his integrity and intelligence. Once he acknowledged the hailing, “he,” as a constructed identity, became entrapped in the problematic of distancing his own insulting and mean-spirited characterization of others and their “fauxtrage” at certain representations that he promotes. I don’t care that he’s a faggot red herring. You can bet that Ahmadinejad does, though. So, Glenn makes strange and contorted choices over what to become exercised about, in my view.
The idea that Greenwald is in any way concerned with “blasphemy” is ludicrous per se, which provides me scope for mockery and play. Of whose sentiments, exactly, is Mr. Greenwald protective? And what is it that draws him to be solicitous of their concerns, specifically? He is a troublingly dishonest man who draws a troublingly dishonest coterie.
Oh, and sorry about the Lacan. It won’t happen again.
If this spreads more, we can refer to it as F-Word-Gate.
Why did I laugh type “faggot” tonight? No voice will tell
No God, no demon of severe response
Deigns to reply from heaven or from hell
Then to my human heart I turn at once:
Heart, thou and I are here, sad and alone,
Say, why did I laugh type “faggot”? O mortal pain!
O darkness! darkness! Forever must I moan
To question heaven and hell and heart in vain?
Why did I laugh type “faggot”? I know this being’s lease
My fancy to its utmost blisses spreads
Yet would I on this very midnight cease
And all the world’s gaudy ensigns see in shreds.
Verse, fame and beauty are intense indeed,
But death intenser, death is life’s high meed.
CROWD OF WOMEN: [yelling]
JEWISH OFFICIAL: Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath.
MATTHIAS: Do I say ‘yes’?
STONE HELPER #1: Yes.
MATTHIAS: Yes.
OFFICIAL: You have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering the name of our Lord, and so, as a blasphemer,…
CROWD: Ooooh!
OFFICIAL: …you are to be stoned to death.
CROWD: Ahh!
MATTHIAS: Look. I– I’d had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, ‘That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah a faggot.’
CROWD: Oooooh!
OFFICIAL: Blasphemy! He’s said it again!
CROWD: Yes! Yes, he did! He did!…
OFFICIAL: Did you hear him?!
CROWD: Yes! Yes, we did! We did!…
WOMAN #1: Really!
[silence]
OFFICIAL: Are there any women here today?
CROWD: No. No. No. No…
OFFICIAL: Very well. By virtue of the authority vested in me–
[CULPRIT WOMAN stones MATTHIAS]
MATTHIAS: Oww! Lay off! We haven’t started yet!
OFFICIAL: Come on! Who threw that? Who threw that stone? Come on.
CROWD: She did! She did! He did! He! He. He. Him. Him. Him. Him. He did.
CULPRIT WOMAN: Sorry. I thought we’d started.
OFFICIAL: Go to the back.
CULPRIT WOMAN: Oh, dear.
OFFICIAL: Always one, isn’t there? Now, where were we?
MATTHIAS: Look. I don’t think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying ‘Jehovah’ faggot.
CROWD: Oooh! He said it again! Oooh!…
OFFICIAL: You’re only making it worse for yourself!
MATTHIAS: Making it worse?! How could it be worse?! Jehovah Faggot! Jehovah Faggot! Jehovah Faggot!
CROWD: Oooooh!…
OFFICIAL: I’m warning you. If you say ‘Jehovah’ faggot once more–
[MRS. A. stones OFFICIAL]
Right. Who threw that? [silence] Come on. Who threw that?
CROWD: She did! It was her! He! He. Him. Him. Him. Him. Him. Him.
OFFICIAL: Was it you?
MRS. A.: Yes.
OFFICIAL: Right!
MRS. A.: Well, you did say ‘Jehovah’ faggot.
CROWD: Ah! Ooooh!…
[CROWD stones MRS. A.]
OFFICIAL: Stop! Stop, will you?! Stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say ‘Jehovah’ faggot.
CROWD: Ooooooh!…
[CROWD stones OFFICIAL]
WOMAN #1: Good shot!
[clap clap clap]
“I don’t care that he’s a faggot. You can bet that Ahmadinejad does, though. ”
Does ahmadinejad even know Glenn, or that he is a “faggot”?
Disingenous and dishonest, andy. Do you?
I can’t decide whether Collins came off looking more like a bitter, Clarence Thomas type or a stupid Bill O’Reilly type. But he made himself look really bad with this exchange. And why? What was he trying to do–earn “Coulter points” for vindictive smearing? Maybe Collins thinks that calling somebody a “faggot” plus two box tops will get him a blow-up Ann doll.
And I’ll take that as an admission that your ideology is nothing, at root, but an ugly aesthetic.
“Disingenous and dishonest, andy. Do you?”
I certainly know of him. I would be shocked if Ahmadinewhatshisname did. As to caring, I am interested in the fact that he gets called “faggot.” That’s the extent of my caring on that.
What do you suppose the point of my comment regarding Ahmadinejad and Gleen was, andy?
You argue the way Cynn does. That is not a compliment.
Yep, all of a dozen-plus casual, uncaring comments on the topic. A topic that’s pretty much a strawman, because Dan hasn’t said anything at all about Ahmadinejad’s concern with the existence of Glenn Greenwald, one way or another.
It’s a strawman SURGE, around here.
“What do you suppose the point of my comment regarding Ahmadinejad and Gleen was, andy”
Jeff explained it. And you got into it a bit with the whole “try it in Iran” bit. Weak stuff. “Faggot” just made me think there was something more, so I kept looking. But once I was convinced there was pretty much nothing there, I was satisfied.
I still don’t get the “Gleen” part.
Well, hypothetically, I did.
Gleen is a portmanteau of Glenn and Greenwald. It is pertinent and funny because Glenn was caught out using sockpuppet identities to defend his nostrums on other websites, by Patterico and company, then claimed that those posts from his ISP address were done by his roommates. That is also why we refer to him in the plural as “Greenwald(s)”. And if you don’t think that’s funny, andy, please write and tell me why.
Andy’s being dim on purpose. In other words, he’s trolling.
Dan, I am not a psychologist, but I think that what we are seeing Glenn do is ‘displacement’. Instead of directing anger or outrage towards radical Islam (which is actually a dangerous force), the anger is directed towards a less dangerous substitute – conservative Americans.
And I would suspect that all of the “bedwetting” and “pants wetting” talk is similar. They are the ones that are actually scared and in fear and rather than admit that is the source of their actions, they assign that to their opponents – the safe opponents, not the really dangerous ones that actually mean to do physical harm, permanent harm.
Again, i am not a psychologist, but I don’t doubt that Dr. Sanity or SC&A could do a real good job explaining this, and I doubt I would be far off.
You give him way too much credit.
I have an idea. In order to prevent having to focus on the disconnect between a supposed champion of civil liberties downplaying the actual crushing of those liberties, including the state sponsored murder of those most like himself; lets freak out that Collins wrote faggot on a blog post.
That way we can continue to pretend the world is something that we wish it was, like children do.
It’s the typing telephone pole all over again. Lord, may I never be so emotionally needy that I need to troll a blog and act like a bratty seven year old just to get some attention!
Oh, Prof Cancer!!! What “type” would that be? You wouldn’t be, like, labeling Justice Thomas as inauthentic black because he has been uppity to the Left Plantation Bosses now would you?
putz
Darleen – That is precisely what he is doing. He has devoted 2 pull posts to that drivel.
Are you planning to slap Greenwald with your dick?
Objection; presumes a more intelligent andy than we’ve encountered.
The Other Steve – Run on back to Gleen, instaputz, or John Cole, and tell them about your daring exploits.
A mushroom bruise for your feeble efforts.
Let’s see now: The Caricature makes a remark about Dan possibly being a “Clarence Thomas” type. We are left to determine just what type this might be.
An exercise in Intentionalism? Having been given the opportunity by his tenuredness to engage in some “intentional sleuthing,” I conclude that Ric has pegged the !HYPOCRISY! meter, engaging in racism of the “inauthentic black” concept whilst framing the labeling of conservatives as either “inherently” racist or for willfully providing “intellectual cover” for racists by the mere fact of any expressed opposition to Affirmitive Action.
I anxiously await Caric’s photoshop of Justice Thomas in Jolson blackface. After all, pasty, white PhD’s from Moorehouse State speak with special authority when they slander a particularly prominent African American who rejects their insights into racial issues.
However, the slandering of Dan is no big deal and actually causes a titter amoungst the PW Huns. (*titter*)
That would be unhygienic. How about I use my phallus, instead?
Dan, be sure and use protection.
I regret that I ever supported Jeff and this odious site. While I have worked hard over the last year or so to improve the quality and analytical observations on my site, Jeff has permitted this one to deteriiorate. Good by forever!
[this appears to come from Cole’s neck of the woods. I’ll try to contact him to see if he’s responsible – ed].
Caric, does your school approve of your stalking folks on the Internet? Specifically, folks on this site, whom you apparently willfully mischaracterize on a regular basis?
That you, as a leftist, see everything for the value of its mere appearance — naturally, as you define it and as you just did — is expected in the postmodern age, as is the phenomenon that a man that would do so could adopt any disingenuous strategy, tactic, or tone, all of which seem to be your stock and trade when personally attacking others.
But your habitually personally smearing those who oppose that remarkably empty dialog borders on the sort of harassment an institution of honor and principles likely would not condone.
Me, I have no such master to whom my behavior is subject. Surely, as your presumed intellectual inferior, I am not held to the lofty standards of Whatever U.
But you are. Your comments?
Who is Gleen?
A coterie of Sockpuppets? A shadowy chorus of liars? And with only one Brazilian passport to share among them all!
It’s clear the Gleen is someone’s paid puppet himself. And that he pulls this shit from Brazil in order to avoid the IRS’ and Bill O’Reilly’s prying eyes.
This site is not odious. I like it very much.
“Gleen is a portmanteau of Glenn and Greenwald.”
a kindof weak one, but ok.
“It is pertinent…”
we’ll see
“…and funny…”
no, it isn’t.
“…because Glenn was caught out using sockpuppet identities to defend his nostrums on other websites, by Patterico and company…”
then an appropriate portmanteau would meld these false identities with his real name. splicing his first name onto his last name? that’s neither funny nor pertinent. it’s just silly, Dollins.
“…, then claimed that those posts from his ISP address were done by his roommates.”
and now you’re on a mini-screed over Greenwald. i don’t mean to attract attention, but, pssst, your obsession is showing.
“That is also why we refer to him in the plural as “Greenwald(s)â€Â.”
a name which makes some sense, unlike “Gleen”.
I’m sure that’s not the real John Cole; he would know how to spell good bye.
He likes to make his name orangey usually too.
Odious? Coming from the man with a fevered swamp in every comment thread, that is priceless. Good byE, John Cole, you will hardly be missed. If it took you a year of improvement to get to where you are, we should expect reasoned discourse when? 2400?
“Good by forever!”
Bye! Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!
The word that dare not speak its name.
Just imagine how long that old George Carlin piece would be, now.
Heh. Well, if nothing else this particular sarcasm serves to prove quite clearly who your friends are and who they aren’t. Those who aren’t can easily find fault with it – though it is carefully pressing the edge of acceptable dialogue these days.
In short, those who will stand with you can find reason to decide it was fine (if a bit edgy or crude) and those who will stand against you have ample reason to condemn.
Ideologues, as it would happen, are terrible strategists. Way it is.
I think it’s funny how, suddenly, they become interested in my intention.
You guys don’t even understand what Greenwald is trying to say, as is evidenced in the blasphemy comment (et al. in the post yesterday). It really is like thought disorder over here – very literary and internally rational, but woefully unempirical.
It did lead me to a corollary of Occham’s razor, though: of any two explanations as to why someone proffered biggoted epithets, that more convoluted is probably just full of shit.
and
Perhaps but I find it incredulous that someone who can use basic English grammar be that thick against the concept of irony.
They really are quite simple-minded, aren’t they?
steve – Or you could just look internally, and realize that you are just full of caca.
GG thinks for them so a perceived attack on the motherbrain is highly agitating. Fireants are like this too, as Blue Texan probably knows. Fireants originally came here from Brazil, and since I’m still waking up you can insert an artful analogy here for me.
Steve: Please explain what Greenwald was “trying to say,” so that we may understand.
“You guys don’t even understand what Greenwald is trying to say,” Ok, steve, what was he trying to say? I’m not saying that in a snarky manner. I’m genuinely interested in what you think Greenwald was trying to say.
BTW, Mikey NTH in comment 13 nailed it. You don’t need to be a psychologist/psychiatrist to see that. It’s safe to oppose us because, for the most part, they’re correct in the notion that we won’t beat the shit out of them. But, to oppose the ACTUAL threat is too burdensome and if there’s one thing those guys are good at, it’s being terrified little cowards. They all sing Cumbaya, even the atheists. It’s some weird shit.
Morehead State. Moorehouse is a school in Atlanta.
Ockham, or Occam. Bigoted. Not that spelling is any gauge of merit in argument, but you might want to take a little bit more care with composing your comments.
Can’t we begin to correct that misapprehension? Being that stupid really ought to hurt. Not putting them in the hospital or anything, just a Purple Nurple or Atomic Wedgie or summat…
The rule of parsimony, it should be stressed, is there so that we don’t construct Rube Goldbergian hypotheses about natural phenomena. It’s really got no place in rhetorical interpretation; particularly when you’ve got the guy who made the statement to begin with telling you that your interpretation is incorrect.
But I don’t expect any of this to take hold, given prior failures of variants of this explanation to take. But I’m an optimist.
“steve – Or you could just look internally, and realize that you are just full of caca.”
mmmmm….witty
Ha! I can tie two threads together.
As I said, I watched the Knocked Up commentary yesterday. In the scene where Debby yells at the bouncer, there was at one time a riff she went on about him being faggoty. Then the Grey’s Anatomy “faggot” controversy broke, and Apatow decided he couldn’t have Heigel standing in the background while someone calls a man a faggot. So he edited that out.
Over, under, around, and through.
“You don’t need to be a psychologist/psychiatrist to see that.”
and if you were a psychologist, you’d probably see something completely different from the fantasy that Mikey NTH describes. so, in a sense, you’re completely correct. in another, more important sense, you’re completely wrong.
Still waiting for what Gleen “meant”, there, Stevie…
Any day now…
Why is Greenwald so obsessed with manliness? Perfesser Caricature as well? What’s that line about the best defense is a good offense? Neither offers a very good offense, but both and most on the the left seem disturbingly concerned and consumed with the defense, although I’m not sure who is attacking. Group therapy might be a good idea for them if who they fuck and what they believe is bothering them that much.
Don’t lean on me, ma’am, if you can’t afford the ticket
Back from Suffragette City.
Or you could just look internally, and realize that you are just full of caca.
Macaca, even.
“Steve: Please explain what Greenwald was “trying to say,†so that we may understand.”
That for all of the incivility that the lefty blogosphere gets accused of, the Right is at least as bad.
To wit, the title of the post: “Angry, hateful liberal bloggers” (get it?)
It’s hardly about ‘blasphemy’ or any of the other nonsense being said. It’s about ceaslessly prattling on about the angry, unhinged left – then turning around and calling a homosexual blogger a faggot.
I know, i know – it wasn’t ABOUT his being gay. I would guess that Glenn, like me (though I certainly do not want speak for anyone but me), doesn’t buy that Collins called Glenn a faggot becasue his problem “isn’t with Glenn’s homosexuality, but his integrity and intelligence”, what with it being a complete non sequiter and all.
I get verbotten humor. Really. I just think this isn’t a case of it. My guess is trying to impress the other wingers. I don’t know. It’s all quite complicated, as everyone here has pointed out to me.
Could someone tell this philistine what a gnomic conceit is?
Geez. Glenn posted that in response to me. What was Glenn really saying in the post that first I referred to? I know what he’s trying to say in the latter post: world-weary sigh from someone who’s so above it. Go take a look, you goof.
On a similarly off-topic note, have you ever watched America’s Next Top Model and counted the number of times Tyra Banks calls the girls “ho”s? Greenwald et al are missing a great outrage opportunity.
“world-weary sigh from someone who’s so above it”
What irony…
Glenn as internet policeman sure engages in a lot of profiling. I thin he just likes the uniform.
Shorter steve:
“Ho! Ha-ha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!â€Â
Shorter Gleen:
“Ho! Ha-ha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!â€Â
And while you go look at his initial post, Steve, you might, for the sake of symmetry, think about how you’d answer the questions in this post.
Once he acknowledged the hailing, “he,†as a constructed identity, became entrapped in the problematic of distancing his own insulting and mean-spirited characterization of others and their “fauxtrage†at certain representations that he promotes.
What??
“And while you go look at his initial post, Steve, you might, for the sake of symmetry, think about how you’d answer the questions in this post.”
Again, ironic in that people here have replied in the most selective fashion possible to my posts. I will look…
A twit, a very palpable twit.
I don’t see anything else worth responding to. I don’t plan on slapping my dick on anyone (mentioned here, anyway), if that’s the post you meant. Everything else is just straight up name calling – don’t know what to say.
“A twit, a very palpable twit.”
Oh – I get it!
This site is not odious. (The mushroom bruise references are odious but I used to sit with my younger brother’s friends during lunch in junior high. I can deal.)
And it doesn’t make any difference that Ahmadinejad doesn’t know who Glenn is. The fact still remains that homosexuals may be hung, in Iran, by the neck until dead. For real. Using a shock-word like “faggot” ought to bring a little more attention to that than pretty words would have done. Yet somehow the focus must be domestic. Is this caused by multiculturalism we-must-only-find-fault-with-ourselves doctrine?
I’m sorry that more people didn’t focus on the free speech issues (but since I abhor people who complain that other people didn’t talk about the right stuff, I won’t complain) over the “blasphemous” cartoons and the need to include the cartoons themselves in discussion and news about them. It was *important*. It wasn’t just because it was fun to be rude to Islamists. It was *important* to see what was really prompting the outrage. It was *important* to know that the original published cartoons were NOT the same ones used to fan the flames (literally) after a suitable number of Danish flags had been distributed. Actually SEEING the cartoons was necessary for anyone to understand that the ones distributed with the flags and which led to riots and the deaths of real human beings had been added to by the Imam responsible. “Muhammad as a Pig” was not anything of the sort… just a French guy with a beard at a pig calling contest… and who knows where the Imam found the “dog humping the praying Muhammad” picture but neither of those had anything to do with the Danish cartoons but they *did* have a lot to do with riots and death.
We don’t *see* them and we don’t get the story. What we GET is a lie about how the Danes were wrong in what they did. We get stupid people saying stupid things about how we shouldn’t be so rude.
Maybe being RUDE is important.
Important for truth and important for principle.
And then (in the other comment thread) we have to listen to the “how can you be so scared” bit, as if nothing is done except for fear. That the need to defend and assert free speech is a continual requirement to continue having it does not depend on fear of those who want to force us to shut up.
Free speech has been abandoned by the left. And Glenn can complain about how the right has “hijacked” liberal causes all he likes but if the left won’t defend either free speech or human rights for fear of getting winger-cooties… tough titties. All it means is that, to the left, winger-cooties trump ideals.
Like playing rock-scissors-paper. Winger-cooties always wins over whatever liberals pretend to believe in, be it human rights or free speech.
Hint: Here’s the hilarity that inspired this whole thread.
That the need to defend and assert free speech is a continual requirement to continue having it does not depend on fear of those who want to force us to shut up.
Well, except that you seem to care so awfully much about free speech when it comes to Iran or Islamists, which also strangely enough, many of you say you are deathly afraid of turning our country into an Islamic dictatorship.
I agree with much of what you say,Synova. We should print the cartoons. It’s not really that much of a problem here, but in Europe they should stand up and say ‘NO’ to anyone or tanything threatening liberal democracy. No capitulations.
I just happen to think that we can handle this threat w/i our societies w/o taking over the ME. I think these forces are there, are odious, but are not nearly as capable as (it sounds like) y’all think.
Then go read what Glenn had to say about the cartoons, steve.
And maybe you’ll understand then why I call him an idiot.
This makes no sense at all. What did you mean to say?
@67
Holy false analogy, Batman! That link is about someone trying to stop someone from saying something. No one’s calling your ISP and telling them to cut off your account. Your comments are being CRITICIZED, not censored. You said something, and I’m saying it means something. You called a gay dude a faggot, and now your hearing about it from people who think your intentions were not as pure as your saying. Does freedom from censorship mean I can’t call you an ass hole for what you said?
Oh what a brave warrior for western civ you are! First they came for Collins, and I said nothing. Then they came for Carlos Mencia, and I….
“Then go read what Glenn had to say about the cartoons, steve.”
I don’t remember what he said, but I don’t give a shit what Glenn said about the cartoons, Collins. I think what it says above.
“This makes no sense at all. What did you mean to say?” I second that request.
Because this isn’t about Gleen’s patent absurdity, sir! It is about your use of the forbidden word!
SIR!!!
“I can’t decide whether Collins came off looking more like a bitter, Clarence Thomas type or a stupid Bill O’Reilly type. ”
Please let us know when you make up your mind, perfesser. We’re all quite impressed with the intellectual candlepower of Women’s Studies prodigies, so we’d fall mute with respect for and awe oft your announced decision.
Well, I would, anyway.
Cordially…
“It is about your use of the forbidden word!”
What, did Glenn call them fags?
Look/ I don’t understand you half the time. You try to be cool and witty w/ the short sentence smack-down format. All you end up being is unintelligible.
Right. Blame the messenger.
“Right. Blame the messenger.”
OK. Enough.
Thanks for having me, God Bless the Red Sox tonite and y’all have a nice day.
Thanks for coming by, steve. Good luck.
What a nice young chap.
That was painful. The bit about Ann Althouse at the end was… all I can think is that the man lies and knows he’s lying but chooses to lie… constantly… about what others mean about anything.
And the whole of it? One BIG argument that Muslims aren’t against free speech. Or at least, no one is harmed after they speak against Islam. Oh, probably he’s right and Kathy Griffin (or whatever her name is) wouldn’t have been in danger for saying what she did about Muhammad instead of Jesus… unless she was in a Muslim country. In which case she’d have been locked up a VERY long time ago and would never have had the opportunity.
Some things are true… Muslims have babies in Europe and Europeans don’t. The doctrine of expansion in Islam is real. The mere idea of freedom of speech or democracy is seen as contrary to Islam by Islamist leaders. (But wasn’t Ahmadinejad personable?) One does not have to be afraid of Islam in order to recognize that these things are true and that the radical Islamists need to be opposed.
“I just happen to think that we can handle this threat w/i our societies w/o taking over the ME. I think these forces are there, are odious, but are not nearly as capable as (it sounds like) y’all think.”
My opinion only… I think that we can *only* handle this threat by remaking the world into something we can live with. Which sounds much more extreme than it is, I assure you. The nature of our world, now, is global and nothing will change that. Borders can’t be controlled (sorry peeps) and a very few people can inflict horrific damage even on a country as strong as the US. It’s not about strength. It’s not about how weak they are (which is true) or how strong we are (which is also true.) It’s about… root causes. Really. The terrorist threat is, yes, about oppression and injustice. Absolutely nothing about locking down our borders or inhibiting our domestic freedom in order keep things right at home is going to change, in any way, the forces driving the movement of radical Islam.
And we don’t have it bad, really. People in Indonesia or Somalia or India have it bad. We get myopic, figuring this is just about US and Europe when it’s even more about Asia and Africa. It’s not just that there is a whole lot of space between the ME and US… it’s that there is a whole lot of *occupied* space between the ME and US.
Greenwald uses Allahpundit as an example of a general hatred and mocking of Islam but, as several people pointed out in the other thread, is not at all true (that Glenn cares about this seems doubtful) that the examples he gave were examples of people who indiscriminately mock the Muslim religion. I won’t say that there aren’t some who think we can’t coexist with Islam but by and large most people who want to “take the fight to them” and think that our actions (or even more aggressive ones) in the Middle East are necessary, believe that we can live with Islam if the radical elements are defanged.
It’s actually more accepting of Islam to think that the people aren’t so irrational that our presence will push moderates over the edge or to think that Islamic people are rational enough to understand, modify, and accept a more democratic and representative model of government, than to insist that those things are impossible.
In fact, the evidence is that people living in Islamic countries, most certainly those in Persia, very much want modern things and are open to modern ideas.
That’s what I get for being windy. Steve left when I was responding to him.
(s)teve left when he saw teh vapidity of his own words.
Hard to top
when it’s at the very heart of the whole discussion.
Ahmadinejad had a contest for who could make the funniest Holocaust cartoons.
That’s way different though I guess.
In the specific case of Gleens it actually could be considered different. In that Gleens not being a Jew, he would have no personal identity conflict with an antisemite. Yes, conceivable he should have some philosophical conflicts being a ‘right leaning libertarian’ and all, but that’s another kettle of fish. Dan’s choice of the struck through epithet was meant to highlight the very personal identity conflict that Gleens should have with the rulers of Iran.
I mean, consider the original source of all this, the linked Salon article. In that piece Gleens could have described the Motoons as offensive, irreverent, possibly even profane yet instead he chose blasphemous.
Gleens is purportedly a highly skilled wordsmith. Best selling author, read on the Senate floor, yadda yadda yadda.
Presumeably when Gleens chooses a specific word he means a specific word.
Blasphemy
1.
a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.
So by choosing this word, as opposed to any other, Gleens has tacitly acknolwedged his acceptance this aspect of the Muslim faith – that Mohammed is inviolable and/or sacrosanct.
Yet, strangely enough other express teachings of Mohammed lead his followers to collapse brick walls onto, or string up by the neck until dead the likes of Gleens himself. Yet he expresses no concern over this and instead chooses to attack those who oppose the very people who would wish him dead.
“It’s actually more accepting of Islam to think that the people aren’t so irrational that our presence will push moderates over the edge or to think that Islamic people are rational enough to understand, modify, and accept a more democratic and representative model of government, than to insist that those things are impossible.” This reminds me of some saying about “low expectations”. I’m sure the progs can remember the rest. Anyhow, a great comment Synova.
Personally, this is where I am torn. Now, I wasn’t for going into Iraq as I thought that sadaam was sufficiently neutered, but once the plan was implemented (I always thought it was about nation building, which, I also was against) there was no use arguing that point anymore. I recognize the ideal of “democracy building” but I also know enough about the original, and thus TRUE, Islam, to wonder if democracy (any kind) can really take root in an Islamic country (Ataturk’s vision is unraveling before the world’s eyes). It really is the antithesis to Sharia.
Now, even if (and we don’t really know this) the majority of inhabitants of an Islamic country favor democracy, or more to the point not favor sharia, there are still thousands, if not millions, who do favor sharia. Because, as most of these prog morons don’t seem to understand, Islam isn’t just a religion, but a complete belief system and way of life. Religion and politics are intertwined and according to mo, are not to be separated. And because these progs/non religious don’t take their religion seriously, or are antagonistic to religion altogether, they have NO understanding of the convictions of the jihadist who is just doing what mohammed commanded. “All religions are bad” or “there are bad seeds in all religion” are such common tripe anymore.
It is easier for the steve’s and Chuckles of the world to tell Dan what he meant rather than to actually pay attention to what Dan meant, when he has repeatedly told them. Mendacity at its finest.
So… No cock-slapping then?
Had to check back…
“It is easier for the steve’s and Chuckles of the world to tell Dan what he meant rather than to actually pay attention to what Dan meant, when he has repeatedly told them. Mendacity at its finest.”
I’m accusing Collins of lying (that he had no high brow reason for using the slur – he’s just sluring). Am I lying about saying he’s lying? Go back and read my posts (obviously that’s not mandatory here before commenting on a post, but I do recommend it)
I may be wrong, but I’m not lying.
I do love the “
No Other Steve. There will be no cock slapping.
Cockslapping in one form or another is a time-honored form of discipline. I don’t want to speak to Jeff’s intent, but he’s certainly handed out a number of rhetorical pizzlings of late.
steve – My apologies. You are calling Dan a liar, and a bigot. Gotcha. I will go with Dan on this one, since I know him to be honest, and you … not so much.
You’re right, steve. I crossed out faggot in the title of the post in order NOT to underscore the absurdity of Gleen’s representing the Mo-Toons as blasphemy, and particularly in the context of over-reaction. And darned if you didn’t not prove me right.
“So by choosing this word, as opposed to any other, Gleens has tacitly acknolwedged his acceptance this aspect of the Muslim faith – that Mohammed is inviolable and/or sacrosanct.”
Is that necessarily so? That one can’t call something blasphemous unless they believe in it too? I recognize that things are sacred to others. I happen to not believe any of it. Does that mean I cannot describe anything as blasphemy?
That means that your special pleading is unsavory.
But most blasphemous of all, of course, is to type “faggot.”
This thread is a lot like a transcript of the UN Security Council when they have closed session, I bet.
“But most blasphemous of all, of course, is to type “faggot.—
As far as I’m concerned it just appeared to be making a silly point. In a way that reminded me of junior high.
Really? Kind of like killing people over the Mo-Toons, you mean? That kind of over-reaction and disproportionality?
Geez. Maybe I did overstep the bounds of, you know . . . civil discourse.
“Really? Kind of like killing people over the Mo-Toons, you mean? That kind of over-reaction and disproportionality?”
No. Not that kind. An immature, rather than fanatical overreaction.
“Geez. Maybe I did overstep the bounds of, you know . . . civil discourse.”
Clearly no. Its more like you stepped into being a joke. But why the fixation on Mo-toons and killing?
andy–
You still don’t understand where I’m coming from, because you still haven’t read Gleen’s asinine post. And because you don’t know the context, you cannot understand. But here’s the thing: you don’t care about that. You don’t care about Idiot Boy catering to Muslim sensibilities while faggots are killed in Iran. You don’t care because you’re too busy being outraged by something immaterial. You don’t care, because you want to be outraged by something immaterial, rather than to consider the merits of my argument.
Fine, you think. I don’t care whether they kill all the nonexistent fags in Iraq. Fox News is a greater, more imminent, more existential danger.
“You still don’t understand where I’m coming from, because you still haven’t read Gleen’s asinine post. ”
I did. I know what you’re saying. I think its absolutely ridiculous. I was surprised at first, and tried to figure out what was going on. But once I figured out what you were trying to say, which you have needlessly summarized, I realized you were a moron, not a hater. That you were making a silly point. That you think this sort of idiocy:
“I don’t care whether they kill all the nonexistent fags in Iraq. Fox News is a greater, more imminent, more existential danger.”
ridiculous.
Actually cleek, no, I was 100% correct. Sorry you’re one of the scared shitless morons that has succumbed to the cult of moral relativism. Now, go off and start protesting…the wrong people again.
Why Did I Type
Faggot?Because you misremembered
knobgobbler?pole smokerIs it just me or all the threads all tangled up today?
BECAUSE OF THE
********!!!RECTAL RAM ROD“ou don’t care about Idiot Boy catering to Muslim sensibilities while faggots are killed in Iran. ”
You say this like it’s a bad thing.
[…] the question he posed here: In the coverage of and commentary about Justice Clarence Thomas’s new memoir, “My […]
A Brazilian pool party?
Hmm.. Whack’n’em with a baculum!?
It’s a Scrappleface world.
Tony LaVanway
South Haven,MI
[…] In your face, Romo. Bills up 7-0. Speaking of the word “faggot,” my boy Dan Collins got in some hot water for calling Gleen a faggot a while back. Or something like that. Isn’t Gleen a faggot? He […]