tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post3527583622561468590..comments2023-05-05T06:38:34.592-04:00Comments on IMHO: So much stupidity, so little time...Niceguy Eddiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-77386731587997774932012-04-11T11:28:16.393-04:002012-04-11T11:28:16.393-04:00You're a little late to the party here, aren&#...You're a little late to the party here, aren't you?<br /><br />"You think so? Bring that proof. Where do they say that is one of their missions?"<br /><br />I know so. Look at the coverage of Derbyshire recently. There was no factual refutation of what he said, the point was that he's an unapologetic racist and needed to go away. They've always covered extremist rhetoric, regardless of their mission statement. If you don't know that, you don't know enough about MMfA to be commenting on them.<br /><br />"What I don't understand is that the "extremist rhetoric of the right" (in that case) was the HONEST side of the story."<br /><br />Oh, how so? You think the deck is stacked against white men in this country? You think strippers should essentially have no right to press charges against assailants, since they can't be believed? Do you think that if she was raped, that she had it coming? Where's the honesty here, exactly?<br /><br />"Perhaps, Brabantio, that's where you get your talent for lying/mis-representing and mis-quoting. You certainly ARE good at it."<br /><br />I must be very good, since you can't even express how I do it. That would be an impressive thing indeed.Brabantiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02183512606468901460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-11808940195411557902012-04-09T08:55:31.204-04:002012-04-09T08:55:31.204-04:00"MMfA isn't exclusively about misinformat..."MMfA isn't exclusively about misinformation, it's also about the extremist rhetoric of the right. "<br /><br />You think so? Bring that proof. Where do they say that is one of their missions?<br />What I don't understand is that the "extremist rhetoric of the right" (in that case) was the HONEST side of the story. The Mediamatters portion was the lies and mis-information side of the story. Perhaps, Brabantio, that's where you get your talent for lying/mis-representing and mis-quoting. You certainly ARE good at it.Williamhttp://www.autopsychic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-37464734398405098272012-03-28T03:05:03.248-04:002012-03-28T03:05:03.248-04:00I also have to say I like how the use of quotes is...I also have to say I like how the use of quotes is indicative of drug use. Not forgetting that you've made multiple comments on how MMfA was wrong to criticize Savage. That glaring mental lapse is perfectly normal.Brabantiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02183512606468901460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-62513261913204918332012-03-28T03:02:46.129-04:002012-03-28T03:02:46.129-04:00What concern have I left unanswered? Do you reall...What concern have I left unanswered? Do you really have one left, or did you just feel the need to fit in one more ad hominem attack?Brabantiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02183512606468901460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-26547991773178812172012-03-28T02:50:07.140-04:002012-03-28T02:50:07.140-04:00Dude, I don't know what kind of drugs you take...Dude, I don't know what kind of drugs you take, but the use of quotations you used in the last posting is remarkable. Did you even attempt to answer any concern made towards your comments? I don't think so, but from your style of writing it is difficult to say.<br /><br />Actually, since I've seen you post, you haven't been able to address any concern directed towards you. Are you for real? Good luck with that attitude.Williamhttp://www.autopsychic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-19066898493086472612012-03-28T02:13:15.153-04:002012-03-28T02:13:15.153-04:00"No, that wasn't my point. But, from your..."No, that wasn't my point. But, from your writings and style I can tell you really don't care."<br /><br />You:"Mediamatters has ruined and attempted to ruin careers of people simply based on the fact that they hate anyone who doesn't toe the extreme-left-wing mindset."<br /><br />Your next post:"One good example is Michael Savage. Medaimatters was relentless in attacking him and calling him racist and telling advertisers to stop advertising on his show during (and after) the Duke Lacross Rape Case. It turns out he was absolutely correct in his assesment of the situation while Mediamatters never apologized to Savage for all the harmful damage done to his career."<br /><br />Then:"They attempted to ruin his career based on "hate"."<br /><br />Then:"The difference being that Mediamatters is calling for ACTIONS against someone using hate, lies and innuendo as the reasoning for those actions. Savage did not make it a case of "race relations", Mediamatters and the Jesse Jackson types did. Yet they (and you) blame Savage for mentioning her race and call him a racist for mentioning her race. Facts show she was all the names he called her (which doesn't make it right) but that is no reason to attack him using the methods that Mediamatters uses."<br /><br />As to my "writings", I guess I COULD say:"Your hatred of left-wingers shows through. And you try to rationalize it by deflecting to the "style" of a person's writing ability." Check and mate.<br /><br />"I'm not the one who is in full support of removing individuals from their work BECAUSE they do that WHILE YOU actively do the same thing you complain about them doing."<br /><br />Well, look at that wording. "From their work". So professionals, people who are under supervision of the FCC, who have standards to uphold, who have a responsibility to their listeners are exactly the same as people who post anonymously on the internet. Ridiculous, as I said.<br /><br />I haven't said anything within three time zones of Savage's bile. Until you produce the evidence to back up the charges you made against me, you have no credibility to make any further comments on my character. Happy hunting.Brabantiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02183512606468901460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-18434089994179409272012-03-27T20:15:21.738-04:002012-03-27T20:15:21.738-04:00"Remember, your point was that MMfA was wrong..."Remember, your point was that MMfA was wrong to criticize Savage."<br /><br /> No, that wasn't my point. But, from your writings and style I can tell you really don't care.<br /><br /><br />"That's pretty funny, considering how you talk about "hate" while making vile generalizations about people who disagree with you."<br /><br /> Yes, I make "vile generalizations". However, I'm not the one denying that I say them while saying them. I'm not the one who is in full support of removing individuals from their work BECAUSE they do that WHILE YOU actively do the same thing you complain about them doing.Williamhttp://www.autopsychic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-79541329579728260732012-03-27T17:27:32.956-04:002012-03-27T17:27:32.956-04:00"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in y..."Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"<br /><br />That's pretty funny, considering how you talk about "hate" while making vile generalizations about people who disagree with you.<br /><br />It seems to me that you're comparing anonymous posters on websites to people who have thousands upon thousands of listeners. That's ridiculous, of course, for reasons which really shouldn't have to be spelled out to anyone over the age of five.<br /><br />Remember, your point was that MMfA was wrong to criticize Savage. Where did that argument go? You charged me with discounting the words of right-wing posters because they disagreed with MMfA articles. Still no evidence?<br /><br />Keep looking.Brabantiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02183512606468901460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-58595468841791927152012-03-27T15:19:24.776-04:002012-03-27T15:19:24.776-04:00" So apparently the person you cited as an ex..." So apparently the person you cited as an example of "hateful/derogatory" speech based on generalizations of right-wingers is more open-minded than YOU."<br /><br />And, maybe, that person is complaining about right-wingers being "hateful/derogatory" while being that way himself. I'm not saying you can't do it. I'm saying if you're going to whine about righties being that way perhaps you shouldn't be that way yourself.<br /><br />What it seems to be is that left-wingers will call others all kinds of vial/hurtful names and defend their right to do that, yet when a right-winger does it they act as if the end of the world is about to happen and if that right-winger isn't fired from his/her job immediately then society will end.<br /> What's the old saying: people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.<br /> Or, a better one: Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?<br /><br /><br />BTW, you must have eaten just before posting.Williamhttp://www.autopsychic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-81127418987655352672012-03-27T05:14:18.056-04:002012-03-27T05:14:18.056-04:00It occured to me, William, that you might want to ...It occured to me, William, that you might want to check out the "Bill O'Reilly Dismisses Racist Chant" thread. It's remarkable that someone can criticize MMfA, defend a right-wing blowhard like O'Reilly, and have those posts remain there uncensored. And with mostly "thumbs-up" responses, I might add. "Sheeple", you say?<br /><br />You can always pick on one or two posts from essentially anyone and try to discredit them. It's not meaningful. You clearly don't have any sense of my general attitudes and principles, or you wouldn't be acting a rabid hyena over the discovery of one thing that could possibly be taken a certain way. In this very thread you claimed that hate is an ideology, which was idiotic. I didn't use that to try to discredit you altogether, or bring it up in every post afterwards. I addressed your argument on its merits.<br /><br />It also occurred to me that NiceGuyEddie himself recognizes that people can make valid points regardless of their history. He made an entire blog post regarding it, remember? So apparently the person you cited as an example of "hateful/derogatory" speech based on generalizations of right-wingers is more open-minded than YOU.<br /><br />Just some food for thought before you pick up your shovel again.Brabantiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02183512606468901460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-12659320230589817912012-03-26T22:04:15.645-04:002012-03-26T22:04:15.645-04:00They do not. They do nto show MMFA claiming that t...They do not. They do nto show MMFA claiming that the woman was telling the truth, becuase they do not show your RW Hero's calling ehr a LIAR. Oh, they call her EVERYTHING ELSE, and THAR is what they were called out for, but it never occured to them to do anything but make racially motivated ad himonen attcks. they never questioned the veracity of the story either. In calling her a WHORE, they admit that they figure something DID happen that night, they're just BLAMING THE VICTIM.<br /><br />Show me where MMFA said teh woman's story was TRUE. Becuase I see a lot of the word "alleged" in their writngs. <br /><br />So you chose poor examples. Try again, on this issue or any other. We're all ears.Niceguy Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-17007898543663415022012-03-26T17:00:10.179-04:002012-03-26T17:00:10.179-04:00"That's absurd on its face"
'Yo..."That's absurd on its face"<br /><br />'You're right. It is absurd for me to expect you to answer direct questions.'<br /><br />And you accuse me of picking and choosing what I want to answer. Rich. Ignore substance for a sophomoric swipe. Typical, and maybe all you're capable of.<br /><br />Once again, you don't get it. You really need to break this addiction to magical thinking. "Facts are stubborn things," and objective facts don't change because your awareness of them does. If your assumptions are wrong, as all of them about me are, they're wrong. You may choose to hold on to those assumptions if I don't choose to play your game, but that will not make them correct. This is introductory logic, but you don't seem able to process it.<br /><br /><br />As far as nads, go play your little "mine-is-bigger than-yours" games with some of your right-wing cohorts.<br /><br />But just what questions that I've refused to answer are you referring to, and what relevance do they have to any of our socio-political discussions here?<br /><br />By the way, I see in your argument with Brab that you're asking irrelevant questions about him, so that you can categorize him, too. He's stated, accurately, that you shouldn't need that information. What you have to deal with are the views expressed, the manner in which they're expressed, and their factual, logical and ethical bases. Nothing else is relevant, and your constant need to widen the conversation into generalities so that you can bring your prejudices into play violates the very essence of honorable debate.Conchobharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12615429492457158341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-73584263171949638432012-03-26T12:26:54.157-04:002012-03-26T12:26:54.157-04:00"No. And, that's why I whine about Mediam..."No. And, that's why I whine about Mediamatters and it's 25 (or so) regular posters. That's is exactly what they do. And, they are proud of it and defend their actions and ability to do that to no ends."<br /><br />Then how do you classify it as "hate, lies and innuendo" for anyone to criticize Savage for claiming white men are at a systemic disadvantage?<br /><br />"What are you standards for public dialogue? World wide accessible content isn't "public" enough?"<br /><br />This might be news to you, but when you consistently downplay the number of posters at MediaMatters, it doesn't lend a lot of credence to the idea that anything said there has a national impact. Think about it.<br /><br />"In fact, many of the right-wing blo-hards could make the same claim as you are in your excuse for calling all right-wingers "flaming jackasses"."<br /><br />I'm not calling all right-wingers "flaming jackasses". The context was behavior-specific. As I said, I would rephrase it, but I would politely ask that you don't call me a liar without good cause for it. Now, right-wing blowhards could make excuses, but the language they use and their history have to be taken into account when evaluating that. My history backs me up.<br /><br />"Sure ... what you meant was "kind folk" instead of "flaming jackasses", right? LOL"<br /><br />Actually, no. There are conservative posters that I've defended in the past, and who respect me. I would bet good money that they would not believe your interpretation.<br /><br />"Yes, he does. And I perceive the left as mentally incompetent. Your defense of someone calling others names is a very good way of furthering my perception."<br /><br />Ad hominem, not addressing the point.<br /><br />"Yes, he uses 2 examples to show why anyone (especially right wingers) who ONLY get a HS diploma is stupid."<br /><br />No, why they're perceived as stupid. To put two people like that at the forefront of your political media doesn't reflect well on modern conservatism in general (which doesn't mean every single conservative, to make it clear). Personally, I would throw Limbaugh in there and make it more of a point about credibility, but I understand the point he's making.<br /><br />"(#1) I AM judging you on what you actually write."<br /><br />Really?:"The relevance is that I need to get a proper idea of your prospective of anyone who posts non-left-wing-agreeing statements. You, like the other Mediamatters 25 (or so) regular posters, will automatically have an opinion made about a persons statements based solely on their political leanings" This was not your first demand for this information, either. You can't have it both ways. If you are judging my argument on its merits, then you don't need to know anything else.<br /><br />"(#2) You ARE criticizing and judging the right even when they wrote nothing."<br /><br />This was in reference to your charge that I discounted people's opinions when they disagreed with an MMfA article ("(2)Criticize me for allegedly judging right-wingers based on their disagreement with MMfA, instead of what they actually write."). Your original quote:"You have (I've seen some of your posts, there) made derogatory statements about right-wing posters and discounted their statements only because they are not in agreement with the given article." I still await your evidence to back up the accusation you made. Is that asking too much?<br /><br />"Where is the post you are responding to that was written by a right-winger? Perhaps I missed that one and I owe you an apology."<br /><br />What are you referring to? That is cryptic.Brabantiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02183512606468901460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-996232607601751772012-03-26T12:01:48.384-04:002012-03-26T12:01:48.384-04:00"No. And, that's why I whine about Mediam..."No. And, that's why I whine about Mediamatters and it's 25 (or so) regular posters. That's is exactly what they do. And, they are proud of it and defend their actions and ability to do that to no ends."<br /><br />Then how do you classify it as "hate, lies and innuendo" for anyone to criticize Savage for claiming white men are at a systemic disadvantage?<br /><br />"What are you standards for public dialogue? World wide accessible content isn't "public" enough?"<br /><br />This might be news to you, but when you consistently downplay the number of posters at MediaMatters, it doesn't lend a lot of credence to the idea that anything in the comments there has a national impact. Think about it.<br /><br />"In fact, many of the right-wing blo-hards could make the same claim as you are in your excuse for calling all right-wingers "flaming jackasses"."<br /><br />I'm not calling all right-wingers "flaming jackasses". The context was behavior-specific. As I said, I would rephrase it, but I would politely ask that you don't call me a liar without good cause for it. Now, right-wing blowhards could make excuses, but the language they use and their history have to be taken into account when evaluating that. My history backs me up.<br /><br />"Sure ... what you meant was "kind folk" instead of "flaming jackasses", right? LOL"<br /><br />Actually, no. There are conservative posters that I've defended in the past, and who respect me. I would bet good money that they would not believe your charges of generalizing.<br /><br />"Yes, he does. And I perceive the left as mentally incompetent. Your defense of someone calling others names is a very good way of furthering my perception."<br /><br />Ad hominem, not addressing the point.<br /><br />"Yes, he uses 2 examples to show why anyone (especially right wingers) who ONLY get a HS diploma is stupid."<br /><br />No, why they're perceived as stupid. To put two people like that at the forefront of your political media doesn't reflect well on modern conservatism in general (which doesn't mean every single conservative, to make it clear). Personally, I would throw Limbaugh in there and make it more of a comment about credibility, but I understand the point he's making.<br /><br />"(#1) I AM judging you on what you actually write."<br /><br />Really?:"The relevance is that I need to get a proper idea of your prospective of anyone who posts non-left-wing-agreeing statements. You, like the other Mediamatters 25 (or so) regular posters, will automatically have an opinion made about a persons statements based solely on their political leanings" This was not your first demand for this information, either. You can't have it both ways. If you are judging my argument on its merits, then you don't need to know anything else.<br /><br />"(#2) You ARE criticizing and judging the right even when they wrote nothing."<br /><br />This was in reference to your charge that I discounted people's opinions when they disagreed with an MMfA article ("(2)Criticize me for allegedly judging right-wingers based on their disagreement with MMfA, instead of what they actually write."). Your original quote:"You have (I've seen some of your posts, there) made derogatory statements about right-wing posters and discounted their statements only because they are not in agreement with the given article." I await evidence of this, still.<br /><br />"Where is the post you are responding to that was written by a right-winger? Perhaps I missed that one and I owe you an apology."<br /><br />What are you referring to? That is cryptic.Brabantiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02183512606468901460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-72639096648164282692012-03-26T09:38:08.074-04:002012-03-26T09:38:08.074-04:00"Promoting racial tension and paranoia is jus..."Promoting racial tension and paranoia is just fine, though?"<br /><br />No. And, that's why I whine about Mediamatters and it's 25 (or so) regular posters. That's is exactly what they do. And, they are proud of it and defend their actions and ability to do that to no ends. <br /><br /><br />"That's not exactly the "public dialogue". "<br /><br />What are you standards for public dialogue? World wide accessible content isn't "public" enough? Or are you saying Rush (ect..) can do and say whatever they want as long as they do it on-line?<br /><br /><br />"No, that wasn't my intent, "<br /><br />And how many other posts are you going to make that claim on? All of them? Your "intent" and your "actions" are completely different. In fact, many of the right-wing blo-hards could make the same claim as you are in your excuse for calling all right-wingers "flaming jackasses". But, you have NO problem whining about them doing it, huh? I'll bet you went ballistic during Rush's latest problems calling people names. If he used the same lame excuse as you just did, would you let him slide for saying what he said?<br /><br /><br />"Perhaps I'm getting lax from being around people who know my meaning better than you as well."<br /><br /> Sure ... what you meant was "kind folk" instead of "flaming jackasses", right? LOL<br /><br /><br />"Secondly, he doesn't say the right IS stupid, simply that is the perception."<br /><br /> Yes, he does. And I perceive the left as mentally incompetent. Your defense of someone calling others names is a very good way of furthering my perception.<br /><br /><br />"Finally, and most importantly, he points to two prominent voices of the right-wing media specifically to demonstrate why that is the case."<br /><br />Yes, he uses 2 examples to show why anyone (especially right wingers) who ONLY get a HS diploma is stupid. That's a fine example of liberal self-perceived superiority over others who don't agree with their messages.<br /><br /><br />"I look forward to your response of my other post, regarding your double-standard of generalizing opponents."<br /><br />And which post is that? Do you mean this one: "Incidentally, don't you think it's awfully strange that you:"<br /><br /> (#1) I AM judging you on what you actually write. <br /> (#2) You ARE criticizing and judging the right even when they wrote nothing. <br />Where is the post you are responding to that was written by a right-winger? Perhaps I missed that one and I owe you an apology. But, I doubt it. The inconsistencies are yours, not mine.Williamhttp://www.autopsychic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-33746033277951269312012-03-26T04:15:13.591-04:002012-03-26T04:15:13.591-04:00"When someone yells "fire" in a mov..."When someone yells "fire" in a movie theatre would be one example. Calling someone a "dirt-bag" would not be."<br /><br />Promoting racial tension and paranoia is just fine, though?<br /><br />"That's what I asked you concerning your ability to do just that while posting at Mediamatters."<br /><br />That's not exactly the "public dialogue". Nobody's sanctioning any poster's opinion there, putting it out by megaphone to imply that it has value. The difference is enormous. You didn't answer the question, by the way.<br /><br />"From the rest of that post it indicates you are blindly calling all right-wingers that. Tell me if I'm wrong."<br /><br />No, that wasn't my intent, and people familiar with my posts should know that. The context is the article, of course, regarding specific people and their behavior. I don't apply that to large groups of people, I am just appalled by the amount of garbage coming from conservative media on this issue. Perhaps I'm getting lax from being around people who know my meaning better than you as well. In any event, I would amend my wording there to make it more clear.<br /><br />That being said, your contention was that I "discounted" other poster's opinions for the sole reason that they disagreed with an article. Your example clearly does not apply to that at all.<br /><br />"(BTW... Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck? HS Diploma's. Nothing more.) And they wonder why we percieve the Right as stupid."<br /><br />First off, I never claimed that there were no derogatory posts there at all, so I'm not sure what you intend to prove here. Secondly, he doesn't say the right IS stupid, simply that is the perception. Finally, and most importantly, he points to two prominent voices of the right-wing media specifically to demonstrate why that is the case. It would seem his point is that the right isn't putting their most intelligent, accomplished people out in front, which makes them more difficult to take seriously. That makes sense, doesn't it? Or are you more concerned with the tone and style of the comment?<br /><br />I look forward to your response of my other post, regarding your double-standard of generalizing opponents.Brabantiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02183512606468901460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-89343828022954240222012-03-26T03:46:21.157-04:002012-03-26T03:46:21.157-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Brabantiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02183512606468901460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-9672075904568972572012-03-25T21:39:08.960-04:002012-03-25T21:39:08.960-04:00"At what point do you believe speech has cons..."At what point do you believe speech has consequences?"<br /><br />When someone yells "fire" in a movie theatre would be one example. Calling someone a "dirt-bag" would not be.<br /><br /><br />" If someone behaves irresponsibly in the public dialogue, what gives them the right to continue doing so?"<br /><br /> That's what I asked you concerning your ability to do just that while posting at Mediamatters. <br /><br /><br />"Really? I find that hard to believe, for one thing because you seem vested in categorizing me in order to determine my character. If you were familiar with my posts, why would you need to do that?"<br /><br />"Flaming jackasses." by Brabantio (March 25, 2012 8:38 am ET)<br />Is this you? Who are you talking about? From the rest of that post it indicates you are blindly calling all right-wingers that. Tell me if I'm wrong. BTW, you notice that is dated TODAY. Do you really expect me to believe you don't do that on a regular basis?<br /><br />Maybe you recognize this regular poster who uses hateful/derogatory posts at Mediamatters basing his opinion on nothing more than generalized hatred of the right-wingers:<br /> "(BTW... Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck? HS Diploma's. Nothing more.) And they wonder why we percieve the Right as stupid."<br /><br />Guess who that's by .... by NiceguyEddie (March 17, 2012 11:27 am ET)Williamhttp://www.autopsychic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-10109274616537477772012-03-25T21:19:21.636-04:002012-03-25T21:19:21.636-04:00Incidentally, don't you think it's awfully...Incidentally, don't you think it's awfully strange that you:<br /><br />1)Feel the need to categorize me with supposedly biased people in order to understand me, instead of judging me based on what I actually write, and;<br /><br />2)Criticize me for allegedly judging right-wingers based on their disagreement with MMfA, instead of what they actually write.<br /><br />That seems awfully inconsistent. If you feel comfortable with judging me based on something that I have nothing to do with, why would I not be allowed to generalize about right-wingers as well? Please explain.Brabantiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02183512606468901460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-79731416735702854282012-03-25T21:04:25.791-04:002012-03-25T21:04:25.791-04:00"Saying things is one thing, actions are anot..."Saying things is one thing, actions are another. The difference being that Mediamatters is calling for ACTIONS against someone using hate, lies and innuendo as the reasoning for those actions."<br /><br />At what point do you believe speech has consequences? If someone behaves irresponsibly in the public dialogue, what gives them the right to continue doing so?<br /><br />"Savage did not make it a case of "race relations", Mediamatters and the Jesse Jackson types did. Yet they (and you) blame Savage for mentioning her race and call him a racist for mentioning her race."<br /><br />Utter nonsense, he went beyond the race of individuals and made a commentary about the system. Saying that the system has white men at a disadvantage is not merely mentioning her race. If that's your evidence of lies and innuendo, it is lacking.<br /><br />"BTW, I've noticed left-wingers seem to think calling someone vial names is OK-DOKEY if it is true. So, in effect, you're calling for his demise and creating actions to achieve that based on methods you deem acceptable for left-wingers but un-acceptable for right-wingers."<br /><br />I find it interesting how your perception of "left-wingers" is supposed to be something I'm responsible for. What I deem acceptable is your assumption, which has no merit.<br /><br />"You, like the other Mediamatters 25 (or so) regular posters, will automatically have an opinion made about a persons statements based solely on their political leanings."<br /><br />Please look up the definition of "prejudice".<br /><br />"You have (I've seen some of your posts, there) made derogatory statements about right-wing posters and discounted their statements only because they are not in agreement with the given article."<br /><br />Really? I find that hard to believe, for one thing because you seem vested in categorizing me in order to determine my character. If you were familiar with my posts, why would you need to do that? I also doubt that because I don't follow anything blindly. If I disagree with anyone, I say so. I have no allegiances, and have often defended those that I personally dislike when I think they're being misrepresented. So it's not exactly my nature to "discount" what anyone says simply because they disagree with the article. If the article has merit, I make it very clear why that's the case.<br /><br />"I just want to get an idea of who I'm talking with and your mental capability of rational thought/conversation."<br /><br />Of course, because up until this point, my temper and logic have been questionable, right? Now, let's be fair. I'd also like to gauge your rationality, so please provide some evidence of my "derogatory statements" and biased behavior which you supposedly witnessed. Thank you in advance.Brabantiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02183512606468901460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-53930601256383710282012-03-25T20:49:56.799-04:002012-03-25T20:49:56.799-04:00"That's absurd on its face"
You'..."That's absurd on its face"<br /><br />You're right. It is absurd for me to expect you to answer direct questions.<br /><br /><br />"And quite honestly, I don't think you have the moral and intellectual courage to accept that your assumptions and prejudices could be wrong"<br /><br /> I can admit they can be wrong. But, what do I have to work with when making that decision? Do I have my "assumptions" and the "facts" you give me? Or just my "assumptions"? <br />If I ask you 'what color is the sky in your world' and you answer "I don't want to tell you", then I will make an assumption about the color of the sky in your world. That assumption will be correct until I have more facts (the ones I am asking from you) to work with. Of course you must have the nads to actually discuss things as opposed to saying "I don't want to tell you" when asked a question. But, obviously, your left-wing style of conversation is waaay different than mine. At least I have the nads to answer questions when asked. You may not like the answer, but I'm not afraid (or embarrassed) to answer.Williamhttp://www.autopsychic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-83822460784037919612012-03-25T20:37:36.411-04:002012-03-25T20:37:36.411-04:00"You clearly seem to think that certain poste..."You clearly seem to think that certain posters behave inappropriately, so if you're able to say that, then other people should be able to criticize Savage for what he says as well."<br /><br /> Saying things is one thing, actions are another. The difference being that Mediamatters is calling for ACTIONS against someone using hate, lies and innuendo as the reasoning for those actions. Savage did not make it a case of "race relations", Mediamatters and the Jesse Jackson types did. Yet they (and you) blame Savage for mentioning her race and call him a racist for mentioning her race. Facts show she was all the names he called her (which doesn't make it right) but that is no reason to attack him using the methods that Mediamatters uses. BTW, I've noticed left-wingers seem to think calling someone vial names is OK-DOKEY if it is true. So, in effect, you're calling for his demise and creating actions to achieve that based on methods you deem acceptable for left-wingers but un-acceptable for right-wingers. That, I believe, would be called hypocrisy. Which is not unexpected from liberals. You can do it all you want, but that method has a name.<br /><br /><br />"What's the relevance of whether I post there or not"<br /><br />The relevance is that I need to get a proper idea of your prospective of anyone who posts non-left-wing-agreeing statements. You, like the other Mediamatters 25 (or so) regular posters, will automatically have an opinion made about a persons statements based solely on their political leanings. You have (I've seen some of your posts, there) made derogatory statements about right-wing posters and discounted their statements only because they are not in agreement with the given article. If that's your discussion method so be it. I just want to get an idea of who I'm talking with and your mental capability of rational thought/conversation.Williamhttp://www.autopsychic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-31026374411159518252012-03-25T15:59:37.554-04:002012-03-25T15:59:37.554-04:00Ah, Willie, you tried to make a funny! Keep tryin...Ah, Willie, you tried to make a funny! Keep trying.<br /><br />"BTW, my assumptions about you are correct until you actually man-up and answer to any incorrect assumption."<br /><br />That's absurd on its face, and is a perfect example of why you are incapable of arguing with adults. Facts are not subject to your awareness, acceptance or approval. They just ARE. <br />If I were to assume from your posts, for instance, that you are an overweight, wheel-chairbound teabagger, that assumption would be objectively false (or true), period, no matter how long or why I held on to it. You showing me that I was right or wrong wouldn't affect reality at all.<br /><br />And quite honestly, I don't think you have the moral and intellectual courage to accept that your assumptions and prejudices could be wrong, (you have stated, or implied at least, that assumptions gleaned from prejudice aren't bad things) so I'm not wasting my time on a fruitless endeavor.Conchobharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09039296577310701987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-50791021337087952982012-03-25T13:18:52.875-04:002012-03-25T13:18:52.875-04:00I've read your post, and it said:"Mediama...I've read your post, and it said:"Mediamatters has ruined and attempted to ruin careers of people simply based on the fact that they hate anyone who doesn't toe the extreme-left-wing mindset."<br /><br />That "extreme-left-wing mindset" is what "ideology" refers to. Your point is that is what causes them to criticize people like Savage, whether you classify it as "hate" or not. When you said "hate" was an "ideology", you changed what you originally said. Does anything you're saying change the fact that you implied that I was misrepresenting you, and I showed how I wasn't? Please move past it, instead of engaging in further deflection.<br /><br />"But, reality over-rules any of your lame excuses for NOT answering the question."<br /><br />I don't know what your excuse is for not answering my question as to what that difference would be. What's the relevance of whether I post there or not, unless you're trying to discredit me through association instead of addressing what I say to you? Your point was about the site. I can easily copy and paste your words to show that if you need me to.<br /><br />"You are wrong concerning Savage. Your hatred of right-wingers shows through."<br /><br />How am I wrong? I don't see you making an argument to that effect. I'm also not sure what indicates "hate", especially when my tone is compared to yours. You clearly seem to think that certain posters behave inappropriately, so if you're able to say that, then other people should be able to criticize Savage for what he says as well. Do you disagree?<br /><br />"And you try to rationalize it by deflecting to the "tone", "style", "ect" of a person's writing ability. Exposing the left-wing hypocrisy on this subject is getting easier and easier."<br /><br />How else do you determine "hate" if not by "tone" and "style" of writing? If you want to talk about "hate", then those elements are central to the charge you're making, obviously. How you can possibly say otherwise is a mystery.Brabantiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02183512606468901460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7342454496014200176.post-44423718948806984132012-03-25T12:44:46.073-04:002012-03-25T12:44:46.073-04:00"Those were your words, so changing it to &qu..."Those were your words, so changing it to "hate" now makes no sense."<br /><br />Actually, if you read my post, I started out saying "hate" was the driving force behind the attacks on conservatives. I haven't changed it to "hate".<br /><br /><br />"What would be the difference between "associating" with MMfA and being a regular poster, by the way?"<br /><br />Do you regularly post at Mediamatters? Simple question. Apparently difficult for one of the 25 (or so) regulars to answer. You were posting years ago, and you still post now. You can play the semantics game if you want. But, reality over-rules any of your lame excuses for NOT answering the question.<br /><br /><br />You are wrong concerning Savage. Your hatred of right-wingers shows through. And you try to rationalize it by deflecting to the "tone", "style", "ect" of a person's writing ability. Exposing the left-wing hypocrisy on this subject is getting easier and easier.Williamhttp://www.autopsychic.comnoreply@blogger.com