Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Does "Rage and Venom" define the left side of the blogosphere?
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, April 15, 2006

Why is it when I read this article today (which is making the rounds of the blogosphere) the first mental image that formed in my head was that of an old woman, hair wildly askew and wearing three ragged coats, pushing her purloined shopping cart full of bagged junk down the shoulder of the road while holding a muttered conversation with herself?

Well perhaps because that's the image David Finkel was going for in an article in today's Washington Post about the left side of the blogosphere. We've discussed what some like to call "Bush Derangement Syndrome" before, but there is BDS and then there is BDS! Consider Finkel's treatment of lefty blogger Maryscott O'Connor thrashing around for a topic:
She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says "I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned"?
As Ed Morrisey points out:
This reads like a parody of bloggers and blogging rather than a day-in-the-life feature article. In Finkel's quotations from O'Connor's and other left-wing blogs, he has to block out 18 expletives. Every single quote drips with hatred and venom, and none of it rises above ad-hominem vitriol. In the entire article, Finkel produces not a single measured argument against policy, but instead exposes the personal nature of their loathing.
Which brings us to Shakespear's Sister over at Ezra Klein's. She agrees that the left side of the blogosphere is angry, but not for the reasons Finkel implies:
I am bloody angry as hell because the Republicans are in control of Washington, but it’s because of what they’re doing in their leadership role, not simply because the Democrats are not in control or because conservatives are nasty. I blog because their leadership is thoroughly incompetent, corrupt, untrustworthy, and beholden to corporate and conservative Christian interests that are bad for me as a worker, a consumer, a believer in the separation of church and state, and a woman who values her bodily autonomy—and bad for the LGBT community, the poor, the ill lacking healthcare, undocumented workers, public school children, and lots and lots of other people, not to mention bad for our civil rights, the environment, national security, the economy, our international reputation, etc. etc. etc.
While you may not agree with her concerns or priorities she has a fair point.
Finkel mistakes passion for poutiness, and that’s what made me squirm. There are a lot people who feel disenfranchised and disheartened right now, and that’s why they’re angry.
Well, that may be true, but one has to ask the question, why is the anger on the left more typical of O'Conner than Shakespear's Sister? Why are expletive laced tirades dripping with venom more typical fare on the left than measured, logical and dispassionate arguments about those issues and priorities Shakespear's Sister lists as important to her?

If the purpose of "My Left Wing", O'Connor's blog, is to simply be a safety valve for an apparently disturbed personality, then fine, it obviously serves that purpose. But if it is meant to persuade and inform, I have to go along with Betsy and "Betsy's Page" and ask:
“If you were a moderate and were reading this blogger would you be convinced by the logic and reasonableness of her arguments?
You tell me. But I don't respond well to the sort of blogging which O'Connor describes as "one long, sustained scream". While I appreciate the occasional rant, especially if it is cleverly and entertainingly done, expletive laced bombast just doesn't cut it for me.

But it seems there are plenty out there that need and seek that sort of lefty primal scream therapy.
How about the 125,000 or so daily visitors to Eschaton? Or the thousands who visit Rude Pundit, the Smirking Chimp or My Left Wing, which is O'Connor's Web site?

Put another way, can one person sitting alone in a living room, typing her fingertips numb on a keyboard, make a difference?

"Rage, rage against the Lying of the Right" is the subtitle of O'Connor's Web site.
I can remember not being at all happy that Bill Clinton was President of the United States, and I'm sure there were those on the right equally as deranged as the O'Connors of the left, but for some reason I just don't remember the level of hate being this deep. Then maybe it’s just me and my memory is faulty.

I'm also not ready to buy into Finkel's notion that O'Connor is 'typical' of the left side of the blogosphere. But I will agree that she is amply represented there.

UPDATE [Jon Henke]

Glenn Greenwald's aggrieved comment on this article deserves a response...
The Washington Post published yet another article today — this one entitled The Left, Online and Outraged, by David Finkel — seeking to depict the liberal blogosphere as being nothing more than the venting ground for the crazed and hateful rantings of what it calls "the Angry Left." To accomplish this goal, the article features a single blogger, Maryscott O'Connor of My Left Wing, examines her posts, finds the most extreme and outrageous, throws in some deliberately selected inflammatory comments buried in various blogs, and then attributes all of that to the liberal blogosphere generally. Based upon these isolated comments, The Post tells its readers that the liberal blogosphere is a place reserved for the furious and the profane — "Loud, crass and instantaneous."
This is a frustrating topic. Read the Leftosphere and you'll see them write about how vicious and hateful the Rightosphere is. Read the Rightosphere and you'll read how angry and disgusting the Leftosphere is. Both sides are able to produce ample evidence to back up their argument.

I went through this exact same discussion with Ted Rall some time back, and he conceded the point. It's frustrating, because it's so transparently ridiculous that one side is somehow more virtuous than the other. Decency, taste and seriousness is not ideological.

The problem is confirmation bias: people tend to notice and remember invective aimed at their side; they tend to dismiss invective aimed at the other side.

A secondary problem is interpretation. When you start out from different premises and with the assumption that you're on opposite teams, it's easy to misinterpret — or put the worst possible spin on — statements made by your opponent. Friends get passes, enemies get the rhetorical knife.

The Post reporter was simply telling a story. Is it unfair to discuss the "angry left" aspect of the blogosphere? I don't know. Probably no less unfair than discussing the "authoritarian cultists". (ahem)

I certainly wish people would pay attention to the serious conversations rather than the bomb-throwers. But major bloggers on the Left — e.g., Atrios, Willis, etc — certainly spend their fair share of time discussing idiots on the right, so I'm not sure the Leftosphere is terribly qualified to start fussing about turnabout.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
This is, quite openly and clearly, selective sampling and self-fulfilling characterization. The idea that the right "wasn’t this angry when Bill Clinton was president" is almost a physically repulsive statement to me, because my first political impression of any kind ever, before I knew anything about politics or what party I was, was a sense of unease at the visceral hatred from the right-wing talk radio host Bob Grant on my school bus.

I’d like to remind you that those not-angry republicans shut down the Federal Government over a budget issue and led the second impeachment proceedings in our nation’s history over a case of oral sex, during war time, no less. The most popular right-wing host on FOX made a point of saying he’d cheer if Al-Quieda bombed San Fransisco. Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, and the most popular and visible right-wing commentators have all called for, luridly described, or attempted to argue for the moral righteousness of imprisonmening, deporting, or physically destroying their political opponents. Liberals are insane, diseased, traitorous, nihilistic, pathetic, hopeless, incredulous, empty-headed fools, is what you would soon learn. Walk into any major chain bookstore, and read it right off the cover, because it’s that easy to find.

Or, perhaps you might want to visit Little Green Footballs, FreeRepublic, or RedState.com for a regular cavalcade of posters cursing, insulting, and making wild, profane accusations against everyone who isn’t one of them.

Even the Washington Post, in the midst of a hit piece that carefully culls the blogosphere to selectively present the most unhinghed examples possible, felt the need to include a paragraph about the left having learned or absorbed - after a decade of taking it on the chain and looking down at the floor and stuttering - their dynamics from the right wing.

Glenn Greenwald says it better than I, along with a great number of quotes and sourcing links, lest you find this simply too impossible to believe.

http://www.glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Although I am more a libertarian, I am somewhat right leaning. Therefore In my history (I graduated college in 1980) I discovered that yes, indeed the Left was far more filled with hatred and venom and just sheer nastiness than the right. Or to be more exact, The people on the right who had those qualities were ignorant skinheads who were few in number, and didn’t attend college.
Whereas the people on the left who could be vile and viscous were almost all of them. And in the intervening years they have not gotten any better.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Well, that may be true, but one has to ask the question, why is the anger on the left more typical of O’Conner than Klein? Why are expletive laced tirades dripping with venom more typical fare on the left than measured, logical and dispassionate arguments about those issues and priorities Klein lists as important to him?
And the proof for the premise of your question is what? An empirical and comprehenisve study of the "left" side of the blogosphere?

No, I didn’t think so.

Look, you have been beating this horse for years - it’s dead finally, ok? Are there angry people on the Left? Of course. Including yours truly. History will judge whether our anger was justified. I would bet on my side of the argument.

But you go on from this to suggest that anyone who criticizes Bush is deranged. As you put it:
We’ve discussed what some like to call "Bush Derangement Syndrome" before, but there is BDS and then there is BDS!
Exactly. Those who are engry with and critical of Bush’s policies are deranged. Those who are really and irrationally angry with Bush are really deranged. Bottom line: Unless one subscribes to Powerline-like fealty to Bush, one is deranged. Simple forumla, right?

And yes, as you admit, you have discussed this before. Many times. Multiple times. Too many to count. (Indeed, what is the news value here?) As I have said before, this is simply a propaganda tactic of the right. They did it to McCain. They did it to Dean. They are doing it to Hillary. Anyone who disagrees with Bush has a screw loose. Classic Rovian tactic.

I would submit that the left side (i.e., the non—Bush loving crowd) of the blogosphere is quite diverse in their opinions and often eloquent and witty in their criticisms. And often quite temperate. Almost too temperate. But I guess that is a matter of opinion.
I can remember not being at all happy that Bill Clinton was President of the United States, and I’m sure there were those on the right equally as deranged as the O’Connors of the left, but for some reason I just don’t remember the level of hate being this deep. Then maybe it’s just me and my memory is faulty.
It’s just you.

And you don’t have to go back to many years ago to figure this out. Indeed, just go backa few weeks. Look at the right side’s reaction to the events surrounding Jill Carroll’s release.

From the Telegraph:
The freed American hostage Jill Carroll arrived home after 83 days of captivity in Iraq yesterday - to a barrage of criticism from Right-wingers who accused her of showing too much sympathy for her kidnappers.

Jill Carroll, reunited with her family, denies that she refused to answer questions from the US military

But after an emotional reunion with her family in Boston, the 28-year-old freelance correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor spoke of her loathing for the gunmen who threatened her with death "many times" during her ordeal.

She described her captors as "criminals at best" and denied allegations that she had refused to answer questions from the American military.

She also disavowed a video-taped statement made during her captivity and another which was made shortly before American troops arrived to take custody of her.

"Things I was forced to say while captive are being taken by some as an accurate reflection of my personal views," she said. "They are not."

She said that her Iraqi translator, Alan Enwiya, had been murdered at the start of her captivity and that she remained "deeply angry with the people who did this".

Miss Carroll has been under sustained assault from some on the pro-war Right. Bloggers and hosts on the country’s influential talk radio stations have attacked her for stating that she had not been threatened during her confinement.

Others attacked her for wearing Muslim dress and the news channel CNN carried an interview suggesting that she was suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome", in which victims begin to sympathise with their captors. One blogger called for Miss Carroll to be arrested for treason.

The terrorists holding her brought members of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni group, to see her. The Sunnis persuaded her to give a taped interview, which Miss Carroll said she was afraid to refuse.

"Fearing retribution from my captors, I did not speak freely," she said. "Out of fear, I said I had not been threatened. In fact I was threatened many times."

Miss Carroll’s captivity has been more widely reported than that of any other American hostage but received considerably less attention than comparable dramas in Britain or Italy. Unlike most Europeans, Americans are convinced that they are at war with a relentless and inhumane enemy.

Miss Carroll’s first videotape appeared to contradict that widely-held view and provoked much of the

criticism. The attacks were also stoked by a widespread suspicion among supporters of the war, from the White House downwards, that reporters from "the liberal media" are effectively allying itself with the insurgents.

President George W Bush and his senior officials have strongly implied that, by reporting terrorist "spectaculars" in Iraq while ignoring progress elsewhere in the country, the media have undermined public support at home.

Many Americans also have high expectations about the behaviour of their nationals in perilous situations.

There was widespread shock throughout the country when two Italian women hostages in Iraq, freed in 2004 for a reported $1 million ransom, expressed understanding for the insurgency.

Miss Carroll distanced herself from that kind of sentiment.
Let’s bevery clear about what happened here. The right side of the sphere went nuts - and I do mean nuts - over statements a female journalist made while still in danger from her captors. Mind you, this was a journalist who was out in the field talking to Iraqis - something wingers implore journalists to do - when she was kidnapped.

Seriously, think about how deranged they became. Carroll made remarks that effectively criticized Bush while she was still in the hands of her captors. And rather than reason that she might - just might havemade those statements under duress - the right side of the sphere let loose with both barrels against her. Incredible really, especially in hindsight.

Now this wasn’t a poilitician, or an actor, or some blowhard sounding off at some kind of awards show. This was a woman in the hands of vicious killers. It boggles the mind.

But yes, the left is deranged and the right side of the sphere is a cauldron of reason. Thanks for the laugh, McQ.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
That was Shakespeare’s Sister posting at my place, not me. I put my comments in the post above hers.
 
Written By: Ezra
URL: http://
The "Ezra Klein" you link to is actually Shakespeare’s Sister who posts there on weekends.

From the Klein post:
Angry for a Reason

Shakes
here...

It’s easy to pass by.

You later state:
Well, that may be true, but one has to ask the question, why is the anger on the left more typical of O’Conner than Klein? Why are expletive laced tirades dripping with venom more typical fare on the left than measured, logical and dispassionate arguments about those issues and priorities Klein lists as important to him?
What’s interesting is that Shakespeare’s Sister herself takes a certain pride in her foul mouth. Ask those guys from Dread Pirate Bluto who decided to stop by in a group one day and school her in their pirate ways until she went foul, deliberately.

On the other hand Shakespeare’s Sister writes thoughtful posts both at her own site and at "Klein" on weekends. Whether you didn’t realize she was "Klein" (and relatively clean or not), a blogger, like anyone else, can have a variety of different sides as well as levels of "venom," depending on the circumstances.

One hopes some atmosphere for honest discussion can survive all this.
 
Written By: The Heretik
URL: http://theheretik.us/
Two quick points:

1) I was fairly young in the 90s and not nearly as politically aware as I am now, but I distinctly recall similar levels of anger from the Right. Witness the growth of the Militia and survivalist movements, the cesspool that was Free Republic, the Mena/Foster/etc conspiracies. This was fairly mainstream stuff.

It’s only going to get worse. On both sides.

2) I’ve never understood why it was such a big deal that the government was shut down for a few days. Whoop-dee. The world, the US economy and my life completely and utterly failed to stop because some government employees got a long weekend. Frankly, that’s just about the best thing they’ve done in DC for years.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
1) I was fairly young in the 90s and not nearly as politically aware as I am now, but I distinctly recall similar levels of anger from the Right. Witness the growth of the Militia and survivalist movements, the cesspool that was Free Republic, the Mena/Foster/etc conspiracies. This was fairly mainstream stuff.
It may be more of a matter of the amount of connectivity now vs. then that makes it seem more obvious now than then.

Certainly there was anger and hate, but I just don’t seem to remember it rising to the level it has now.

It may have been just as bad, but I’d guess the ’net may be responsible for making it so much more visible to everyone.

And as we discussed, Jon ... memories being what they are, er ... how ’bout them Knicks?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
That was Shakespeare’s Sister posting at my place, not me. I put my comments in the post above hers.
My bad, Ezra ... thanks for the correction.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
It may be more of a matter of the amount of connectivity now vs. then that makes it seem more obvious now than then.
I think that’s exactly it. Plus, the confirmation bias problem I mentioned in my update. Michael Savage is as bad or worse than anything on the Left — an absolutely ridiculous figure — but I just don’t pay any attention to him at all. Let Howard Dean say something stupid, and I notice it. Confirmation bias. We all have it.
And as we discussed, Jon ... memories being what they are, er ... how ’bout them Knicks?
We did? When? :)
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Michael Savage is as bad or worse than anything on the Left — an absolutely ridiculous figure — but I just don’t pay any attention to him at all. Let Howard Dean say something stupid, and I notice it.

Not entirely analogous — Michael Savage is not chairman of the Republican Party. Al Franken saying something stupid, perhaps?

That said, while the vitriol from the left blogosphere does tend to strike me as more extreme than that on the right, the primary difference that stands out for me is absolutism. I see way more of it from the left than the right. Most righties I’ve encountered seem perfectly willing to admit Bush isn’t absolutely perfect, be it in intention, ability, or both. Hell, the folks over at NRO bash him on a daily basis. Likewise happens to other conservatives, members of the administration or not. But I almost never see lefties admit to the least imperfection in their fellow travellers (cf Glenn Greenwald’s hilariously defensive screed against those who pointed out Zinni et al’s feet of clay). Those who do tend to get run out of town on a rail. There may be occasional quibbles about superficialities, but mostly it looks like a giant herd of sacred cows milling around over there, kicking up dust and trampling their credibility underfoot.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://quantum-sky.net
The Post reporter was simply telling a story. Is it unfair to discuss the "angry left" aspect of the blogosphere? I don’t know. Probably no less unfair than discussing the "authoritarian cultists". (ahem)

I certainly wish people would pay attention to the serious conversations rather than the bomb-throwers. But major bloggers on the Left — e.g., Atrios, Willis, etc — certainly spend their fair share of time discussing idiots on the right, so I’m not sure the Leftosphere is terribly qualified to start fussing about turnabout.
Again, you miss the point. Sure, there are angry people on both sides of the political spectrum. Some who are not irrational, and some who are irrational, or at least sound that way.

But it is the right, not the left, that claims that those who are angry about Bush - even the rational ones - are somehow mentally disturbed to the point that they cannot be reasoned with. It is a tactic that is used by the right to shut down serious debate. "I can’t have a discussion with him. He criticizes Bush. He is mentally deranged. Who can have a conversation with such a person? Such a deranged person."

It is not only the pundits and bloggers on the right who use this tactic, it is the politicans as well. As I noted above, they use against their own sometimes. Do we not remember what happened to McCain in 2000? Again, look at what is happening to Hillary now. It is the same kind of tactic.

You refer to the "serious conversations." Again you miss the point. The right uses the label of the angry left to shut down debate. Assumedly, such conversations would involve serious conversationsalists. Ok, here is one for you: Charles Krauthammer. A leading conservative columnist. A former mental health professional. A major proponent of the war. A leading shaper of opinon on the right. A man whose credentials would lead you to believe that leading serious conversationalists on the right would not suggest that their political opponents are mentally deranged. After all, that is not what serious conversationslists would do. Right?

Od course, you would be wrong about that. Krauthammer regularly opines that Bush’s opponents are literally menatally ill. They all suffer from BDS. They cannot be reasoned with. Bush’s crtics complain that he did not deploy enough troops in Iraq? Well, why debate that point? The people who make it are deranged.

In this sense, Krauthammer - a serious conversationlist - is no different from the bomb throwers - take Michael Savage, for example ("Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.") They are one in the same.

On the other hand, take EJ Dionne, for example. Same paper as Krauthammer. Same level of seriousess, seemingly. Sort of Krauthammer’s counter-weight on the WaPo editorial staff. Is he out there labeling Bush supporters as mentally ill? Of course not. Sure, he is to the left, somewhat. But he doesn’t use the "mental illness" tactic to shut down debate instead of engaging in a serious conversation.

It’s all nice on your part Jon to make both sides seem the same. But they are not. It is not that there aren’t seriously angry people on both sides, Jon. There are. Even irrational people. It is that the right - both those who are serious and those who are bomb throwers - labels ALL of Bush’s opponents as mentally ill and thus avoids the very kind of serious conversation that you seem to desire.

Most of us on the left would love to hsve a serious conversation. I am mostly with the right on immigration issues and gun control. But because I criticize Bush, I am mentally ill, al least according to those who inhabit this site. Indeed, I would submit that there are many on the left who would be willing to agree with Bush on some issues. But the minute they criticize him for anything - and I mean anything - they are labelled as deranged and unhinged and unbalanced and mentally ill. That’s your serious discussion.


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
That said, while the vitriol from the left blogosphere does tend to strike me as more extreme than that on the right, the primary difference that stands out for me is absolutism. I see way more of it from the left than the right. Most righties I’ve encountered seem perfectly willing to admit Bush isn’t absolutely perfect, be it in intention, ability, or both. Hell, the folks over at NRO bash him on a daily basis. Likewise happens to other conservatives, members of the administration or not. But I almost never see lefties admit to the least imperfection in their fellow travellers.
I won’t explicitly reference the name of the messiah in answering you, given it is Easter weekend. But, [insert reference here], give me a break.

One of the major functions of the "left" blogoshpere is to challenge the traditional power brokers in the Democratic Party. Atrios has almost a personal vendetta against Lieberman, for example. Kos wrote "Crashing The Gate" - Feingold - the outsider in the party - is the hero of the lefty blogs.

Major right leaning blogs, on the other hand, are basically lockstep with the GOP. There is no major right wing blog - and Sullivan is not a Right Wing blog - that does not actively back Bush. Hewitt actively backs Bush. Powerline worships Bush. Reynolds does not have any serious beef with Bush. Suprisingly, there is no major right wing blogger who has taken a serious anti-Bush position. Curious.

Nice try though.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
You’ll find this kind of crap everywhere if you look for it, but it’s refreshing to see the left take it for once, I’m sick of seeing the standard Right-Blogsphere is racist, fascist blah blah storyline.

Deal with it b*tches.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
For what it’s worth, Jon, there really are people too angry at Bush to view policy differences clearly. I don’t really like them either. They are in the process of crashing the Democratic Party’s gate and taking control of the tone, and while I don’t enjoy their intellectual arguments, while I don’t always think they’re right, I’m still glad they’re out there.

The reason is because I’m tired of losing. The party that is on the defensive tends to lose, and feel like kicked dogs. The Democrats have been kicked dogs since 1992, even while techincally, in some ways, on top. The Republicans are slowly but steadily heading towards kicked-dog status as we speak.

These things move in cycles. As a Democrat, I’m tired of watching policies I don’t believe in be enacted. I’d like to have a citizenship full of citizens who were forceful and motivated without being nasty and wild-eyed, but it doesn’t seem to work that way in entirety.

Oddly enough, many of the more serious republican thinkers are less aggressive and more open to differing points of view now than they were five or ten years ago.
Being in charge and having things not work out tends to make you more introspective and uncertain, while the other party becomes more aggressive.

These things work in cycles, which is a good thing for the republic.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
The government shutdown wasn’t, in fact, a big deal, because it only lasted a few days, and the House Republicans caved. Too late to avoid looking bad, but not too late to avoid looking disaterously bad.

If Gingrich and had stuck to his guns and social security checks, judicial salaries, infrastructure projects, defense planning, and various regulatory agencies had stayed home for a month, everyone you can think of would have been foaming at the mouth.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
A number of leftist blogs claim to welcome all types of commenters. Almost all of these blogs have one or two phony “libertarians” who supposedly are contented and revered commenters there. These commenters purport to have right wing beliefs and positions on issues not currently under discussion and even claim to have voted for Bush in the past. They NEVER, however, disagree with the current hot topic and support the leftist position slavishly on every important issue discussed. These “libertarians” evince nothing but huge respect for all “real” leftist commenters and their comments, no matter how outrageous. Read them for a while and one clearly sees that they are indistinguishable from the other leftists except for their billing. These “Uncle Tom”, supposedly libertarian commenters on these blogs have convinced the leftists there that “reasonable” right wing types (like the “libertarian” toadies) are largely in agreement with leftist principles and positions, but differ in slight, unimportant details. Real right wing types are thus easily branded (and sincerely believed to be) “disruptive” and extreme.
I am reminded of Joe’s comment on QandO comparing liberals today to nice white people in the sixties who didn’t understand why Negroes were dissatisfied with the status quo in society. Liberals just don’t understand their biases or even that they have them. Leftists are the KKK of today in their bigoted and ignorant view of the center and right. One must laugh when they state that they wish to “convert” independents. Anyone not in their choir gets very short shrift.
After making several comments on such leftist blogs, I discovered that a statement directed to me like: “you are a Winger and are crazy and have no morals [or four letter words to that effect] for supporting an evil person like Bush” is OK, even admirable. However, my saying “you leftists must be crazy for saying, without any proof, that Bush is a criminal for spying on Americans” is an unwarranted, sophomoric ad hominem comment unworthy of a response. The double standard is very evident, although there is silence or an instant entry into denial if one points out (with current examples) the disparity.
On Mr. Greenwald’s blog recently, an honored leftist regular commenter
greeted a new right winger’s comment
with
“Go back to Little Green Snotballs, you POS.”
I cited Mr. Greenwald’s Comments on Posting:
... there are individuals ...with no intent other than to ...vent their own frustrations and emotions and who, therefore, aren’t interested in (or capable of) meaningful debate. They just engage in cliched name-calling (we’re "leftist Bush-haters with Bush Derangement Syndrome," etc.) and have minds that are as closed as they are boring and uncreative.”
and requested that anyone who thought, along with me, that the “POS” comment was out of line to say so. Utter silence. From the resident “Uncle Tom”- Hypatia and all other commenters, many of whom have been vociferously “outraged” by ad hominem comments [like those cited by Mr. Greenwald] by those on the right. Hypocrites.

Every leftist blog I viewed insisted on framing almost every issue in a “do you still beat your wife” manner. Almost any reasoned response that did not agree with the assumptions of the framing is greeted with charges of being off-topic and disruptive. For example, a leftist poster may posit: “When Bush lies as he did today about X, is it disastrous for the country or is it merely terrible?”, this posit is followed by a refusal to seriously discuss whether or not Bush lied or if it was, in fact, relevant whether he did or didn’t. If any leftist commenters “take the bait of the right wing troll” and try to debate the issue honestly, they incur the wrath of the homey group and face excommunication.
Say anything remotely positive about the war in Iraq, Bush, the Bush Administration, Cheney or Rove and you are like a newly hatched chick with a spot of blood on your wing. All the other “chicks” peck away until you are exhausted and dead. [If you were not raised on a farm, ask someone who was, about the mindless, instinctual chick-pecking phenomenon.] Perfectly OK if the pecks are attempts to shoot down your positions. The leftists don’t bother to try. They just don’t recognize the point one is trying to make except to ridicule the maker or superciliously offer the standard applicable leftist talking point. If ANY objection to their framing is raised, they declare the maker “disruptive”, followed by a condescending lecture on proper posting etiquette on the blog. Many threaten excommunication and some proceed to do it. A reasoned debate is not possible. I recently took my case to Mr. Greenwald’s blog directly. It wasn’t pretty.Mr. Greenwald did not weigh in at all. Oh, but he has plenty of outrage for the
right wingers. Mr. Greenwald is Astonished! Astonished! that the WaPo writes that there is rage and anger on the left:
It is just astonishing to have to read an endless article from the Post about the supposed rage and anger on the "Left"...”
Better read the comments on your own blog, Mr. Greenwald.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
When the right side of the blogosphere gets angry, it’s usually over something they are disgusted or offended by (such as terrorist supporters or extremely dumb opinions, and sometimes typical polarizing topics like abortion). The left side is disgusted and offended by the existence of anyone who isn’t leftist, hence the sustained frothing insanity from the left whinge.
 
Written By: Jso
URL: http://
I doubt that any good can come of this discussion.

At the risk of sounding a little too Clintonesque, the issue hinges on the meaning of the word “define”. Taken to mean “limit” rage and venom don’t define the Left Blogosphere. There are lots of rational, intellectually-oriented blogs on the left of the center line (just as there are on the right). Josh Marshall and Matthew Yglegias come to mind among many others.

But bomb-throwers do attract a lot of attention and attracting attention (and traffic) is the lifeblood of the blogosphere. Don’t want to get a reputation for vitriol? Fine—be prepared to languish unread.

 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
mkultra,
Thank you for your incicive and well reasoned arguments, which have, in my mind proven that David Finkle and McQ are suckers caught up in the Rovian Right Wing echo chamber. Their memories are obviously selective and self-serving, or they are simply dishonest, or they would remember the repulsive depths of the hatred spewed by talk show hosts (don’t any of them have cable TV?) against Bill Clinton. It goes on still. They froth at their mouths at the mention of Hillary’s name.
They call this hate?
Hate was creating an atmosphere that led to Matthew Sheppard in Wyoming and James Beard Jr. in Texas.
Where are the comparable examples from the Left wing haters that these amiable right wingers have so conveniently forgotten?
 
Written By: blucaller
URL: http://
I’m sorry, but those of you who claim "both sides do it, therefore both sides are equally bad" strike me as utterly ridiculous. It’s as if someone asserted "last year’s Houston Oilers are no better or worse than the Indianapolis Colts, because both of them won some games and lost some games".

I’m with Notherbob2 and jso - there’s a tangible difference between the left and right in argument. Someone who can’t see the difference between Free Republic and Democratic Underground just isn’t looking very hard.

I remember Free Republic in the worse of the Clinton years, and it was hardly a "cesspool". There was outrage, yes. Completely understandable, because he was proven to have lied, and was even called by a member of his party to be "an ususually good liar". There were also quite credible accusations of rape against him, and by the very rules the left professes to work by, we are supposed to take such accusations seriously (although the left jettisoned their principles as they usually do when it’s no longer convenient to hold to them).

Yes, there were Vince Foster conspiracy theorists. Given the presence of a dead body and some missing documents, I find that hardly surprising. (Personally, I don’t think Clinton would be stupid enough to risk a crime that would send him to jail for the rest of his life.) The Mena airfield stuff was always the province of a edge minority.

Now, let’s compare that to today’s DU. Those folks take it pretty much as gospel that:

1. "Bush lied, people died"

2. The election of 2004 was thrown in Ohio by some cabal of Diebold executives and Republican operatives.

3. The Supreme Court issued an "illegal" opinion in 2000 that put Bush in office.

4. The war in Iraq is being fought over oil. The main beneficiary is Halliburton, and of course, that’s because of Cheney.

And it’s quite respectable to suggest that Bush caused or facilitated 9/11. If you posit this, you’ll get more supporters on DU than detractors. (Some of those conspirazoids have helpfully stopped by here recently. blucaller is welcome to check out those threads if he truly seeks "comparable examples from the Left wing haters".)

Even more serious - these ridiculous ideas are not just held by some fringe group that no one takes seriously. A Democratic member of Congress (McKinney) constantly asserts that Bush knew about 9/11. John Conyers took the election conspiracy nonsense seriously enough to object to the Electoral College vote. This kind of activity by Democratic political figures feeds the frenzy on the left. After all, if a member of Congress says that Bush knew about 9/11, then that emboldens the lunatics to push every nonsensical idea they can. Are there equivalents on the right to Conyers and McKinney? I don’t think so.

As I discussed on this thread, we’re grappling with a deeper issue here. The libertarians and the right are both children of the Enlightenment, but the left is not! From Rousseau to Derrida and Foucault, the left’s emphasis is on emotion, intuition, passion - not reason.

That’s why they can’t help the invective. Jso touched on this - the right is offended by specifics, but the left is offended by the very existence of the right.

The right is not immune to this dependence on intuition and feeling - see any thread on creationism for an example. But on the right, such subjects are the exception, and others on the right will strenuously object to such emotion-based positions. On the left, the most preposterous assertions can be made, and the strongest dissent you’ll typically see is "I can see why feel that way, but...". That line is a dead giveaway of the left’s philosophical basis.

The faux equivalence of "both sides do it" is lazy reasoning. As emotionally appealing as it might be to wish "a pox on both their houses", that simply excuses the excesses of the left.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
I can see why Billy Hollis feels that way, but...
I’m still waiting for an example of the Left Blogosphere’s anger or their "rants" have led to the murder of Republicians or Christians.
If you can’t find any examples of vitriol from the right, that in my mind far surpasses the lefts, you should check out Brent Bozell’s http://www.newsbusters.org. Try posting anything that is remotely critical that questions right wing policies.
This is all just more of the Right Wing Echo Chamber trying to position itself as downtrodden victims. Boo Hoo.
As far as conspiracy theorys on the left, they seem to arise more out of National traumas than filthy minds, as they do on the right.
 
Written By: blucaller
URL: http://
Whoops, make that the Houston Texans - the Oilers are long gone. I don’t follow football so closely any more.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
blucaller is welcome to check out those threads if he truly seeks "comparable examples from the Left wing haters".)
"True believers" such as blucaller aren’t interested in checking such things out. And they make the point of the post perfectly.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
These things move in cycles. As a Democrat, I’m tired of watching policies I don’t believe in be enacted.
As were Republicans when it was an all Democrat show. But I don’t recall the level of hate when that was the case that I see now. Maybe it was quieter and less obvious because of the lack of connectivity we have now.

But the bottom line is anger isn’t going to win elections, and winning elections is the only way Democrats will keep from growing ever more tired "of watching policies I don’t believe in" being enatcted.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Blucaller is beyond redemption, he has already drank the kool aid since he has bought into the ridiculous proposition that some talk show host can create a magical "atmosphere" that causes criminals to behave the way criminals have always behaved since the beginning of time.
Hey Blu, An interesting thought would be: "All the teachers having sex with their students was caused by Clinton who created an atmosphere of sexual exploitation when he got a hummer in the oval office". Do you see how absurd that way of thinking is?
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
I’m checking out your site, aren’t I? I go to Kos and Huffington Post daily, as well as several of your rightie friends dispicable sites, but because I have an actual life, work for a living, and do volunteer work, can’t dedicate my life to trying to discredit those I disagree with or to proving a point to a choir.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, the base is base on both sides. But it sure looks like it’s the Right doing most of the whining these days.
I don’t know what you think makes me a "true believer," because I don’t even hate Bush. I simply think he is the worst president the USA has ever had, and that it’s tragic the way he has exploited ignorance and patriotism in service to his Messianic Complex.
I wish the Left COULD tone things down, but they are only responding in kind to the courseness the Right Wing chose to introduce.

Also, I just visited Newsbusters for the first time in many months, and was pleased to see that they seem to be actively moderating their posts now, and it is practically civil there now, so I appologise for using them as an example of Right Wing Vitriol. I was bombardarded with so many inappropriate personal comments and insults the last time I’d attempted to post, that I quit going there.
 
Written By: blucaller
URL: http://
I’m still waiting for an example of the Left Blogosphere’s anger or their "rants" have led to the murder of Republicians or Christians

I’m sorry, are you seriously arguing that the Right-Blogsphere has led to the murder of someone?

???

You just proved the point of the thread I suppose.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I wish the Left COULD tone things down, but they are only responding in kind to the courseness the Right Wing chose to introduce

Really? All those BC04 campaign officers broken into/vandalized/rioted against during the last election by leftists were in response to what dastardly provocation from the right? (Besides by their mere existance)

At any rate, I applaud your efforts and hope people like you gain the upper hand in your party for a long time to come.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Kyle,
I’m a Christian. It’s Easter Sunday. Don’t talk to me about being "beyond redemption."
 
Written By: blucaller
URL: http://
I’m not arguing the blogosphere inspired anything, other than to keep frustrated xenophobes and tin foil hat people on both sides glued to their monitors where they couldn’t do any harm in the real world. My point was about the vitriol that blared from AM radios, and still does.
I don’t see how folks on your side of the great political divide can argue that saying something disparaging of Bush can get our troops killed, and with a straight face, argue that Right Wing Hatred has not contributed to hate crimes.
 
Written By: blucaller
URL: http://
I’m checking out your site, aren’t I?
Uh, that wasn’t the point, was it?
blucaller is welcome to check out those threads if he truly seeks "comparable examples from the Left wing haters".)
Have you checked out those sites for the "comparable examples from the Left wing haters"?

And if so, what did you find?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
”I’m still waiting for an example of the Left Blogosphere’s anger or their "rants" have led to the murder of Republicians or Christians.”
"...with a straight face, argue that Right Wing Hatred has not contributed to hate crimes."
Here we have an example of a leftist insisting on framing the issue. Hello blucaller, no one here is arguing that at all. Was there any connection at all between the blogoshere and the incidents cited by blucaller? Why none at all, and, in fact, none was even claimed! Blucaller’s reference is just leftist bomb-throwing and an attempt at framing. Typical.
” This is all just more of the Right Wing Echo Chamber trying to position itself as downtrodden victims. Boo Hoo.”
Has there been any discussion of the RWEC being a “victim” of anything? Another “framing” attempt. And the “seem to arise” gambit? How ridiculous is that? Filthy minds on the right? Perhaps that is a useful quote for “pure invective” in the Wikipedia; otherwise.....

BTW, having gotten used to how issues are framed on leftist blogs, I can see why there are so few effective new leftist commenters (such as blucaller’s pitiful effort) on QandO. The framing of issues here is alien to them, being based on reality, and that throws them off stride. Also, their presentation of standard leftist talking points is weak from never having to actually defend them in a fair fight on the leftist blogs due to the framing practices cited above.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
And, yes, I am attempting to frame the discussion around leftist framing. But, I’m done.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Is there anything you folks won’t stoop to? I don’t blog, okay? I just find accusing those who hold opposing points of view of trying to "frame the debate" hysterical, in that it’s one of Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich’s cardinal rules.
And just because you don’t admit, or as you prefer to call it, "discuss" the obvious, that you are playing the victim, dosen’t mean that’s not what you’re doing. Aren’t you all still whining about the mean old,evil, biased, Mainstream Media, even after what you/it did to Clinton and despite the fact that the majority of pundants and hosts ore squarely on the Right? After the free ride it gave to Bush on the build-up to the Iraq War?
Where are the links to all these Leftist-inspired attrocities against GOP property
you claim?
Is this thread not about Anger and Vitriol on the blogosphere? Is it only okay with you folks to talk about what is coming from the left, thereby leaving out all historical context. What about Father Charles Coughlin, Joe McCarthy, and more recently, Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter, et al.
It seems to me the Right has a history to own up to.
As for my intellectual prowess, I’m a tradesman, and a mere high school graduate, so excuse me if I don’t measure up to your standards or have the qualifications or reasoning skills to post here.
Seems like some kind of blogosphere (new word to me, sorry if I overuse it!) elitism.
But I think I’m just about smart and handy enough with a TV remote to recognise phrases like "Drank the Kool-Aid" as being inane attempts at derisive humor propopgated by Bill O’Reilly.
Just because you don’t want to follow the reasoning that accusing those critical of the War in Iraq of getting troops killed while denying that the hate-speech spewed on Rightwing Radio contributes to hate crimes, doesn’t make it an irrelevant point.

I guess I don’t like phonys from the left or the right.
So I’m done, too. Happy Easter.

 
Written By: blucaller
URL: http://
Hey, blucaller, don’t go away mad. This blog needs more left wing common sense and you did OK for a new liberal commenter. MK, if memory serves, was worse in the early times. I didn’t detect any intellectual shortcomings, therefore I gave you my best shot. I would suggest that you read the comments here for a while and then, perhaps when the issue moves you, take another whack at it. You might do better than you think. Happy Easter.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Thank You.
I’m not mad, just have to go to work. I will come back when I have more time to give other postings a more serious reading, and maybe can seem more coherant or on point.
And with the understanding that like Attilla the Hun, just because I’m to the left of you guys, I don’t think most leftists would consider me a leftist.
 
Written By: blucaller
URL: http://
Is this thread not about Anger and Vitriol on the blogosphere? Is it only okay with you folks to talk about what is coming from the left, thereby leaving out all historical context. What about Father Charles Coughlin, Joe McCarthy, and more recently, Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter, et al.
Hey, blu ... point to which of those on your list are bloggers on the right, ok?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Wow. Oh .. My .. God. What an utterly ridiculous notion.
I can remember not being at all happy that Bill Clinton was President of the United States, and I’m sure there were those on the right equally as deranged as the O’Connors of the left, but for some reason I just don’t remember the level of hate being this deep. Then maybe it’s just me and my memory is faulty.
Uh, yeah. It’s just you. But of course, you look at the world through Republican colored glasses. Hence your obsession with Howard Dean, John Murtha, and George Clooney.
What a joke that is. To suggest that there is more venom coming from the Left than from the Right is the most absurd idea I’ve heard in a long time. And the idea that the hatred and venom was less during the Clinton years is just as laughable.

Blogs are like talk radio. You have stated that blogs are just, “people talking”. During the nineties, the blogosphere didn’t exist. So what did we have in addition to the local pub that satisfied, “people talking”? Well, there was always talk radio. Or in other words, “Rush Limbaugh”.
Of course there are those reading this shaking their heads saying, “Well, that’s not a good sample. Rush is just one guy and he is an entertainer to boot.” Well lets not forget his call ins, shall we.

In the mid nineties, I had the great misfortune of working for a man that liked to listen to Rush, which meant that I had to listen to Rush. Every day. Three hours of Rush on Monday, three hours of Rush on Tuesday, three hours of Rush on Wednesday… Over and over, on and on,
Putrid, filthy hatred for Clinton from the thousands and thousands of callers throughout the years. God only know just how many callers that didn’t get through. It was disgusting.
So yeah, It’s just you, McQ. Something tells me that you had your radio tuned into Rush on an occasion or two. Am I right? And if so, one wonders what you considered.
Yes, there were Vince Foster conspiracy theorists. Given the presence of a dead body and some missing documents, I find that hardly surprising. (Personally, I don’t think Clinton would be stupid enough to risk a crime that would send him to jail for the rest of his life.) The Mena airfield stuff was always the province of a edge minority.

Now, let’s compare that to today’s DU. Those folks take it pretty much as gospel that:
Another ridiculous joke. Billy thinks that those conspiracies were limited to a fringe??? LOL. You must not have been listening to the then equivalent blogosphere that was/is talk radio. And, Billy, your “compare that to today” is equally laughable. We can take the bile from the likes of M. Savage, Neil “Ghetto slut” Boortz, Ann “someone should poison Justice Souter” Coulter and compile a list but who has the time or stomach to do so. What a joke that is and how ridiculous you are.
Oh, and this couldn’t be more correct:
Aren’t you all still whining about the mean old,evil, biased, Mainstream Media, even after what you/it did to Clinton and despite the fact that the majority of pundants and hosts ore squarely on the Right?
Yes they are, bluecaller. Yes they are.
Nothing but a bunch of WHINING.
Awe, baby doesn’t like it when people are mean to you, awe… poor baby. “They don’t like me,…they say bad things about me…,” This, “I know you are but what am I?” childish bickering, wow. Over the years I’ve discovered that Right-Wingers can whine with the best of them.
Poor babies. I hope someone loves you.

So, McQ, should you compile a list of hateful things coming from the Right, or should I go somewhere else for reason. You should thank Jon for tagging your post with logic,
The problem is confirmation bias: people tend to notice and remember invective aimed at their side; they tend to dismiss invective aimed at the other side.
Exactly. Heh, this all reminds me of what Dale posted the other day,
Then there are the Paleolibertarians out there, who think we are traitors to the very idea of libertarianism.
Of course, in order to betray an idea; one first must have believed in it.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Wow. Oh .. My .. God. What an utterly ridiculous notion.
Oh good ... the ultimate in fair, impartial and knowledgable has shown up to enlighten us as to how the world really works.
Uh, yeah. It’s just you. But of course, you look at the world through Republican colored glasses. Hence your obsession with Howard Dean, John Murtha, and George Clooney.
When you finally figure out what "obsession" really means, let me know Pogue. If you want an example, try reading MK, who manages to twist every post written by anyone here into an indictment of "BushCo". Well except Dale’s music picks, but I’m sure he’ll eventually succeed in even subverting that little diversion as well.

You? You’re working on becoming a close second.
What a joke that is. To suggest that there is more venom coming from the Left than from the Right is the most absurd idea I’ve heard in a long time.
That’s not what is being said. We’re talking about the left and right of the blogosphere, and I left it as an OPEN QUESTION.

But we can’t have that can we? Got that little knee to jerkin’ (or as excited as you are, perhaps both of them are going) and got to tap-tap-tapping on the old keyboard, huh Pogue?
And the idea that the hatred and venom was less during the Clinton years is just as laughable.
Tell you what ... go have a glass of iced tea, cool off and re-read the damn post for comprehension. Then read the comments where Jon and I discuss why it may have seemed the vitriol and hate didn’t rise tot he level it has now during the Clinton years.

If it’s too much of an effort for you, I understand. But don’t expect me to take seriously anything else you have to say on this until you do.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Another ridiculous joke. Billy thinks that those conspiracies were limited to a fringe??? LOL. You must not have been listening to the then equivalent blogosphere that was/is talk radio. And, Billy, your “compare that to today” is equally laughable. We can take the bile from the likes of M. Savage, Neil “Ghetto slut” Boortz, Ann “someone should poison Justice Souter” Coulter and compile a list but who has the time or stomach to do so.
Gosh, I get so tired of the left missing the point.

1. We were talking about stuff on the Internet. If you want to talk about stuff elsewhere, I’ll put one Michael Moore up against about a dozen Ann Coulters. And you really don’t want me dredging up quotes from Garafolo.

2. I never said there were not those on the right that indulged in hate-filled venom. There are indeed. What I said was that it’s false to go from that into a "both sides do it" moral equivalence. It’s as silly as saying that two football teams are the same quality because they both win some and lose some, when the relative records are 14-2 vs 2-14.

Look at the list of paranoia-filled ravings I listed. Look at the fact that those ravings are affecting Democratic members of Congress to believe in delusional paranoid fantasies. There is nothing like that on the right, and asserting otherwise just marks your indifference to just how out of touch the left is.

 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Oh good ... the ultimate in fair, impartial and knowledgable has shown up to enlighten us as to how the world really works.
Well right back atcha’, chief.
What a joke that is. To suggest that there is more venom coming from the Left than from the Right is the most absurd idea I’ve heard in a long time.
That’s not what is being said.
Really?
but for some reason I just don’t remember the level of hate being this deep. Then maybe it’s just me and my memory is faulty.
Certainly there was anger and hate, but I just don’t seem to remember it rising to the level it has now.
But I don’t recall the level of hate when that was the case that I see now.
So what…, you weren’t suggesting that the level of hate with the left is greater!? Oh right,
We’re talking about the left and right of the blogosphere, and I left it as an OPEN QUESTION.
That old tactic. Form your suggestion into a question. Then when confronted, one easily refutes with, “hey, I’m just asking a question.”
McQ, I have a question for you. Why does is seem that Republicans are a bunch of hate filled bigoted rednecks with low I.Q.’s??? Why is that? Hey, I’m just asking a question, I’m not suggesting anything.
Tell you what ... go have a glass of iced tea, cool off and re-read the damn post for comprehension.
Oh, yeah, that’s it McQ. I’ve missed something? I read it thoroughly. I read all the comments, and I’m pretty sure that I’m not alone when comprehending what your post suggested. But you can clear it up for me right now.
Do you or don’t you believe that hatred from the Left is greater than the hatred from the Right? A simple yes or no, if you please.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Gosh, I get so tired of the left missing the point.
Gosh, Billy. I’m not apart of the Left, and I get the point. Or by "Left", you mean anyone who disagrees with you.
McQ was the one that brought up the Clinton years, and suggested that he doesn’t, “remember the level of hate being this deep.” And you suggested that the conspiracy loons on the Left are greater than the loons on the Right. Sorry Billy, your dead wrong. I remember.
And I wouldn’t be so quick to put up quotes from M. Moore or G. Gerafolo against Savage and Coulter. You’ll lose. Or at least you’ll lose in the eyes of reasonable people.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Pogue. Right On. And Write on!

On the left, the moderator usually is at least
as, or more intellegent and informed than most of their visitors, and I feel that I sometimes actually learn something from them.
On the right, it always seems like a bunch of snarky retorts, and sadly, in this case especially so in McQ.

On the left side of the blogoshere, had I asked for directions or links to documentation of LEFTWING ATTROCITIES AGAINST REPUBLICAN PROPERTY, or vice versa, I’d have been inundated with links, assuming such a thing existed.
I remember reading recently somewhere that one of the Republicans spokesmen had conceded that the Left was winning the battle in the blogosphere

I don’t consider it any less a part of mass communication than AM hate radio was and still is. It is a continuum, and however embarassing or inconvenient, you can not separate your prophets from your religion.

There is a violence of the spirit that practically defines the right wing that is by default or design giving permission to its unhinged to act out on the classes and people they deride.
They don’t need me to tell Them where the right wingnuts are blogging. It’s clear from their parroted talking points here they have plenty of familiarity.
Don’t Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, Savage, etc all have blogs?

It is intellectually dishonest to disavow hate radio while blasting left leaning blogs.

Hey, we’ve got Mike Malloy and Sam Seder, and we claim them.

Their faulty memory is so convienient, it’s creepy.





 
Written By: blucaller
URL: http://
"And you really don’t want me dredging up quotes from Garafolo."

I don’t think anybody wants you to dredge up quotes from her.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
There is a violence of the spirit that practically defines the right wing that is by default or design giving permission to its unhinged to act out on the classes and people they deride

Again, explain all the BC04 offices vandalized during the election? Explain why it is that every lefty protest march- especially in SF or Seattle- degenerates into some form of violence. Explain why Air America hosts regularly spew Bush-Hitler references or just feel free to make jokes about his being asassinated.

Your intellectual dishonesty is breathtaking. During the last Presidential election, I couldn’t walk down a NYC street wearing my BC04 button without someone acosting me, usually in a very agitated manner. My friends cars with BC04 bumper stickers were keyed.

Reconcile that to the self-absorbed, pseudo-intellectual adolecescet drivel cited above.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I listen regularily to Air America to cleanse my pallete of the republican lies, and can say with certainty that even the over the top hosts are exceedingly careful not to mention violence to any Federal Officials. So you’re lying through your teeth.
This whole "issue" of left wing hatred
is just another play from the Republican book.
"Demonize. Demonize. Demonize. Well, it worked on Clinton. Worked on Max Cleland. It almost worked on Jill Carroll. Let’s go after the left-wing blogosphere."
Why not give me some links to these alledged acts of violence perpetrated against POOR WHITE REPUBLICAN PROPERTY so I can write them a sincere note of apology on behalf of civil people everywhere?
Meanwhile, sorry for your friends in New York.
You’d think the way your party has attempted to co-opt 9/11, everybody there would be card carrying Republicans and your friends would be able to park for free, and greeted with parades by the citizenry.
I still have a Kerry/Edwards sticker on my truck, and get stopped for no reason everytime I drive to visit family in Oklahoma. And those guys carry guns, not keys.
What a bunch of whiners!
 
Written By: blucaller
URL: http://
That old tactic. Form your suggestion into a question. Then when confronted, one easily refutes with, “hey, I’m just asking a question.”
McQ, I have a question for you. Why does is seem that Republicans are a bunch of hate filled bigoted rednecks with low I.Q.’s??? Why is that? Hey, I’m just asking a question, I’m not suggesting anything.
What part of this didn’t you understand?
I’m also not ready to buy into Finkel’s notion that O’Connor is ’typical’ of the left side of the blogosphere. But I will agree that she is amply represented there.
—————
Oh, yeah, that’s it McQ. I’ve missed something? I read it thoroughly. I read all the comments, and I’m pretty sure that I’m not alone when comprehending what your post suggested.
What’s that Pogue? That I thought Finkle was trying to characterize the left side of the blogosphere a certain way which wasn’t complementary?

That I find expletive laced posts to be non-persuasive if the intent of the leftosphere is to persuade?

That I don’t buy into Finkel’s notion that O’Connor is "typical" of the left, but certainly representative of a portion of it?

What was I suggesting Pogue?
But you can clear it up for me right now. Do you or don’t you believe that hatred from the Left is greater than the hatred from the Right? A simple yes or no, if you please.
At this point in time, yes.

And I think that is a function of visibility and powerlessness which bring on anger, rage and frustration.

I don’t think the same rage, anger and frustration were as visible in the early ’90s when the right was out of power which is why I don’t remember the level being as high then as I do now. I also point out in an exchange with Jon that it is probably because of the interconnectivity we now have.

And in the ’90s I was politically active. I was going to my anarcho-capitalist phase and I had no more use for a statist like Rush Limbaugh or George Herbert Walker Bush than I did Bill Clinton.

But hey, you, a guy admittedly not into politics at the time, please, tell me all about what I remember, ok?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Blu and Pogue you are both full of it. The left is a thousand times more hysterical now than even the right wing radio nuts were. But even if they were not here is what makes the difference. Many on the right who were in POSITIONS of power in the republican party were decidedly cool to anti-clinton conspiracy theories.
Whereas Now, you have high ranking Democrats spouting all of the most asinine conspiracy theories of the left.

I also stand by my earlier observations that in my lifetime I have heard the most acidic, and evil rhetoric coming from left wingers. I had a Professor who told me that conservatives could not think and that everyone who voted for Reagan should be shot. I have heard many lefty atheists say that Christians should be put into reeducation camps.
And it is a matter of public record that Democrats have routinely said of their fellow Americans in the republican party that they want to "put blacks into chains" let old people and children starve, and "destroy the environment".
But I guess none of that counts as hate speech to you?

BTW I think Coulter and Savage are both despicable, but thats only two examples.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
When Pogue and I move on, won’t you guys just be doing yourselves? I don’t see many others here bothering with responding to you.
While we can agree on Coulter and Savage, you guys have proven yourselves to be liars, and unable to provide any links to these alledged hate crimes and hate speech committed by the left.
While I personally make an effort not to use foul language, and wince everytime I see it in print when it wasn’t necessary, I don’t think it’s hate speech. But wishing San Francisco nuked would be, in my book.
 
Written By: blucaller
URL: http://
blucaller wrote:
"I listen regularily to Air America to cleanse my pallete of the republican lies, and can say with certainty that even the over the top hosts are exceedingly careful not to mention violence to any Federal Officials. So you’re lying through your teeth."

So Randi Rhodes did not play this:
"A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn’t safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here’s your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2005/04/air_america_under_investigation_for_bush_gunshot_skit/
 
Written By: anonymous
URL: http://
I don’t think anybody wants you to dredge up quotes from her.
Or Alec Baldwin. But our friend blucaller says we’re liars who can’t point to any real hate speech on the left.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
At this point in time, yes.

And I think that is a function of visibility and powerlessness which bring on anger, rage and frustration.
Okay, then. You and I, once again, strongly disagree.
But I guess none of that counts as hate speech to you?
Well, Kyle. Considering that we’re just now learning about YOUR experiences, your guess would be wrong. You must have been considerably unlucky to cross paths with so many assh*les. My liberal friends are quite nice, as are my conservative friends.
Where I come across hate filled vitriol is conservative talk radio, which is why I try to avoid it. You know the type, calling liberals “traitors” and the like.

Look, hate is on both sides. But to suggest that it is more abundant on the Left is ridiculous. And most reasonable people would agree.
And Mr. Henke nailed it earlier,
The problem is confirmation bias: people tend to notice and remember invective aimed at their side; they tend to dismiss invective aimed at the other side.
Happy dead Jesus day.
Oh wait, is that too hateful for you guys. I’m so sorry, I didn’t mean to offend you.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
While we can agree on Coulter and Savage, you guys have proven yourselves to be liars, and unable to provide any links to these alledged hate crimes and hate speech committed by the left.
Oh, now we’re all "liars" and you’re going to lecture us about "hate speech". Heh.

Try reading this.
While I personally make an effort not to use foul language, and wince everytime I see it in print when it wasn’t necessary, I don’t think it’s hate speech. But wishing San Francisco nuked would be, in my book.
Then you’ll love googling Howard Dean.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
for you blucaller. this is all i have time to provide right now:

Protestors Ransack Bush/Cheney Headquarters In Orlando
http://www.local6.com/politics/3785861/detail.html

Bush’s campaign office in Spokane burglarized, vandalized, Oct. 11.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002059735_webbushoffice11.html

Gunshots fired into Bush-Cheney headquarters, Oct. 4.
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041005-024050-1855r.htm

Swastika Burned Into Grass On Bush-Cheney Supporter’s Lawn
http://www.channel3000.com/news/3776992/detail.html
 
Written By: frendlydude2k
URL: http://
"On the left, the moderator usually is at least
as, or more intellegent and informed than most of their visitors, and I feel that I sometimes actually learn something from them."
"...you guys have proven yourselves to be liars, and unable to provide any links to these alledged hate crimes and hate speech committed by the left."
And you, blucaller, have proven yourself to be a loudmouthed, ignorant jerk. Now we all know why you run into so many "phonys" (sic).
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Both "sides" are angry.

I’ve met a lot of self described "liberals" and equally as many "conservatives"

But by far most people are neither. Most people just sign on to one of the two sides because they suppose they must, because not having a side is more dangerous in these contentious times. ( Read "The Cross and the Switchblade" )

"Liberals" are angry because "Conservatives" supported Central American death squads ( 80’s,) impeached a popular president over sex ( 90’s) and killed 100k
fellow humans in a pointless war ( current. ) They’re angry because thier champions are clueless wimps, and they’re angry because after years of being accomodating and nice, they’re finally realizing they’ve been played for fools.
Many of them are demonstrably foolish and entirely too trusting for thier own good, but they’re pretty aware of their feelings, because the culture allows for mistakes and differences.

"Conservatives" are angry for all kinds of reasons, usually personal. The culture does not allow differences, so many feelings are buried. After a few hours of beers and careful but persistant questioning the core of their anger becomes clear. Often it boils down to early mistreatment by adults. They tend to be suspicious, so a Red-State approach is the best way to get them comfortable enough to reveal the source, usually unintentionally.

Both "sides" most angry individuals are also excessivly idealistic, and have over time become extremely offended that the world doesn’t meet thier high expectations.

If anyone wants to catalogue the ways in which "liberal" and "conservative" media manipulate the anger of their constituent audiences, I’m game to contribute.

( If you believe that everyone has a bias, and have concluded which "side" I’m on, you’re quite wrong. )




 
Written By: Harold Samualson
URL: http://
( If you believe that everyone has a bias, and have concluded which "side" I’m on, you’re quite wrong. )
Heh. Thanks, Judge Salomon. Since you’ve already determined that we’re "quite wrong" without even knowing what we think, I’m sure your superior mind will be able to solve our disputes.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
I’m curious as to why people thought the blogosphere would be different from the manner in which USENET devolved into flame wars, personal attacks and the like.
 
Written By: h0mi
URL: http://
I’m curious as to why people thought the blogosphere would be different from the manner in which USENET devolved into flame wars, personal attacks and the like.
I’m not sure anyone except Matt Welch did.

Look, whenever you have a medium in which people can essentially remain anonymous, you can count on the cowardly among us to take advantage of doing anonymously what few of them would have the cajones to do to your face.

But unlike USENET, a blogger can set a tone and then enforce it if he is so inclined. Few do it, but the ability exists (moderated comments, for instance).

Look at our "you can only cuss with asterisks" notice. A level of control unavailable on USENET.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Speaking of Howard Dean, my favourite line of his is the famous "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for." Evidently the word hate is not really hate speech.



 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"we’re "quite wrong" without even knowing what we think,"

I guess rather then writing "if .. you’ve concluded"

I should have written "IF .. you’ve concluded"

Why so touchy?

Is this a site for self-identified intellectuals or not?

 
Written By: Harold Samualson
URL: http://
We all know about your Rev. Moon’s newspaper, the Washington Times, setting up a hotline during the 2004 election so the poor, down-trodden Republicans could document their victimization.
I stand with you in your outrage, and condemn these senseless acts of violence against your PROPERTY, and ask you to join me in supporting hate crimes legislation.
Perhaps, now that you folks are sensitized to intimidation and terror, you would be willing to apply your Googling skills to finding out how Randall Terry and Eric Rudolph vote. I bet it’s not for Democrats....
The last act of political violence I heard about was committed against 69 year old Marsha Rovai, in an effort organized by Tom Delay’s campaign office in Sugarland, Texas on April 6th of this year. It was against her person, as opposed to property.
I am happy we all seem to be in agreement here that violence and vandalism is unacceptable. I, for one, will be especially vigillant about dicouraging my Democratic friends from kicking any poor Republicans while they
 
Written By: blucaller
URL: http://
We all know about your Rev. Moon’s newspaper, the Washington Times, setting up a hotline during the 2004 election so the poor, down-trodden Republicans could document their victimization.
I stand with you in your outrage, and condemn these senseless acts of violence against your PROPERTY, and ask you to join me in supporting hate crimes legislation.
Perhaps, now that you folks are sensitized to intimidation and terror, you would be willing to apply your Googling skills to finding out how Randall Terry and Eric Rudolph vote. I bet it’s not for Democrats....
The last act of political violence I heard about was committed against 69 year old Marsha Rovai, in an effort organized by Tom Delay’s campaign office in Sugarland, Texas on April 6th of this year. It was against her person, as opposed to property.
I am happy we all seem to be in agreement here that violence and vandalism is unacceptable. I, for one, will be especially vigillant about dicouraging my Democratic friends from kicking any poor Republicans while they are down. I’m sure you’re all terribly disoriented these days, and not quite used to feeling vulnerable.
But welcome to the club.
 
Written By: blucaller
URL: http://
Sorry about the premature/double posting. I just HATE it when I do that. Oops. I said the "H" word! Hope none of you poor, sensitive types got hurt.
I just came here to learn from the masters. Now my cover is blown. Sorta like Valerie Plames.
 
Written By: blucaller
URL: http://
I’m sorry, but those of you who claim "both sides do it, therefore both sides are equally bad" strike me as utterly ridiculous.
Yeah, I heard almost exactly the same response when I posted that argument in the comments at Greenwald. They even produced academic studies to prove — prove! — that Right wingers were empirically worse.

(sigh)

Both sides substantiate their argument by pointing to comments made by the other side that are categorically "worse" than anything they’ve seen from their own. What a waste of time. Viciousness, disrespect and conspiracy theories are not a function of political ideology. Every group has its share.

I could spend all day pointing out vicious, ridiculous and disgusting smears from the Right or the Left. You could spend all day responding that you feel much more oppressed by the Left than by the Right. In the end, I think you’ll only provide more evidence of confirmation bias.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I stand with you in your outrage, and condemn these senseless acts of violence against your PROPERTY, and ask you to join me in supporting hate crimes legislation.
No, no, no. Blu, I respect your desire to punish criminal acts that originated with hate rather than some other motivation such as greed. But you cannot criminalize thought.
It is the criminal act that should be punished, not the reasoning behind it.
Why should a white man be punished more severely for killing a black man because he hates him? Shouldn’t the punishment be the same for a white man killing a black man to steal his wallet? Do you believe that hate crimes legislation would deter hate crimes? A touchy subject, I know.
We absolutely cannot criminalize thought. Next thing you know the government will be prosecuting people for a crime they think about doing. (Isn’t that already happening, possession with intent… and so on?)
What a waste of time. Viciousness, disrespect and conspiracy theories are not a function of political ideology. Every group has its share.
Dammit, Jon. You keep beating me to the punch. :)
I guess it’s for the better. Your words are well packaged and carry more weight around here than mine would have.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
MY rev. moon’s washington times? i’ll admit there’s no way for you to know if i’m LYING, but i assure you i’m not a moonie, nor an editor or even a stockholder of the WT. like mr. samualson, i’m an enigma, sometimes wrapped in a riddle even. perhaps you’d like to provide a list of sources i’m not allowed to use to cite "alledged hate crimes and hate speech committed by the left". basically i was just trying to get you to retract the accusation that people here were lying about these incidences.
 
Written By: frendlydude2k
URL: http://
Every group has its share.
Yep, and nobody’s disputing that. But that’s not the same as saying that the shares are the equal or the sides are equal.

Greenwald and friends can claim anything they like, as can anyone else on the left side. Or course they can point to others with outrage. The Soviets did that, too, as did their allies on the left here in the US and Europe. Our invasion of Grenada was equivalent to their invasion of Afghanistan, etc. etc. We even invented a term for it - moral equivalence.

Sorry, but I don’t buy it. I’ve seen the videos at Brain Terminal, and there is nothing that compares to them on the right side. I’ve seen McKinney, Conyers, Sheila Jackson Lee and others engage in poisonous debate and be accepted by their colleagues and praised by the left, while minor player David Duke was immediately repudiated and outcast by everyone on the right. I’ve seen the Democrats put Al Sharpton on stage as a serious presidential candidate. I’ve seen Michael Moore in the VIP section at the Democratic National convention. There’s a clear difference between the left and right, and it is reflected in their Internet presence.

Is there selection bias on both sides? Sure there is. But it’s a logical fallacy to go from there and say this makes both sides equal. It doesn’t.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
blucaller, I am still waiting for a response to your assertion in which you claimed shark was lying:
blucaller wrote:
"I listen regularily to Air America to cleanse my pallete of the republican lies, and can say with certainty that even the over the top hosts are exceedingly careful not to mention violence to any Federal Officials. So you’re lying through your teeth."


Randi Rhodes (Air America host) played this bit:
"A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn’t safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here’s your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2005/04/air_america_under_investigation_for_bush_gunshot_skit/

Were you lying about your ’certainty’? Are you going to apologize to shark?
 
Written By: anonymous
URL: http://
I think I’ll let an average Joe you guys respect deal with the apologies for me. He tried this argument on his show, too.

And I agree that there are serious arguments about the crimininalizing of thought. Hate Crimes are about MOTIVE and Classes of people.

If you lynch me because you hate me because I’m a jerk, as someone put it, that would be awful, but there are lots of laws to deal with that kind of hatred. However, if you lynch me because I’m a gay man, you are committing violence against an entire class of people, and it should stand as a separate crime to my way of thinking. It is a form of terrorism against that entire class of people.
 
Written By: blucaller
URL: http://
what. in. the. hell. does that have to do with you jumping to the wild conclusion that people were lying, your being wrong about it, and refusing to do the honorable thing (apologise and admit you were wrong). this is pathetic.

you mean someone from the right is as unhinged as randi rhodes? okay blucaller, that lets you off the hook, you are now absolved from the obligation to do the decent grown up thing.
 
Written By: frendlydude2k
URL: http://
I don’t apologize for Randi Rhodes skit on the radio, because she did that for herself, and because it was a horrible example of the left inciting violence. Of course, if you get your information from a self-loathing closet homsexual like Matt Drudge, you would have to be forgiven for taking the skit out of context. Gunshot sound effects were a reference to how Seniors could be expected to react to Bush’s meddling with Social Security.
Am I sorry I called you guys liars? Maybe, on second thought I am, because it is clear you all have selective memories and are probably not repeating these talking points over a guilty conscience.
I have yet to hear of a single episode of people on the left physically attacking anyone on the right, but would deplore that and definitely appologize when I hear it. I’m sure it exists, too. But not at the same level as your people do it.
I’m convinced you just don’t remember episodes in the Right Wing Media’s past like G. Gordon Liddy instructing people on how to shoot for the heads of ATF agents ("Black Booted Thugs"), just prior to the OKC Murrow building bombing by one of yours. Or Randall Terry saying it was okay to kill abortion clinic doctors prior to Eric Rudolf’s spree.
Or more recently, Michelle Malkin publishing personal contact info on student demontrators, who are now being innundated with death threats by your gentle commrads.
The hate crime/speech stuff I wrote was in response to Pogue Mahoney imploring me to rethink my support of hate crimes legislation. Sorry, but I have personally been attacked by gay bashers, who were no doubt emboldened by your sides demonization of gays.
I can’t help it if you’re too lazy or eager to bother scrolling up a few posts a figgure it out for your self.
This thread, rather than being the inquiry it portends to be is obviously just another place for you guys to whine, point fingers while saying "I know you are, but what am I?" while advoiding looking in the mirror.

 
Written By: blucaller
URL: http://
Hate Crimes are about MOTIVE and Classes of people.
Exactly. Which my argument is that motive should be irrelevant as cause to the act. And classes of people, well, with that reasoning, one could argue that someone being murdered for their Rolex is hateful to rich people. Obviously, our society has decreed some crimes to be more heinous than others. Crimes committed against children, and so on. But what “hate crimes legislation” would do is to give more significance to one victim over another. That’s not right.
As I’m sure you will agree, it’s like how the media goes into frenzy when a young white woman is kidnapped and murdered verses a young black woman, which gets little attention. No?

Another consequence of HCL as giving motive greater consideration, is giving greater consideration for motive being a defense. Consider this,
Gay panic defense is a term used to describe a rare but high-profile legal defense against charges of assault or murder. A lawyer using the gay panic defense claims that the defendant acted in a state of temporary insanity because of a little-known psychiatric condition called homosexual panic. The defense is nearly always unsuccessful in winning acquittals, but it is often successful at reducing culpability and mitigating punishments.
Take the “gay panic” motivation out of it, and murder becomes…, well, murder. Crime and punishment, end of story.

I too give more consequence to some crimes that I consider more heinous than others. But motive should be irrelevant to the act. Remember, justice is blind. It’s supposed to be, anyway.
I’m sorry you experienced assault at the hands of assh*les, and I hope they get what’s coming to them. Years ago, I was once beaten by a group of rednecks, because my hair was long.
My argument is why should your attackers receive greater punishment than mine.


Cheers.


 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Exactly. Which my argument is that motive should be irrelevant as cause to the act.
How about that ... something on which we agree.

Assault is assault. It should matter why it took place, only that it did. Punish the act (crime). We have no business trying to discern something as subjective (and in the end arbitrary) as "hate" as a matter for punishment.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Pogue,
This is a complicated subject, and I’m feeling pretty much done with this thread and it’s denizens, so will be moving on after this.

I understand and even appreciate your well reasoned points, and would agree with you in a world where all crime was random.
Hate crimes aren’t random, and usually the victims are sought out or chosen because of their class.
This country has always had protected classes, whether or not it’s enshrined in law. I’m in Minnesota, and we have special laws on the books protecting vulnerable adults and children.
I would argue that in this country, all white women were once considered a protected class. Prosecutions and sentencing almost always involves mitigating, aggravating or "special" circumstances.
"Gay Panic" defences have been mounted successfully for decades, if not longer. They work
for the same reason it used to nearly impossible
to convict KKKers of a lynching in the south.
After it became a bigger likelihood that there could be a conviction at the federal level based on civil rights violations, the number of lynchings went down.
Anti-discrimination laws also go to intent. Do you oppose those too?
If you’re concerned about "thought crimes" what are your feelings about sex offenders who are held indefinately even after their sentences are served? I’m conflicted about the governments right to do that.
You can cut your hair, and I bet by now you have.
Hate crime laws protect everybody, not just special classes.
Not everybody that is gay-bashed is gay. I happened to be walking under a sign for a bar called "The Gay 90s" minding my own business when I was jumped, knocked to the ground and kicked by 3 guys who were screaming "Faggot."
Anyway, my best to you, and the rest here who for the most part were fairly civil. I must prepare for the upcoming Battle of the Jugbands in Duluth.
No hate speech there. Just plenty of good ole downhome anti Bush sentiment, and from my band, songs.
 
Written By: blucaller
URL: http://
McQ
Thank you too. Enjoyed the topic, even if I think you’re wrong about everything you say and believe. I promice not to threaten you, or even hate you. I reserve the right to hate the tactics your side introduced on talk radio and still think it’s dispicable to rile up ignorant people. But pitchforks and torches aren’t new.
http://www.saggybottomgirls.com/
 
Written By: blucaller
URL: http://
Thank you too.
You’re welcome blu and also welcome to join another discussion at any time you choose.
Enjoyed the topic, even if I think you’re wrong about everything you say and believe.
See, we found something we could agree on ... I feel the same way about "your side".
I promice not to threaten you, or even hate you.
Well let’s not mistake passionate debate with hate, but, yeah, that’s good.
I reserve the right to hate the tactics your side introduced on talk radio and still think it’s dispicable to rile up ignorant people.
Well if it were confined to "my side", you might have a point ... but since it isn’t we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Did blucaller actually apologise to shark for calling shark a liar, or not?
 
Written By: anonymous
URL: http://
You can cut your hair, and I bet by now you have.
True, but I’m still devastatingly handsome.
After it became a bigger likelihood that there could be a conviction at the federal level based on civil rights violations, the number of lynchings went down.
Anti-discrimination laws also go to intent. Do you oppose those too?
Good point. And worthy of discussion. But I believe that “hate” crimes have gone down in general, including hate for sexual persuasion and race, due to social pressures, not legal ones. But I understand your logic and also believe that it is worth consideration.

I am indeed against anti-discrimination laws. But you shouldn’t listen to me regarding that. I am an unrepentant anarcho-capitalist libertarian. I believe that if a business decides to discriminate, the public (i.e. market) will correct it. I know that it is idealistic, but hey…, I’m young and idealistic (did I mention devastatingly handsome). Anyhoo,
If you’re concerned about "thought crimes" what are your feelings about sex offenders who are held indefinately even after their sentences are served? I’m conflicted about the governments right to do that.
I’m not conflicted. I am totally against the idea of a “sex offender database” where convicted criminals continue to serve time even after they serve their time. If they are still a danger to society when they get out, then don’t let them out. Again, young and idealistic.
Not everybody that is gay-bashed is gay.
Then they would be just “bashed”, wouldn’t they?
This is a complicated subject, and I’m feeling pretty much done with this thread and it’s denizens, so will be moving on after this.
That is unfortunate.
Blu, I understand the frustration by some regarding HCL. It is important to them that the reasoning behind the crime be addressed. But understand this, when government is given the power to legislate what goes on in the mind of someone, that is dangerous territory. Next thing you know, you’ll have parties pushing constitutional amendments outlawing gay marriage because they think it’s a sin.
I hope to see you here again. I need a little help here as the resident lefty-libertarian. I think you’ll find, save a few, that most here are courteous, open, and thoughtful.

Cheers.
++++++++++++++++++++
Well if it were confined to "my side", you might have a point ... but since it isn’t we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
OH COME ON, McQ. Malkin?? Really!? Oh that whole issue regarding Malkin republishing telephone numbers deserves it’s own thread. Ask yourself this, when was the last time I (McQ) put the telephone numbers up on the blog of someone I disagree with? Uh-huh.
Regardless of whether the information was available somewhere else, she shouldn’t have done it. It prompted her readers to telephone college students with hateful and even violent messages. And the funny thing is, she then complains about it when she receives her own hate mail. What a joke.
How about that ... something on which we agree.
Oh, I am sure there are a lot of things on which we agree. I just don’t tell you about it. You put up many posts in which I find myself agreeing with you. What would I do,
I agree
How boring. I tend to comment only when I find your thought lacking. And of course it’s kinda’ fun giving you a hard time.
‘sides, I think you secretly like it. ;)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
OH COME ON, McQ. Malkin??
Does that excuse the comments Pogue?
You put up many posts in which I find myself agreeing with you.
That’s disgusting.
I tend to comment only when I find your thought lacking.
No wonder you’re usually quiet. ;)
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Does that excuse the comments Pogue?
Don’t you mean, “alleged” comments, McQ?
While they whine about the death threats that SAW organizers allegedly received, you should see the filth and threats against my family that their minions are sending. Here’s an uncensored sample…
Okay, Michelle. So you whine right back at them. Good for you. That’ll show em’.

And Malkin writes for major publications. Isn’t she supposed to have even a thread of ethics and decency? I can’t believe after her ridiculous revision of Japanese internment camps “book”, that anyone takes her seriously.
I understand your point regarding hateful speech not limited to just the Right, but I thought that you could pick a better example. The Malkin example was.., umm..., lacking. (heh)
After all, what does Michelle expect from the sewer when she lives down there. (btw, yes, that’s hateful. Sue me.)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
I understand your point regarding hateful speech not limited to just the Right, but I thought that you could pick a better example.
Hateful speech is hateful speech, Pogue.

Kinda like "assault is assault".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I always thought that things like premeditation, remorse, motive, etc. were taken into account at sentencing. Most crimes have a range of possible sentences, so a premeditated crime would have a stiffer sentence. What is wrong with that system?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider