« Free the Arbetoreum! | Main | Not everything is amazing, either »

Monday, February 28, 2011

Comments

Sure, he campaigned for expanded war and, sure, that's one of the only promises he's kept. But that's just part of the brilliant chess match he's engaged in. It's so brilliant a match that only he - the most brilliant man on the face of the earth - understands it. We're so lucky to be alive to witness it!

Much like God—in fact, exactly like God—he's never held responsible for even his worst crimes and betrayals.

For the win.

I think you misspelled his name. The initials NE would require his name to be Niguel.

Of course he does these things willingly. The vetting system for the US presidency is one that ensures that whoever is elected president will behave appropriately. With so many people willing eager to play the part, it is inevitable that one of them will win out in the competition.

The thing that impresses me the most about this absurd rationalization is that Mr. Obama told us he was lying during the campaign. To paraphrase: A vote for me is a vote for change and Real change cannot come from above, it must come from bellow. People who will willingly eagerly believe both of these things simultaneously have already sold themselves. Why stop now?

Much like God—in fact, exactly like God—he's never held responsible for even his worst crimes and betrayals.

Funny, but meaningless. Who draws up the indictment against God? Is God tried in absentia? Who gives evidence? What authority is competent to hold God responsible for crimes and betrayals?

Still...

Get the ball rolling, JC.

Liking B.A.S.'s first point.

What is the greatest obstacle to our future well-being: the 'charm' of the current obfuscator-in-chief or the grand system that creates him (or her) and sets severe limits on the policy choices available? This is not to say that the seemingly willful blindness of such as d'Escoto should not be noted or that it does not pose an obstacle, but the system is so stable and pervasive that beating on today's Obama or yesterday's Bush, etc. is risking becoming entangled with a tar-baby.

...the grand system that...sets severe limits on the policy choices available?

Or in other words, "a permanent government/corporate nexus that's beyond his control, and he's powerless to govern outside of their parameters."

The problem is bigger than Obama. The freedom that the people who elected Obama imagined he would have to make things different, he does not have. I would not suggest that he regrets this lack of freedom. He chose himself for the office and he knew what the position would demand. The voters went along with his choice of himself. If reminding those people that Obama has betrayed what they imagined he would be and do serves to change the system, OK. Does it?

Obama does not have my sympathy. He is pretty much what I expected him to be. I didn't vote for him but who cares?

If reminding those people that Obama has betrayed what they imagined he would be and do serves to change the system, OK. Does it?

If people only wrote words that both 'serve to change the system' and also convinced all blog commenters that the words did in fact serve to change the system -- then there would be damn little writing.

But in answer, hell yes this is necessary. How could it not be? Or can lovers of the military-industrial contractor-in-chief really be against the grand system? I don't think they can.

I think you misspelled his name. The initials NE would require his name to be Niguel.

Excellence in meta-blog humor.

Or in other words, "a permanent government/corporate nexus that's beyond his control, and he's powerless to govern outside of their parameters."

I can only speak for myself but I do not share the possible implication and never intended to convey it. I shall attempt to clarify my thoughts if your statement to DFD was also a statement to me. I believe that Mr. Obama has moral responsibility for the choices that he makes. I also believe that he made those choices (in terms of a point of no return) at most during his campaign but likely well before.

Unlike some others, I think Obama revealed who he was going to be during the campaign while simultaneously convincing others to substitute that notion of himself for a notion that is idealized in the mind of the individual person. Such is a subversion of democracy and reprehensible but impressive and illuminating non the less. As far as I can tell Obama has broken no promises but he has acted inconsistent with his illusion.

I do believe that there is a government apparatus (that includes corporate structures) that is beyond the control of any individual or any small (<500,000) group of individuals and that it has established parameters in the policy that is allowed. I see systems in place to ensure that the person who is the President will be eager to abide within these parameters. This does not absolve Mr. Obama from the decisions that he makes or has made. If Mr. Obama would make moral decisions or has made moral decisions with respect to his politics, he would not be President.

Mr. Caruso. I agree with everything I read in your post. Mr. Obama bares responsibility for his crimes, as does his supporters and anyone else who helps to commit them including myself (and I'm not a supporter of Obama). I believe that Obama supporters bend over backwards in rationalization and such is atrocious but that is testimony to the beauty and horror of doublethink.

Reminding people that the illusion of Obama and Mr. Obama are two different things will cause some to challenge their perspective on the situation and will cause some of those to reevaluate. To do these things is essential to change the system. People who chose to vote outside of the two party system matter. I have more respect for a thinking person who does not vote then for someone who limits oneself (knowingly or not) to limited options in voting.

In the end changing the structures is necessary to changing society and changing individuals itself does nothing. The individuals are important both because they make the structures operate (they don't operate on themselves) and because their behavior is evidence with which can be used in changing structures. Mr. Obama should be impeached and he bares the responsibilities for his actions regardless of what the course of events would be had he made alternate choices with his life.

My grandfather worked in prisons as a counselor for several years. He often told me a piece of advice he would tell his clients: "Society needs criminals in order to function well but you don't have to serve that purpose. If you don't, others will but you can make choices for yourself." Just because someone else would have done it does not absolve one of the responsibility for ones actions. Someone deciding to undertake an action even if there is zero change in results for differences in his or her choice, is still responsible for the consequences of his or her actions.

I apologize if I am hearing an inference that you have not made. Regardless your post is of significant value. It is important to see all of these systems and actions in as clear a way as is possible. To realize the extent to which Obama is an ally and to realize the absurdity and the extent of rationalization of Obama supporters as clear as is possible is valuable.

I shall attempt to clarify my thoughts if your statement to DFD was also a statement to me.

Nope, just DFD, since I found it pretty amusing that s/he provided such a perfect QED. Unlike him/er, you definitely seem to have understood the points I was trying to make in the way I was trying to make them.

I apologize if I am hearing an inference that you have not made.

Thanks for that, but no apology needed. And I really appreciate you sharing your view, none of which I see that I disagree with and most of which I'd endorse without reservation. In particular...

Reminding people that the illusion of Obama and Mr. Obama are two different things will cause some to challenge their perspective on the situation and will cause some of those to reevaluate.

...I completely agree with this, in large part because it's exactly how I ended up where I am now politically. That's why I spend so much time on postings like this and come back to this theme over and over. It's easy to think a blog is just the sum of its authors and commenters, but there are a lot of lurkers (some of whom I know about and/or know personally) and some postings are picked up in unexpected places (this one has already been linked from sources I've never seen before)--and those people often are not part of the choir. So postings that may look like old news to the more visible participants may actually be helping other people reading along to change their views. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't spend a fraction of the time that I do writing this stuff.

I don't mean to downplay the importance of those of us in the choir, by the way. In those cases I hope I can give people a few laughs, a reminder of things they may have forgotten (or a different way of connecting things they already knew), and some ammunition.

One more try: today it is d'Escoto, a few weeks ago it was Norman Solomon, people fooled by the Democrats or fooled by Obama, or by campaign rhetoric, or misled by wishful thinking. To demonstrate their foolishness Obama's betrayals... open, declared-in-advance betrayals ... are enumerated. Obama is a bad person, d'Escoto a fool. Someone surfs by, sees the truth expressed in new words, and finally wakes up to the reality that the President of the USA is a lying, slaughtering creep. And then they can hardly wait for the next election so that they can punish this creep by whatever means are available to them on election day. And they await eagerly the appearance of a new candidate who will use his (or her) vast moral agency to overthrow the system that has elected him (or her). And they vote for him (or her) and are surprised when he (or she) bombs Damascus, say.

Mr. Caruso's concern about this issue is one reason I lurk here sporadically, often posting what Benjamin just said (here and elsewhere) except with about ten to twenty more "fuck you's" included.

It is essential to understand that if this concept is not understood, our allies are enemies. Millions of well-meaning people will donate their votes, their time, their money to a cause which not only hurts them, not only murders and rapes and steals, but will actually blame the best of them for the worst of their own crimes. Take fucking score: ACORN is shamed and driven out of existence, while bankers who used racial slurs while targeting blacks with criminal loans received taxpayer dollars. Who gets blamed for the mortgage crisis? Minorities. If the war takes a notable downturn, who gets blamed for it? Anti-war activists.

If you don't think this concept is important, you are literally as wrong as you can possibly be. If you were any more fucked up, you'd accidentally be politically savvy about something. Knowing who your friends are is the zeroth rule of politics and war. The greatest virtue of a soldier is loyalty: lacking this, all other virtues serve your enemies.

In addition: recall that most people didn't know enough about politics to make a sound choice in the first place. While either marginalizing or converting the digbys and kos' of the world is laudable, the noninfluential citizen never reached their levels of self-delusion or self-aggrandizement -- they were just lied to, with a felicity that made Bush look like a piker. . . because it was democratic "allies" doing the lying. Allowing people to believe that Obama, and the Democratic Establishment, is not malicious and outright, well, evil in a classical sense, isn't just bad politics, it is wretchedly cruel. You should tell an innocent person if he or she is tricked, else you become an accomplice to the con artist.

Last point: not everyone who accepts, then rejects, Obama waits for a new savior. Most people don't. Check the voting statistics: people in the U.S. don't vote in droves. That's actually a good sign, if an unfortunate consequence, since people are recognizing that in many cases their vote literally doesn't matter. Obama was dangerous precisely because, for the first time in decades, people who had rejected the establishment suddenly gave it another try! The notion that people will just be fooled by the next Obama is inane since Obama was, by dozens of measures, a singular phenomenon (packaging the same old shit). If Obama turns out to be a part of the establishment he was supposed to challenge, people reject the notion that that establishment can ever produce a savior figure, an excellent (if not complete) advance in thinking given the circumstances. What is excellent is that people aren't merely saying Obama is bad; they're saying he's like the rest of them. That is the right answer, one that you would be hard-pressed to find on many blogs claiming to be liberal.

Back to lurking.

DFD: One more try...

And one more miss. But you're not really trying, are you.

Cloud: ...meta-blog humor.

He's so vain, I bet he thinks this posting's about him.

Yes, I really am trying. What I am trying to say is: what is the point of dumping on Solomon or d'Escoto, when you could spend all your efforts dumping on Obama, the system that spewed him forth and the agents that execute his policies. You would never run out of material. Are these other targets serving some inoculating purpose? "Don't be like Solomon. He's deluded." Yeah, and he is fairly unimportant, too.

I'll drop it now. Maybe I'll figure out later why I am so really misguided.

The point of this posting isn't to dump on Miguel d'Escoto, and if you really do think that then you're missing it by a long way.

JC: Much like God—in fact, exactly like God—he's never held responsible for even his worst crimes and betrayals.

DFD: Funny, but meaningless.

Actually, I thought it was loaded with meaning. "Held responsible" doesn't have to be an "indictment" or "tried" in a court of law. How many times do you hear "thank God" when something good happens but you never hear God cursed when bad things happen. He gets all the praise and none of the blame.

You're even excusing Obama when you say "the system that spewed him forth" - the same system spewed Bush, but you never hear that as an excuse for a Republican (only for a Democrat).

You read my mind, gfod...I'm writing a posting on that very theme.

Stop dithering and trade Raymond Davis for Asif Siddiqui..... She was never accused of even hurting ANYONE.. She was acussed of shooting AT "FBI and military personnel" No one was shot, no one died.... No one broke a fingernail!! And wonderful judge Berman, a protege of the "dependable Zionist" Jacob Javits gave her 86 years in prison..... Or does the Obama crew want Pakistan to put Davis on trial..??? Maybe to see what the sentence will be... Lets see...if Afia got 86 Yrs. for hurting NO-ONE, what should Davis get for shooting two, chasing down and executing one.......and leaving four dead citizens of Pakistan behind his deadly roadrage....!! Well it's a given that his sentence should be MORE than the 86 years Afia got.... Hey..and this Davis Bozzo is a SPY too... What is the sentence for spying in Pakistan.... STOP the MADNESS and trade this dangerous Rambo for the Lady Professor...and quick before Rambo starts telling all our secrets...!!!!!!!!!

DFD:

If your goal is to cause Mr. Caruso to limit his blog posts to what you view as is most valuable then not only will you fail but you are acting foolishly.

You will fail because you have no way of succeeding. As far as I can tell you have no way to compel Mr. Caruso to substitute his own priorities for yours. They only means I see as being possible would be if you offered Mr. Caruso enough cash or other wealth to do so and I question if you can afford to convince Mr. Caruso to accept payment and limit his blog posts to those you deem valuable.

I suspect you have no method of compulsion because you are trying argument but if my assessment of your goal is correct your tactic will fail. Arguments never cause someone to change his or her mind completely. They only thing they can do is to cause the other person to reevaluate his or her position. There is a negligible chance that upon revaluation the other person completely converts to your view point and if he or she does it is entirely based on the others reasoning. This is how any argument works no matter whether or not the parties realize it. The best your arguments can do is to cause Mr. Caruso to reevaluate his position but he won't be adopting yours because of your reasoning.

If your goal is to cause Mr. Caruso to not make blog posts that, at-least ostensibly, are about the absurdity of Democratic apologists then your attempts are foolish for two reasons. The first of which is that you are taking the position then a blogger on the internet should have your priorities. Something I've learned in my life is that everything that could be possibly said at any given time is being said. What matters in society is not what is being said but it is what is being listened to and repeated. To try and eliminate particular statements or thoughts because you deem them harmful is not only guaranteed to fail but belies a lot of arrogance and is undemocratic.

The second is that what Mr. Caruso has to say in this post (as well as in general) is valuable. The path towards political awareness and the end result is different for different people. What Mr. Caruso is trying to do here is to do what he's claimed. There are multiple goals which are all laudable and they will work for some members of each of the target audiences. It is true they won't work for everyone who reads the post but the post is still valuable to several of us who read it.

Some people may react in the way you have described but others will react in the way Mr. Consequence and Mr. Caruso describe and many other ways. There are plenty of people who do what you advocate, Mr. Caruso included, and Mr. Caruso using a different tactic in no way diminishes the tactic that you advocate. The best thing is that for every tactic that has some positive to be used.

If you purpose is not to convince Mr. Caruso to abandon his way of doing things and to adopt the way you would have him do things, I must apologize for my incorrect inference. If your purpose it to help Mr. Caruso think critically about his way of doing things then I have much respect for that goal even if I fail to see how your way is the best way to do so.

Mr. Caruso:

An apology is needed if not for you but for myself. By insisting to myself that I need to maintain certain standards of politeness, formality, and procedure, I can help to keep myself from falling victim to the internet poison. Apparently on these topics Mr. Consequence and I are in agreement but we have different ways of advancing our perspective. The presence of both ways are useful and it is better for myself if I advocate my perspective in a congenial fashion.

My intent in sharing my view is to single agreement with your post and it's inferences while also adding what I tried to add. It reveals the situation as complex but it is a more complete perspective on the situation. The post is important for both those of us in the choir and for those who are not for the reasons you state. Your work is appreciated.

For what it's worth I use the phrase "the system that spewed him forth" for Obama as well as for Bush and others. I use it not to excuse these gentlemen but to compliment their responsibility.

That's it. Whittle the stick down to a tooth pick by revealing that a previously unidentified class of non-Obamists and anti-Obamists are really apologists for Obama because they blame the system of political vetting and social control for Obama's achieving of the top position and for his mesmerizing charm, etc. "We" didn't want solidarity with those unconscious apologists, anyhow. Let them protest that they never voted for or approved of Obama or sympathize with him. "We" know better what they think and believe than they do themselves. Their thoughts were revealed in their choice of phase, e.g. the deeply apologetic "spewed forth".

Mmm-hmm. Build that coalition! Choir members only!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aHBUIqq41E

My 11:19 AM was a response to JC, not to Benjamin, the unfortunate duplication of verbiage notwithstanding. I appreciate Benjamin's perspective and could wish my comments, and mind, were formed more along the lines of his.

Benjamin, your approach does you enormous credit, but unfortunately DFD hasn't shown any sign of being interested in having a discussion; from his first comment in the thread he's been taking shots, and with this latest round of sarcasm he's given up all pretense. And he's working from multiple misunderstandings which he seems to have no interest in correcting, since he's ignored what I, you, and other commenters have been saying in response. That's how he's acted in the past as well, and it's why I'm not willing to spend time re-explaining things that have already been explained.

I really appreciate your thoughtful comments (and others' as well), though.

Anyone who fell for the ludicrous "Hope'n'Change" tripe used to sell Obama, is as stupid as those who fell for Colin Powell's ludicrous cartoon presentation at the UNSC. In terms of subtlety, both were on a par with advertisements for ProActiv or Ab Circle Pro or whatever other bullshit is being forced down the throats of jelly-brained idiots in the small hours.

Nobody gets to be a senior political figure - ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD - without being completely and utterly compromised. In the same way as good priests die in absolute obscurity while career politicians and ideologues like Joe Ratzinger get to be Pope (BTW I picked - in 1993 - that Ratty was the next cab off the papal rank, on the basis of the encyclical 'Quaesitum Est' which he wrote in 1983).

Only an idiot could possibly think that they can change things by voting for the hand-picked candidates of either of the two wings of the Party of control.

The essential problem is that of government PER SE; the idea that some group of self-identified Party members can, by moving bathwater from one end to the other, make the bath warmer or deeper... and in order to do this (for your benefit of course, selon. the propaganda) they can force you to contribute your money to their process (or send armed goons men to kill you fucking stone dead if you refuse to comply).

And let's not even bother dissecting the idea that if you provide vast power, tax-funded palaces and the ability to distribute largesse, you will attract people who make the Borgia Popes look like the Amish.

In the end, they are ALL like Gaddafi: "Either we rule you, or we will kill you. You comply or you die."

It is simply a question of whether they choose to present things starkly (like Mugabe, Kim Jong-Il, Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi) or subtly (like Clinton, Obama, Blair, Howard and Netan-the-Yahoo).... but the end story is simple: if you try to deprive 'our' class of our palaces, we will send our goons to fuck you up. Now watch fucking 'Idol' or the royal Wedding and STFU.

Cheerio


GT

OOoooo-kay, now I'm just in complete agreement with Caruso here, regarding DFD. That is, we're in "what the fuck is your problem?" territory. DFD creates the following strawman: that Caruso claims that everyone who claims that the system is more to blame than Obama is the enemy. This is hilariously -- and selfishly -- wrong. The fact of the matter is, DFD made the dumbfuck argument that "the system" was to blame and implied -- here's the key -- implied that Obama's moral or practical responsibility was somehow diminished as a result. A bunch of people called bullshit on him. Instead of correcting himself, the new claim is that DFD is nothing but a standard-bearer for millions of innocent people like himself. He also claims that he's not an apologist for Obama -- but, news flash, if you reduce someone's moral responsibility in connection to a wrong, you're an apologist. That's the very definition of apologist.

This is an excellent example of internet fail. I can't even post what I was originally going to say; this bastardized failure of sarcasm throws a rather sickly argument completely into the abyss.

Dismissing that mess and confusion, let's be clear hear: most U.S. citizens are not apologists for Obama in the way that too many "liberal" bloggers are. As such, the real concern is keeping such bloggers and pro-establishment types from misinforming the populace in general. And while there are many examples of people like Obama in power and waiting in the wings of the powerful, each and every one of them is responsible for his or her own actions, regardless of how easy those actions are made by a corrupt system.

And by the way -- as I've expressed elsewhere on the web -- I'm deliberately uncivil, when I choose to be, not because I think it will be persuasive. Quite the opposite. In this particular subject, establishment figures are being decisively uncivil. I mean, we're talking uncivil on the level of a white man calling a black man "nigger" in public. Every horrible thing has been laid at the feet of liberals by our aristocracy -- all of these things being atrocities committed by that very same aristocracy. I don't really expect to convince an economically comfortable, privileged supporter of the establishment to grow a sense of morals. What I'd really like is for his extremely uncivil and insulting position to be maintained throughout his life -- at the office, on vacation, with friends, and so on. That way, the next time we have a slender chance at electoral influence, everyone he knows remembers what an asshole he was. If he backs the latest version of Obama or Clinton, no one with any moral sense or taste will be tempted to join him. As a result, the goal is provocation. "Fuck you" -- explicitly in return for an already previously-given "fuck you" -- is much more appropriate than the idiotic delusion that the jackass just didn't understand your position.

And by the way -- as I've expressed elsewhere on the web -- I'm deliberately uncivil, when I choose to be...

And as I've expressed right here on this blog, I ask people to be civil in their comments. So as much as you might like intentionally provoking people and telling them to go fuck themselves, please don't do it here.

I respond in kind. Keep in mind, the basic political position of much of our government is that some human beings aren't people. That's essentially worse than a casual "fuck you." If a booster of such a view expresses the notion that I'm not people, I can point out the same to him. You're in an impossible situation, ethically, if I can't: if you prevent such individuals from posting in the first place, you're stifling discussion -- which would be a legitimate move, btw, and not one I'd criticize on moral grounds, but that's what's happening. If you prevent me from responding in kind, you'd be discriminating. I'm not throwing out provocation casually -- I am specifically responding in kind. So, when this occurs, you have to make a choice.

I made my choice a long time ago; I'm just informing you about it. The Internet is filled to overflowing with places where you can be deliberately uncivil, provoke someone, and tell them to fuck off as much as you want with whatever rationalizations justify it in your mind. This isn't one of them. If someone can't have a discussion here without attacking other people I'll warn them about it, and if they choose to ignore the warnings I'll shut them down entirely. I want this to be a place where people can actually discuss even difficult subjects without it devolving into a third-grade shouting match.

And take this for what it's worth: "fuck you" is a crutch for people who can't handle an argument, and you don't need it. You're much more persuasive (in my mind) when you're not in attack mode.

Oh, and about "in kind": c'mon, man, the only person DFD went after was me, and though I very much appreciate you countering him you're still responsible for the words you choose. Beyond that, saying there's some implicit "fuck you" hidden in the words of supporters of the establishment and then using that as a justification for launching your own explicit obscenity- and insult-laced response just doesn't wash. Even if I were to grant that for the sake of argument, things like "idiotic delusion" weren't a response in kind to anything else--they were just jabs.

I think you just like slagging people (and I get that; there are plenty of times I'd rather just do it myself). And to be clear, if you want to go off on those establishment figures you mention, or just about anyone else, knock yourself out. All I'm asking is that you and everyone else apply the golden rule to people actually engaged in the discussion right here.

The Internet is filled to overflowing with places where you can be deliberately uncivil, provoke someone, and tell them to fuck off as much as you want with whatever rationalizations justify it in your mind.

And where did I say I was using such a method? Please don't put words in my mouth.

Beyond that, saying there's some implicit "fuck you" hidden in the words of supporters of the establishment and then using that as a justification for launching your own explicit obscenity- and insult-laced response just doesn't wash.

This simply isn't true. At this point, I have seen thousands of out-and-out racist screeds that dehumanize their subjects and not once -- not once -- exceed the bounds of mainstream civility. There is an entire universe of coded language that makes this possible, even specific, such that the only way such offensive text can be read is either as a) unintelligible or b) insulting. Successful dog-whistle politics in the U.S. actually depends upon this ability. Pretending that the blatantly and horribly uncivil is, in fact, civil implicitly legitimizes and/or normalizes the position. My position is this: a great deal of what our society takes as legitimate political disagreement between two valid positions is actually a selfish and immoral attack by one party against another. These conflicts are completely one-sided, such that they belong not in a political debate, but in a criminal proceeding. And if we're going to try to live in a world that isn't topsy-turvy, we have to engage such positions in that context. "I'm going to beat your children, stab you, and take your stuff, all for shits and giggles" isn't a political philosophy position but a vile threat, but if we pretend it's the former our foreign policy discussions quickly become inane (at best) or insultingly immoral (usually).

I think you just like slagging people (and I get that; there are plenty of times I'd rather just do it myself).

You are wrong. If I want to hurt someone, I vastly prefer violence and legal action -- insults, irl, usually just waste time. Exception: creative insults are fun with friends. What I don't like is deliberately, or self-indulgently facile logic. I admit that does irritate the hell out of me, but I make a distinction between bad logic and a bad person. You failed to note that, in context, "idiotic delusion" would be a self-depricating remark should the speaker indulge in the error that prompted the statement. Now, if I think someone's position is wholly immoral, I'll say that over and over again, but morality isn't like foolishness. If one is stupid, there's no guarantee that anyone else will be hurt. If one is immoral in a political context, by definition that person is fucking someone else over.

I didn't jump in to defend you against DFD; you are more than competent enough to deal with that. I responded because the position DFD took was itself generally insulting (and of dubious moral and intellectual quality, to understate severely).

This is academic, btw. I was expressing why I'm harsh, not declaring an intent to troll. Ultimately, if I do something you think is out of line, that is dealt with as it happens. I don't intend to create any extra work for anyone, but I think harshness is not just a useful tool, but essential in some cases -- cases that tend to come up in politics a lot. I make no attempt to challenge your authority as host of the site.

The golden rule obviously applies. If I'm immoral, I expect to be called on it. Well, here and a few other places I have that expectation. I could, for example, head over to HuffPo (to use an egregious example) and be a complete dick while maintaining "liberal" bona fides and get nothing worse than a pat on the back. . .

"Deliberately uncivil", "the goal is provocation", and "ten to twenty more 'fuck you's'" are quotes; I don't think I'm misrepresenting you. I understand that you have a philosophy behind it, but nonetheless that's what you're saying.

I responded because the position DFD took was itself generally insulting (and of dubious moral and intellectual quality, to understate severely).

Agreed, but that implicit insult doesn't justify explicit ones in my mind. And in fact I do give a lot of leeway to people when they're explicitly attacked here to respond in kind (with myself as the only exception, because I feel obliged to set the tone and not give in to the temptation to go nuclear on people like DFD). I always hope they'll choose to ignore provocations or counter them without escalating, but I understand and empathize if they choose to do otherwise.

This is academic, btw. I was expressing why I'm harsh, not declaring an intent to troll.

Understood on the first point (and it's only because you raised it that I responded), and thanks for the second. Also, just in case it isn't clear, when I told Benjamin that I appreciated both his comments and others' I explicitly had you in mind; you make some great points, and you make them well.

The comments to this entry are closed.