…this entire dustup over the use of “faggot” does nothing much more than vindicate every argument I’ve ever made on this site about how language functions — and about the dangers of allowing for the appropriation of hermeneutics by consensus-driven communities under no compulsion to appeal to anything other than their own interpretations as a way towards determining “meaning.”
Not only is the maneuver on offer all over the leftwing blogosphere the last few days politically expedient and powerful — a way to graft committed group will onto “reality” by way of projection and collusion (a will to power through force of ego) — but it has the happy secondary effect of allowing interpreters to avoid the hard work of completing the speech act as accurately as possible so that they can rush immediately to OUTRAGE (real or feigned, depending on the sophistication of the interpreter), the tool they use to elevate, by way either of implied or explicit juxtaposition, their own commitment to “tolerance.”
That they miss the irony of their tolerance being intolerant, almost by definition, of speech of the kind they don’t approve is therefore quite understandable: irony requires the rubbing together of meanings, and judging by the reaction here, signifiers can only take on one particular signified at any time, or at least, the meaning of the sign must be determined by the signified that those who presume to take ownership over original intent have agreed to adopt. (And it is “speech” in the most literal and superficial form that they are attacking here, not a worldview or an instance of encoded hate, many of them having determined that the intent is irrelevant (linguistically incorrect), or that they are entitled to dictate what that intent was (linguistically coherent, but hermeneutically sloppy)).
So yeah, irony is dead. At least, to those who adopt a particular linguistic approach.
The double irony, of course, is that many of those who adopt this linguistic approach tell themselves that they’ve done no such thing — that is, they are aware that what they are doing in this instance is disingenuous, but nonetheless ideologically pragmatic — but the problem with such an approach is, you can’t just pick and chose when to decide on a common ground for determining meaning.
This is where convention enters into the equation — and why I’ve been such a strong proponent of adopting a convention that tracks with the way language actually functions, rather than adopting conventions that must ignore the actual functioning of intentional speech acts and sign formation in order to “democratize” interpretation, in the process, deconstructing the very concept.
Take away the rule book in baseball, everybody wins. Which means everybody loses, too. But then, that’s just such a glass half empty way to look at it, so, you know, shame on me.
I’ll give Hamsher one thing: she makes no bones about the expediency thing.
You need to be fever-whacked more often, Jeff. You’ve got a nailgun when others are still using wooden dowels.
As someone who believes that free speech is a cosmic absolute (yeah, yeah, fire, theatre, shut up, andy, cleo, caric, way ahead of you…again), the treatment of this particular PW dustup juxtaposed with the “nothing to see here” hypocrisy regarding the NYT Petraeus ad is simply breathtaking.
I want someone from the Greenwald camp to explain to me how “faggot” outweighs “traitor” in the negative lexicon. The difference? (And remember that I think MoveOn was completely withing their rights–minus the discount.) Dan’s original post was clearly a rhetorical device.
The MoveOn meant exactly what it said.
That’s my interpretation and I’m sticking to it.
Give me back my tags and preview!
By the way, I think “Hermen and the Hermeneutics” would make a great band name.
“Not only is the maneuver on offer all over the leftwing blogosphere the last few days politically expedient and powerful  a way to graft committed group will onto “reality†by way of projection and collusion (a will to power through force of ego)  but it has the happy secondary effect of allowing interpreters to avoid the hard work of completing the speech act as accurately as possible so that they can rush immediately to OUTRAGE (real or feigned, depending on the sophistication of the interpreter), the tool they use to elevate, by way either of implied or explicit juxtaposition, their own commitment to “tolerance.—
And any other such triumph of will over reality is just another way of describing the naked demand for power, for when combined with the will, power can take the vision of the great man and creat that reality, making a new world.
The fact that such acts of will and power are performed on a stage made of the bodies of those deemed unacceptable to the new reality – whether it is the reality of a theocratic clique in Tehran, a politburo in Moscow, or Reichstag full of party functionaries – is unimportant to those possessing the vision and believing themselves possessed of the will.
One presumes to use the familiar jargon of a protected group without first receiving protected group status: Dan would not only have to be gay to use the word “faggot,” but he would have to be the correct kind of gay — which is determined by the way he would vote on certain key protected group issues; either that, or he’d have to playing the part on, say, “Will and Grace,” or “Sex in the City”. Whereas “traitor” and Betrayus? That’s just speaking TRUTH, brother!
Not that we really meant it that way, you know. Wink wink.
Jeff – I think you defined the boundaries of who is allowed to use such perjorative terms too narrowly. Leftists, in general, are allowed to use any racist or homophobic term at will, as they are under the umbrella as the keepers of the protected classes. To wit, Sen. Byrd (KKK-WV) using “white nigger” in an interview, the Mayor of LA doing the same. Additionally, the Leftists are allowed to use any words of their choosing if the target is a member of a protected class that does not share their political ideology.
Speaking of those verboten words, the one that starts with N has reared its ugly head again: http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/587504,6_1_NA04_ALEXIE_S1.article
C’mon. Dan’s been begging to be switched by a faggot. He’s implied as much.
Oooh, this is going to leave a mark on the right wing…
actor–AC can say whatever they want.
Even to the point of being idiots. And yeah, from what I see, they qualify.
What’s your next “gotcha”?
actor212 – It is likely a whole lot easier for you to navigate the internet once you get instaputz’s small hairy ballsack out of your eyes.
I got banned for calling instaputz a putz. The skin, it is thick as rice paper.
Now, crawl back under your rock.
Lest we get too wrapped around actor’s axle, a friendly reminder:
AC is Pat Buchanan’s rag.
In other words, it ain’t 1996 and this ain’t New Hampshire.
I had never heard of this magazine. Shall we start finding obscure Leftist magazines and making actor and instaidiot answer for them? This game could be fun.
No, JD – you won’t be allowed to do that. The left is in charge of their narrative, and that allows them to define and explain away left-wing magazines. The right is not permitted to be in charge of their narrative and explain away Pat Buchanan because he is a hater and you all are haters.
Can’t you see the vision? Now, why are you getting in the way of that vision, why are you distracting the mighty act of will it takes to bring it about, why aren’t you turning over the power necessary for the reality to be created?
Because you – yes you, JD – are a hater. And they have ways of dealing with haters.
So yeah, irony is dead. At least, to those who adopt a particular linguistic approach.
Dead and buried in a shallow, unmarked grave out in the Progressive Narrative wilderness.
I am a hater. Fuck! Must go lobotomize myself. Then maybe I can start to understand all of their drivel.
actor212 —
I can’t speak for the entire “right” (funny how we don’t require that, isn’t it? No “unity of narrative” demands on this side!), but I find it abhorent.
But then, I’ve been arguing that paleocons and leftists have moved so far to either extreme of the political axis that it was inevitable that they would wind up meeting.
We live on a sphere, after all. Simple geometry, really.
Perhaps you, or Instaputz, or those of you who seem to think these gotcha moments prove something to “wingnuts”, should get a handle on who’s on whose side.
With the exception of border enforcement security — on which many neo-cons, classical liberals, and even Dems meet up with the Buchananite nativists (though for different reasons) — you’ll find that many of the reactionary conservative principles you try to pin on contemporary “conservatives” (many of whom are of a fairly recent vintage, finding that “liberalism” had abandoned its principles and turned to progressivism, which is just paleoconservatism with the blinkered optimism of the religious zealot) are more properly the bailiwick of the left these days.
Anti-globalization; foreign policy “realism”, etc.
But that’s only fair, given that the left is on the Bush side with respect to open border policies.
Of course, where the paleocons and the neocons don’t break is on such things as surrendering sovereignty to unelected judicial bodies made up of political appointees from countries not known for their fidelity to any principles beyond bald pragmatism and whatever happens to be the hot sociological theory of the month, etc. So you still have some work to do to win them over completely. But throwing yourself in with James Baker and the realists of the Nixonian era really helped you win a place in Buchanan’s heart, I can bet you that much.
Now. That being said, and you coming over from where you did, let me give you the short bumpersticker answer that you can clearly understand: Yes, I am willing to condemn the message. But they can say whatever they want — just as MoveON.org can (if, you know, you forget about the whole campaign finance thing they helped push for).
So no, it really doesn’t leave much of a mark after all.
Not surprised you thought it might. After all, you glean your understanding of the “right” from someone calling himself “instaputz”.
actor212: Do you ever get tired of “acting” in bluetexan’s Greek chorus? (Oooo, there are those itals again! What does he mean by that?)
Or is it simply a matter of not having an original thought or an independant critical evaluation?
Or are you just a
faggotmoron?It’s a mystery!
As far as AC is concerned; unlike The Narrative™ left we Conservatives/Libertarians/Classical Liberals/Huns (for JD) don’t walk lockstep within the hive speak. You and the Greek (there it is again!) chorus embrace uniformity of opinion while laughing at those who actually think about what they believe, creating various shades of meaning and conclusion. It’s called discourse.
You should try it sometime. You might find it more personally satisfying than plopping juvenile insults here or singing alto in the bluetexas Greek chorus. (those itals mean something, I tells ya!)
Lest we get too wrapped around actor’s axle, a friendly reminder:
AC is Pat Buchanan’s rag.
In other words, it ain’t 1996 and this ain’t New Hampshire.
Buchanan is an ass and American Conservative = America First Committee reborn …and just as relevant.
Pat Buchanan is fat and old and has an unhealthy relationship with his sister.
I’d say The Mark was left on actor212 (seriously, one more 1 in the middle would have been a lot cooler).
BJ – Do you think the actor is the pitcher or the catcher?
I think Bay straps it on for Pat. I really do.
All this horseshit reminds me of this white guy I had on a remodel job a couple of years ago. Loved to use the word “nigger” in the same juvenile bravado way Dan and Jeff use the word “faggot.”
I was down on High St and International Blvd in Oakland getting my car fixed. He was with me and before we left I said, go out there and do one of your “nigger” rants.
The look he gave me was priceless.
Alright kids, continue your linguistic navel-gazing.
The CHICKEN-CATERPILLAR SPEED BUMP is back for another mushroom bruise. Good Allah, they are masochists.
You’re such a good person, DonkeyKong.
Poor JD.
You got your ass kicked off Instaputz not by Blue Texan but because we had your number and you couldn’t get drunk enough to think up a come back.
I don’t typically use the word faggot, Donkey Kong. Nor do I typically use the word nigger.
But I certainly don’t fear them, and I don’t think banning words — or equating their usage with hate crimes — is advisable.
Call it linguistic naval gazing. I expect nothing less from a lazy intellect. But if you can’t see the trajectory that such conflations would lead to, you should thank your Al Gore figurine that people like me do, and that there are real liberals left to shine a light on what is happening and how it works.
I’d recite Nicholson’s speech to Caffry here, but then we’d be getting into so many layers of irony that I fear your fragile little mind would pop like a salmon egg in the molars of a sushi connaisseur.
SHORT PEOPLE GOT NOT REASON! FREE RANDY NEWMAN!
Oh and you know Bay dresses up like a SS tank commander and Pat dresses up as Poland.
After the “campaign” it’s time for a medal, the Cross of Iron from Colonel von “hot karl”
“Loved to use the word “nigger†in the same juvenile bravado way Dan and Jeff use the word “faggot.—
You have been paying attention to the discussion, right?
My mom used to tell me that she had my number when I was up to … shenanigans I think she called them. Usually this turned out not to have any real-world implications though.
If JD gets to be a Hun, I get to be a Visigoth. It’s only fair.
And DonkeyKong, thanks for the lesson in whatever the hell you’re talking about. Do you ghost write for Andy Rooney? Google “context” and get back to us.
Meanwhile, I’m off to pillage the Po Valley.
The Greek (cut that out!) chorus comes to sing.
Pitchers and catchers run for their lives!
actor – Yup. Heaven forbid there be a voice that does not agree with you over there. Oh, the humanity. And, I do not drink, but folks like you taking control of this country is the only major hurdle I see to my sobriety.
Now, go back to your greek (h/t BJ) chorus. Again, the world would look much prettier if your nose was not inserted in instaidiots chocolate starfish.
Belgium!
Bann that motherfuckers.
OT, I just turned on the Rox and Phillies on AFN (Rated Q for Quasi-fascist rightwing All-American activity by the thinking man’s irrelevant voice of idiocy, Wes Clark.)
Dear God does that Ron Orsillo dude on TBS talk LIKE A SPORTSCASTER. He’s like the old Piscopo bit on SNL.
The MoveOn [ad] meant exactly what it said.
Well, no it didn’t. Hard lefties don’t use words the same way as you and I. They chose the word “betray” because it rhymed and because it is not a nice thing to betray someone.
Unfortunately, many on the Right have reacted to the ad by taking the words literally, which isn’t how they were meant. They were meant only to evoke strong emotions against the General to say This guy uses the wrong narrative and you shouldn’t listen to him.
In other words, it’s to seize power over the General’s words and interpret them according to their lights, once again proving Jeff’s point about the violent appropriation of meaning by radical interpretative communities.
Gagdad Bob expressed it well in terms of male/female communication patterns thus:
I would take issue with Bob only in that last phrase. The Left is not agnostic to an individual’s lifestyle, but far prefers something that is transgressive and holds in contempt traditional arrangements.
Other than that, bull’s-eye.
I have read your posts on intentionalism, and I agree with you on the principle. I have to admit, though, that I am uncomfortable with the recent case involving Dan’s use, in a post headline, of the word “faggot” with a strike-through to call out Greenwald.
I enjoy both of your work, and mostly agree with you politically, so I want to give you guys the benefit of the doubt, but I just can’t see what the intended point was, even after reading Dan’s explanation in the comments.
My nagging suspicion is that it was a deliberate attempt to start a blog war with a high-traffic blogger on a slow week. Greenwald’s ouevre is such a target-rich environment, though, that targeting his homosexuality seems gratuitous.
The hook that this hangs on seems to be a Greenwald post in which he essentially claims that the right exaggerates, for political reasons, the threat of Islam to the West. I have a lot of problems with this view. To begin with, it sound like: Why should I fight them? They’re not coming for me! But, to be fair, Greenwald wasn’t defending Islamic repression of homosexuality. He just doesn’t want it construed as a case for war.
I think Greenwald’s problem isn’t hypocrisy but Hamsher’s Law: He won’t step into that echo chamber and admit any problems with political Islam for fear of giving ammunition to the warmongers. Related to this, since he cannot admit that his political opponents could have any reasonable grounds for their views without violating Hamsher’s Law he ascribes all their policy positions to psycho-sexual issues.
At least when Senator Frist did his famous long distance diagnosis of Terry Schiavo he was a real doctor. Greenwald is a lawyer, not a pscho-analyst.
And DonkeyKong, thanks for the lesson in whatever the hell you’re talking about. Do you ghost write for Andy Rooney? Google “context†and get back to us.
Sorry, can’t post crayon drawing for you. Your shit outta luck.
Home schooling is NOT for everybody.
dicentra – Thanks. That was a spot-on analysis. Emotion vs. logic. It is something that I have never been able to understand in the male/female context, and it is equally as difficult in the Left/Right context.
Actor, you fucking dolt, they are the right wing! And JD, unfortunately, the AC isn’t an obscure rag. If you ever read some of their stuff, the invective saved for President Bush is every bit as low brow as Huffpo’s, KOS’, or the DUmmies. Not that I disagree with some of what they advocate, but they have a strong case of BDS, too.
blue texan banned him because he couldn’t think of a comeback? And you blame it all on the alcohol? You’re so weak you couldn’t come up with “I’m drunk and you’re stupid – we’ll see whose situation improves in the morning”?
Sheeesh – I think we’ve hit a new low here.
Aldo,
If the object was to start a blog war every time Greenwald said something idiotic, we’d be living in a Mad Max internet aftermath after the last year.
With a straight face, Greenwald used the word “blasphemous” to describe a bunch of cartoons featuring A MAN. At what point do you think he would acknowledge the Islamofascist threat? On a scale of the Ruhr to say Barbarossa to use a crude analogy–what would it take?
And if you can actually read all the threads associated with this issue and not get the point, there’s not much anyone can do for you.
P.S.: We’re WAAAAY beyond the Ruhr.
OI – I truly had never heard of it. Given that it is a Buchanon vehicle, the existence of BDS is no surprise.
Mikey – It was actually quite funny. Chuckles was telling me that my name, J.D., is not in fact my name. Actor then proceeded to mock my family and generations of J.D.’s that I was named after. Apparently, while tending to some matters at work, and while they were drinking Jaeger shooters out of each others cornholes, having not replied in a timely manner, they chose to ban me. Given their freedom to puke all over blogs on the right, the Left’s policies strike me as being a tad hypocritical.
“But, to be fair, Greenwald wasn’t defending Islamic repression of homosexuality. He just doesn’t want it construed as a case for war.” Aldo, I know you’re one of the good guys, but that’s not being presented as the case for war. I haven’t seen anyone make the case for war with Iran using their 7th century view on homosexuality as a pretext for war. I kind of agree with Michael Ledeen on this and think that there is enough opposition within Iran to help foment regime change. I, personally, do not advocate going into Iran. Kill as many of the motherfuckers in Iraq as possible, but don’t open a new front. Just my opinion.
“I think Greenwald’s problem isn’t hypocrisy but Hamsher’s Law: He won’t step into that echo chamber and admit any problems with political Islam for fear of giving ammunition to the warmongers. Related to this, since he cannot admit that his political opponents could have any reasonable grounds for their views without violating Hamsher’s Law he ascribes all their policy positions to psycho-sexual issues.”
Not as pithy as “winger-cooties” but exceptionally well put.
“Sorry, can’t post crayon drawing for you. Your shit outta luck.
Home schooling is NOT for everybody.”
My shit is very lucky. Ancient Visigoth good luck charm even.
However, I’m a pretty fair blackjack player if you meant “you are” as in “you’re.” But thanks for the home schooling tip. Genius.
As this originally was an exercise in linguistic navel-gazing. Please spot the sarcasm.
Boched those tags I did.
First two graphs – quotes, Last two graphs – mine.
Instaputz is one of the more stupid lefty blogs. Also, actor and a host of sock puppets are running around dropping putz links. Not terribly impressive that you have to have little stooges run around to draw attention that you weren’t otherwise capable of getting on your own.
Aldo – it was the verbal equivalent of grabbing someone by the lapels, shaking them, and shouting “Wake UP!” Greenwald and the Gluppets were pointing out what they called the over-reation of the right to Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbi University, and deriding the right for being “Fearful” of Ahmadinejad – the only explanation they could find for the right’s reaction.
Got that? Dan then walked up to Greenwald and said “faggot”. Greenwald and the Gluppets jumped up and yelled and denounced the Outrage! Dan committed. Dan then pointed out that they were wasting a heck of a lot of energy getting exercised over being called a name when Ahmadinejad is president of a country where homosexuality (just being is enough) is a capital offense.
Got that? Name calling vs. Public execution. Which is worse? What would any rational person say is worse?
Now, explain why Greenwald and the Gluppets got all upset over a name and not over the appearance and feting of a representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Explain why they castigated the right for denouncing this visit, when all common sense would say that Greenwald and the Gluppets should have been right up there in front leading the denunciations.
But they weren’t. Instead they attacked the right for attacking the human rights abuser. The Gluppet War with the right in the west and the United States is currently far more important than facing Islamofascists who really would like to kill Greenwald and his Gluppets, and they have the track record to back up their rhetoric.
When you’re done thinking about that, ask yourself which person is far more serious and far more anchored in reality – Greenwald and the Gluppets, or Dan?
That’s my take on it – your milage may vary.
FYI, “gluppet” has been coined already.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gluppet
Fitting perhaps, but not original.
Drat! I thought I had something there.
Though I do agree that it is fitting in an icky sort of way.
Has anyone linked that bit where GG talks about how massaging the narrative is paramount to accuracy or whatever it was? – my paraphrase is way off there, but I remember a quote that JG has linked on occasion that really needs to be brought up in the context of the current … pseudoscandal.
Bravado? Isn’t that an Oldsmobile?
#47
I agree. In fact, I will go even further and say that very people are beating the drums for war with Iran on any grounds, with the possible exception of John Podhoretz. Most people on the right are saying that we cannot take the option off the table, because we may need to go there someday as a last resort. The line you are reacting to was my attempt to paraphrase Greenwald’s position. Greenwald believes that we are working ourselves into a war fever against Iran, so he thinks that he has to rhetorically tiptoe around the issue, trying to avoid saying anything bad about political Islam, else his words will start the avalanche rolling.
This position would be ludicrous enough if he was just trying to excuse himself from pushing back against the Islamos, but he even takes it a step further: He wants to deny that anyone has valid reasons to push back in defense of the Western liberal paradigm, so he diagnoses those of us who do so as having psychological issues. He’s even writing a new book on this thesis, which will no doubt be read aloud on the Senate floor.
Correction to #59. Should read: ” I will go even further and say that very few people are beating the drums for war with Iran…”
And also why are the googlefags celebrating sputnik today?
“I was down on High St and International Blvd in Oakland getting my car fixed. He was with me and before we left I said, go out there and do one of your “nigger†rants.
The look he gave me was priceless.”
Not sure yelling “faggot” in a bath house is akin to yelling “nigger” in the hood, but I guess maybe those dudes Queer Eye looked kinda lethal. Not so much “bust a cap in your ass” lethal. More like “z snap and stare a hole in you” lethal.
that should have read “dudes on Queer Eye”.
Please excuse my boner.
Aldo and dicentra,
Your respective analyses have made the most sense to me of any here. Many, if not most, of the commentors have a better grasp of politics and the landscape of political-linguistic commentary than I have, but it seems to me that throwing a word-bomb into the anti-PW camp, as Dan did, won’t win them over. Gagdad’s comments are spot-on. Are we trying to generate a larger universe of civil discourse, one that operates in a legitimate linguistic fashion? Or are we just trying to score logical points? Dan’s blog strikes me as being logically coherent but strategically misplaced.
Is the left doing the same thing? Probably. I don’t read them much, and the comments of their trolls who come here don’t leave a very good impression.
T&T
At this point it’s kind of a make lemonade thing, ask me.
#53
I get it. Maybe it’s just a style issue, but I wouldn’t have “walked up to Greenwald and said *faggot*.” Predictably, the tactic caused the point to be lost in the resulting blogswarm, making me wonder if the blogswarm may have been real goal all along.
In any case, Greenwald is a propagandist, not a good faith debater or a truthseeker, so it is pointless to try to get him off his message.
Aldo. The point is Dan’s, and as I said elsewhere, I wouldn’t have chosen his formulation, but at the same time, the reaction it has caused is instructive.
I’m more interested in the latter, frankly.
“Are we trying to generate a larger universe of civil discourse, one that operates in a legitimate linguistic fashion? Or are we just trying to score logical points?”
T&T,
As I stated above, I’m a free speech absolutist, so I don’t make a distinction in the outcomes of your questions. If one side (or many sides as the opinions here indicated) is held to a different and, in the end, incoherent standard by the other partner in the debate, where does that leave us? Certainly not on the civil side of things, but on a field of debate where gays nonsensically dismiss murderous persecution of gays as inconsequential and instead find offense in a single word.
The same set of ideological framers ignore the words of a head of state who threatens another state with annihilation and instead question the motives of an elected, term-limited, constitutionally circumscribed President who wishes to listen to the telephone conversations of people who fly planes into buildings.
If you know how to battle such idiocy without a reliance on logic, I’m all ears.
Jeff Spicoli said it first and best really.
Are we trying to generate a larger universe of civil discourse, one that operates in a legitimate linguistic fashion?
T&T, your heart is in the right place, but the freaky deaky portiong of the left has no interest in honest, civil discourse. Trying to have a civil discussion with strident dishonest hacks like Greenwald, Jane Hamsterdance and Amanda Marcotte is a pointless exercise, as they will not in any way attempt to answer your questions honestly. Not only that, you get vilified for your efforts.
Well, the discourse between emotional and logical, like all forms of diplomacy requires both sides being willing to compromise something (or at least one side.) The point being, If I may say, that Greenwald and others (such as MoveOn) – whether or not they use logic or emotion as their form of communication – are not willing to give any ground at all. Therefore, any divergence in our positions becomes a chasm unless we close it, which we won’t. To do so would violate, in many cases, both practicality and principle.
Jeff is feeling better. Kaz Matsui slamarino for the Rox.
The only reason to be nervous? It is Philly and the fans may burn the place down after whipping themselves into a frenzy while chanting, “McNabb sucks!!!” at a baseball game. (Since we’re taking about narrative consistency–Philly fans stand tall in the consistently inconsistent camp, if that makes sense.)
Only three words to be nervous about in Roxville:
Clint. Hurdle. Manager.
I wouldn’t have done it either, Aldo; but it seems that a good dose of cold water in the face (while incredibly rude) is sometimes needed to wake some up.
In retrospect, what I wrote was a little rude, but after the past few days I wanted to be perfectly clear. My apologies for poor technique, but after a good dose of “The Typing Telephone Pole, Part 2: Electric Blogaglue” I’m getting a leettle bit testy.
SpUtNik!!!11!!
This is off topic, but somebody needs to tell TBS that the MVP voting is (or, at least, should be) over, and that they can stop the Jimmy Rollins All The Time love fest, and concentrate on the games.
I mean, when you start building your trivia questions around the 139 runs scored by a guy with 716 AB and a murderers row hitting behind him, you’ve taken your fanboy boosterism to a ridiculous level. He happens to play shortstop, guys. The fact that he’s a leadoff hitter with 139 runs scored on a team that scored the most runs in the league? Not really all that unusual.
Jeff,
If Holliday’s stats are suspect because of the “Coors” effect, then every Philly stat is as well because that ballpark is the size of my hooch here.
I remember Ryan Howard “homering” off John Smoltz last year on what was a pop fly to left–even in my hooch.
I’m with Wishbone. It is the only acceptable alternative.
Free speech means the freedom to offend and the freedom to take offense.
Quite frankly I find a self identified homosexual using the term blasphemous to describe the Mo-toons patently offensive. If for no other reason than it is an insult to the intelligence of the reader and an affront to logic and reason.
More importantly, we must continue to express things as pointedly as we are willing to do so. To temper our words in order to avoid generating outrage! or offense! means surrendering such judgmentent to the very people who judgement we find so questionable.
I’m at a sort of loss as to how to respond in such a way as to promote civil discourse while also pointing out how completely irrational it is to make the argument that “they aren’t so bad” by stating that those who “blaspheme” against Allah and Muhammad in the US don’t have fatwas declared against them, while at the same time misrepresenting the views of those opponents. His little slap at Ann Althouse at the end doesn’t even *pretend* to not be lying about what other people say.
Civil discourse is easy.
All one has to do keep silent.
#71 Not only are they not willing to give ground, they aren’t willing to *share* ground.
Thus, right-wingers have “hijacked” human rights issues which the left/progressives may no longer be active about for fear of promoting the right-winger’s preferred solutions.
They *can’t* get upset about oppression rampant in Islam and it’s all the fault of wingers. After wingers stop all this militant sh*t the left/progressives can go back to caring about this stuff *their* preferred solutions. (Which look a bit like the UN in Burma, but there you go.)
…caring about this stuff *and* their preferred solutions.
Synova – It is easy to have civil discourse with them. Simply agree with them. Accept The Narrative.
#40–yes, agreed. Greenwald is a JV agit-prop specialist for an institutional left that will throw him to the side like the proverbial used kleenex if it gets to power. A useful idiot is ever was. So giving the ‘tard a moral victory is pointless.
no matter though. the point is moot. LGF has a photo display of a crowded San Fran Street fest, The Folsom Street fair, that will set gay acceptance back in this country 20 years.
OT: Jose Mesa, 95 Octane Relief. He should be patented as an alternative fuel.
Rox 8 Phillies 3.
First bottle throwing incident of the day seen.
where gays nonsensically dismiss murderous persecution of gays as inconsequential and instead find offense in a single word
I think the proper term for this is “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.”
wishbone and physics geek,
Thank you.
By way of illustration, a friend of mine has 8 children. #1 (16 years old) and #7 (3 years old) and I were in the pool with some others. #7 was throwing a fit for no discernable cause. #1 was trying to display, by clear argumentation, that #7 should be happy and stop crying. It didn’t work. I told #1 that a straight-forward, logical approach was not always the most effective. She looked puzzled: how could it not be? I told her that logic was good for analyzing problems, but that asking other people to be logical was sometimes a lost cause. Along the way, I noticed that the 3-year-old was so busy watching our interaction that she forgot to cry. I pointed this out to #1 as an illustration of using legit devices other than logic for an appeal. By similar means we managed to keep #7 in a good mood for quite a while.
Okay, these guys are not 3-year-olds. Some are nitwits and some are intelligent but evil. But some are just hurt, confused, and afraid. Demonstrating good will and intelligence both in and apart from the argument at issue can open a door to the suspicion that we are approachable. None of us is completely logical.
Of course, I’m not the one making myself vulnerable by running an insightful daily bog, either, so I can’t criticize much.
T&T
Damn. dicentra, I was thinking of the same quote. I just couldn’t place it.
Thank you.
P.S., Jeff’s discussions are not only interesting and entertaining, they are necessary. I rather disagree with calling “silence” a form of civil discourse, because true civility will strive to maintain the integrity of the discourse. Civility includes speaking the truth in love, to paraphrase St. Paul. By that criterion Jeff is much more civil than I in discourse, and for that I admire him.
T&T
Just goes to show you how quickly things can unravel. What should have been the third out is a little nubber that no one can make a play on, Lohse throws a pitch in the only spot where Matsui can do any damage, and presto! Mesa was just the icing on the cake.
“Of course, I’m not the one making myself vulnerable by running an insightful daily bog, either, so I can’t criticize much.”
Insightful Feverish Jew Rockie Fan Blog
Just to be precise.
And I nominate it as the new subtitle for PW. Until such time as the fever passes and the playoffs are over.
Don’t worry, Craig. The Rockies bullpen with a big lead is AWFUL.
Phils win this one, and the tide to the series turns.
Please. This is over.
“Of course, I’m not the one making myself vulnerable by running an insightful daily bog, either, so I can’t criticize much.”
CHICKENBLOGGER
OHNOES,
Rediculous. If I did blog consistently, it wouldn’t be about chickens. ;-P
T&T
You have little faith, Craig. Fuentes will at least make sure we have to face the top of the lineup once more.
Just watch.
This could get interesting again….
OK, leaving the bases loaded is not very interesting.
Wait for it, Pablo. Tying run will most likely come to the plate in that bandbox.
McNabb Sucks
It’s never over. It all begins again. It doesn’t repeat, it just rhymes. Just another installment in filling the unforgiving minute.
God, I hate the friggin’ New York Yankees.
Just sayin’.
“Rediculous. If I did blog consistently, it wouldn’t be about chickens. ;-P”
CHICKENCHICKENCHICKENCHICKENCHICKENCHICKENCHICKENCHICKENCHICKENCHICKEN
(Error: Overflow)
And so it begins…
Once again, we see how the short series warps your thinking and alters the decision-making process, on both sides. I thought Manuel paniced a bit by taking Kendrick out when he did, and he paid the price. As we speak, Torre is having to decide whether to pull Wong in the third inning. It’s ridiculous.
I find it amusing that;
1) There are still people who don’t get the why after about 30 explanations.
2) The temper tantrum by the left that I can just turn off by not looking. Real kids you have to deal with, being able to {mute} them is awesome.
3) The number of deep and frightful observations of the left that are in the process of being confirmed here, from dicentra’s “emotional maturity” observation, to Jeff’s observation of the importance of Narrative Control, to the general Sayetian inability of the visitors from the Left Side to address actual reality.
Which is why conversations with The Left have become increasingly difficult over the past several years – not only do they insist on HOW you discuss something, now they insist that they get to control which version of “the facts” you get to use.
I mean, how do you even enter a conversation with someone who insists that “the Sumpreme Court gave the presidency to Bush after he lost.” The statement is utterly broken in both fact and tone, but I guarantee you a large percentage of the Left would agree with it.
And I know from painful personal experience that if you document the crap out of it beyond their ability to snark, they’ll either change the subject or walk away angry. Or get shrill, as we’ve seen here in the last few days.
So much fun, so little time.
– T&T – Your points are well taken, however you do the group “us” a dis-service in assuming we have not been sensitive enough to treat with the troll onslaught in a caring manner, much as any responsible adult does with 3 year olds. We have in fact, on countless occassions, used said distractional therupy by quickly pointing out the bright shiny globes.
– No. Over there, hovering near the kithchen table…See how it sparkles… yes….that one….I think its for you….yes….it obviously is for you, and it likes you…. See pretty pretty bright bubble?….
I tried to cut faggots out of my life.
Damn near froze to death last winter.
Hell, what’s a fireplace for?
What are y’all doing here? All the cool kids are over on the James Wolcott thread.
course there’s also the small matter that Petraeus is the commander of IRAQI forces and not Afghanistan. but whatever, I’m coasting at this point.
sorry, totally wrong comment place thingy.
Gosh Dan Collins, do you mean to say that this whole thing was a semantic trick you played on the lefties? Wow! I haven’t seen such intellectual muscle at play since Ann Coulter used all those footnotes.
The real gunslingers of the Old West knew that, while it was important to be quick on the draw, it was even more important to be cool and accurate. Getting your gun out first was pointless if you only managed to kill the gopher in front of your opponent’s feet.
It’s faster if you don’t add extra syllables. Do it for the gophers.
Quickdraw–
Have you read Andrew’s piece that inspired me? Because, if you did, you’d find out that it’s a little more than “made you look.”
I’m a friend of the gopher. There was a time when I’d take out my bowie knife and cut my way through a wall of human flesh, dragging a canoe behind me. But the pointed exclamatory utterances have brought me down. I’ve been speared by a tribe of linguistic Neanderthals.
Andrew’s piece? I thought you were responding to Greenwald?
Salve?
No thanks, I have my own.
They call ‘im “lightning” on account of ‘is shootin’. He never hits the same place twice.
It’s kind of concerning how long it took me to get that.
This just in: Yankees scalped by Indians in game 1
Final: 3-12 in Cleveland
Best sign: “Not in MY teepee!”
Big Bang,
Please accept my apologies, sir, since so broad an implication was not my intent. Indeed (and “heh”), if I may distinguish between trolls (vacuous nay-sayers) and those visitors who want to engage the PW community by way of genuine and articulate disagreement – then, treating the trolls after the manner applied to the 3-year-old may have been expecting too much of them.
I would not dis-serve the PW community, even for the price of another dram of this marvelous Remy-Martin 1732 Champagne Brandy that is, even as we speak, interfering delightfully with my ability to string words into coherent sentences.
Blessings upon you all, and to all a good night!
T&T