So I sent an email to Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) in order to give him more details on one of his typical drive-by blog postings. The Tennessee blogger Brittney Gilbert, who I first heard of on Tuesday linked to a vitriolic post dancing on the grave of Steve Gilliard. Her headline was “Teaching Libs A Lesson” and from that post alone seemed to be approving. 
Not surprisingly a lot of people got upset at that. I emailed Reynolds because as I’ve told him numerous times on e-mail, I believe that he is clearly one of the most visible bloggers out there and he uses his feigned position as a non-partisan to push pro-conservative stories out there. Reynolds claims (in his typical “I am just bewildered Mr. Beauregard’ way) that this only happened once I started working at Media Matters but frankly I started thinking and saying it clearly that he was a tool from before the Iraq War began and he decided that everyone against the war was an Al Qaeda-supporting Saddam-lover. So I sent him an email with more detail on the story and assumed like most of the time when he is corrected he would just ignore it because the first version of the story served it’s purpose for the right (Crazed left-winger’s vitriol is destroying America, etc.).
I put my political beliefs up front and center and I don’t shy away from them. When I think one way about an issue, I say it - I don’t post a link to someone else and let them do the dirty work for me. As a result, people like Reynolds and the duplicity they embrace make me sick.
I clearly attack people on this site but I don’t hide behind some b.s. “golly, gee whillikers I linked to a post that called the senator an asshole and I said ‘An interesting point’ but I never myself actually said that so I’m pure as Ivory snow!”. As far as reach and breadth go, Reynolds is a regular source of material for the mainstream, the feces as they say flows downstream so I write about the source. If someone knocks him off of his perch, I’ll write about them.
Way back in the day Reynolds and I had a cordial relationship but it’s kind of hard to do the shuck and jive and smile like so many political pundits and the like do when someone’s calling you or the people in the same political movement/world/system of belief as you a terrorist ally because you think it’s stupid to go to war and occupy a nation based on a steaming pile of crap. So yes, I accuse him of having an agenda and never being much of a man enough to admit to it as folks like Tony Pierce wrote about.
I don’t like stupid people, but I dislike it even more when those people play stupid on purpose.
More Stupid Cons on this issue:
Silent Running
Protein Wisdom
Redstate
Cadillac Tight (whose world is apparently all about getting links from Instapundit as validation)
You don’t like stupid people? That must devastate the old self esteem, eh Oliver?
Of course, you’ve got an agenda and a cause to push if you want to keep cashing those checks, so carry on. Twinkies don’t grow on trees, I tell ya!
Thanks, Oliver. The Tennessee piece was the most vile thing I ever read.
I read Steve every day and have missed him ever since the day he became ill.
What draws your ire over here, Pablo? Run out of bicycle seats to sniff?
Can someone from the PJM Reynolds explain the purpose of pointing out that OW gets a paycheck from Media Matters while they have Roger Simon log on their collective breath?
Why do you get so irritated at Reynolds? His beliefs are also out there for all to see. You’d have to not be paying attention to fail to notice that he’s a libertarian conservative.
You also fail to understand his blogging style. Sure, he pushes his political agenda like everyone else, but he also considers it his mission to gain exposure for smaller bloggers and the blogosphere in general. Which is why he’s called the Blogfather even though he doesn’t have the oldest blog. In the older days, no one did more to link to other bloggers than Reynolds.
Now, if you’re going to devote three quarters of your blog to linking to interesting posts on smaller blogs, i doubt you’re going to have time to write up what you think in detail of every post you link to.
BTW, wouldn’t it be awesome if liberal bloggers would link to smaller liberal blogs, instead of you know, just linking to other big liberal blogs? Might elitist of you guys and gals.
Adam: Reynolds is a neo-con on the war; beyond that, his politics are “for sale” to the last good idea he hears from a Conservative blogger. For some odd reason, he believes that claiming to be a Libertarian will somehow confer on him the mantel of objectivity.
Beyond his disingenuousness, he is childish, willfully obtuse, and, yeah, a bit cowardly–again, the whole lazy practice of linking to the most objectionable screeds of others, mostly to avoid having to tarnish his “credibility” by writing such dreck himself. And, come on, the mistake he made–confusing which article Ollie was referring to in his email to Reynolds–makes one wonder about the quality of teaching at U Tenn. in general. Yes, Glen Reynolds IS that fucking stupid.
The net has brought us a great many goods, but the net is sadly, not often a place for subtlety and sophistication. It is a medium in which the majority of the population finds it necessary to use smileys to indicate when they are serious, funny, or sad.
It would be a more wonderful net in which Glenn Reynolds and others could be assured that their readers understand their messages even when there is nothing but a link.
But that’s not the net we have.
And Glenn, a professional communicator knows that. He is engaging in plausible deniability, in which he claims that by not saying any other than posting a link, that he is neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the author.
It is thus reasonable for people to look for and to use other indications of what Glenn’s message is, and one tool is to look at his history of posts and his identified beliefs.
As an example, when Glenn links to a conservative bigot, it seems very reasonable to look at his general history of agreeing with conservatives and infer that he is agreeing with another conservative, even if out and out bigotry doesn’t seem like Reynold’s usual cup of tea.
If Reynolds doesn’t like that sort of association, there is a clear out for him. Which is to be more clear in his writing. Which would consist of commentary other than “Heh.” or “Indeed.”
Reynolds is being purposefully ambiguous, because it is useful for him.
But it is intellectually dishonest. And as a lawyer, and a professional communicator, we know that Reynolds understands this.
What draws your ire over here, Pablo?
It’s not ire, it’s amusement. And it’s driven by the hypocrisy combined with the stupidity. It’s just too bright and shiny to ignore. Like a blogger on the Soros payroll talking about bloggers pushing causes and agendas. And like this:
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/05/why_im_still_gl.html
Hilarious, ain’t it?
Oliver, you realize how funny it is that you’re calling stupid regarding this whole thing right? Why is it funny?
Because a bunch of STUPID LIBERALS (yourself included) who:
A. Didn’t know who Brittney Gilbert was and probably never read her blog.
B. So they assumed her linking to that post about Gilliard was approval of what the person had written.
It started with El Stupido Numero Uno Jesus General who wrote a moronic letter to WKRN in Nashville and when is informed of his idiocy, turns and says she’s stupid. Why? Because she didn’t put a banner out on the entry informing dolts like JG that her post was satirical and meant to mock the idiot and what he said, not approve of it.
You’re right Oliver. Some people are just stupid and in this case, you need to take a good long look in the mirror.
What does her being left-wing have to do with it? She took an obvious attention-bait and posted a link to a racist, hateful post on a guy who hasn’t even been buried yet, and when people were angry about it she played the “poor me” and “you hate women bloggers” card, instead of, you know, just apologizing.
You’re right, I never heard of Britney Gilbert but I never heard of that racist right-wing asshat either. The lesson that I hope Gilbert learned is that it’s really stupid to take the bait from right-wing nobodies trying to get some more BlogAds revenue that week.
Adding, I’m also failing to understand why you’re a “stupid liberal” to be mad at a link to hate speech about a well-liked recently-deceased blogger with a seemingly-approving post title and no offer of context, either for or against it. If I linked with no context to a post about how you’re a pedophile who’s mother freely gives handjobs behind the dumpster out back, I’m guessing my political affiliation wouldn’t factor into why you’re upset.
But if your point here is that liberals are “stupid” because they chastise other liberals for linking to hateful trash, suggesting it’s something right-wingers don’t do, well… then… sign me up for the short bus.
See, she could have done the simple, easy, godsdamn sensible thing and amend the original post to say “Update: Though it should be clear to long-time readers of the site, I think Smantix is an utter tool and find his opinion on Gillard to be offensive and repugnant.” Instead, when called on posting, absent of additional context, the ravings of a racist asshole, she gets flippant, smarmy, and starts playing the “Listen, just because I quote it word for word and say nothing in the post that suggests I disagree with it doesn’t mean I support this opinion to which I am drawing increasing attention.” She attacks the attackers, gets her associates to help her fight people who, I have to believe, would have been queled by simply amending the original post, and after its clear that her flamebaiting has worked better than she could deal with, she resigns (in tears, apparently) and only then does she apologize.
The easy way around all this crap was obvious from the start, and instead of walking directly through that door she elects to bring a mountain of shit down on herself and the station she works for so she doesnt have to apologize, which she did anyway. In what way is that not simply monumentally fucking stupid?
I don’t know who Britney Gilbert is and I don’t care. That post should have been burnt, not linked to. Turning this into a HURRR LIBRULS SUCK is tenuous at best, downright pathetic at worst.
A lot of right-wingers don’t see how we on the left (or at least to their left) can often actually accomodate opposing viewpoints. On their side, as soon as you either start thinking for yourself, or become hideously unpopular, you get kicked out. It’s happened to Ron Paul, Andrew Sullivan, and they’re doing it to the President now.
What draws your ire over here, Pablo?
He was sent over by Jeffy G. ’cause Jeffy busy was having his prescription refilled.
Later, Pablo will get a snausage from his master.
What does she have to apologize for? The stupidity of others? Did they care to ask? Did they inquire? No. Their knees jerked and mob turned into a bunch of idiots and then started snorting that that she shouldn’t have linked to it at all and should have emblazoned in the entry that she didn’t agree with it.
As for the whining about ‘context’, go sell that shit to the tourists. Bloggers have a regular following and regular readers can easily decipher what is reality and what isn’t. Oliver recently linked to what he said was “Fred Thompson’s Blog.” After reading it, it was obvious it wasn’t Thompson’s blog, and it would have been idiotic for me to go back to Oliver and complain that he claimed he was linking to a blog by the real Fred Thompson because I’ve been reading his blog long enough to know what his intent was. He didn’t have to write, “By the way, that is not really Fred Thompson’s blog.”
Oh and my point wasn’t that liberals were stupid for chastising Gilbert because she linked to that garbage. Don’t get cute. I said they were stupid because they jumped to conclusions and then when informed of their stupidity, reacted as though it was Gilbert’s fault for not being of aware of their stupidity. So go ahead and get on the bus.
“What does she have to apologize for?”
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you’re too ingelligent to genuinely need to ask that question (which has already been answered enough times, as if it wasn’t obvious in the first place). In which case, fuck off with your trolling.
As for the whining about ‘context’, go sell that shit to the tourists. Bloggers have a regular following and regular readers can easily decipher what is reality and what isn’t.
And you, yourself, said this was from what people who weren’t regular readers saw. So again, do you still think there was no reason to provide context?
What does she have to apologize for?
Did you find the post “the Death of a House Negro” amusing? What was your favorite part?
Right, it’s about hating women bloggers. It’s the height of feminist principles to approve of anything and everything a woman says just because she’s a woman and we’re all part of the sisterhood and none of us could possibly be nasty, facile, path-of-least-resistance asssholes trying for a quick laugh and failing miserably. Because of the sisterhood! Or something!
Kill me now.
A.
Enough of Jay’s trolling.
The real issue is why OW would think InstaCracker would see reason? As OW notes–InstaCracker is famous for his Who, what, who me? Dear me, this all too complicated for my beautiful mind schtick when he is found to be wrong or showcasing a bigot.
Enough of Jay’s trolling.
The real issue is why OW would think InstaCracker would see reason? As OW notes–InstaCracker is famous for his Who, what, who me? Dear me, this all too complicated for my beautiful mind schtick when he is found to be wrong or showcasing a bigot.
I’m curious about that myself. Right-wingers are currently pretending The President isn’t a conservative; you think Reynolds is going to admit to it?
Hey Nimrod, go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut ok? Sure its’ been answered. People are claiming she should apologize because they’re stupid. I can see how that makes sense to you.
August, if they weren’t regular readers, then the appropriate thing would have been to ask for clarification. That’s not what happened. They assumed and you know what happens when people ASS-U-ME.
This is what happens when we paint with a broad brush. This guy is a mainstream conservative?!?
Let’s see if I get this straight.
Oliver emails a story to Glenn for posting. Glenn posts said story without providing context (because we all have 3rd grade reading comprehension skills and wouldn’t be able to figure it out for ourselves).
He then calls Glenn “stupid” for not adding context.
So far, so good.
Yet the story itself is about a liberal blogger (Brittney Gilbert) who links to an objectionable post without providing context.
Seems to me that Oliver is the stupid one.
No, see, cos we can cope with the idea that morons exist on our side as well as yours. Glenn compounded the error of a Liberal blogger.
Jay, nice original insult, but go fuck a lawnmower if all you want is to provoke.
Yeah, you tell me to “fuck off’ yet, I am the one provoking. Go have some tea and crumpets, get in a better mood and come back.
Well, as I alluded to earlier, given that your entire argument is based on supposedly not knowing what Britney Gilbert has to apologise for, either you’re being disingenous just so you can argue with some librulz, or you’re really quite dense. Because it’s obvious what she has to apologise for. Go read, for example, Rex Mundane’s post for a simple cause-and-affect deliniation of the situation. That’s what I meant when I said it’s already been answered.
I’m not in a particularly bad mood. I will, however, start to get angry if you persist with this “tea and crumpets” bullshit. Do I mention corn dogs, Miller Pilsner and Philly Cheesesteak? No I do not.
Outstanding, Jadegold! Argument for idiots, by an idiot.
But be careful. Smirky doesn’y like stupid people.
InstaCracker
Well, aren’t you a filthy racist piece of shit!
This is all so mind-numbingly ridiculous that I think I’ll go have a beer to wash away the stupid.
Hey Ringo, I know what people want here to apologize for. I’m saying she has no reason to apologize. Other people jumped to conclusions and starting calling her all sorts of nasty things and yet she’s the one that needs to apologize? I must have missed those courtesy lessons.
What really kills me is the people lecturing her on her supposed lack of decorum following the death of a person are part and parcel of the same group that did the happy dance when Jerry Falwell died and hoped he was “burning in hell” less than a few hours after the announcement had been made. (And please people, spare me the comparisons between Gilliard and Falwell. Respect for the dead is offering respect for the dead. Either you have it or you do not.)
Ok, enough with the tea and crumpets. How about some pepperami and Bass ale?
“Hey Ringo, I know what people want here to apologize for. I’m saying she has no reason to apologize.”
And you’re either a jerk or an idiot for saying so because clearly she does, as explained perfectly well by Rex Mundane in a post you refuse to acknowledge because it would spoil your fun.
I didn’t dance on Falwell’s grave. In the spirit of de mortuis nil nisi bonum, I said very little.
“Ok, enough with the tea and crumpets. How about some pepperami and Bass ale?”
Okay, so you’re determined to stay a jerk. Whatever.
I read Rex’s comment. Sorry, but I don’t agree. The people who teed off on her don’t deserve an explanation. Can you comprehend how ridiculous that is? She writes something. They go off calling her all sorts of names and attacking her (anonymous cowards for the most part), jumping to conclusions and then turn around and say, “Well you should apologize for not making it more clear to us!”
It’s absurd. A rational, intelligent person who is not familiar with Gilbert would ask, “Why are you linking to that entry and what’s with the title of your entry?” She could then explain. One could easily agree to disagree about her posting to the entry at all, but that’s not what people chose to do. They chose to be assholes instead. To suggest she needs to apologize to a bunch of idiots who were itching for a flame war is asinine.
And don’t be getting your knickers in a bind there Ringo. I’m just goofing with you. Ta.
Pablo: Smell the glove. Master has a treat for you.
Jay C is being as obtuse as Instacracker. The argument she was merely linking to TN blogger without comment defies credulity.
I’m certain in TN there are bloggers who post KKK and other white supremacist crap. Did Brittney also furnish them with links?
She writes something.
No, she wrote nothing. That was the point.
A rational, intelligent person who is not familiar with Gilbert would ask, “Why are you linking to that entry and what’s with the title of your entry?” She could then explain.
People did just that. They asked why she linked to a racist right-wing post. They asked what the hell was the point of posting it. Her next post was, and I’m quoting here, “I can’t win,” followed by a quote mocking someone who called her right-wing.
So it’s funny that someone would accuse her of that, just because she, you know, linked to a racist right-winger with no context, and then bitched about getting complaints and requests to explain herself. She refused to explain beyond a pithy “everyone has a voice here” comment which any “rational, intelligent person” as you yourself alluded to knows is pure nonsense. Heavens, god forbid they hadn’t read her site regularly and realized that linking without comment with the title “teaching libs a lesson” to a humorless, racist attack on the recently deceased was some form of high-brow irony.
I’m starting to agree with the people who said you didn’t read any of this, Jay.
Someone’s hacked the racist fuckwad’s site. Apparently first it redirected to Melissa Etheridge dot com. Now it goes to R. Family Holidays, package deals for gays and lesbians.
It is to laugh.
Jadegold, take your drunk ass back to the halfway house. Take your red herrings with you.
People did just that. They asked why she linked to a racist right-wing post.
Oh they did? They asked her? Let’s see. Here’s how they ‘asked’ her:
You actually thought that trashing a man who hasn’t even been buried yet was worth republishing?
Vile.
–
I guess partisanship trumps decency for you people. Good to know how to process all further information from this site.
–
At long last, Sirs, have you no shame? No decency whatsoever?
What intellectualy bankrupt slimebag will you promote next?
—
Wow - NiT backing the KKK talking points today, huh?
You could have at least waited until after the funeral for the cross-burning….
—
That’s just in the first 5-6 comments! Where is the rationality?
She refused to explain beyond a pithy “everyone has a voice here” comment which any “rational, intelligent person” as you yourself alluded to knows is pure nonsense.
Oh you are so full of shit. Here’s comment which is the 7th one down:
I don’t agree with the piece, in fact, I find it abhorrent. But, Nashville is Talking is a blog that covers local blogs, which is what is happening in this case. I link to lots of stuff I don’t agree with. Take your outrage back where it belongs.
The real problem here are the complete and total idiots that think linking to something is an endorsement of whatever is linked to.
Grow up.
Perhaps somebody can direct me to the Bloggers Rulebook that states that a link without comment is a tactic endorsement of the viewpoint of what is being linked to.
It doesn’t exist of course, but people yank it out of their asses on occasion mostly to engage in “Gotcha!” bullshit. It’s not something that is limited to the left as such idiocy has manifested itself in conservative circles as well.
It’s as dumb as the, “If they don’t denounce it, they agree with it” bullshit that finds its way into the blogosphere from time to time.
You only have a problem with this so you can argue with Liberals. Sit down and shut up.
Go eat some Yorkshire pudding Ringo.
Perhaps somebody can direct me to the Bloggers Rulebook that states that a link without comment is a tactic endorsement of the viewpoint of what is being linked to.
How to make hyperlinks in HTML
See, those are what you use to make people able to visit a page you want them to look at. When you create a link to something, it means, very often, that you want people to read what’s on there. If you don’t like what you’ve linked to, it’s probably a good idea to say so.
But what do I know; after all, apparently linking to something without any comment is also called “covering” it.
Linking to something like that without any comment is a tacit endorsement because you implicitly are saying “this deserves wider attention.” If you want to give it negative attention, you generally need to say so, or at least make an effort if it’s confusing so many people. Anyway, on the subject of Glenn Reynolds being “just stupid,” let me remind folks of that “We Win. They Lose” campaign he’s hyping. Truly one of the stupidest things to float to the top of the conservative septic tank in some time.
This is what Reynolds wrote at first. His next update is in response to Oliver’s email.
BRITTNEY GILBERT hangs up her keyboard in response to reader abuse. “I do not want to be seen as a victim here, I only want to honestly tell you why I will no longer be authoring NIT. Your host is simply not cut from strong enough cloth. This is the internet. People are vicious.”
It’s true, they are. But I suspect Brittney will be back, because the addictive nature of blogging is strong, too.
Um, Oliver, if you go read what Brittney wrote, she says that the whole Gilliard thing was the straw that broke the camel’s back, ie, not being able to cope with the comments she has gotten over the long term are what made her quit. Now, maybe you think she is lying, and 99% of why she is quitting is because of the Gilliard thing. But what Reynolds wrote is an accurate, if short, description of what Brittney wrote. The only agenda I can therefore see is that you want Reynolds to come off in a bad light, somehow, and are trying any way you can to make that happen. I guess you don’t like him. Whatever.
Is it really that hard to say that you made an overly hasty judgement of the situation and, you know, got it wrong?
Perhaps somebody can direct me to the Bloggers Rulebook that states that a link without comment is a tactic endorsement of the viewpoint of what is being linked to.
There is no such rule in blogging of course, nor in any public discourse. However, to present something like Smantix’s racist garbage in a vacuum the implication is that it is an endorsement, since that would be the most likely reason to post it.
Corrolary time boys and girls: I’m standing on a Street corner with a big white placard, onto which I have written “DEATH TO ALL NI##ERS - THE KKK.” Now, somebody walks up to me and asks me what the hell kind of racist garbage I’m trying to sell, and I quantify thusly:
“No sir, I am merely bringing to light the sort of thing that the Klan is wont to say, in my attempt to bring their hostile hatred to light that they may be better shunned by society at large. You are incorrect to infer that I am a racist myself, and are frankly an utter moron for doing so. How dare you assume that I am a racist without spending a day following me around to see how I react in other situations than this and how I converse with others. You are so very stupid to assume that I am a racist simply because I am standing out here with a sign that reads ‘DEATH TO ALL NI##ERS - THE KKK’ you incompetant boob. Haw-haw!”
If I did that and explained it thus, I would be, and I’m sure we’re in agreement here, pretty damn stupid.
Alternately, if, in that same situation, I did what Brittney did and simply called everyone an idiot, relying on everyone else to provide the explanation and context, then I would be monumentally, epically stupid in ways that the human limits of the English lexicon may never sufficiently convey.
She made a stupid mistake, and instead of clarifying it, fixing it, and letting everyone else get on with their lives, she decided, basically, to fight the entire internet, and when she realized she wasn’t winning, she quit her job entirely. Epically, tragically, farcically, atomically, stupid, stupid, stupid.
Oliver, you do appear to be a frightful ignorant fuckhead. I rather agree with the blogger who noted that you bear an uncanny resemblence to Jabba the Hutt.
Awww, Juan C. Get the shit kicked out of you at school again today?
Interesting: whenever one of the right-wing-dingbat sites links to ow.com a bunch of new right-wing dingbats stream over here like roaches through a knothole (or two-headed, one-eyed aliens through a wormhole).
They’re huffing, they’re puffing, they’re using dirty words like “fuckhead” and “shit”.
Good thing we like playing whack-a-troll.
Jackasses, if you’ve seen Juan, you’ve seen ‘em all.
There is definately something in the water down in Tennessee.
The biggest right wing a-holes always come from the same tiny corner there.
Oliver Willis, May, 17, 2007: Why I’m (Still) Glad Jerry Falwell Is Dead.
What’s the problem? Oliver danced on Falwell’s grave. It couldn’t POSSIBLY be about party affiliation, could it?
“Go eat some Yorkshire pudding Ringo.”
Imagine that phrase with any others nation’s identifiers and it becomes clear the way Jay’s mind works. It’s the classic “You’re an outsider, this discussion is for insiders” mentality.
Oliver danced on Falwell’s grave - and I don’t like that he did so, but I’m not about to tell him what he can and can’t do - because of the things he said and the things he did. This cocksucker at Six Meat Whatever danced on Gilliard’s grave because he could.
That someone has died, does not immediately require me or anyone else, to leave the realm of the truth behind. The truth is far more important than the feelings of the dead, or their survivors. I’m neither inclined, nor required to lie about such a person. Nor is Glenn, Brittany, or anyone else.
As to truthfulness, and who is pushing an agenda, the quote that you cite, uses the man’s own words. The man was a bigot. Always had been. I’m not going to speak well of people like that, nor should you. That you do speak well of him, or at least defend him, brings to mind of the question of whether not you qualify as a bigot, as well. That question is furthered by some of your comments, over the years.
Then again, however, you DO have an agenda to push, don’t you?
Quick, go check for instructions from Soros, before you reply.
Willis, and pushing the agenda on the backs of the dead
Here we go again, with this nonsensical people on the Internet are vicious routine. This time the person involved as Brittany Gilbert. However, I notice all over Willis, one of the hangers on from the left, spouting at Insta-Glenn̷…
I don’t even know what George Soros looks like. No-one except paranoid right-wingers cares about him.
Also what quote?
Nimrod,
Oh, I see. Did you object to OW’s dancing on Falwell’s grave, or is your silence and continued reading/defending of OW a tacit endorsement of his crass actions?
And Six Meat Buffet claims that his ire with SG was over what Gilliard said and did, too. You know, like when SG called Blacks ‘oreos’; or when SG posted a picture of a Black man photoshopped into blackface. As a matter of fact, the only racists things *I* see in the Six Meat Buffet post are quotes of things Gilliard said!
[as an aside, I have been called a 'house negro', as has my wife - whether its said by a White, Black, or Asian, it is still offensive, so none of that 'Steve was just keeping it Real!' from any ninnies in the audience]
Oh, the Captain Coconut thing. Do you actually understand what people mean by this particular criticism, which while racially charged isn’t necessarily racist since it applies specifically to the individual in question rather than the whole race?
It’s not the kind of thing you should call someone to their face, or bandy about liberally, particularly as it’s directed at whoever the “house” part represents as much as the individual.
Yes, I did object at the time, but as I said it’s his blog. He is also capable of explaining himself articulately when he comes under criticism, unlike a lot of other figures in this little mummer’s farce.
I just want to put in a good word for Yorkshire Pudding. It’s delicious! Also, do you deny that Falwell’s life hurt America, DT? Do you deny that his death made our country a better place?
“No-one except paranoid right-wingers cares about him.”
Well, them and of course Oliver, since Soros pays him for all of this.
*cough*
“since Soros pays him for all of this”
Back it up, malren.
I don’t get it, what’s the problem with George Soros (who does NOT pay Oliver, btw)? I want a more in depth cogent explanation than HE”S TEH LIBRUL NAZI FRENCH CONVICT!!!1!!
For every George Soros, I’ll raise you some RW funder like Sun Yung Moon. Any con want to compare Soros’ contribution to society to Moon?
The thing these wingnut freaks hate about George Soros is that he’s a class traitor. He’s rich so he should be funding smears and witch-hunts against democrat, but instead he’s slumming with us dirty rotten hippies.
I don’t get paid by George Soros, but damn if I wouldn’t like his money.
Nimrod,
Oh, yeah, the classic ‘calling him a house negro wasn’t racist because he is, indeed, a house negro’ ploy. I suppose that, for you, calling a woman a ’stupid bimbo’ isn’t misogynistic if she is a bimbo, right? Or maybe you think calling an Italian a ‘wop’ is OK if his accent is thick enough? After all, you are “only” referring to a particular individual with your racist, misogynistic hate speech, not the race/group, right?
So…. Tell me, again, how that Six Meat Buffet piece was racist?
Nimrod,
You *objected* to OW’s dance on Falwell’s grave? Let me refresh your memory, Nimrod.
You wrote this:
“”I’ll mourn his passing with a Campari & soda.”
That’s completely brilliant.”
that is direct *praise* for OW’s gloating, not an objection.
amongst other defenses of OW’s gloating, you also wrote:
“I prefer to take these things on a case-by-case basis. When Jimmy Carter dies you people will say very similar things about him, I expect. The difference is, Carter doesn’t deserve it. Falwell, arguably, does.”
You did toss in this half-hearted ‘I would never do this, but’ statement:
“For the record, I agree about not pissing on people’s graves. De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum and all that. But no-one is doing except maybe Oliver.”
but your defense of OW and attacks on Falwell continued after. And you also didn’t condemn OW in his follow-up piece, either.
In short - nuh-uh.
Weirdly, it’s okay for Deep Thought to obsess about the Jews Who Secretly Control the Media as long they’re liberal ones… How are you not a joke, DT?
That IS completely brilliant. I can appreciate wit without having the same drives. Also it wasn’t Oliver who said it.
If anyone did deserve to have their death actively celebrated, Falwell was one. I still wouldn’t do it myself, but it was going to happen anyway, what was I supposed to do, stand around going tut tut tut every time someone posted something?
“Oh, yeah, the classic ‘calling him a house negro wasn’t racist because he is, indeed, a house negro’ ploy.” Yeah, I definitely remember saying that. Oh wait, I didn’t. You’re talking bollocks. And there’s the false equivalency with the wop and the bimbo and the hey hey. In fact I’m only dimly aware of what the hell you’re even on about there.
The “house negro” argument isn’t a case of calling a black man an enn word. It’s an argument that their race is being exploited by their employers for the sake of appearances, with their often cheerful collusion. Which I think is often a good point with respect to certain black members of the GOP.
Anatole,
Pal,I have literally *no idea* what you are talking about. Considering that I have mentioned the media, oh, twice ever on my blog and the only time I mention Jews is in a context of world-wide birth rates,I have a question for you - what color crack have you been smoking?
Ah, I see - commenting positively about someone mocking the death of another while defending someone mocking the death of another is, somehow, objecting. Otherwise, see, when you wrote above that you objected, you would have been wrong. I am sure you are confused now, so let me sum up for you:
Nimrod: “I objected when OW mocked Falwell’s Death”
Me: “No, you didn’t. You defended OW and praised other mockery of Falwell”
Nimrod: “Well, OW didn’t, himself, write that really nasty comment about a recently-dead man that I abhor but think is really funny. Besides, Falwell deserved to be mocked in death.”
Remember, Nimrod, you are commenting in this very thread that someone who *linked to* a hateful comment about a dead man should apologize - while you blow off your own direct praise of the same actions.
Do you require direct quotes of your own words in every reply before you will admit that you said them? In this reply you, again,claim that calling someone a ‘House Negro’ “…isn’t necessarily racist…” (direct quote) while also admitting that “…It’s not the kind of thing you should call someone to their face, or bandy about liberally…”
So,like with Falwell, you are fine with, oh, SG calling a Black Conservative a ‘house negro’ and claiming it isn’t racist. Now, if - for example - I (a mixed race man who is often considered Black) were to call, - for example - Oliver a ‘House Negro’ for supporting the Democratic Party that passed and enforced the Jim Crow laws, would *that* be racist?
No, it would be forty years out of date.
I could defend myself further to you, but you’re clearly just a complete dickhead so why bother.
So Senator Russell Long, openly racist advocate of segregation and proponent of Jim Crow was *not* an important Democrat until 1987? Strom Thurmond, he who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957, wasn’t a hugely important Democrat until 2003? The number of Dixiecrats who became Republicans is 2, the number who remained Democrats is 52.
Of course, you A) refused to answer the questions and B) are resorting to ad hominem instead of facts.
Again - when you said you objected to OW’s attack on the recently dead, were you mistaken, or actively lying?
Neither.
What part of “you’re a dickhead and there’s no point in talking to you” did you not understand?
I just wanted to make sure you are, indeed, resorting to calling me names rather than answering questions in a truthful manner.
So, to sun up for those playing at home - you are a liar who doesn’t mind racist language as long as its directed at someone who disagrees with you. Oh, yeah - for all of your demands that a Liberal blogger apologize for the heinous crime of linking to a guy who spoke ill of the dead, you have no problem praising others who speak ill of the dead - as long as the dead guy is, again, someone you disagree with.
Of course, since you aren’t responding to me anymore, people will just have to review your words here and in other posts to see if I am right, huh?
I’m not resorting to calling you names, it’s just all you’re worth.
Damn Deep Thought. Using Nimrod’s own words and giving him the backhanded smackdown!
You rock!