Shine the Light on Me
Not long ago I noticed a little uptick in traffic to this blog, which corresponded to the time when two strange comments were left by an "anonymous" poster.
Usually a bump in traffic means someone linked to my site. Curious, I checked the logs, and lo and behold, found the source -- and the likely identity of the "anonymous" poster.
I was linked to by a thread at the Democratic Underground forum, and they like me, they really like me!
Not.
Ha ha. Must've touched a nerve.
Their comment thread about me is entitled,
The other comment I deleted because it was an obvious "Moby" comment, i.e. the poster was attempting to impersonate what they imagined a far-right reader might say, and left a deliberately extreme statement, assuming I'd agree with it and leave it on the site -- then they could point to that and say, "see how bigoted these conservatives are!"
It was clearly a set-up.
And I do not agree with it at all either.
Because I can give some context, I will reproduce it here; it was left on this posting about how well the Canadian armed forces are doing in fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan:
My objection must, in their mind, have nothing to do with rational arguments, and everything to do with bias. Any objection to anything their pet special-interest lobbies desire is read as due to personal hatred of the members of the group, rather than an objection to the policy on its merits.
This is pure social coercion.
It's handy to frame things that way if you want lockstep groupthink.
It's politics by peer-pressure.
One thing I could never abide was peer-pressure, and this blog is one way I speak out against it by taking anti-PC positions.
So I deleted that comment.
But if you go look at the thread where they talk about me, you can see these people have real problems with simple reading comprehension.
Take the quote from Ann Coulter I use on my masthead, right at the top of this page under my blog title. The initiator of this thread, by the name of "EstimatedProphet", who is likely my "anonymous" commenter, says:
Where does it say all???
Coulter's quote clearly says kill their leaders, not "kill all Middle Easterners."
Duh!
It's one single simple sentence, and he can't even get that right!
I mean, if we killed them all, who would be left to convert to Christianity, which is the whole last third of the statement?
Furthermore, why don't they support the killing of the leaders who run repressive terror regimes, where gay people are being literally stoned to death and women who aren't modest enough are beaten, raped, and hanged?
As a matter of standard policy?
Instead, their outrage is directed at me, the imaginary bigot. I think the real enemy is too scary for them to face; they can't handle the Truth.
So therefore, apparently my blog is "good for a laugh", and the purpose of that thread was for "shining light on cockroaches."
This is a perfect example of blind prejudice, where the subconscious of the left-winger sees what it imagines I wrote in spite of the evidence in clear black-and-white, and is clearly operating in a world outside of reality, by getting that simple quote wrong and erroneously imputing gay-hating motives to me.
Talk about stereotyping!
I really wish the opposition would grow up and get beyond the 2000 elections.
As a small-c "conservative" -- or am I a small-l "liberal"? -- I am not a straight-Republican voter. My favored mode of governance is partisan gridlock in times of peace, and partisan unity in times of war -- like now.
One party doesn't have all the answers, and it would be great if a true loyal opposition, that understood the threat, was providing real discussion to sharpen our thinking on strategy, instead of relying on stupid ankle-biting defeatist slogans and "gotcha" political maneuvering.
It's bad for civic morale.
Wake up and smell the jihad!
Usually a bump in traffic means someone linked to my site. Curious, I checked the logs, and lo and behold, found the source -- and the likely identity of the "anonymous" poster.
I was linked to by a thread at the Democratic Underground forum, and they like me, they really like me!
Not.
Ha ha. Must've touched a nerve.
Their comment thread about me is entitled,
Yet another scumbucket rightwing blogFirst I'll explain the "odd" comments that got me wondering. One was a snarky line that implied the "real" threat to our liberties comes from Catholics, rather than jihadists following islam.
The other comment I deleted because it was an obvious "Moby" comment, i.e. the poster was attempting to impersonate what they imagined a far-right reader might say, and left a deliberately extreme statement, assuming I'd agree with it and leave it on the site -- then they could point to that and say, "see how bigoted these conservatives are!"
It was clearly a set-up.
And I do not agree with it at all either.
Because I can give some context, I will reproduce it here; it was left on this posting about how well the Canadian armed forces are doing in fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan:
canadian soldiers are coolYeah, right, like I might think that "hating gays and lesbians" is "cool." See, just because I disagree with the social utility of same-sex marriage, then by left-wing anointed-victim-group identity-politics, I am therefore a bigot, a racist, etc.
they remind me of the south. love guns, god and women. hate gays and lesbians. there are none in there military. they beat em down.
My objection must, in their mind, have nothing to do with rational arguments, and everything to do with bias. Any objection to anything their pet special-interest lobbies desire is read as due to personal hatred of the members of the group, rather than an objection to the policy on its merits.
This is pure social coercion.
It's handy to frame things that way if you want lockstep groupthink.
It's politics by peer-pressure.
One thing I could never abide was peer-pressure, and this blog is one way I speak out against it by taking anti-PC positions.
So I deleted that comment.
But if you go look at the thread where they talk about me, you can see these people have real problems with simple reading comprehension.
Take the quote from Ann Coulter I use on my masthead, right at the top of this page under my blog title. The initiator of this thread, by the name of "EstimatedProphet", who is likely my "anonymous" commenter, says:
Even quotes Coultergeist's invocation to kill all Middle Easterners in the titleAll?
Where does it say all???
Coulter's quote clearly says kill their leaders, not "kill all Middle Easterners."
Duh!
It's one single simple sentence, and he can't even get that right!
I mean, if we killed them all, who would be left to convert to Christianity, which is the whole last third of the statement?
Furthermore, why don't they support the killing of the leaders who run repressive terror regimes, where gay people are being literally stoned to death and women who aren't modest enough are beaten, raped, and hanged?
As a matter of standard policy?
Instead, their outrage is directed at me, the imaginary bigot. I think the real enemy is too scary for them to face; they can't handle the Truth.
So therefore, apparently my blog is "good for a laugh", and the purpose of that thread was for "shining light on cockroaches."
This is a perfect example of blind prejudice, where the subconscious of the left-winger sees what it imagines I wrote in spite of the evidence in clear black-and-white, and is clearly operating in a world outside of reality, by getting that simple quote wrong and erroneously imputing gay-hating motives to me.
Talk about stereotyping!
I really wish the opposition would grow up and get beyond the 2000 elections.
As a small-c "conservative" -- or am I a small-l "liberal"? -- I am not a straight-Republican voter. My favored mode of governance is partisan gridlock in times of peace, and partisan unity in times of war -- like now.
One party doesn't have all the answers, and it would be great if a true loyal opposition, that understood the threat, was providing real discussion to sharpen our thinking on strategy, instead of relying on stupid ankle-biting defeatist slogans and "gotcha" political maneuvering.
It's bad for civic morale.
Wake up and smell the jihad!
posted by RDS at 8:36 PM
2 Comments:
Sorry if you've heard this from me before, but I think it was Foucault who said, "Reason is the language of madness."
I try to keep in this in mind when dealing with the DU types. It helps a little, sometimes.
Keep up the good work!
I just read Bernard Goldberg's "Bias." One thing in it really resonated with me, and that is a comment about the liberals in the MSM newsmedia not ever seeing themselves as "liberal."
That is a really important point, because they consider themselves and everyone who holds a reasonable approximation of their same views as "normal!" The far left is farther left and the conservatives are waaaay over there somewhere.
But they aren't ever "liberal" themselves and don't ever use the term to imagine themselves or describe themselves.
Post a Comment
<< Home