grodscorp@grods.comHow to be a right-wing blogger (and still be wrong)
 | Posted by John Surname on Monday 16 April 2007, 8:32 pm Categories: Baiting Bolta, Bloggy freakness, Blogosphere, Media, Mundane Blogs, Politics, The Age Tags: AndrewBolt, AndrewLanderyou, AWesternHeart, bloggers, blogging, Blogosphere, IainHall, JohnRay |
Hello to all the righties who read this blog. I don’t know how many of you there are, and frankly, I don’t want to know.
But maybe I’m a bit harsh sometimes. I feel that after my “truths of the left” revelation, I should do another post to help you out. You need all the help you can get. Look at you. Are you licking the oil out of a sardine tin as you read this? Yes? Well, then listen up.
Many of you probably read right-wing blogs (like Bolt, Blair, AWH, RWDB, and Landeryou) and ask yourselves “How can I write a blog like that? And just why does this tin keep cutting my tounge?”. Well, I am here to answer one of those questions. The blog one. The tin one you’ll have to answer on your own.
Using examples from some of Australia’s most popular right-wing blogs, I intend to demonstrate how to write a self-serving, dishonest post with lots of blaming, leftie bashing, context changing and quote misuse.
1. Blame the left
For God’s sake, blame everything on the left. Right-wing bloggers blame everything on the left. From the War going badly, to David Hick’s lengthy incarceration, nothing is their fault. The idea that the left might have always been right on these issues is a scary one, so they merely turn to blaming when the heat is on.
2. Dishonesty
When quoting make sure you take it out of context entirely. Very rarely do the readers of Tim Blair actually click on the link and read the entire articles for themselves.
For example:
Fairfax blogger (and pal) Jack Marx:
“I think I’m losing my patience with the stupid … I’ve worked at some of the most allegedly foolish periodicals in the nation - The Truth, Ralph, The Picture - but it’s only at Fairfax that I’ve received such stupid correspondence from readers.”
There Blair ended the post, without even commenting on it, allowing for the false insinuation that Jack Marx thought Fairfax readers were of low intelligence. Had they clicked on the link themselves, they would have found Marx’s follow-on:
“I don’t think one can assume from this that the Fairfax readership is dim, but simply that it has a longer reach than the others.”
Bolt and Blair are especially notorious for this kind of dishonesty. When you are a true right-wing blogger, you will think nothing of twisting comments, quotes and contexts to create your own truths. Both of them are so convinced they are right, that they think nothing of this kind of behaviour as long as their original intention gets through - in Blair’s case, that Fairfax readers are stupid. Right-wing blog readers don’t question this kind of blogging as they want to believe it.
Another good example is a recent post on global warming by Bolt:
More than two dozen demonstrators braved cold, wet weather Saturday in Reno to attend a rally designed to draw attention to global warming.
You’d have to be puffin’ muffins, cuddling cactus and an absolute dingleberry to believe that any downward change in the weather cancels out global warming. Bolt knows this, but still writes dishonest posts like this in the (very likely) chance that people will read this and believe it. Again, he is so convinced he is right that he is more than willing to trick people into his point of view through dishonest methods.
3. Hate The Age
Australia’s best daily, The Age, attracts much scorn from most right wing blogs. Why? Because it’s left-wing, and there is no comparable right-wing paper. The Herald Sun is a joke. The Age has superior news coverage, a fact reflected in the right-wing blogs linkage to their website. In the case of Andrew Landeryou, however, the agenda is slightly murkier.
You see, Landeryou’s company IQ (which eventually went broke) was contracted to deliver sports statistics to The Age. They didn’t deliver, and The Age went elsewhere. Subsequently, Landeryou spends his life trying to pick fights with Age writers, claiming it’s a “vile, leftist rag” when in reality, his beef lies with the fact they fired him and his company.
Does he disclose any of this? No.
Gerard Henderson claims that The Age should move to the centre. He’d love that, as it would leave no major left-wing daily in Australia. Like many on the right (AWH, I’m looking at you) he spends his time extolling the virtues of free-speech, meanwhile speaking out against anyone who doesn’t share his view, demanding they should change (MediaWatch, for example).
4. Make false accusations about “The Left”.
Make sure you make those with left wing views sound like a monster that is about to tear down the city, and ruin your life and the lives of everyone you care about. Don’t refer to them as people, refer to them as “The Left”. Example, claim the left are “hateful”.
According to good ol’ Jonny Ray:
Leftists are great haters and to cover up their own hatreds — of America, the rich, WASPS, the bourgeoisie and anyone who is happily doing well for themselves.
Not true, of course, as many lefties live in America, drive BMW’s, are white and hell, some of us even work (unlike a popular right-wing blogger).
Of course, the right only hate people like minorities, atheists, anyone of colour, and lefties which is okay, as evidenced in this regrettable post by one Tiberius on AWH:
“The filth of the treasonous left has been allowed to fester for too long, and it has now become so bad that the wound can no longer simply be drained of pus. The whole limb must be excised.”
Not hateful at all. Now, please notice that all comments on that post have been removed.
Free speech, anyone?
5. Groupthink
Think only the left groupthink? Wrong. Spend your time linking to other right-wing blogs that share your point of view (but don’t actually explain why they have that point of view, like Blair), and all your little anonymous righty friends will post vauge attacks on the left on your blog.
So anyway, I hope this has been a help to any wannabe right-wing bloggers out there. If you have anymore to add, don’t forget to in the comments.
__________
The Editor Updates (17 April): Andrew Landeryou has emailed Lachlan Connor who has, in turn, forwarded the message to me. It reads in part:
Whoever is telling you that Fairfax didn’t want my little company providing footy stats when we pulled the plug on them is pulling your chain.
The simple truth is that we walked away from the contract, forcing them to negotiate with the wolves of News Limited who were their only other source at the time. And from memory, they were rather ruthlessly screwed by them on it. Apparently the Fairfaxistas came back to us several times but by then we’d moved on from the whole very labour intensive and not particularly prospective activity to focus on other ultimately not particularly profitable activities.
In the few years IQ dealt with them, the provision of footy stats being a pretty small part of the business and my contempt for The Age being much the same then as it now is, I never actually met with anyone from Fairfax. So your “explanation” of my dislike of them is in fact utterly bullshit. As is your claim that I hadn’t “disclosed” the fact that IQ had done business with them. It’s no secret, mentioned on my blog and in at least one Age story I can recall.
The email threatened that if a correction wasn’t published then Lachlan “must surely know what happens next.” I don’t know for sure but I suspect it has something to do with photoshopping a photo of Lachlan Connor into a compromising image of a man and a sheep. You know, the standard kind of thing that goes on over at Landeryou’s website. Lachlan tells me he’s suffering in his jocks.
GrodsCorp has always given right of reply to those who are featured in blog posts and Landeryou has now been afforded the same opportunity as everybody else. As Landeryou himself is so fond of saying: “we report, you decide.”
Monday 16 April 2007, 9:07 pm #The Editor
I’ve actually considered starting a “Righty Age Link Watch” page to track the enormous number of links from Andrew Bolt’s blog to The Age’s website.
But then my lazy nature kicked in and I baulked at the workload.
Monday 16 April 2007, 9:13 pm #Steve D
You quite clearly haven’t quoted all of what he said. Text between two dashes can (theoretically) be removed without affecting the overall coherence of the statement:
I’ve always considered that idea to have good comedic value.
Hence, they are seen as hypocrites whenever they attack those things.
For me, the logic behind the constant reporting of GW rallies being rained/snowed/sleeted out is pure and simple irony. Generally makes for a good laugh either way. One day we will thank the Gore Effect for saving the planet from drought.
Monday 16 April 2007, 9:15 pm #Steve D
The “either way” comment doesn’t make sense now, since I removed part of the line before.
Substitute “anyway”.
Monday 16 April 2007, 10:15 pm #lynn white
oh, this is just typical Age-reading leftist whining. Go on, blame the right for all your miseries. It’s because you can’t handle the real world, isn’t it? You know, the world where people don’t always drink latte and do drive four-wheel drives. Me and my rightist friends have your measure.
Game on.
Monday 16 April 2007, 10:42 pm #John S.
Hmmm, no matter how much I ridicule the way the right see the left, it seems to stick. Lattes? Haven’t had one since last July. 4wd? Drove it today. Next I’ll be accused of living in Fitzroy.
Monday 16 April 2007, 10:43 pm #MrLefty
“And just why does this tin keep cutting my tounge?”
Lol.
Monday 16 April 2007, 10:55 pm #John S.
“I’ve always considered that idea to have good comedic value.”
Then you’ll be cacking yourself when the election comes.
Monday 16 April 2007, 11:10 pm #Jangari
Text between two dashes can (theoretically) be removed without affecting the overall coherence of the statement.
That’s not always the case, there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to dashes. But the point is still valid since the excerpt was not a full clause. Either the writer forgot to include a matrix verb or the quoter chopped it out.
John S, you forgot one important aspect; thwart logic as much as possible. Logic only vindicates well-founded arguments, of which the right is all but bereft.
(I’m aware of the hypocrisy in that last comment in the context of this whole conversation, but this is all tongue in cheek)
Monday 16 April 2007, 11:12 pm #Steve D
Too late, I’m having a ball already. It doesn’t matter who the Left is picking on, it’s always entertaining.
On that note, I agree with Mr. Lefty: the tin comment was gold.
Monday 16 April 2007, 11:50 pm #Mikey
I love the tin thing. When Dominos used to have their Wedges cream and cheese bacon things I would turn the tin inside out and chew the stuck on bits off. Then one day I sliced my tongue pretty bad. Like Barney sliced open his gums when the Duff ran out.
I don’t thing of Fairfax as left wing. I think of them as left of news limited, which puts them in the centre. Left wing his Green Left Weekly to me.
Tuesday 17 April 2007, 8:12 am #Lachlan Connor
I don’t really go in for this whole left-right false dichotomy.
Tuesday 17 April 2007, 10:01 am #The Editor
Ahh, the synergy. Those patriots over at A Wanker’s Haven have now blamed “leftists” for a broken rear window on contributor KG’s car because the window had an Australian flag sticker on it:
Just wondering KG if you had an Australian flag on your window?
kman
A valid point kman, we know how patriotic, peace-loving and non-violent leftists can be.
MK
kman, yup. I never even thought of that. duh!
Childish bastards.
KG
And here’s MK demonstrating the same commitment to non-violence that he declares missing from the left:
Boy that scumbag was lucky you didn’t catch him KG, unlucky for you though, you could have put that custom blade from Stephen through its paces.
MK
You can’t make this stuff up.
Tuesday 17 April 2007, 10:18 am #Andrew Landeryou
Ahem, in fact what happened is that IQ decided not to continue to provide their football stats as there wasn’t any money in it.
The Fairfaxistas were desperately keen for us to continue, sending us a new contract several times because the alternative meant they had to buy them from their fierce foes at News Limited (and pay considerably more).
Despite the fact I was MD of the company, do you know how many meetings I had with anyone working at that company at the time? None. My views about Melbourne’s left-wing newspaper are long-standing and it was other people in the company that pursued a relationship with them. I held my nose and let them all get on with it. But when money got tight, walking away from a very labour intensive, barely profitable activity was my call and I was glad to make it. Rewrite history all you want but that’s what happened.
That said, so you’re left in doubt that we share the Left’s commitment to “vendetta journalism” please stand by for an equally fact-based Senate candidate Lachlan Connor yarn on the OC, with the only question being do you prefer camels, goats or sheep?
Tuesday 17 April 2007, 11:49 am #Lachlan Connor
Sheep.
Tuesday 17 April 2007, 12:30 pm #Steve
Ahh, the synergy. Those patriots over at A Wanker’s Haven have now blamed “leftists” for a broken rear window on contributor KG’s car because the window had an Australian flag sticker on it.
Perhaps he drives an eight-cylinder 4WD and angry rogue Gaia-rrists extracted revenge on behalf of the environment?
Tuesday 17 April 2007, 3:51 pm #QuietStorm
Silly me, I thought lynn was being facetious and making fun of the righty comment horde. She got the part down pat, right down to the brainless repeating of that insipid catchphrase of Slanderyou’s. (Hi Andrew!)
Tuesday 17 April 2007, 4:46 pm #Bridgit Gread
A more likely reason that they smashed KG’s car window is that he’s probably an arrogant tosser. As for Landeryou, there’s no ‘probably’ about it.
Tuesday 17 April 2007, 8:20 pm #Christine Keeler
But the really pathetic thing is that Landeryou googles himself. It’s not the sort of thing that the public should be exposed to, really.
Tuesday 17 April 2007, 11:38 pm #Stumps
Silly me — I assumed Mr Lefty was “laughing out loud” at the atrocious misspelling of “tongue”.
Tuesday 17 April 2007, 11:43 pm #Stumps
How is “More than two dozen demonstrators braved cold, wet weather Saturday in Reno to attend a rally designed to draw attention to global warming” in any way “dishonest”? To quote Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word — I do not think it means what you think it means”.
If this crap is the best you can come up with, I fear that you’re just providing more ammunition for the right-wing cannons.
Tuesday 17 April 2007, 11:44 pm #Dan
I think you’ll find he noticed this page via the referrer logs on his own site, in that there was a link to it above.
However, can you swear on your family’s life, that you’ve never Googled for yourself?
Tuesday 17 April 2007, 11:51 pm #Stumps
So it’s not just “tounge” (sic). Perhaps somebody should go to the effort of inventing a “g before u” equivalent of the good ol’ “i before e” rule before this fellow embarrasses himself any further … of course, with his luck he’d probably (mis)apply it universally and start talking about “pressure gagues” ;)
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 12:13 am #Fang
Mikey refers to Dominoes. That’s a surprise. How is your inferiority complex going Mikey?
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 12:42 am #AV
Hmm. So we have Stumps picking on spelling errors and Fang making fun of someone’s weight.
Kinda makes the idea of a post parodying right-wing online behaviour redundant, when the righties are so adept at parodying themselves.
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 12:48 am #Amos
Keep whining, you condescending little prick, I find it very persuasive.
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 1:21 am #Christine Keeler
“However, can you swear on your family’s life, that you’ve never Googled for yourself?”
Erm, yes Dan. Could there be something wrong with me? Some sort of Google Dysfunction Syndrome perhaps? Congratulations, I now feel vaguely ashamed (but that could just be normal background residual Catholicism)
“Keep whining, you condescending little prick, I find it very persuasive.”
Wherein we are much entertained by the rapier wit and evident learning of your typical RWDB. Keep banging the rocks together Amos.
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 1:43 am #Kevin
“Hello to all the righties who read this blog.”
Howdy!
“Hello to all the righties who read this blog.”
I thought those things contained sardines, not tasty lickable oil! You’ve convinced me, I’m going to buy a tin. Thanks for the tip.
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 1:53 am #Kevin
Oops! Meant:
“Are you licking the oil out of a sardine tin as you read this?”
I thought those things contained sardines, not tasty lickable oil! You’ve convinced me, I’m going to buy a tin. Thanks for the tip.
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 7:58 am #MrLefty
Don’t worry, Lachlan. Before Slandy could sue you he’d have give the court an actual address on which he could be served. He really doesn’t want to do that.
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 7:58 am #MrLefty
“have TO give”, sorry
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 8:09 am #MrLefty
Hilarious - Timmeh actually confirms your remarks about his dishonestly misquoting people by dishonestly misquoting you!
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 8:33 am #The Editor
Jeebus. I go to bed and wake up to discover that not only has this post attracted Andy Landy but Timmeh Blair as well.
One threatens sheep photoshopping and the other, as Lefty points out, “confirms [John's] remarks about his dishonestly misquoting people by dishonestly misquoting [him]!”
Just need Bolta to drop in now to complete the RWDB trinity.
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 9:03 am #silpheed
I’m not so sure. It has been foretold that the nexus of the three will bring about The Dark Times.
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 9:19 am #pete m
mr lefty and ed, did you miss the irony bus? do you have no inkling of the obvious irony or sarcarsm in Tim’s post? He was criticised for selective quoting, so he pokes fun by deliberately making another selective quote, which SAILS RIGHT OVER YOUR HEADS, or should I say SAILS LEFT OVER YOUR HEADS.
where is your sense of humour? where is any sense at all?
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 10:19 am #Stumps
I suppose it’s possible that they fully realised Blair’s comedic intent but *gasp* DISHONESTLY QUOTED HIM!
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 10:21 am #Stumps
I’m a rightie? That’s news to me. Do you often jump to uninformed conclusions about posters’ political persuasions based on their preference for correct spelling and their disdain for crappy logic?
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 10:21 am #TonyP
Stumps, didn’t you know, the left are Irony deficient!
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 11:11 am #Dandy
‘Blogger (and pal) Jack Marx’
Is he really your pal, Mr Man? You seem a little self-conscious.
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 12:28 pm #John Surname
I HATE YOU ALL SO MUCH!!!!
DEATH TO AMERICA!!!!
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 12:37 pm #Andrew Landeryou
A Mr Lefty says:
“Don’t worry, Lachlan. Before Slandy could sue you he’d have give the court an actual address on which he could be served. He really doesn’t want to do that.”
Excuse me?
This sounds rather unpleasantly like a threat of some kind.
I’ll be looking over my shoulder at KFC (Sydney Road’s award-winning outlet) this lunch-time, Mr Bean may look harmless and weedy but clearly he intends otherwise.
Better pass this on to my security detail for their assessment.
Game on.
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 1:10 pm #1.618
Well, Fairfax readers especially the Sun Herald ones are ignorant!
Smootches xx
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 2:50 pm #jlc
nice post, fuckwits
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 2:52 pm #Bridgit Gread
I’ll be looking over my shoulder at KFC (Sydney Road’s award-winning outlet) this lunch-time…
That greasy muck will add digits to your cholesterol count, Andy. Then again, I guess it’s all you can afford these days.
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 11:26 pm #Mikey
Aw widdle Fang made a fatty joke at my expense. Way to point out information that other people provided about themselves fuckhead.
Wednesday 18 April 2007, 11:36 pm #John Surname
Gee, all these righties have really torn this piece to shreds.
Or not.
You think that with thousands pouring in here, more than twenty might be able to stop licking oil out of empty sardine tins long enough to furrow their brows and bash out more witty comebacks like “nice post, fuckwits!”.
Thursday 19 April 2007, 1:31 am #Stumps
I notice nobody has replied to my question about the (mis)use of the word dishonesty. But since you seem to be begging for it, here’s a more detailed account of what bothers me about your piece of tripe (although I hope you’ll forgive the fact that I don’t identify myself a “rightie”).
Some free advice: If you’re going to accuse your opponents of being retards, you really should take some extra effort to ensure that you haven’t made a retarded spelling mistake yourself in the same paragraph.
What are you suggesting the right-wing bloggers should actually take personal responsibility for?
What are you actually accusing them of? By the use of “merely”, are you suggesting that the right-wing bloggers (RWBs) are blaming the Left without following that up with any justification for their view? That doesn’t fit with my experience — the prominent RWBs you take issue with seem to go out of their way to justify their views. This looks to me like an unsubstantiated and meaningless accusation. It would be no different than somebody else complaining that the Left always blames the Right. Yeah, no joke, buddy — THEY HOLD DIFFERING POLITICAL VIEWPOINTS. What a revelation.
I browsed through a selection of articles on Blair’s site, and found that the comments imply (eg through reference to unquoted material) that the readers almost universally DO read the articles themselves. Where do you get the idea that the readers “very rarely” click on the links? Have you any evidence for this assertion?
Hang on, what? He allowed for the same insinuation as the original article — that Marx had received some truly stupid correspondence from the Fairfax readers. He also supplied a link to the original articles so readers could see the full context themselves, a courtesy the Green Left Weekly did not offer him when misleadingly accusing him and his readers of vile racism (without supplying any link to the articles and comments in question).
How the hell does the section you quoted qualify for the description of “dishonest”? At most you could accuse him of implying the humorous irony of the situation. Your interpretation goes well beyond anything any reasonable person could read into that sentence, WHICH HE HAD HIMSELF QUOTED FROM ANOTHER ARTICLE. Amazing.
Were these really the best two examples you could come up with? If that’s the case, you’ve actually made Blair and Bolt look much more honest than I ever expected myself.
How does linking to something to mock it imply any kind of endorsement of superior quality?
Considering you’ve claimed that there’s no major right-wing daily in Australia, why would this be a problem. Balance sounds good to me.
Again, you’ve made no point of substance here, just using the paragraph as an excuse to lodge into some sad ad hominem attack on another person.
This is when you’ve really started to be incoherent (as opposed to merely illogical). Another vehicle for nasty ad hominem (I don’t know who Iain Hall is but I don’t see what his employment status has to do with making supposedly false accusations about the Left), this paragraph contains a few select examples from obscure sources of the sort of generalisation you see on both sides of any argument, and is thus ultimately pointless. What point have you advanced here? That there are nasty extremists on the Right as well as the Left? Who’s going to disagree with that? If you look long and hard enough, you can find a nasty extremist in any group of people. That does nothing to prove anything about the group as a whole.
What?!? You’re telling me that bloggers are linking to other blogs that contain articles with which they agree? This is a stunning development.
The amusing thing is that you use Blair’s site as an example, yet one thing I have noticed there is a greater-than-usual trickle of examples of deviation from “group think”. Sure, there’s plenty of it, as you’d expect from any gathering of like-minded people, but episodes such as the strongly-voiced disapproval over the unnecessary personal embarrassment of Mr Lefty over his dating ad and the conflicting views any time gun control is raised as an issue spring to mind.
In summary, I actually came to read this article seeking balance, thinking it would be interesting to see some high quality satire of RWBs, considering the ubiquity of clever ridicule of their extreme left-wing counterparts. Sadly, you were not able to offer anything close to satisfying in that regard. All I saw was a poorly conceived flow of vague (or if you prefer, “vauge”) and incongruous criticisms, backed up by either no examples or hysterically inadequate ones. If any reader can direct me to a page that offers a much higher quality rebuttal of the right-wing dominance of articulate blogging in this country, I would be most grateful.
Thursday 19 April 2007, 1:34 am #Stumps
I stand to be corrected, but I understood that particular comment to be one in a long line of running parodies of Marieke Hardy’s infamous (and according to her, unprovoked) “Nice flag, fuckwit” attack on a youth at the most recent Big Day Out.
Thursday 19 April 2007, 7:20 am #rdb
You could make a trilogy out of this one Ed.
Thursday 19 April 2007, 10:36 am #chaos
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire
Maybe the author of this blog would enjoy spending some time examining the above link if he has a chance to disengage himself from the circle jerk that is posting on a Left/Right blog about how intellectually dishonest the Left/Right blogs are.
Thursday 19 April 2007, 10:40 pm #Fang
And there he goes again. No need to get your knickers in a knot Mikey.
Friday 20 April 2007, 7:23 am #Miranda
Came over via the link from the bloghead’s sewer. You got a smartarse reaction from the blogfuhrer, Bliar, but you’d know that by now. Any pathetic excuse to slag off his employer’s opposition is grabbed with both stumps. You’ll notice it’s “don’t mention the war” time over at the fatuous one’s soapbox. He needs to go for a long lunch and never come back.
Friday 20 April 2007, 9:52 am #Stumps
This gets funnier and funnier. Responding to a piece in which he is prominently mentioned (and attacked) is “a pathetic excuse”? Doing so in a deliberately good-humoured manner is “slagging off his employer’s opposition”? This reeks of jealousy that he’s capable of responding to a self-important, vitriolic attack with something other than direct hostility — a lesson some of you might benefit from learning.
Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for an answer to any of the questions I’ve asked in my weighty post — don’t tell me I’ve disrupted your misguided, self-congratulatory gloating about how nobody had torn your sad little article to shreds?
Friday 20 April 2007, 5:08 pm #Mikey
And there he goes again. No need to get your knickers in a knot Mikey.
Because I responded to one of your frequent fat laced insults on someone else’s blog.
Yep, clearly I have them in a twist.
It’s because I am so fat.
There you go. Since you obviously beat off whilst thinking of me, there’s some imagery for you to jerk to.
Friday 20 April 2007, 10:26 pm #John Surname
“don’t tell me I’ve disrupted your misguided, self-congratulatory gloating about how nobody had torn your sad little article to shreds?”
Ah, Stumps, do you have an the email address “timtam_blairman” like another commenter from Blair’s site who posted here? Please don’t tell me you make it your life to defend a grown man who is capable of looking after himself. As for your remark, this piece was originally designed to get a response. It did, but not what I was hoping for, so I decided to egg you all on. Nice one. As for your lenghty response, it’s filled with your “views”, of which I care nought. Thanks for wasting your time.
Saturday 21 April 2007, 3:45 am #Stumps
Of course not. So logically weak, that you resort to deliberately dishonest (oh, the irony) personal crap again?
Clearly I don’t, though I don’t have a problem with spending 15 minutes ripping to pieces a self-righteous and illogical pile of crap on the occasions that it amuses me to do so.
So what, you’re resorting to the sad old “it was deliberately crap so that I’d get somebody to bite” excuse? As I said in the first instance, disappointing. Maybe one day somebody will come up with a witty or clever put-down of right-wing bloggers, one that I will thoroughly enjoy reading and admiring. Sadly, you are most certainly not that person. You’re just another in the long list of illogical screechers who keep unfortunately reinforcing the “lefty” stereotype that I am actually so eager to see disproven.
TRANSLATION: “I don’t have the intelligence or arguing skill to respond to your logic, so I’ll stick my head in the sand, block my ears and erroneously dismiss it as mere opinion and hope that nobody else reads it and sees that I’m actually just running away from the argument because I’m entirely overmatched.”
If you actually read my response, you’ll see it’s filled with questions which you’ve failed to answer (for obvious reasons) and logical deconstruction of your original post (which I can only assume you are unable to rebut). Not a whole lot of “views”, I’m afraid, except for my ultimate “view” on the quality of your writing.
Saturday 21 April 2007, 9:58 am #Mikey
I don’t think so “stumps”. The piece was clearly a humorous tongue in cheeck portrayal of blowhard righties. And then you came along and took it apart line by line to prove it wasn’t logical (and thus your rightyness). Can you now please turn your searing spock esq gaze onto the smurfs.
“Those tiny mushroom houses couldn’t possible have the structural integrity to remain standing after even the briefest of wind gusts” etc.
Saturday 21 April 2007, 10:37 am #Bridgit Gread
Stumps, I think many commenters here could respond to your questions but why bother? The original post was satirical, not analytical, and your response is couched in such a belligerent tone that it’s obvious you are spoiling for an argument, not looking for rational debate. There’s nothing to gain from any of us addressing, point by point, the things you mention - and to be honest it’s quite amusing watching you rant and rave. So do carry on.
Saturday 21 April 2007, 3:49 pm #Stumps
Shouldn’t it have at least attempted to portray them then, rather than just portraying some hypocritical left-wing fantasy? As I originally said, I was disappointed because I was hoping for something at least marginally clever that didn’t require you to have a self-deceiving sheltered mind to appreciate it. My first comment was merely that it failed on that count. The author subsequently smugly boasted that nobody had torn his piece to shreds, so I proceeded to easily do so to answer his challenge. I’m sorry that that seems to have frustrated you.
What hope is there for “the Left” when even THEY associate the use of logic with “the Right”?
Saturday 21 April 2007, 3:56 pm #Stumps
Why bother responding to my post but NOT answer my questions, as you have done? At least if you had a crack you could salvage some appearance of intelligence. As it stands, you just look like a whiny little kid who implausibly claims “I *could* do it, but I don’t feel like it”.
Excuse me? I was repsonding to an implied challenge from the author of the piece. He boasted nobody had torn his piece to shreds, and I proceeded to do so. If anybody disagrees that that is the case, please feel free to logically and rationally disprove it — I don’t mind whether your tone is belligerent or otherwise.
Well, there is — credibility — but I fully expect that you are UNABLE to do so anyway.
Thank you — I’ve found it very amusing myself. I’m a little disappointed too, however, as I keep hoping that if I visit enough left-wing websites I’ll finally find somebody who is capable of marshalling logic and wit while retaining perspective … alas, the quest continues.
Saturday 21 April 2007, 4:41 pm #Bridgit Gread
You can bellow your schoolyard taunts of “You don’t because you can’t!” and “If you don’t, you’re stuuuupid!” all you like. The post is a piece of satire and there’s no credibility to be won by responding to your angry-ant deconstruction of it. But do feel free to post another 100+ words explaining why we all suck, at least then you’re marshalling your vast reserves of logic and wit for our amusement.
Sunday 22 April 2007, 7:45 pm #Stumps
The post is indeed a piece of satire — unfortunately, it’s turned out to be a satire of something entirely different than the author intended.
Sunday 22 April 2007, 10:08 pm #AtillaThe Sceptic
Why is it that lefties eat, shit and breath lies?. Doesn’t it leave a bad taste in your collective mouths?. Witness this shite;
“…Of course, the right only hate people like minorities, atheists, anyone of colour, and lefties which is okay,..”
Really??. Gee, you’ve really summed up the right with that insightful comment. If you were trying to be ironic, or even sarcastic, it would have been a mildly amusing statement. But hang on.. you’re not trying to be funny at all are you?. You see, that’s one major problem with those of a leftist bent..Absolutely no sense of humour at all. Po-faced rants, lofty statements devoid of truth or fact, desperate grabs for the high moral ground and hysterical sensationalism are all hallmarks of a failed ideology. Indeed, it’s safe to say that most lefties are bitter ideologues whose time has come…and long gone.
Throw as many cheap and nasty shots at the so-called ‘right’ as you like, the fact is that very few take the ‘left’ seriously at all.
Now you lefties have gotta hate that eh?.
Sunday 22 April 2007, 10:24 pm #Bruce
I’ll respond to Stumps’ questions/points as long as my stomach can handle it (I have been to a Buck’s night within the past 48 hours.) First though, a brief responce to Mikey.
And then you came along and took it apart line by line to prove it wasn’t logical (and thus your rightyness). Can you now please turn your searing spock esq gaze onto the smurfs.
What’s logic got to do with the right? You know I rip apart logical fallacies and I’m of the left.
Okay…
1) Dishonesty: The (first) Blair quote was a clear and cut case of dishonesty, you are remiss in being honest with yourself by disregarding it. Time has clearly drawn an inference from the text that Jack Marx explicitly contradicts.
Incidentally, I link the the Tim Blair piece in question would have been nice.
As for the Bolt quote; John links to “Calling Attention, but not to global warming” where Andrew makes an inference about climate change from weather (something he has stated explicitly and has been caught on before). I like satire, but it’s hard to tell if Andrew is being entirely facetious in his post. If he isn’t, and he is serious in his inference, then he’s being dishonest. John may have found a better Bolt example though (e.g. Jelena Popovic defamation case.)
At most you could accuse him of implying the humorous irony of the situation.
Ahhh… So you are willing to credit Bolt as being humorous (in intent), hence not dishonest, despite his track record on the very topic, yet you don’t extend the same pre-supposition to John. Bit of a double standard.
2. Spelling. You are using a red herring here Stumps. I will follow it no further.
3. What are you suggesting the right-wing bloggers should actually take personal responsibility for?
He wasn’t suggesting they take personal responsibility. That’s dishonesty Stumps. ;-)
4. What are you actually accusing them of? By the use of “merely”, are you suggesting that the right-wing bloggers (RWBs) are blaming the Left without following that up with any justification for their view?
The whole (very popular) left-hate meme is what he’s talking about. In reader responce theory, a reader’s interpretation is influenced by what they bring to a text. Clearly you don’t bring experience in the “left-hate” BS to the text, which may actually be a good thing (for you at least - the meme in question is particularly vapid).
“Hitler was a leftist! Pagan NAZIS! They back OSAMA! Self-Hating racists! Anti-Semitism! The Left held up Hick’s Trial!” (paraphrasing the meme.)
John isn’t refering to accusations levelled at the left, of things actual leftists have done (such as the few extremists that turn up at every rally), but at the left being blamed for everything including that which the right has done (ie lock up Hicks, 1930-40s German nationalism etc.)
If you had been around the block a few times Stumps, you’d have seen these false accusations repeated (hence I call them a meme). Each time I’ve seen these memes in action (which is often), it’s been poorly justified (rhetorical, formally logically fallacious and/or just factually wrong).
Heck it’s a tried and tested tactic that has been used in the US (first by creationists - levelled at other people than the left of course).
5. Where do you get the idea that the readers “very rarely” click on the links? Have you any evidence for this assertion?
In my experience, the ones that bark the loudest tend to be the ones who don’t do the reading, usually only following the link (if at all) once someone has discussed about it before hand. Heck, I’ve been chastised by a net-nasty from Tim Blair’s for not directly quoting IPCC projections that I linked to once (I didn’t because I’d paraphrased the conclusion and to quote more meaningfully would have been far to verbose.)
I think if you look harder over time, you will find repeat “first readers” and the remainder following on. Except in Tim’s mini-posts Still, a RWDB creationist example may have been a better example (IMHO). I’ve caught more than one over the years for not reading/following up (when they said they have.)
Heck, Behe had to admit to it in court. Then there was Sarfati’s misquote of a Biology textbook he cited (which strangely none of his readers picked up on.)
John’s making a generalism. And the generalism holds (as a generalism with all the problems that entails.)
6. Nasties…
That there are nasty extremists on the Right as well as the Left? Who’s going to disagree with that? If you look long and hard enough, you can find a nasty extremist in any group of people. That does nothing to prove anything about the group as a whole.
So when Blair or Bolt do a satire number on left-extremists, we can expect you to tear them to shreads? You know, apply the same standard and all?
7. Ad-hominem.
Yeah, I tend to agree. The coment about Iain Hall’s employment is an invalid ad-hominem, and it’s the valid one’s that are funny.
There are plenty of valid ad-hominems people could make about Iain, but this isn’t one of them. It’s understandable if you know Iain, but even then, I don’t find it funny myself.
8. Groupthink…
John was talking about groupthink between Bolt, Tim and other authors primarily. Kinda losing interest now.
9. In summary…
In summary, I actually came to read this article seeking balance, thinking it would be interesting to see some high quality satire of RWBs…
Hmmmm… Pre-suppose the comedy of RWBs to excuse vapid remarks, expect non-vapid from LWB as a pre-req for comedy. I suspect you aren’t being balanced in your search for balance.
All I saw was a poorly conceived flow of vague (or if you prefer, “vauge”) and incongruous criticisms, backed up by either no examples or hysterically inadequate ones…
Tim Blair on Jack Marx was hysterically inadequate, but oh wait! That’s comedy!
In summary, I think this piece in order to be enjoyed, requires the reader to have some historical knowledge of LvR on the AUstralian blogosphere (and perhaps pre-blogosphere). If you were seeking balance, this infers your experience in this is lacking (as I can find serious examples of the points John makes.)
Rather than being sheltered, the people on here that have found it funny, have been weathered (and I’ve seen them to be weathered over the years.) It may not be such a bad thing to be unweathered as you are though. Trust me; I’m very weathered and it can get tiresome lol.
As for your search for balance… Sorry. Don’t believe it (not that I don’t think your are intending to be honest). Indeed, if Mikey wants some evidence as to your “rightyness”, there is some of it here in your double standard.
Monday 23 April 2007, 12:06 am #Bruce
Time? Should that be Tim or Timmeh? I dunno…
Still a little hung-over… I should just og to bed… :P
Monday 23 April 2007, 12:02 pm #Stumps
Excellent! Now THIS is what I was looking for.
I don’t see how Blair has drawn the inference. Perhaps some (or even many) readers from both sides have jumped to that inference — and you might even argue that Blair intended for that to happen. If the link to the piece in question wasn’t provided directly underneath, I’d probably accept that it was a case of constructive dishonesty, but as it stands it is AT BEST a chronically weak example (thus leading to my eventual conclusion that if it was one of the best cases the author could come up with, he either needed to do more research first or pursue a different line of argument).
It’s not HIS inference — he’s quoted somebody else’s wry observation. It’s separately clear that Bolt thinks that man-made climate change is probably a myth, but I see no suggestion at all that he’s even suggesting the presence of a single cold day is evidence for that. In any event, I don’t think this could be accurately classified as “dishonesty”, and is an even weaker example than Blair’s (and thus the same resulting inferences apply).
I’m not a Bolt follower so if you have time I’d appreciate a link (or even a summary).
Hang on, by track record do you mean his disbelief of man-made climate change? If he has previously supported that through logical means, whether or not you agree with his conclusion or not, how is that dishonest? I think it’s pretty easy to see the difference between a throwaway ironic quotation and serious argument. If this quotation was presented as part of a “serious” argument against man-made climate change, you’d have a valid point.
If John’s post was just one reference to something amusing that somebody else had said, with which he agreed or upon which he added a succinct comment, I wouldn’t have said a word. It was instead presented as a multi-part, semi-serious treatise. Sure, the goal was obviously to mock and parody “the Right”, but an essential element of both of these things is accuracy. The two pieces are clearly incomparable. If Bolt had written a 22-paragraph “humorous” piece on why the Left sucks (and I’m guessing he probably has), then I’d expect the same rigour to be applied to that (and I’m sure that the more logical among “the Left” would have had a crack at breaking it down for that reason).
Ordinarily spelling would indeed be irrelevant, but you have to appreciate the irony of a prominent error in a sentence in which the author is making his opponents out to be stupid. It was worth remarking upon due to context, but you are right in concluding that there is nowhere further to take the issue.
Here’s what he said:
“Right-wing bloggers blame everything on the left. From the War going badly, to David Hick’s lengthy incarceration, nothing is their fault.”
He’s complaining that right-wing bloggers never accept that anything is their fault. If he finds that disagreeable (which is certainly the inference), what does he think right-wing bloggers should take responsibility for?
I tend to filter out stupid generalisations about how the other side *hates* X, Y and Z. Both sides do it in droves (pretending the Left are the only or even primary victims — if that’s what you’re suggesting — is bewildering), and it’s usually a pretty good sign of a poorly-written piece (as it was in this case).
I’m still not seeing any evidence beyond the initial paraphrasing of a trite proverb — certainly not enough to make an authoritative-sounding claim like the author did. A quality writer would have worded the claim more honestly (here we go again), or pursued a more supportable line of argument.
You’ll find isolated examples of all manners of bad behaviour on all blogs. Blair’s blog is one of the ones I do regularly read and a few rabid extremists aside, my prolonged experience is that the vast majority of commenters can be inferred to have read the linked articles before posting. (There are certainly many more examples of demonstrated knowledge than there are of demonstrated lack of knowledge.)
I disagree. I think it’s a generalisation with far less foundation than your average run-of-the-mill weak generalisation. Presenting it authoritatively rather than as an admitted generalisation was also poor form, in my opinion.
Absolutely. If it’s illogical and poorly-written, I’d be only too happy to demonstrate that to the best of my ability (and I dare say I wouldn’t be first in line either). You (and others) seem to be mistaking me for some kind of drooling Bolt/Blair fanboy, when it couldn’t be further from the truth (as an objective eye with preconceptions would already have noticed). Of course, there’s no reason that a satire needs to be torn to shreds — if it’s accurate and entertaining, then what can you say? As I’ve said many times, I was hoping this article would be both of those.
I know nothing about Hall and Landeryou, but I’m starting to gather that the original article was just a thinly-veiled excuse to take potshots at them. Perhaps my lack of background in this regard would explain why I found it less amusing than some.
If you’re talking about the Bolt climate change example, I’ve explained above why you are comparing apples and oranges.
Again, apples and oranges. Do you think I would have launched into an essay if John Surname had posted a single paragraph quotation mocking the original author or some other third-party target? There’s no pretence of weight in that. THIS piece, by virtue of its tone and length, appeared to be carrying that pretence. Let me repeat that if a right-wing writer had spouted the same article as this, I would have been just as scathing.
I wasn’t seeking balance within this piece, if that’s what you’re saying. I fully expected it to be politically one-sided. I was seeking a quality parody/critique of somebody like Tim Blair. I think Blair is a quality writer and blogger and while I disagree with a lot of his opinions (and even more of the opinions of some of his more extreme fans), I find his site to be generally an entertaining read. I have no problem, however, with appreciating somebody’s work and simultaneously appreciating something that portrays that person’s work in a negative light.
A parody is generally all the more entertaining when you’re familiar with the object of ridicule. I’m sure there’s plenty of good fodder available — I found Blair’s personal ridicule of Mr Lefty’s use of a dating service to be well below the belt (no pun intended), for instance — which is why I was confused as to the insipid examples and unproven assertions that formed the backbone of this piece.
Hmmm, yes, this paragraph resonates with me — I can’t identify with either tedious extremist view (to me, being at either end of an extreme generally means you’re wrong), and I can’t identify with any kind of undeviating group-think (left or right). If being “weathered” means having one extreme worn into you through years of baffling conflict, I’m glad to still be meandering somewhat untouched in the middle ;)
If the extent of my double standard is that I don’t consider the two cited examples of Bolt and Blair to be in the same vein as this piece (which I’ve already logically explained), I don’t think that’s a fair claim. I’ve had more experience reading right-wing blogs than left-wing ones (almost entirely because I don’t have a left-wing equivalent to Blair in my “rotation”), I’ll certainly admit that, but politically I’m quite firmly in the middle (swinging voter, have left-wing views on some issues and right-wing views on others). My search for quality left-wing blogging comes out of a desire to balance my blog reading to match my own varying views.
You may choose to believe me or not, but more importantly you’ve done me the courtesy and favour of responding to my questions in the manner I was hoping for, and for that I thank you and wish you very well. I hope the length of my reply hasn’t exacerbated your hangover! :)
Monday 23 April 2007, 12:27 pm #Bruce
If he has previously supported that through logical means, whether or not you agree with his conclusion or not, how is that dishonest?
I didn’t mention his conclusion. I mentioned his supporting argument of inferring climate from weather; a non-sequitur that Andrew has oft repeated and has had brought to his attention.
Even Soon (climate change skeptic) has had to admit (when pressed by Mann) that his (and collegues) regional weather data (as opposed to climate data) was too small a set to draw climatic inferences from (which they did anyway).
This “supporting argument” is an old canard with an equally long track record of being shown to be wrong. Anyone with a basic understanding of statistics can see why it’s wrong (say pick a region with warm currents from the equator to infer climate, and you can infer climate as being warmer than it is/was.)
Given his experience and his intelligence, I find it impossible to discredit Andrew as ignorant of the nature of this fallacy. Hence I find his use of it dishonest.
As for the Popovic case, Andrew said she (a magistrate) “hugged the drug traffikers she set free on the court steps” (I paraphrase - accurately though). She claimed she just shook their hands for their completion of a rehab program.
By the end of the court case, Andrew was caught out as being careless with the truth and NEWS LTD lost upwards of $200,000 plus legal fees.
Too busy to respond to other points sorry :(
Monday 23 April 2007, 1:41 pm #Stumps
If Bolt has pushed a fallacy first-hand multiple times (as a non-follower of Bolt, I wouldn’t know), then it is a pity this was not used an example by the author in preference to a passing reference to a lightweight ironic observation by a third party.
As with the defamation case you’ve described (thanks for the info), it’s clear that far better fodder exists for parody and deconstruction (I’ve certainly never tried to suggest that Blair, Bolt, et al are beyond reproach!) — it’s unfortunate that John Surname did not spend the time or effort researching them and using them in preference to the weak and unsubstantiated claims that he did reference.
I guess the lesson here is that if you’re going to depart from shallow generalist satire (which the author employed to far greater effect in his “Truths of the Left” article linked in the second paragraph) and dive into something weightier, attacking particular individuals over specific cases with the seeming pretence of authority, you need to put more effort into making sure that your examples are both biting and representative in order to carry the satire/parody to the same level. This article comes across as a muddled hybrid, and suffers as a result.
Of course, if the target audience is only people who undiscerningly applaud anything that is critical of “the Right”, no matter how illogical or clumsy, it doesn’t really matter. In saying that, the attitude where the the target, not the writing or the argument, determines the perceived quality of a piece is one of the things about this political extremism (on both sides) that gets up my nose, and leads to the allegations of “group thinking”.
Monday 23 April 2007, 3:20 pm #John S.
Please, this was a rushed bait piece that worked, and quite frankly, everybodies repsonse has delighted me.
Monday 23 April 2007, 4:22 pm #Stumps
So you made yourself look stupid just to provoke people into coming and pointing that out? I’m no psychologist, but even to a layperson that would surely suggest some kind of personal issue. Did you not get much attention as a child?
Monday 23 April 2007, 5:20 pm #John Surname
Worse! - My parents used to hang me upside down in a cupboard, beat me with rhubarb, and shout “The right are always wrong! Don’t vote Liberal!”
But thank you for expending the time on your stunning takedown, and by stunning, I mean hyseterical.
And Bruce, unfortunately, I never kept the link to the Blair piece I quoted, *but* I did quote it in full on my site.
Monday 23 April 2007, 5:31 pm #Stumps
Well, I can’t say I’m surprised that you’re at it again — calling my post “hyseterical” (sic) without any foundation or justification (or for that matter, explanation as to what you think that word might mean).
Just for your future reference — effective arguers know that they actually have to support a claim with evidence rather than just randomly throwing negative adjectives at people. It may be a favoured tactic of those on the extreme fringes of both sides of politics, but it certainly does nothing to win over any readers who are capable of independent thought.
I’ll pop in and check on your writing some time in the future to see whether you’ve learned this lesson over time. Best of luck!
Monday 23 April 2007, 9:40 pm #Bruce
Standards for substantiation vary depending on if the point is a matter of fact or a matter of opinion.
Stating that you found a person’s work hysterical (ie comedic/pathetic etc) is quite different from stating that a person is (or was) hysterical.
Once can state that they find a brick hysterical, but it’s nother thing to say the brick is in a state of hysteria. The later would require some serious substantiation.
Last I checked, people have just stated that they find each other’s work hysterical. The only jsutification one needs to verify this, and the only you can gain is the word of the person making the opinion (they are only commenting on their perception after all).
It’s only when one is trying to persuade that it becomes useful to substantiate a matter of opinion, and I don’t actually see John trying to do that. While preferable, he doesn’t need to.
Nor would it reasonable to expect people to automatically agree with him (not that this expectation is being made either).
I’d wait until John calls a square an octagon, attempts persuasion, makes an accusation, or statement of ontological fact before asking before substantiation.
Monday 23 April 2007, 10:18 pm #Bruce
John,
I just tried to find the original comment by Tim Blair. No luck :(
Did find this though;
“It’s much easier to imagine today’s antiwar left during WWII … wailing about Curtin’s introduction of conscription, smearing him as a drunk, protesting over Curtin’s “politics of fear” before the 1943 election, and painting him as MacArthur’s lapdog. Oh, and there might also be the occasional complaint about Jews and foreign wars, and – following the bombing of Darwin – claims that our closeness to the US and UK had “made us a target”.”
(Timmeh, 2007)
Complaint against Jews aka anti-semitism. A pretty serious accusation requiring serious substantiation. Perhaps Stumps should ask him for such substantiation (keeping in mind criticism of Israel’s policy isn’t “complaints about Jews”, Chomsky’s claim for freedom of speech for David Irving is just that, Hitler wasn’t a “leftist”, and that such a broad and not-toungue-in-cheek generalism requires evidence of broad reaching anti-semitism, not just one or two examples.)
One may also want to ask Tim why Menzies never got a mention in his post. Pig Iron, admiration for 1930’s German industry. Was WWII relevant after all.
Tuesday 24 April 2007, 9:40 am #Stumps
Who says complaining about Jews is anti-Semitism?
You’ve just attempted to re-frame the original statement so that “there might also be the occasional complaint about Jews and foreign wars” becomes a “pretty serious accusation”, when it clearly is not.
Tuesday 24 April 2007, 7:13 pm #Bruce
Complaining about Jews, as distinct from complaining about Judaism, Zionism or Israel’s foreign policy, is anti-semitism. I haven’t reframed anything.
My comment is also in context with Blair’s (and Bolt’s) use of the “leftist anti-semitism” trope, on display especially during the Israeli attack on Lebanon last year.
This is a pretty desperate defence of Blair you are making; trying to re-frame Tim Blair’s obvious (and false) assertion of “leftist anti-semitism” as something less innocuous.
Someone who is politically “middle of the road” wouldn’t be extending such (undeserved) good faith to one side of politics, while denying it from the other. Your assertions to be neutral are clearly false.
You’re abusing what (perhaps little) good faith you’ve been shown by pretending otherwise. I wouldn’t expect people to take you too seriously from here on in.
Thursday 26 April 2007, 2:54 pm #Stumps
Complaints about Jews are “anti-semitism”? Only if the complaints are on account of their being Jews. Would you see something inherently wrong with complaints about Americans too? Of course not, because there are plenty of valid reasons for making such complaints, and there’s no suggestion that the complaints are being made merely because the people in question are Americans and nothing else.
And look, you’re doing it again — calling ME desperate when you’re furiously trying to twist a few words detailing something that DOES occur (some of the people to whom Blair is referring DO complain about Jews) into a “serious accusation” of “anti-semitism”. You’re making the same mistake as John Surname — there’s surely a heap of more suitable material to attack on Blair’s site, yet you try and contort this innocuous one into an outrage-shaped frame? I’d be equally unmoved if a left-winger had claimed that right-wingers “complain about Muslims”. That’s right, many of them do. What’s the problem? I would defend the left-wing author in question from right-wing claims that this was a “pretty serious accusation requiring serious substantiation”.
My position is merely not to tolerate rampant exaggeration and fanaticism from either side. If you and John Surname (and whoever else) insist on continuing to attempt to inflate insignficant points into overblown dramas, and then try to paint ME as the pretender, or the one deviating from neutrality, then I’m afraid I too wouldn’t expect people like yourself to take me seriously — we obviously see the world through very different eyes, and my reluctance to jump wholesale on your fanatical bandwagon forces you in your black-and-white world to deceptively portray me as a right-winger.
I call crap where I see it, and unfortunately in this case we’re positioning a right-wing professional writer against a couple of left-wing amateurs — of course the professional (in this case Blair) is going to come across as more logical and persuasive. Put a quality left-wing writer against a couple of random extremist commenters from Blair’s site, and I’m sure the left-winger will come out looking pretty damn good as well. It’s not a balanced competition, and your claiming that my apparent greater “good faith” for Blair than for you and JS makes my claims of neutrality clearly false shows that you are mistaking my appreciation for quality as rather my political persuasion.
It’s not that I agree with his views (though some of them I certainly do) — it’s that I think your attacks on him have been weak and apparently random. My comments are motivated by merit, not political bias, and it’s a poor (and arguably arrogant) excuse for you to claim the latter.
Thursday 26 April 2007, 7:52 pm #Iain Hall
Stumps
You Have made following this thread worthwhile as yours is a voice of reason amongst this rabble of malicious lefties.Keep up the good work.
Cheers :o)
Thursday 26 April 2007, 8:12 pm #The Editor
Speaking of following threads, Iain, I’ve been watching a post of yours. It was originally entitled:
Indegenious (sic) Policy and the ALP,or (sic) have another Lite (sic) beer
After you brilliantly had a go at one of your commenters for their poor spelling, another commenter pointed out that you had spelled “indigenous” incorrectly, as did Bourbon Boy. So you went back and edited the title to read:
Indegenous (sic) Policy and the ALP,or (sic) have another Lite (sic) beer
Which, hilariously, still spelled “indigenous” incorrectly (not to mention the missing space before “or” and the random capitalisation of “lite”.)
I’ve been checking back now and again to see how long it would take you to realise, but three days later no action.
So, Iain, I would just like to say that it is you that makes following any thread of yours worthwhile, as yours is a voice of hypocrisy and buffoonery amongst a rabble of malicious righties. Keep up the good work.
ps/- How are your page view stats going?
Friday 27 April 2007, 4:53 pm #Bridgit Gread
Iain Hall - a true genious!
Saturday 28 April 2007, 11:27 am #Strider
How about you dump your current senate campaign and get that warm-fuzzy David Hicks up there as your candidate?
Move quickly, as the Australian Democrats have said they want him!
Saturday 28 April 2007, 4:30 pm #The Editor
Lachlan would never quit. He’s too committed to restoring democracy to Parliament.