Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Virtue of Giving Offense

The Virtue of Giving Offense

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Sometimes I think it is time to add another line into our First Amendment: The voicing of the unpopular, being the very soul of free speech, the right to give and take offense shall not be infringed.

Whether it’s an off-color joke or colorful commentary, it’s now hard to make anything but the plainest vanilla statements without offending somebody. In fact, so ingrained is the notion of being offended that it has become a topic of satire. Just think about Geico’s famous commercials, wherein stone-age characters take umbrage at the slogan, “So easy a caveman can do it.”

Ironically, associating cavemen with being thin-skinned is quite apropos, since it is a frailty born of the more ignoble aspects of man’s nature. I think about documentarian Alby Mangels who, while visiting primitives in Papua New Guinea, warned against “knocking back their hospitality.” Prudence dictated he be wary, as those less spiritually and morally evolved are ruled by pride, the worst of the Seven Deadly Sins. And, lest we entertain the fancy that it is the superior person who doesn’t give offense, know that it is actually the superior one who doesn’t take it. It’s hard to offend the humble.

In truth, though, our civilization is not as overcome by pride as by duplicity. And this is what is truly offensive (in the way an odor is so) about this offensiveness business: Screaming “That’s offensive!” is nothing but a ploy. Yes, you heard it here first; few who emit that utterance are actually offended.

They just don’t happen to like what you’re saying.

I’ll explain precisely what is going on. Liberals trade on this ploy, using it as a standard response whenever their sacred cows come under scrutiny. If they were tolerant, they would simply accept that some will espouse what we despise. If they were honest, they would simply say what they mean. But tolerance is just another ploy, and honesty, well, it has never served the ends of the left, and never less so than here. An understanding of what they really mean to say will illustrate why:

“I hate what you’re saying, it makes me angry and you should shut your mouth! [expletives omitted]”

Of course, to exhibit such petulance would do nothing but reveal their vaunted tolerance for the facade it is and demonstrate their moral inferiority. And telling others to shut up is the stuff of neither polite society nor effective debate, so a different strategy is in order.

And the “Offensiveness Ploy” (OP) is ideal, as it shifts the onus from them to you. A direct command to still your tongue would make them appear the villains, intolerant, immature, imperious clods, incapable of brooking dissent. It would be offensive. But the OP makes you seem the offensive one. And when told to shut up, we feel transgressed against and know we occupy the moral high ground, a place from which taking the offense is justified. The OP, however, casts us as the transgressors, cowing us as we look up from our valley of disgrace. It works: Accusing others of giving offense is the best offense, as it places them on the defense.

But you don’t have to read Sun Tzu’s The Art of War to know strategies change with the situation. And this is why, when the bounds of propriety are loosened and the power is all theirs, liberals often show their true colors, resorting to a tactic blunter and less sophisticated but even more effective: Force.

Just think about the “students” – they don’t deserve the designation – who attacked Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist at that institution of lower learning, Columbia University. Think about incidents where other conservative speakers were given the same treatment on other campuses, a phenomenon that prompted pundit Ann Coulter to retain bodyguards. You may think I’m painting the left with too broad a brush but, I can assure you, the very same spoiled brats would use the OP in any situation wherein the balance of power didn’t favor them. But in a bastion of liberalism, where accountability is as absent as sensibility, they don’t have to. And here’s their message:

“I hate what you’re saying, it makes me angry and you should shut your mouth! And you’re going to shut your mouth whether you like it or not. We don’t have to take it anymore [expletives omitted].”

I suppose it’s one situation where you could say that honesty is definitely not refreshing.

Would that anyone claim I’m wrong, he has much to explain. Like, for instance, why these tolerant, unoffensive liberals, upon achieving institutional power, become similarly heavy-handed and use the principles of tolerance and offensiveness to squelch ideas they dislike. They have given us speech codes at universities and in corporations and hate speech laws in foreign countries. And the sanctimony, oh, the sanctimony. As they ostracize, penalize, terminate and arrest those who sin against political correctness, they tell us they’re just protecting others from hateful feelings when they really just feel hateful.

Can there be doubt of this? This oh-so-sensitive set is the very one that defends the immersion of a crucifix in a jar of urine as artistic expression and the equation of 9/11 victims with Nazis as academic freedom.

If the truth about the OP hasn’t raised your ire yet, understand that it is nothing less than part of the groundwork necessary for social engineering. If you want to effect social and legislative change, you must win the social and political debates so as to garner support for it. But if you can’t defeat your adversaries in the arena of ideas, you have to keep them out of the competition; if you can’t refute what’s argued, you must stop it from being spoken.

So, first you demonize speech refutative of your agenda by labeling it “offensive,” which cultivates social codes and attendant social pressure facilitative of the change you desire. Then, as these social codes become more widely accepted and entrenched, expressing them through rules and laws becomes more acceptable. This leads to the next stage, the organizational expression of them – the speech codes in various private institutions. And once sufficiently inured to these, it’s time for the last stage of this imprisoning of ideas: The legislative expression of these social codes known as hate speech laws.

Case in point: It becomes harder for traditionalists to argue against anti-marriage if they’re scorned and ostracized for saying homosexual behavior is sinful, destructive or disordered. It becomes harder still if those who do are punished within the context of our schools and businesses. And it becomes impossible if the government arrests you for such expression. The easiest way to win a debate is to prevent the other side from debating.

Thus, there is a lesson here we ignore at our own peril. You can have freedom from being offended or you can freedom of speech, but you cannot have both.

This is why I have no tolerance for the Offensiveness Ploy. It is manipulation by the mediocre, victory for the vacuous, derision by the dull. It is the protestation of a child, one with neither the brute force to be a Brownshirt nor the executive force to be a Blackshirt. If someone is offended by truth, the problem lies not with it being uttered. If someone doesn’t want it uttered, he has a problem with truth.

The great victory of the left is that it has made us apologize for being right. A few may be truly offended, being in the grip of primitive pride. But, mostly, we are in the grip of a primitive ploy. We need more offensiveness, not less. We must offend the liars, the degraded, the darkness, the destroyers of civilization.

So my answer to the offended is, you have every right to be offended. Now, grow up. If you can’t sit at the table of reasoned debate, go back to your bread and circuses. Let the adults figure out the problems of the world.

Powered by

About Selwyn Duke

  • D’oh

    So, let’s flip the script a bit here.

    How about those that are “offended” by homosexuals, or secularists?

    We hear them screaming all the time about how they are “offended” by this behavior, and that because of their positions, such should not be tolerated, even tho it harms no one.

    Or the “offense” of birth control , in all it’s guises?

    On and on, but I think you get the point.

    This bullshit article is just another case of spin, it DOES raise an excellent point about freedom of speech, and for that it was worth the read.

    But you completely lose it with the partisan spin, and refusal to acknowledge the hypocrisy inherent due to the examples I cite.

    the Tao of D’oh

  • moonraven

    I agree with D’oh. The OP started out sounding rational and then just descended into a one-sided blast of invective.

    Here in Mexico we have a new president–well, some folks believe he was elected fairly, anyway–and he did use the force of the army to install himself on Dec. 1.

    This guy is a front for the most OFFENSIVE group of ultra-extremist Catholics that could be imagined. EVERYTHING offends them: gays, abortion, leftists of ANY stripe, free speech if it is not coming out of their mouths, protests about high prices; their motto is: If it moves or speaks and it isn’t one of OURS, it must be “disappeared”.

    And then they have the nerve to say they are going to re-write the MEXICAN Constitution (today is Constitution Day) because it doesn’t include protection for human rights AROUND THE WORLD.

    The senator, Rosario Green, who was Secretary of Foreign Relations under former president Zedillo stated that “A good judge cleans his own house first”–and further indicated that there are plenty of laws in Mexico that protect human rights–and that they are routinely violated, and that if these guys want to clean up their act and actually eliminate human rights abuses for 3 generations, then maybe they can shoot their mouths off to the rest of the world about human rights violations.

    The problem with this OFFENSIVE stuff is that the folks looking at the mote in their neighbor’s eye don’t bother to take the beam out of their own. I believe that was in the Bible….

  • Nancy

    Amen to that. I think this business of being “offended” has gone waaay too far. You make a good point on that; thereafter, I agree with D’oh – your examples completely eviscerated your excellent starting premise, turning it into a partisan rant. I could for example provide just as many if not more examples of the same kinds of abuse from conservatives – but I won’t because we can all think of plenty. This is a pity, because otherwise it has the bones of being a good article.

  • SHARK

    More crap from a guy who “talks” like he’s standing on top of a stump at Gettysburg.

    I’m sure this stuff is impressive when performed on a street-corner accompanied by a frumpy, repressed brow-beaten woman banging a tambourine, but c’mon, Abe, Blogcritics ain’t a Tent Revival for Troglodytes wearing Roman Torture Devices as jewelry.

    “…my answer to the offended is, you have every right to be offended. Now, grow up. If you can’t sit at the table of reasoned debate, go back to your bread and circuses. Let the adults figure out the problems of the world.”

    Ironic, coming from a right-wing Christian, the same DEMOGRAPHIC that bans books from libraries, inspires “pro-life” whack jobs to murder abortion doctors, mounts a nationwide “boycott” and writing campaign when Janet Jackson’s fake nipple is exposed on TV for a nanosecond, spouts panic-laden meaningless irrational shit like “Gays will destroy the institution of marriage” — and is without a doubt the least tolerant, MOST EASILY OFFENDED bunch in the country.

    Yer a hypocrite and a joke, Reverand Duke.

    [Parsing note: Duke always starts out with universal, generally agreeable sounding sorta okay stuff — but it’s fun to count the seconds until he gets to the MONEY SHOT. Example:

    blah blah blah fourscore blah forefathers blah blah… “…I’ll explain precisely what is going on. Liberals trade on this ploy…”

    See! How long was that? Five paragraphs! About 28 seconds, by my count! Not a NEW INDOOR RECORD Reverend Lincoln, but he still had a good go at it!]

  • SHARK

    “…This is a pity, because otherwise it has the bones of being a good article.”

    Nancy, ya really gotta pay attention to this stuff. ; )

  • SHARK

    re: “Parsing note: Duke always starts out with universal, generally agreeable sounding sorta okay stuff — but it’s fun to count the seconds until he gets to the MONEY SHOT.”

    I’ve read everything this guy has written hereabouts, AND HE DOES THIS EVERY TIME.

    He’s sorta like John Bambineck with an education.

    You’ve been warned.

  • Nancy

    No, the kernal of it could have been examined on a less partisan basis, with broader examples or at least even-handed ones, & it would make a very decent article indeed, IMO. Maybe YOU wouldn’t read it, but I might. In point of fact, we BOTH did. So it accomplished its point, of acquainting you with his opinion, didn’t it?

  • moonraven

    I think the point was that his opinion was already general knowledge, based on his model of all pieces being the same.

  • SHARK

    Yeah, and if pigs had wing-buds, they’d have the potential to fly.

    Nancy, look, IN EVERY ARTICLE THIS GUY WRITES — regardless of the “potential” — the technique/RESULT is thus:

    1) Start rational, with universally accepted truims.

    2) Quickly jump to FAR RIGHT WING EVIL AGENDA assumptions.

    3) Quickly throw in ridiculous examples of how “liberals” are destroying the Universe.

    Seriously, you don’t even have to parse between the lines to understand that Rev. Duke has an agenda the size of Dick Cheney’s margin for error when shooting doves.

    [NOTE: On the other hand, it’s very possible to explore the thesis related to the title; D’oh or I could probably write an excellent, non-partisan article of the “Virtue of Giving Offense” — but mine would probably be about Modern Art.]

  • SHARK

    Moongal: “I think the point was that his opinion was already general knowledge, based on his model of all pieces being the same.”

    Yes. Exactly.

  • D’oh

    Aw for fuck’s sake…just look at the guy’s bio!!

    “Selwyn Duke is a columnist, public speaker and Internet entrepreneur whose work has been published widely online and also in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show and has a regular column in Christian Music Perspective Magazine.”

    A fundamentalist dittohead!!

    and you expect reason or any kind of non-partisan thought, much less agenda…to spew from his rancid keyboard?

    puh-leeEEEEeEEEeeeEEEeeEEzzzZZzzzzeee spare me any feigned naivete…

    the Tao of D’oh

  • moonraven

    If you feel an urge to read and comment on much better articles, Common Dreams now has a comments function on its site.

  • Martin Lav

    “1) Start rational, with universally accepted truims.”

    The definition of the Offensiveness Ploy.

    I mean the only reason people were offended by Kramers outburst was because they are cavemen?

  • D’oh

    Shark – i’d leave Modern Art to to you, or my wife..who has the degrees to speak on the subject.

    I’ll just say there are times when it’s required to be fucking hostile!

    Could just be me.

  • Baronius

    Nice article.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Shark on Modern Art? That’s gotta be worth reading!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Very timely article. We’ve seen a real rise in the attempt to shout down dissent here on BC recently and force on everyone an intimidated conformity. It’s worth shouting out against.

    Your discussion of the ‘Offensiveness Ploy’ is particularly on topic given the childish behavior of certain BC participants.

    All of that being a given, you’re a bit unfair in singling out the left for criticism. They have the upper hand in many places, including BC when it comes to shouting down alternative viewpoints, but in their home territory the intolerant right are just as bad. Try going over the FreeRepublic and saying something nice about Giuliani and see how polite the responses are – if they even let you keep your account access.

    Dave

  • Martin Lav

    Thanks for the Olive Branch Dave, just don’t whip me with it.

  • moonraven

    That was the biggest projection of his own behavior onto others on BC that I have yet seen from Dave Nalle.

    And that’s saying something….

    Especially when most of the time, due to his inventing alter egos like popcorn, the left–at least as he perceives it–is clearly the minority on this site.

    And this bs is from the “editor” who has told several people that they are too stupid to even have opinions! If that is not shouting down, I’d like to see what is.

  • MCH

    “Very timely article. We’ve seen a real rise in the attempt to shout down dissent here on BC recently and force on everyone an intimidated conformity. It’s worth shouting out against.
    Your discussion of the ‘Offensiveness Ploy’ is particularly on topic given the childish behavior of certain BC participants.
    – Dave Nalle

    Hey, leave Vox Populi out of this!!

  • Arch Conservative

    Those of you criticizing the author of this post who never even attempt criticism of any of the blatantly leftist authors like Adam Ash or Realist reveal your own bias.

    As for the left and right being equal in terms of stifling dissent I can think of at least one venue where this is absolutely not true and that would be on our college campuses which are dominated by 60’s relics who makeup the faculty and administration. On your average American college campus today any thought that is not towing the leftist line is roundly ridiculed and silenced by not only the faculty and administration but also by fellow students who are incapable of thinking for themselves but choose rather to swallow the leftist indoctrination that they are spoon fed on a daily basis.

    Every time there is a conservative guest speaker invited to a college campus there is a big stink raised by the facist leftist student body and certain faculty members. Sometimes they throw pies at the guest speaker….. other times they rush the stage while the speaker is speaking like at Columbia with the minutemen debacle last October.

    Our institutions of higher education are supposed to be centers for intellectual honesty and truth where all sides of an issue are given equal opportunity for expression and debate. Instead they have become indoctrination camps where hypocritical leftist thought commandos do all that they can to crush any speech that does not adhere to thier view of the world in every way.

  • D’oh

    Arch, you make a decent point, but a bit off in some ways. I cannot speak firmly about college campuses, since I have interactions with only one…but it is a Fine Arts college…what one would think as a complete bastion of “leftists” and “hippy” types.

    Nothing could be further from accuracy.

    Are there leftys and hippys there…you bet…but there are plenty of conservatives among both students and faculty…the staff is predominantly conservative (administrators)..and all get along just fine when they are not arguing about everything.

    very health debates…

    this is not to say that the conservative factions is not smaller in than the more liberal types in total…but they are represented, and they do have quite the voice on all levels…and the debates rage on continuously in a healthy manner for the institution

    much more so than say, George Jones U, or some of the others…

    is there a problem in this area…sure, i’ll gladly admit it could use some work overall..but i really don’t think it’s quite as bad as some culture warriors try to make it out to be

    your mileage may vary

  • zingzing

    don’t tell it to arch. he’ll never believe you. either archie never went to college, or he happened to go to some far left-wing institution. i can’t give you an example of such an institution… but it must be out there.

    i went to a state university. i report healthy debate, and plenty of conservatives. i visit (these days) two college campi with some level of frequency, both in archie’s favorite liberal state, massachusetts, and there is plenty of even-handed debate amongst a pretty heavily left-wing student population. the teachers seem to encourage it because they know that the world is not as liberal as their college campus.

    but don’t tell that to archie. maybe if all the conservatives are afraid of college/university, they’ll stay away and slowly disappear into the intellectual dead zone…

    obviously, that’s just silly.

  • moonraven

    Arch clearly did NOT attend a far-left college. If he had he would be a very different sort of guy.

    This strain of nonsenical paranoia that he exhibits is very US. In the US the posture is anti-intellectual. In the 50s, all intellectuals were accused of being “commies”. Some of them even ended up doing jail time for refusing to testify at the House Un-american Activities Committee. The Rosenbergs were fried in the electric chair because they were intellectuals.

    Adlai Stevenson lost in 1952 and 1956 to Ike because he had been labeled an intellectual (the term was actually “egghead”, and Stevenson’s head DID have a pretty ovoid shape.

    J Robert Oppenheimer (director of the Manhattan Project, Father of the Bomb–who said at Trinity Flats, New Mexico, when he saw the mushroom cloud go up: “I have become death”) was labelled a “commie” because he opposed the nuclear arms race and was actually put on trial in 1954 when he refused to resign from the AEC.

    In the 50s, any intellectual could be accused of being a “commie”. I had a professor in 1965 at the U of Washington who had been accused in the early 50s–because he taught philosophy of history (which includes of course Marxist historicist theory).

    In the 60s, the pendulum moved in the opposite direction. Started to, anyway. I was part of a large department of a large state university in the midwest–where I was both General Secretary for the AFT Local and campus representative for the Black Panther Party. My husband’s and my phone was tapped, as was the phone of two close associates who headed anti-war movements on campus. Nobody called us “commies”, but there were a few conservatives who probably would have if I hadn’t been the primary negotiator for their receiving their teaching contracts.

    By the mid-70s the progressive percentage on campuses was starting to become smaller, and only briefly did token minority programs mean an increase in at least minority progressives.

    As another poster mentioned, the university administrations are usually conservative. All universities–public or private–need to stay in the good graces of the governments, and they have not ever been progressive.

    Despite the supposedly inalienable right to academic freedom, it has never been easy for professors to maintain that right. The current brouhaha at U of Colorado regarding Ward Churchill shows all that old anti-intellectual stuff is still in the toilet, ready to back up at any time.

    Hell, my own department chairperson, when we were debating whether to strike as a department in 1970 when Nixon invaded Cambodia and the national guard went on a rampage at Kent State to suppress protests, said that I was the only one in that department of 135 who truly maintained academic freedom.

    So it goes. On any campus, the predominance goes to those who accumulate the most personal power.

  • Clavos

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

  • zingzing

    clavos, pulling a page from just one man’s book is never good.

  • moonraven

    Clavos would sleep through the horns of Judgment Day because he isn’t the one tooting them.

    Like an ostrich with its head in the sand….

  • Arch Conservative

    Nice intimation that only liberals can be intellectuals moonraven.

    You’re historical anecdotes have absolutely nothing to do with the current state of our universities and colleges.

    It would seem as if you and Zing a ling are both raging leftists yourselves as you’re both so intent on denying what is reality… that our campuses are dominated by fascist liberals who are hostile to disagreement with thier views.

    You two [Edited] can deny it all day long but it’s reality.

  • zingzing

    where did you go to college, archie?

  • Arch Conservative

    I graduated from UNH three years ago and have been on probably over 60 – 70 college campuses in the past 5 years. I think I know of which I speak.

    Today’s college campuses are more interested in political correctness, artificial diversity, speech codes, and towing the leftist line than they are in intellectual honesty and truthfulness, academic merit and open debate for all.

    It’s sad but completely true.

  • moonraven

    archie,

    The term fascist liberal is an oxymoron.

    All fascists, by definition, are on the RIGHT. If you don’t believe me, look up Mussolini’s definition of fascism. (Just a litle continuing education homework.)

    Archie–taking in a little bit of political and educational history wouldn’t hurt anyone. Not even you. Folks in their 20s, if educated and motivated, CAN have a sense of history.

    It’s really up to you.

  • D’oh

    Arch…you know i’ll listen and talk about almost any reasonable bit…but when you trot out “fascist leftists” you start to lose me…and i would think most moderates would feel the same.

    just sharing…

  • Emry

    Political Correctness really pisses me off.

    Therefore as an antidote I’d like to say:

    Arch, shove your right wing crap back up your fat arse!

  • moonraven

    Hell, I’ll even do some of the work for you, arch:

    “Fascism

    Fascism (in Italian, fascismo), capitalized, refers to the right-wing authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy 1922-1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. The name comes from fascio, which may mean, “bundle,” as in a political or militant group or a nation, but also from the fasces (rods bundled around an axe), which were an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of magistrates. The Italian ‘Fascisti’ were also known as Black Shirts for their style of uniform incorporating a black shirt (see; Political Colours).

    Definition
    In an article in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana, written by Giovanni Gentile and attributed to Benito Mussolini, fascism is described as a system in which “The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad. …For the Fascist, everything is within the State and … neither individuals or groups are outside the State. …For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative.”

    Mussolini in a speech delivered on October 28, 1925

  • Baronius

    The definitions of those two terms, liberal and fascist, are constantly quibbled over. If Arch is equating fascism with bullying via rules and regulations, then the term “liberal fascist” seems accurate.

  • Arch Conservative

    The webster’s dictionary definition of fascism:

    -a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

    I’d say that is certainly an apt description of the way leftists run universities.

    What do you plan on doing for an encore Moonbat?

    Explain why black people can’t be racist?

  • zingzing

    uh huh. there’s archie’s paranoid fantasy right there.

    does anyone know the name of their university’s president? do you, archie? top of the head, you know, not with a little help from the internet…

    you’d think you’d know the name of the person that told you what to do and think for 4 years…

  • moonraven

    arch,

    You didn’t learn much while you were in college.

    I think the arch con was too busy partying.

  • moonraven

    Every political movement has a history. And a lot of that history depends on the history of the particular country one lives in.

    If you don’t do your homework and learn that history, when you put your allegiance you may very well be pledging just the opposite of what you think you are.

  • Clavos

    does anyone know the name of their university’s president?

    Nope, no idea. Why would I? Never even met the person.

    I CAN tell you the names of ALL the really good teachers I had, and even the names of most of the shitty ones. The ratio, BTW, was about 5% really outstanding, 50% good, 40% so-so and 5% really crappy.

  • Torquemada

    I read what was being said here and I just had to chime in.

    It’s a very popular myth that fascism is a product of the right. On a most basic level, I could point out that Nazi stands for “National SOCIALIST Workers Movement”, but that insight certainly isn’t new. So, for the leftists who would like to rise above the constraints of their inside-the-box educations, I suggest you read the following:
    It’s the best explanation of fascism in existence.

    Having said this, if you leftists choose to base your arguments on semantics, it indicates tremendous intellectual and philosophical vacuity. A group that is willing to use violence and intimidation — and, in fact, any means necessary to silence opposition — is essentially the same as any other group that behaves in that manner. And, of course, that is known as fascistic behavior.

    I also note that if you take the definition provided by the Black Panther, “For the Fascist, everything is within the State and … neither individuals or groups are outside the State. …For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative” and replace “Fascist” with “communist,” it will make just as much sense. That is the communist position as well, and this is why the greatest thinkers have understood that there is no substantive difference between fascism and communism.

    As far as the modern university goes, 95% of college professors are registered Democrats. Moreover, if you want to see the consequences of this bias, go to noindoctrination.org. I challenge you to find ONE example of a liberal student being persecuted by a conservative professor. And, yes, anyone can post their experiences there.

    The last thing I’ll mention is that it’s preposterous to claim that conservatives are as culpable in the stifling of free speech as liberals. Name for me ONE college where a speech code has been instituted by conservatives. Or, name ONE country in which hate speech laws have been instituted by conservatives. Go ahead, take your time — it’ll be an exercise in futility.

    The fact is — and, yes, it is a FACT — that speech codes and hate speech laws ALWAYS stifle traditional positions and NEVER liberal ones. The simple reason for this is that they were created by liberals. You get persecuted for saying homosexuality is a sin, not for saying Christianity is.

    Anyway, this should give the few open-minded people here some food for thought.

  • moonraven

    Okay: Let me get this straight.

    1. Mussolini was a communist? He was the one who coined the term, Fascist.

    2. Would that mean Franco was a communist, too? Uh, just one problem with that: Franco’s fascists falangists FOUGHT the communists in the Spanish Civil War.

    Your point about the National Socialists is exactly the case I was talking about.

    I don’t see that you have made much of a study of history, either.

    But apparently you have picked your side dramatically, given that your poster name in that most frequently associated with The Inquisition here in Mexico….

  • Martin Lav

    The Inquisition in Mexico?

  • Clavos

    Moonraven’s bad writing, Martin. She means that in Mexico, that’s the name most associated with the Inquisition.

  • moonraven

    Yep, It was VERY big here, for a number of reasons–two being the crypto Jews and crypto Muslims that came here to avoid having the auto de fe in Spain. It was introduced in Mexico in 1517.

    I guess you can run, but you can’t hide.

    Tomas de Torquemada was the Gran Inquisitor of Spain.

    The Palace of the Inquisition in Mexico City is now a museum. Kids can go and see all the racks and other torture devices.

    I haven’t really been that eager to see that stuff.

  • moonraven

    Nothing wrong with my writing, Clavos.

  • Clavos

    There is when it gives the reader the idea that you’re saying Torquemada was associated with the Inquisition in Mexico.

    QED

  • Torquemada

    It cuts no ice that Mussolini coined the term “fascism.” Heck, here in American we have communists who coined the term “progressive.” Anyone who isn’t completely naive understands that evil always masquerades as something it’s not — it always assumes a guise pleasing to its victims.

    Of course, some may still say that we should consider evil liars’ characterizations of themselves to be as Gospel. To them I will say that Hitler would have called himself a humanitarian.

    By the by, there’s nothing intellectual about liberalism. It’s an emotion-based ideology and, as such, is quintessentially anti-intellectual.

  • Martin Lav

    Is that you again Dave?

  • Zedd

    This is basically another complaint about PCness. In order for people to coexist in a heterogeneous society such as ours, you do have to learn what offends others in order to get along. I find that people that complain the most about this issue are WASPs. For too long they offended freely. They made all other Americans feel as if they were not enough because they were not them. As civil rights were gained by various groups, there “liberty” to offend was no longer tolerated. They felt smothered and stifled.

    What is juvenile is thinking that you can say whatever you want to say without getting clobbered. Just the facts of life.

  • Zedd

    However I was just telling my kids yesterday about the cartoons when I was a child. They were really funny because they were really RUDE.

    You don’t see cartoons saying “ahhh shut up” and slapping someone or really getting into one of those fights where all you see are fists and expletive symbols. Cartoons used to flirt heavily and you’d get the guy who turns into a wolf and claps his back legs when he checks the hot girl out. That was funny.

    Now you’ve got Jimmy Newtron….sigh. Can you imagine how lame that would have been in our time.

    We had gangsters who wanted to take someone on the “scenic route” in our cartoons.

    Soccer moms and the author’s fellow Christian Conservatives have seen to it that all of that ends.

    I suppose it was all too offensive.

  • Torquemada

    Actually, to exist in a heterogeneous society such as ours, you have to understand that “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.” You have to understand that you have to be TOLERANT of beliefs you don’t like.

    Everything offends someone. And, am I to assume that you support the notion of governmental punishment of those who “offend” others? If so, we’d better build prisons that can accomodate about 300 million. Not only that, if that’s one’s view, they are a fascist indeed.

  • D’oh

    Time to poke a few holes…

    #48 – “By the by, there’s nothing intellectual about liberalism. It’s an emotion-based ideology and, as such, is quintessentially anti-intellectual.”

    Tell it to Jefferson, or Franklin.

    #41 – On a most basic level, I could point out that Nazi stands for “National SOCIALIST Workers Movement,”

    which I find very amusing…since the Soviets and the communist Chinese each call themselves Republics…

    a point this same commenter alludes to the same in #48 when he(she?) says: “Anyone who isn’t completely naive understands that evil always masquerades as something it’s not — it always assumes a guise pleasing to its victims.”

    My opinion is that this commenter chose their moniker with precision, Torquemada indeed.

    the Tao of D’oh.

  • Torquemada

    D’oh,

    The moniker that’s quite fitting is yours. Educated people understand that the prevailing ideology at the time of the Foudning Fathers is know as CLASSICAL liberalism. Classical was added to it early in the 20th century in order to differentiate it from modern liberalism, which had started moving toward socialism.

    The difference is profound, by the by, since the ideology that corresponds to classical liberalism in our time would be a hybrid between Goldwater conservatism and libertarianism. Classical liberalism espoused small government, the gold standard and freedom from government intrusion.

    I think some people around here need to visit blogs other than moveon.stupid.

  • D’oh

    Never been to moveon…try again, Inquisitor.

    I appreciate your making the distinctions, and can accept them for the purposes of discussion.

    Your table manners seem to leave something to be desired.

    As has been shown, you appear to make many fallacious assumptions (my liking moveon, citing the full name for Nazis and forgetting communists use of Republic..some others), rendering some of your conclusion suspect due to false postulates.

    Your entitled to your opinions, and raise some things worth thinking about, but render much of it colored by pure partisan ideology…

    but fanatics of ANY stripe have that problem…don’t they Inquisitor?

    the Tao of D’oh.

  • Arch Conservative

    Heck, here in American we have communists who coined the term “progressive.”

    “By the by, there’s nothing intellectual about liberalism. It’s an emotion-based ideology and, as such, is quintessentially anti-intellectual.”

    If you’re waiting for anyone but myself to acknowledge the stark reality that America’s colleges and Universities are leftist indoctrination camps don’t hold your breath. You and I are in the small minority of people who post on BC that aren’t quick to the defense of every leftist cause while blaming Bush and the “evil religious right wing” for all of America’s ills.

    So called leftist progressives have been bitching and moaning about their inability to express dissent under the Bush administration but I have yet to see one person on BC or any other venue be prohibited from regurgitating their “Bush is Hitler,” or “Bush lied” rhetoric by a member the current administration or any other government official. In fact it has been nothing but these inane, irrational, and unfounded catchphrases 24-7 for the past 6 years.

    On the other hand we have liberals enacting “speech codes” at our universities that determine what people are and are not allowed to say under the guiding compass of political correctness.

    We have liberals/lefists/progressives calling Larry Summers a sexist and running him out of town at Harvard University because he had the unmitigated gall to suggest that scientific studies have shown that men and women’s brains process information differently and this may be the reason why men and women excel at different occupations.

    We have so called progressive students at Columbia University acting like three year old children last November when they stormed the stage screaming during a Minutmen speech.

    We have liberals students and faculty throwing pies at conservative guest speakers at our universities. If they’re not throwing pies they’re showing up at the speaking engagements and causing loud disturbances so as to prevent the speakers fropm being heard.

    We have so called progressives threatening the the ABC network if they run a miniseries that in any way portrays Bill Clinton as anything but a most fierce fighter of terrorism during his years in office and calling for the show never to air.

    We have liberals calling for a book, Unfit for Duty, to be banned because it portrays thier candidate in a negative light all the while there have been hundreds of books bashing Bush and other republicans and they’re fine with those.

    I’d like Ms. Moonraven and Zingaling to offer any examples of conservatives doing these things.

    When was the last time conservative students behaved in a way the progressive students did at the Minutemen speech?

    When was the last time a group of conservative faculty members at a University railroaded a dean because they didn’t like something he said like the libs at Harvard did to Larry Summers?

    When was the last time conservatives felt it necessary to enact speech codes and worship at the altar of political correctness rather than intellectual honesty?

    I’ll bet you a dollar that these moonbats cannot offer any examples Torquemada but rather will criticize me as a paranoid or ignorant.

    It’s so typical of them. And after they have done that they will go off on some tangent that has nothing to do with what I actually said but they will somehow end their posts as if it did and tell me how it proves their superior understanding of the issue.

    [Arch: In an effort to foster the collegiate style we like here at Blogcritics, the changing of other site users names in a derogatory way has been proscribed. This is an entirely politically neutral measure that will be applied to all factions! Cheers! Comments Editor]

  • Torquemada

    Yes, Arch, remember, as Ben Franklin said, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.”

    Notice also that D’oh cast the first stone by snidely remarking that my moniker was chosen with precision (which is fine — I’m no baby), but then cried foul when I merely responded in kind. Hey, lefties, if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.

    I’ll also point out for D’oh’s information and edification that the following definition of republic is from the American Heritage Dictionary,

    “1. a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.”

    Of course, this definition has no doubt been influenced by communist use of the term (note: this should be kept in mind when using dictionary definitions of anything, including fascism), but I thought it should be noted. Anyway, suffice it to say that, as C.S. Lewis pointed out in “The Abolition of Man,” there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between communism and fascism. I can say that, you should know, because I hate both. The liberals cannot because they hate the latter but feel no visceral contempt for the former.

    Oh, D’oh, you have shown nothing — least of all that anything I’ve said is fallacious — except that you can’t refute what we’ve said substantively. My moveon comment had figurative, not literal, meaning. Obviously, I was saying that the leftists here should read something other than sources that simply affirm their own misconceptions. But, of course, you knew that, didn’t you? That was simply a leftist trick: when you can’t refute the points made, use a diversionary tactic, such as nitpicking and focusing on something that is simply a rhetorical device.

    As Arch said, try sticking to the issues. Name ONE speech code or set of hate speech laws instituted by conservatives. ONE would suffice. And if you can’t, be man enough to cede the point. If you do neither, you aren’t worthy of respect.

    Of course, refusing to debate is like not showing up for a tennis match — you DEFAULT.

  • zingzing

    speech codes, while dangerous at some level, are actually put in place to further the students freedom to speak IN AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT. sometimes, these rules can be abused. they hinge on the fact that the “hate speech” in question must represent some sort of threat to the student, which could lessen their education. usually abuse of this power is mitigated by a call for “educational freedom.”

    as an example, you can look to ward churchill, roundly shouted down by conservatives for his strange views, but defended by students and faculty at CU.

    which leads us right into the larry summers incident.

    what you don’t say is that summers was ACTUALLY supported by the university and students in this matter. he was actually given a raise. his leadership was questioned by members of the faculty, but that may have had a lot to do with other things. his sabbatical, which he had already decided to go on before the controversy, is nearing its conclusion and he has been invited back to harvard.

    columbia… not much you can really say there. it was pretty bad. i think the violence that occurred there was the fault of both sides. of course, you end up seeing students everywhere, but who started the actual pushing and shoving? what do you expect? conservative universities destroy opposition speech by never having opposing views aired. name me one controversial speaker at a conservative university.

    clinton/abc– come on. it was a pack of lies (or “fiction”) and it was shown in full. so liberals said it was horrible and shouldn’t be shown… ok. conservatives. do. this. all. the. time. they try to get shows kicked off the disney channel for god’s sake.

    don’t even get me started on books. huckleberry finn. don’t tell me it’s not political.

    the far right and the far left have tendencies toward extremism. extremism can lead to name-calling, threats, boycotts, violence and death. the game is played equally well by both sides.

  • zingzing

    also, you may find that at almost every conservative christian university, regular church attendance is required. i’m willing to bet that, while it isn’t encoded into university rules and regulations, not being a christian or refusing to attend services is probably not going to be met with a very understanding view… and would probably be cause for you to be expelled from their university. is that good enough?

    if you do not respect the views of the institution you are going to attend (whether that mean respecting diversity or respecting the christian viewpoint… should those be at odds?), then you shouldn’t be attending that institution. and if refusing to honor those views means you will be kicked out of school, it doesn’t matter what those views are, the end result is all the same.

  • Clavos

    Point to zing.

    Can we now move on ? (oops! Sorry.)

  • Torquemada

    No, there is no point to Zing. First, there are very few Christian universities. As I said, 95% of professors are registered Democrats, which means that there is leftist hegemony in academia. But I’ll distill this issue down to its bare essence.

    It is absolutely true that any private institution has a moral right to instutute policies as it sees fit. And, unlike liberals, who gave us the EEOC, I respect freedom of association. However, first, these universities accept public funds, whereas I doubt the Christian ones do. And if this is the case, the former don’t enjoy the same latitude.

    Secondly, I have every right to rail against stupid and destructive policies. Thirdly, my point is simply that liberals are always more autocratic and heavy-handed with respect to stifling speech. For instance, they are instituting hate speech laws all over the western world. Conservatives never did that, not even during the McCarthy era.

    I’ll also point out that while it’s easy to say “If you don’t like the policies, don’t attend,” since there are precious few conservatives colleges, most students don’t have much choice. And I’ll reiterate, since these institutions accept PUBLIC funds, they don’t have the luxury of being able to enforce discriminatory policies such as these, at least according to the liberals who write the rules.

    But then, not only are liberals’ rules arbitrary and unrealistic, they don’t even abide by them themselves when they become inconvenient. Sure, they’re for “academic freedom,” except when they hear views they don’t like. For instance, they defend Ward Churchill, but when would they ever defend a professor who said blacks were inferior? And, yes, there is an equivalency. Churchill likened 9/11 victims to Nazis, which is not only insane but also deeply offensive to people who have suffered terribly.

    Again: hate speech laws = invention of left. PC speech codes = invention of left. Freedom = invention of CLASSICAL liberals, who embraced what today is known as conservatism.

    And since I want to be consistent, I’ll mention one more thing. Again, I respect private institutions’ right to discriminate any way they wish. The problem is that this is just a transitional phase on the road to hate speech laws, which are justified with the same rationale as these speech codes. Liberals are fascists, only, most of them don’t know it.

    As Joseph Farah said, “It’s not that they [liberals] knowingly want tyranny, it’s that they want government intrusion in every area of life. It just so happens this is the definition of tyranny.”

  • Torquemada

    Heck, I forgot to mention one major factor. Christian universities are just that, CHRISTIAN. They are avowedly so, so there is no deception. If these leftist institutions would be as forthcoming, I could manage a modicum of respect for them. For instance, they could change a few names: Socialist University of California at Los Angeles, Communist Columbia University, etc.

    Now that would be truth in advertising.

  • Clavos

    However, first, these universities accept public funds, whereas I doubt the Christian ones do.

    Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, MI accepts NO government money; precisely so it can truly operate under its own rules.

    It teaches political and economic (but not religious) conservatism, and counts among its alumni many prominent Americans in government and the private sector.

    One last note: The point I called for zing was for his comment #58, and IS deserved.

  • JR

    Torquemada: I also note that if you take the definition provided by the Black Panther, “For the Fascist, everything is within the State and … neither individuals or groups are outside the State. …For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative” and replace “Fascist” with “communist,” it will make just as much sense. That is the communist position as well, and this is why the greatest thinkers have understood that there is no substantive difference between fascism and communism.

    I thought the communists wanted to abolish the State. In fact, given the political leanings of the Black Panthers, isn’t that quote an example of the communist position against the State?

  • JR

    Torquemada: Name ONE speech code or set of hate speech laws instituted by conservatives. ONE would suffice.

    Try this one.

  • Torquemada

    JR,

    If the communists abolished the state, there’d be no one to administer communism. The point is this: ALL these systems — communism, fascism and modern liberalism — are statist in nature. Either you believe in freedom or you believe in statism. It’s as simple as that. All the other talk of “ideology” and all the other terms muddy the waters for most people.

    Clavos,

    I knew which one you meant, and #58 has little merit. Again, there aren’t many Christian universities, and conservatives are NOT authoring PC speech codes or hate speech laws — this is a FACT.

    The problem is that too many of you are like the monkeys who see, hear and speak no evil. You have to open your eyes and understand who today’s tyrants really are. If you do not, we’ll soon be living in tyranny.

  • Torquemada

    JR,

    FCC regulations are supported by people across the board — ever hear of Tipper Gore?

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    “It’s a very popular myth that fascism is a product of the right. On a most basic level, I could point out that Nazi stands for ‘National SOCIALIST Workers Movement,’ but that insight certainly isn’t new.”

    Gee whiz Torquemada,

    If you are going to translate from the German, at least get it it right. Nazionalsocialst Arbeiter Partei means National Socialist Workers Party.

    The title comes from the fact that Hitler, an agent for German Army Intelligence, joined this party as part of his job. The party he joined consisted of six tired socialists looking for a platform for victory. Hitler, no socialist at all, joined as member #7 and reworked this party’s platform entirely once he realized that running a political party could do more for him than spying on one.

    There was nothing “socialistic” about the Nazis. They used that part of the title to try to get votes – the Brownshirts were their “man in the street” version, but their program had nothing to do with socialism of any variety. They were NEVER associated with any socialist movement or party in Germany. PERIOD. And once Hitler attained executive office in Germany, the Brownshirts were killed off like cockroaches.

    Fascism is not a product of Hitler. Fascism is a product of Mussolini and had its own philosophy and concepts. Fascism was not an inherently racist program, it was an economic program which did have some elements of it in common with socialism. This is because Mussolini had started out as a socialist in northern Italy.

    Nazism was all about bringing about the Aryan’s racial “superiority” to realization and fruition. It was Mussolini’s unfortunate lot to find himself forced to align with Hitler, something he did not want to do.

    Modern folks, like yourself, confuse and conflate these terms out of ignorance.

    Oh, by the way, let me tell you a bit about the historical Torquemada. He was a Spanish Jew who converted to Catholicism and decided to destroy Judaism using his own knowledge of it. The modern analogy of this bastard would have been Vikdun Qvisling, or Benedict Arnold. Though Arnold never did anything as heinous as Torquemada. The modern equivalent of this bastard was the head of the Jewish section of the Communist party in the Soviet Union. Once this cockroach had done his best to destroy Jewish institutions in the USSR, Stalin’s boys in the Politburo had him killed. Only then did he realize what a total asshole he had been. Occasionally there is some justice in the world of falsehood.

    So my question to you is: “is this the kind of person you want people to think of when they see your internet moniker?”

    The ball is in your court…

  • Torquemada

    I’ll also point out that FCC regulations just limit obscenity, NOT the expression of ideas. In other words, they proscribe a few ways of expressing ideas, not the ideas themselves. And I know you understand the profound difference between those two things.

  • Torquemada

    Ruvy, as far as Nazi goes, I did know that it was “party.” I wrote movement by mistake — my mind must have been elsewhere.

    As far as these movements go, they are all essentially the same because they have similar spiritual underpinnings. It is only people who have no grasp of the relationship between spirituality and politics who draw what are basically superficial distinctions.

    As far as Torquemada goes, it’s a nice sounding handle, and I’ll retain it, thank you very much.

    Oh, I’m as glad that you’re in Israel as I am that Moonraven is in Mexico. Do you think you could talk your fellow leftists into joining you?

    [Torquemada: Please don’t alter people’s user names to demean their views, it’s too antagonistic. Thanks. Comments Editor]

  • JR

    Torquemada: If the communists abolished the state, there’d be no one to administer communism.

    I think the point is that, ideally, communism isn’t “administered” at all.

    The point is this: ALL these systems — communism, fascism and modern liberalism — are statist in nature. Either you believe in freedom or you believe in statism. It’s as simple as that.

    If you could eliminate the State, do you think you would be free?

  • JR

    Torquemada: FCC regulations are supported by people across the board — ever hear of Tipper Gore?

    Were the FCC regulations “instituted” by Tipper Gore?

    I’ll also point out that FCC regulations just limit obscenity, NOT the expression of ideas. In other words, they proscribe a few ways of expressing ideas, not the ideas themselves. And I know you understand the profound difference between those two things.

    Can you point us to a speech code instituted by liberals which proscribes ideas?

  • troll

    *Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes (i.e., when there is no distinction between the members of society as regards their relation to the social means of production), only then “the state… ceases to exist”, and “it becomes possible to speak of freedom”. Only then will a truly complete democracy become possible and be realized, a democracy without any exceptions whatever. And only then will democracy begin to wither away, owing to the simple fact that, freed from capitalist slavery, from the untold horrors, savagery, absurdities, and infamies of capitalist exploitation, people will gradually become accustomed to observing the elementary rules of social intercourse that have been known for centuries and repeated for thousands of years in all copy-book maxims. They will become accustomed to observing them without force, without coercion, without subordination, without the special apparatus for coercion called the state.*… Vladimir Lenin The State and Revolution

    unfortunately every attempt at this through the Rx of a proletariat dictatorship has been hell on earth for the ‘prolitariat’ as well as the capitalist class

  • troll

    (ah the virtue of giving offense)

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Well, Torquemada, I’ll try not to think of the real asshole when addressing you.

    You got one thing right about me that most people on this site and elsewhere do not. I am a leftist.

    Now let’s work on that ignorance problem of yours.

    Nazism was a philosophy built on racial distinctions and developed in the womb by a woman named Madame Blavatsky. Nazis did the best they could to tie this philosophy to Tantric Buddhism. Whether any variety of Buddhism actually does track the essential beliefs of the Nazis, which were essentially satanic in nature, and called for purifying the earth of contaminating races, along with lots of other “purification” is yet open to question. So far, I have not seen any proof of this.

    So let’s get this straight, right up front. While the Nazis were willing to profit from the Jew-hatred spread by Christianity in Europe over the centuries, they had their own reasons for exterminating Jews which had NOTHING to do with Christianity at all. According to the Nazis (picking up on Madame Blavatzky), the Jews were a “Gegenrasse,” a race that went against mankind, and therefore had to be exterminated as a contaminant.

    The Nazis most assuredly had a spiritual element to their philosophy which many refuse to investigate even to this day.

    Fascism is an outgrowth of socialism of sorts (though most socialists would gag on this and protest) and its primary feature was “corporatism,” the organizing of the body politic into “corporate” entities that would participate in the governance of the fascist state. It is not a racist philosophy, and many Jews in Italy were enthusiastic members of the Fascist party, and until Mussolini was forced to inaugurate racial laws in Italy under Nazi pressure, Jews were always welcome in the Fascist party.

    Fascism is by no means democratic, and when translated into a governing philosophy backed by recognition of the Catholic church as the sole religion, which is what happened in Spain, it becomes extremely oppressive.

    But even in Spain, which refused to recognize Judaism at all under Franco, Jews who fled Nazi oppression to Spain were never turned over to the Nazis.

    You appear to allege that there is “spiritual” element behind socialism and communism. I will leave you to debate whether communism has a spiritual element to it or not with the bona fide communist on this list, should he show up.

    If you want to argue that the Stalinist variety of dictatorship was satanic and murderous in its nature, you will not hear arguments from me.

    As for my own economic philosophy, syndicalist socialism, it is closest to the Rambam’s philosophy of preventing poverty, and it follows the basic Torah concept, “tzédeq tzédeq tirdóf ” – “justice, justice, shall you pursue.” Also, much more to the point, it works.

  • Zedd

    Torquemada

    am I to assume that you support the notion of governmental punishment of those who “offend” others? If so, we’d better build prisons that can accommodate about 300 million. Not only that, if that’s one’s view, they are a fascist indeed.

    Wow aren’t you dramatic!?! I’m not sure what your response has to do with anything but as I have said before, what people call PC is what used to be referred to as etiquette or kindness. While its true that many parents don’t put a value on such things when raising children, they are still however valuable in a civilized society.

    EX. You address a person by their name or in a manner that they want to be addressed by. Its neither costly nor does it require added energy to do such a thing. Also, it is kind.

  • Torquemada

    Uh, if you want to live in a fantasyworld and believe that communists actually want to see the state abolished, that’s your perogative. In reality, though, they wouldn’t give up that power regardless of the state of man.

    Next, statism isn’t the mere existence of a state, but the deification of one, the subordinating of all things to it. The elimination of states would mean anarchy, something I am almost as opposed to as what the malevolent leftists are visiting upon us.

    As for the stifling of speech, virtually all liberal examples of it target ideas. Christians were persecuted in Canada merely for expressing the ideas that Islam was dangerous and homosexual behavior a sin.

    And Tipper Gore has supported censorship. I’ll add that the majority of Americans — including many millions of moderates and self-professed liberals — don’t want profanity broadcast into their homes.

  • troll

    the Italian fascists lost the war but won the peace…

  • Zedd

    No, there is no point to Zing. First, there are very few Christian universities. As I said, 95% of professors are registered Democrats, which means that there is leftist hegemony in academia. But I’ll distill this issue down to its bare essence.

    Not the fundamentalist variety. I think you are refering to the SMU variety. I think D’oh was speaking of the Bob Jones variety. TOTALLY different thing Dave.

  • Zedd

    I said Dave. I meant Torquemada. You sound a lot like DAVE sorry.

  • Zedd

    And Tipper Gore has supported censorship.

    Not true. She supporting labeling for children. When music lyrics became raunchy and parents were not aware of what was being said, she advocated a rating system to help parents. Hence the Wal-Mart method that responsible parents are all so happy for.

  • Torquemada

    Ruvy,

    Quite frankly, I could buy and sell you intellectually 100 times over. If you truly had any insight, you wouldn’t be what you are.

    Socialism never works because it is doesn’t provide adequate incentive and, therefore, stifles productivity. Now, if you’re talking about the voluntary communal communities that Christians and Jews have sometimes formed, that’s a different story. They have a very great incentive to apply themselves, and I certainly hope I don’t have to explain what that is.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    “…statism isn’t the mere existence of a state, but the deification of one, the subordinating of all things to it.”

    Excellent point, Torque. That is the precise reason I am opposed to state socialism. Syndicalist socialism is best known to you as a version of the co-operative movement in Canada.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Just to drive the point home, Torque, the kibbutz system in Israel, particularly the religious kibbutzim, have been a success, as has the Egged bus co-operative, and other ventures like it. That is precisely the kind of economic system I am talking about…

  • Torquemada

    Yes, I was referring to the kibbutzim when I mentioned communal communities. Of course, again, traditionally they had a certain kind of incentive . . . .

  • D’oh

    #57 says: “Notice also that D’oh cast the first stone by snidely remarking that my moniker was chosen with precision (which is fine — I’m no baby), but then cried foul when I merely responded in kind. Hey, lefties, if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.”

    What i did was quip about “table manners”…firing right back at ya…you’ll find i can dance as required…maybe some preparation H can soothe you.

    Also in #57 Torquemada gives us one definition of Republic…here’s the three entries from dictionary.com…

    1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
    2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
    3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

    He gave definition #3…most think of #1 …well most folks in the U.S., since we ARE a republic, by Constitution.

    Which was my point once again…calling things other than they are…and the biggest part of my difficulty in some of what’s been flinging around is differences in definitions.

    Try this questionnaire and note how the graph is laid out in the end…the terms used for the axis should be pretty acceptable to all.

    My score got me three clicks to the right of the Dalai Lama..a fair cop, by the definitions laid out on the page. just left of center, and deep in anarchist territory…but no fanatic about it. Diametrically opposed to the likes of authoritarian W sounds about correct.

    The results page also has plenty of examples for solid comparisons to well known political figures, such as some that have been mentioned in this thread….and might help clear shit up a bit.

    (an aside to Dave and the rest of the politics editors…might be good to put the link on the Politics page for common reference and definitions all can agree on…the results from the chart are pretty sharp)

    Arch is used to me, so he knows…i stand for freedom of speech…even ugly shit, and hateful things…better to see the idiots clearly than to have them hide

    oh yeah….WHAT RUVY SAID!

    Accurate definitions and understanding of the history behind things render precision insights and help to defuse and expose faulty conflations or misunderstandings.

    the Tao of D’oh.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Arch clearly did NOT attend a far-left college. If he had he would be a very different sort of guy.

    MR, I attended a far left college, marched in anti-nuclear protests, organized campus protest groups and even sang kumbaya a couple of times. Then I grew up.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Cool site, D’oh…

  • D’oh

    So Clavos….where’d you score on it?

  • Clavos

    Wanted to make sure you’re still here..

    One to the right and one down.

    Just Friedman and me in that quadrant.

    Guess I’m pretty much vanilla!

  • Clavos

    Either that or no convictions?

    As with most questionnaires. there were a lot of “well…this, but also that” questions for me.

  • D’oh

    oh yeah…and I neither condone nor condemn the site…merely present the chart as solid tool to make some points.

    Once folks see how they compare to each other, you will see just how much common ground and why there are some differences of opinion as well as insight into the causes of differences…

    Optimistic of me? Perhaps. Can it hurt to try?

    the Ballad of Jon D’oh.

    (yep…it’s two links as well as a demonstration of pun-ishment….heh)

  • D’oh

    I know…a larger survey would have helped define the graph, but it IS a very nifty tool for the purpose, don’t you think?

    And no surprise to me where you hit.

  • MCH

    “MR, I attended a far left college, marched in anti-nuclear protests, organized campus protest groups and even sang kumbaya a couple of times. Then I grew up.”
    – Dave Nalle

    Was that before you pretneded to be Vox Populi?

  • Clavos

    Didn’t mean that last as a criticism of the site, perhaps more of my own lack of certainty.

    I try to keep an open mind…doesn’t always work.

    Anyway, I liked it. My score surprised me somewhat; I had the quadrant correct, but thought I’d come out a bit further to the right, and MUCH further down on the scale.

  • Clavos

    Really? No surprise?

    Very interesting.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Just Friedman and me in that quadrant.

    I was there too. 2 to the left and on the same horizontal as the late Milt.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Yours surprises me a little, too, Dave.

    I would have thought you’d have been a little further south; as I thought I would have been.

  • D’oh

    Full Disclosure – the chart tool link was found in an old article by BC’s own Margaret Romao Toigo!

    I miss her being around here, I miss her Sanity and Clarity.

  • JR

    Torquemada: Name ONE speech code or set of hate speech laws instituted by conservatives. ONE would suffice. And if you can’t, be man enough to cede the point. If you do neither, you aren’t worthy of respect.

    Of course, refusing to debate is like not showing up for a tennis match — you DEFAULT.

    zingzing: also, you may find that at almost every conservative christian university, regular church attendance is required. i’m willing to bet that, while it isn’t encoded into university rules and regulations, not being a christian or refusing to attend services is probably not going to be met with a very understanding view… and would probably be cause for you to be expelled from their university. is that good enough?

    Clavos: Point to zing.

    Torquemada: No, there is no point to Zing. First, there are very few Christian universities.

    Aren’t you as good as your word? You asked for only one, you said nothing about it being a public or private college, only a code “instituted by conservatives”. Are you trying to raise the net mid-game?

    This school limits public expression of ideas pretty explicitly. And yes, faculty and students are required to attend church.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Something you agree to voluntarily as a condition of becoming part of a private institution is hardly a violation of your rights. I have no sympathy for the people I run into from time to time who were expelled from Baylor for violating their various rules on personal conduct. Why the hell did they go to Baylor in the first place?

    I do have an amusing anecdote on this subject, though.

    A mormon friend from high school went to BYU. During his first semester there he went into a bar on the other side of SLC and ordered a beer. The bartender made him for a student and called the Dean and when he got back to the dorm later that day he found out he was expelled. No argument, no due process, just booted on the spot.

    So much for his rights in mormonland.

    Dave

  • JR

    Torquemada: Uh, if you want to live in a fantasyworld and believe that communists actually want to see the state abolished, that’s your perogative. In reality, though, they wouldn’t give up that power regardless of the state of man.

    To recap, you assert that the communist position is that the “State is an absolute”. When presented with actual quotes by communists stating exactly the opposite, your defense seems to be that they are lying.

    Got any evidence to substantiate your ability to read minds?

  • JR

    Dave Nalle: Something you agree to voluntarily as a condition of becoming part of a private institution is hardly a violation of your rights.

    Sure. But what bearing does that have on the question of whether or not conservatives have ever in any forum written a code to limit speech?

    Here’s a new contest: link to a code of conduct written by liberals which explicitly limits freedom of expression (by which I mean banning the exchange of ideas, not certain modes of expression).

  • SonnyD

    Hmmm… 2 left and 2 down. Thought I’d be a little farther right than that.

  • D’oh

    Ah, Sonny…makes me smile.

    For you.

  • Torquemada

    Uh, JR, my proof is that the communists were brutal, malevolent tyrants who murdered 100 million people during the 20th century. What books state about communism and what was/is reality on the ground are two entirely different things. Grow up.

    About the speech codes: I haven’t seen anything tantamount to the leftist speech codes in question. However, since I spoke loosely and reached a bit too far, I’ll cede that I’m sure you could find a few speech codes instituted by conservatives. After all, we have a million different institutions in the world, and there is one in every bunch.

    More importantly, my point remains intact. Liberals wrote the book on stifling speech and have authored the most onerous speech codes in existence. More significantly, and this is not over-reaching, EVERY set of hate speech laws is the handiwork of liberals.

    This is significant because, as we all agree, private institutions have a right to devise their own rules. The government is a different matter. And, as I said before, these leftist speech codes are simply a step toward hate speech laws here.

    This shouldn’t surprise anyone. Conservatives tend to draw a sharp distinction between the public and private sectors and understand that most things shouldn’t be within the purview of government. Therefore, the idea of legislating their conception of moral speech is foreign to them. Liberals, on the other hand, believe they can legislate society to perfection and look to government to mitigate all of man’s woes. They also are as despotic as people come.

    This is why they are dangerous. They have given us hate speech laws all over the world, and that’s a fact. If you want to live in a fantasyworld, I can’t stop you. But wishing reality away doesn’t change it.

  • D’oh

    So what about Newt’s take on Free Speech?

    Or things like the warrantless wiretapping stuff, out of curiosity?

  • Torquemada

    JR,

    I really think that you’re playing a game, one designed to avoid acknowledging what you know to be true. It really doesn’t matter if the codes explicitly ban such, because the fact is that doing so is the intention and that is how they’re used.

    You should understand that unless a conversation is a search for truth, it’s a waste of time. Simply trying to “win” a debate (and no one wins unless at lest one party is brought closer to truth) is childish. I’ll also mention that you couldn’t win a debate against me, even in the shallow, worldly sense of the word. I’ve laid waste to far more formidable men than you.

    As for those codes, they probably include language proscribing “offensive” or “hateful” speech. Of course, hate is whatever the leftists in power say it is.

    Anyway, I’m not going to do your legwork for you. Examples of what I’m talking about abound; if you’re truly not aware of them, that is inexcusable ignorance. As I said, though, I think you’re just playing a game.

  • SHARK

    Torqued-offa: “Quite frankly, I could buy and sell you intellectually 100 times over.”

    1) Is this Dave Nalle under another fake name? The problem with the “Vox Populi” incident is that now I see Nalle’s everywhere. [shudders]

    2) Torquey, as far as pithy debating cliches, Ruvy ate your lunch, kicked yer ass, and served it to you on a platter over the Nazi/Facist/Jew history delineation/HISTORY LESSON.

    Seriously.

  • SHARK

    Torque: “Liberals wrote the book on stifling speech and have authored the most onerous speech codes in existence.”

    “stifling speech”?!

    “speech codes”?!

    Wow. Scary! Sounds like crimes of major importance!

    Whoops!

    No, not really, not when parsed through the lens of Reality vs the overcharged emotional language of some Right-Wing Christoid apologist.

    — or compared to attempting to have books banned from schools and libraries.

    — or encouraging anti-abortion nutbars to kill abortion doctors.

    — or blocking the entrance to a Women’s Health clinic.

    — or preventing monogamous, dedicated people in love from sharing the legal and economic benefits of their combined lives.

    — or legislating what consenting adults can do sexually behind closed doors.

    — repressing and/or banning scientific knowledge because it’s offensive to people who believe the earth was made by Santa Claus and is no more than 6000 years old.

    Seriously, Torque, your “stifling speech” and authoring “speech codes” is a minor inconvenience when compared to what The EASILY OFFENDED CHRISTOID RIGHT wants to do through American laws.

    ====

    PS: Torque, are you actually Duke Selwyn, or are you just a supporter pal called over from some other site? You sound like an experienced pro at defending his wackyness.

  • SHARK

    FAIR AND BALANCED

    Duke S in his Gettysburg address above:

    “Think about incidents where other conservative speakers were given the same treatment on other campuses, a phenomenon that prompted pundit Ann Coulter to retain bodyguards.”

    Yeah, good example: Ann Coulter, who epitomizes the dreaded “stifled speech” that Torque mentions.

    Wonder why Ann might get some occasional verbal abuse from audiences?

    Here are some of Ann Coulter’s remarks over recent years….

    “In addition to racist and Nazi, how about adding traitor to the list of things that professors can?t be? And yes, I realize I just proposed firing the entire Harvard faculty.”

    “Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.”

    “Liberals like to scream and howl about McCarthyism, I say let’s give them some?.it’s time for a new McCarthyism.”

    “It would be a much better country if women did not vote.”

    “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.”

    “God says, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.”

    “When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.”

    On MUSLIM NATIONS: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.”

    ====

    Damn those pesky liberals! They’ve “STIFLED” Ms. Coulter’s speech.

    feh.

  • Nancy

    I know I’m late to this discussion, but a few comments: Clavos, I like you a lot, you know that, but puh-LEEZE don’t start imitating JOM with that “zzzz” shit. It’s juvenile in the extreme. Not to mention unproductive. If you’re bored, just say so. Torque (is that pronounced the same as “turkey”?) #82: you can intellectually buy & sell D’oh 100 times over? Well, well, well … we don’t have a good opinion of ourselves at all, do we? Little self-esteem problem, is there? IMO you’re about equal to Ruvy if not a little behind, given what I’ve seen of your reasoning so far. BTW, you sound like a cross between Dave & MR. I’ve read you before; who are you really?

    Shark & D’oh: I’d like to see an article written by you both on Offensiveness; Or art; it would be … veeeerrrry interesting, lol! And I cede your point about the article – not. The idea itself is still a good idea, even if it wasn’t up to snuff the rest of the way. It COULD have been quite fascinating if it hadn’t degenerated into a conservative rant. Or a leftist rant, for that matter. I think I’ve got my anarchist credentials enough on BC to reassure you I’m no neocon to be leaning to the far right. AND it’s generated over 100 comments, so on that score I would have to say he HAS indeed stirred controversy & discussion.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    I did the Political Compass Test linked to by D’oh and scored thusly:

    Your political compass
    Economic Left/Right: -1.50
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56

    That put me roughly on the right of the left and firmly into Libertarian territory.

  • Nancy

    Geez: I ended up Far Left economically (-8) & just on the Libertarian side (-.87), at least in the same quadrant as Gandhi, so I suppose that puts me in very good company I don’t measure up to, but an excellent goal.

  • Nancy

    I wonder if I took the test when I’m in a different mood, if I’d score differently? I’ll give it a try; my scores usually change, depending. This is a really in teresting test; I just wish they’d had more questions that weren’t included, and that all had a middle/neutral option, but I guess that was the point, to force the test subjects to make a statement.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    1) Is this Dave Nalle under another fake name? The problem with the “Vox Populi” incident is that now I see Nalle’s everywhere. [shudders]

    I was wondering how long it would be before you joined Moonraven in seeing me behind every sensible comment on BC.

    I would be proud to be Torquemada and I love the name, but sadly I can’t take credit for his comments.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    Drop it & soldier on, Dave. There’s not much else you can do, & you’ll never dissuade those who want to believe. But if you post anywhere else, under another name, keep a close eye on comments you post here so you can be sure it doesn’t happen again. Then you WOULD be screwed for good.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Now that’s hilarious! The anti-spam tool just picked on Dave Nalle!! Hang on Dave, I’ll just release it for ya. lol

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    “… Torquey, as far as pithy debating cliches, Ruvy ate your lunch, kicked yer ass, and served it to you on a platter over the Nazi/Facist/Jew history delineation/HISTORY LESSON.”

    Thanks Shark! I have to assume that was a compliment of sorts…

    Hmmm… My name has to do with a blackbird or raven, and I picture myself as a rooster in my blogsite (I’ll crap on anyone who gets under my roost and crow about it…).

    But swimmin’ with the Shark? A shark with a kippa, and tallit? Nah, that doesn’t seem to fit. Leviathan? I’d love it, but in Modern Hebrew, leviatán is a whale, and sharks eat whales…

    This is a pretty problem…

    Ah fuck it! I’ll stick with the rooster. Those verbal dumps are fun!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Not the first time, Christopher. I’ve been blocked by it 2 or 3 times since it started. No idea why.

    It also persistently ignores certain spams that have been flagged enough that it ought to know better.

    Dave

  • MCH

    “Drop it & soldier on, Dave.”

    That’ll never happen, Nancy. Populi has already proven he’s perfectly content to send others in harm’s way to fight his battles for him.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    MCH: I think I’m going to ask for permission to delete remarks that have been hacked to death like this point of yours about service.

    Frankly it’s bollocks anyway. Many political leaders around the world aren’t soldiers, and thankfully so to my way of thinking. Violence ought to be the last resort on both a personal and a national basis. And Dave has barely got the power to send his kids to get the shopping never mind sending anyone to war.

    Anyway, we’ve ALL got your point now – I swear it even pops up in my fucking dreams now and it’s the first thing that leaps into my mind whenever I see your name – so let’s take it as read and move the show on. Your recent comments on other topics have not been uninteresting so let’s build on that good work…

  • moonraven

    1. Just so clavos doesn’t think he got by with something: Mexico (Nueva España) was part of Spain when the Inquisition was introduced, and Torquemada was the head honcho of the whole kit and kaboodle of it.

    That means he was head honcho of what was done here, as well.

    2. I circulated the link to the test to determine poltical affintity on another site 2 or 3 years ago. My dot on the chart was just at the edge of falling off on the left libertarian quadrant–further left than Gandhi.

    No surprise to me. I make my choices consciously.

  • D’oh

    Glad some are finding the chart tool handy and interesting.

    My ulterior motives for sharing it was to expose the fallacy that all things “left” are authoritarian…same with all things “right”

    The splitting of axis along both economics and authoritarian lines exposes a huge amount of bullshit spewed by both extremes of left and right over the years…

    and having folks look at it in such a manner, and share their positions on it, clearly demonstrates that it’s rare to find ANY “authoritarian” such as many of the examples tossed around…no matter the differences on economic issues.

    Interesting to note, than many are hitting just right of center, and closer to the north south boundary…my examination of the questionaire is that much of it revolves around distrust of corporations as well as government as the determining factor of being a little “left” or “right”.

    The results, and some clear thinking by any, directly refute much of the ranting attempting to conflate and confuse just who the authoritarians are and shows just how much bullshit is involved in the culture warriors endeavors.

  • zingzing

    torquemada: “I knew which one you meant, and #58 has little merit. Again, there aren’t many Christian universities, and conservatives are NOT authoring PC speech codes or hate speech laws — this is a FACT.”

    #58 isn’t about christian universities. it’s a response to archie.

    and if you look at what speech codes are actually meant to be used for (and when they are most commonly envoked without being put down by the students,) it’s for when some racist is in class and calls another student a “faggot” or a “dirty jew” or a “nigger” in order to stifle that student’s contribution. that’s what they are there for: to make sure that the school environment is condusive to EDUCATION.

    you can abuse such laws. it’s true. but they are there to balance the needs of education versus what is, truth be told, legal racism. the knife cuts both ways, so a typically liberal view does not trump a typically conservative view. if a conservative student, hell, a southern student, wants to say that abortion should be illegal, they are free to say so, and such “speech codes” would protect them from being bashed by professors and students.

    if you want to point out that there is no protection afforded to conservative students, then why do you think there should be? and how should they make it so that stifling such speech is a punishable offense?

  • zingzing

    and what about the rest of #58, which points out the ward churchill incident, the fact that larry summers was DEFENDED by harvard, conservative universities stifle opposition voices by not airing them, conservatives versus television and books (hmm, let’s think about “piss christ…”)

    why ignore all that?

    “Of course, refusing to debate is like not showing up for a tennis match — you DEFAULT.”

  • zingzing

    Economic Left/Right: -4.75
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.41

  • JR

    Torquemada: Conservatives tend to draw a sharp distinction between the public and private sectors and understand that most things shouldn’t be within the purview of government.

    Who is it that wants to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning and gay marriage?

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Your political compass
    Economic Left/Right: -4.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77

    This puts me in the same square as Gandhi. Something for you to remember, D’oh. But I have to admit that many of the questions were misleading.

    For example, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” This is a legal formula in the Torah requiring monetary damages, not a summary of “lex taliones” (sp?). But the conclusion that one has to draw from the way the “question” was posed was that it was “lex taliones.”

  • Nancy

    D’oh #124, last paragraph: Hah??? Please say that in Eengleesh for me? Who(m) are you referring to?

  • D’oh

    Why, to whomever it applies, Nancy…heh.

    Ruvy – whilst politically according to the graph you may be near Gandhi, your rants on Messianic politics and advocacy of blowing up innocents to solve political problems have always been our main points of contention. (I would have pegged you one notch closer to the authoritarian side, due to your dogmatic approach of authoritarian source in the Torah…just me, but full disclosure)

    OK Nancy…I won’t frustrate, just teasing. I meant some of the things in the original post and in the comments where some try to conflate “leftists” with “authoritarians” as shown on the questionaire chart of results.

    This type of conflation is often used, on both sides… to try and paint their political opposition as something they are not…(such as trying to say that all “leftists” are authoritarian communists or that all “rightists” are authoritarian fascists).

    Hope that helps.

  • Nancy

    Oh. Gracias & merci. For some reason that went over my head. But then again so do your Tao references (mainly ’cause I don’t have sound on my computer so I can’t hear the lyrics).

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    D’oh, this method of trying to sort out political beliefs would have been more accurate if there were a choice truly in the middle – as “I don’t know or don’t care.” Also it is very tied to the American political system and its priorities – and it’s a big wide world out there, something you are well aware of.

  • JR

    Torquemada: I really think that you’re playing a game, one designed to avoid acknowledging what you know to be true.

    What I know to be true is that when I was growing up there were seven (maybe more) words that could never be spoken on television, and it wasn’t the hippies who banned them. I knew guys a few years older than me who were sent home from public high schools for wearing their hair too long. I know when my mother was in high school, the words “under God” were added to the pledge which every kid repeats daily at public schools to this day. I know that when I attended a major public university in the ’90s, there was a guy who regularly stood in public spaces and proclaimed at the top of his lungs that fornicators and sodomists were going to Hell, and nobody silenced him. I know that in Virginia, the Ten Commandments are posted in public schools. I recently ended six years of employment at a government science agency where I knew scientists who were told what to say regarding climate change by the current administration.

    However, while my experience tempts me to the opposite conclusion from yours, I don’t yet know that there is any absolute link between either conservatisim or liberalism and the impulse to stifle dissent.

    It really doesn’t matter if the codes explicitly ban such, because the fact is that doing so is the intention and that is how they’re used.

    It matters to me. If the codes aren’t explicit, then they may just as easily be used by you to further your arguments, whether you are right or not.

    If there are explicit codes instituted by people of my political persuasion, then I can use them to show like-minded people the error of their ways.

    You should understand that unless a conversation is a search for truth, it’s a waste of time. Simply trying to “win” a debate (and no one wins unless at lest one party is brought closer to truth) is childish.

    You should know that if you torture semantics and logic, they’ll tell you exactly what you want to hear, regardless of whether or not it’s true.

    I’ll also mention that you couldn’t win a debate against me, even in the shallow, worldly sense of the word. I’ve laid waste to far more formidable men than you.

    What’s that got to do with anything? I don’t see how your self-aggrandizement furthers the discusion. What purpose could such statements possibly have except to intimidate your opponents into silence?

  • D’oh

    For Ruvy in #133 – It is my thinking that the questionaire was set up with those “agree/strongly agree – disagree/strongly disagree” parts to show moderate versus deep convictions.

    It’s what makes centrists possibly under the dynamics used…a few agrees and disagrees keeps more towards center line results than the same number of strongly bits.

    Could the tool be better? Oh yes!

    But I have yet to find anyting quite as useful for thie purposes of definition and clarity.

  • moonraven

    Baritone:

    I noticed that you have apparently never debated–even in the shallow, worldly sense of the word (what the hell does that MEAN, anyway?)–WOMEN.

    Either that or they have laid you to rest.

  • Lumpy

    Moonmaiden. My guess is that bari and torq would rather let their articles speak for themselves and not join you here in the gutter.

  • SHARK

    SHARK’S political compass

    Economic Left/Right: -5.50
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64

    ~ah, a Commie Anarchist! Spot-ON!

  • SHARK

    JR, excellent addition to the ongoing list of intolerant legislative and non-lege acts from the Easily Offended Christoid Right.

    This rang a bell [heh]: “… I knew guys a few years older than me who were sent home from public high schools for wearing their hair too long.”

    My first day as a freshman in High School (1968), I was singled out like an obese cow at a slaughterhouse on a slow day:

    My hair TOUCHED the top of my ears. I was not allowed to attend school until I got it cut.

    That was the last day I ever went to public school, btw.

    ===

    Update: I filed a suit against the school, won, and the Vice Principal who harassed me had to apologize and invite me back.

    I told him to go fuck himself.

    True story.

  • MCH

    Re #137;

    But “the gutter” doesn’t seem to bother you…

  • troll

    Your political compass
    Economic Left/Right: -6.50
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

    before my morning constitutional and dose of BC

    Your political compass
    Economic Left/Right: +9
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: +9

    after…

    I don’t know what to make of it

  • JR

    Yer a malefactor after my heart, Shark. Wish I’d had that kind of nerve.

  • D’oh

    oh noes…somebody turned troll into W!!!

    the horror!!!

    for those southwest of the centerpoint…

    the Tao of D’oh

    (and for the broadband impaired, just this once)

    “I don’t mind stealing bread,
    from the mouths of decadence.
    But I can’t feed on the powerless,
    when my cup’s already overfilled.

    But it’s on the table,
    the fire’s cooking.
    And the farming babies and slaves are out working.
    Blood is on the table,
    their mouths are choking.
    But I’m going hungry….”

  • moonraven

    Lumpy,

    I can see why you have such low self-esteem. Spending your day in the gutter can do that.

    Fortunately, most of the places I have lived recently do not have gutters.

    Must be why we haven’t met?

  • Clavos

    Fortunately, most of the places I have lived recently do not have gutters.

    If they did, they’d be way over your head.

  • moonraven

    More urine in the sandbox from clavos.

  • SHARK

    Clavos, can I use this quote next time you pedantically lecture me about kindness and manners?

    Hypocrite.

  • Martin Lav

    What was the title of this article again?

  • Clavos

    I fight fire with fire, shark.

    And that didn’t even come close to your vulgar scatological screeds, O pompous one.

  • D’oh

    I don’t remember…something about “malodorous toffee nosed gits”.

    Some just come for an argument.

    but I digress…

  • D’oh

    And Clavos, all that you say in #149 can be said about folks like Shark…or myself.

    Something for you to think about, but calling someone out for over the top screeds or insults, then doping the same is a bit on the hypocritical side, isn’t it?

    the Tao of D’oh

    “I’m beyond your peripheral vision,
    so you might wanna turn your head.
    Cuz someday you might find that you’re hungry,
    and eating the words you’ve just……said.”

    Ani DiFranco – 32 Flavors

  • zingzing

    man, this place is getting catty. we all need to step back, take off our pants, and poop on each other, you stupid mother-fuckin’ rednecks. ahem.

    i mean, we need to step back, count ten paces, and fling our watery shits into each other’s mouths! (just so that the shit coming out of your mouth at least has some basis in reality, you goddamned heathans!)

    fuck.

    one more try. fuck you, you…

    ACH-UM.

    *cough, cough*

    now. we need to be more civil. all we’re doing is insulting each other recently. personal attacks? not anything anyone can’t handle…

    but, jesus. this place is like an insult traffic jam, with actual debate going on for a while until someone speeds up into insult mode and the whole thing grinds to a halt.

    i, for one, am going to do my best not to be so insulting to people… in the interest of debate, and for no other reason.

  • moonraven

    Clavos is one of those people who ALWAYS claims that he is just defending himself, that some other kid started it.

    We have a saying for hypocrites like him here in Mexico: it’s something on the order of a person who throws the rock and hides the hand that threw it.

    In the states I guess it would be someone who farts loudly in the checkout line at (GaspChoke) WalMart and then shouts at the person next to him: “Stop farting!”

  • Clavos

    And Clavos, all that you say in #149 can be said about folks like Shark…or myself.

    True, D’oh. And just as you don’t like it when I do it, I don’t like it when you do it, but neither of us does it much, and when we do it’s almost aways reactive, not proactive..

    shark does nothing but. If he, like you, would post calm, reasoned comments for the most part, I never would have said anything.

    Have I ever called you out for that?

  • moonraven

    Clavos wrote: “when we do it’s almost aways reactive, not proactive..”

    I rest my case.

    And I am out of the sandbox for the day. It stinks.

  • D’oh

    Nope, you haven’t..i wasn’t trying to be critical..merely making a point I knew you would get easily for the sake of the record and mutual understanding.

    To me, sometimes offending is the ONLY way to try and communicate, especially after trying to be reasonable has failed abysmally.

    In the case of Shark, there is a long and rich history betwixt he and his targets…I’ll not even venture which side of the snarkfest started it, or whatever.

    It just comes with the territory, part of the local ambiance.

    Could just be me.

    the Tao of D’oh

  • Clavos

    Point taken, D’oh

    I’m off my soap box…

  • MCH

    Chris #122;

    You’re right, I saw the words “Dave Nalle” and “soldiering” in the same sentence, and sorta blacked out after that…next thing I remember is clicking on “publish”…

  • MCH

    “In the states I guess it would be someone who farts loudly in the checkout line at (GaspChoke) WalMart and then shouts at the person next to him: “Stop farting!”

    It’s rumored that Vox Populi has done that very thing.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I believe that if you hold your farts in you eventually become an embittered internet stalker and move to Montana.

    Dave

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    “I believe that if you hold your farts in you eventually become an embittered internet stalker and move to Montana.”

    Dave, you are ignoring basic biology here. If you hold in your farts, your stomach and abdomen will become so agitated in pain that an extended trip to the WC will be necessary for relief.

    If you bring your laptop with you to the WC and type before the process of relief finally arrives (you gotta be real quick typist for this), you will be an embittered internet stalker. If you wait a bit and allow nature to take its course, you may be a far more relaxed individual, capable of thinking up “sharkian” ripostes to some of the nonsense seen here.

    As for moving to Montana, are you sure that is necessary just to pass some gas?

  • SHARK

    Dave Nalle: “I believe that if you hold your farts in you eventually become an embittered internet stalker and move to Montana.”

    Vox Populi: “I’ve seen similar data on farts that Dave mentioned.”

    ===

    Dave Vox, seriously, after creating a fake name to insult opponents, compliment yourself, and back up your own data, YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED to criticize MCH as a “stalker”.

  • SHARK

    Clavos, if you CAREFULLY read my comments, you’ll notice that I actually rarely insult anyone personally, that most of them are hilarious, and at least some of them contain a hidden sardonic level of profound truth.

    (And even when I do insult someone, it’s explicit: what I hate is the chickenshit ‘implicit’ holier than thou insulter who does it ALL THE TIME and never gets called on it. [see Nalle/Vox]

    ======

    *ZingZing: “…we need to be more civil.”

    FUCK YOU!

    *xxoo, fellow liberal anarchist

  • SHARK

    And Clavos, do you pounch on “Arch Conservative” as often as you do me? The guy gets a word or line deleted by the editors about every other post. Just wonderin’ why the prejudice/preference?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Just my two cents, but ArchCon doesn’t post NEARLY as often as you do, Shark. Plus I imagine Clavos agrees with him more often.

    Now if Anthony Grande were still with us you’d have some real competition.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    Carcharodon #138: COMRADE-!

  • Nancy

    D’oh #143 – thank you; for ME??? Awwww….

    Clavos #145: Bingo-! GOOD one. 1 pt. to you.

    ZZ #152: ROTFLOL. Zing – have you ever considered writing a humorous article? Your comments from time to time indicate a bent for that sort of thing. I’d like to see what you could do. If you have, give me the title so I can read it. Thanks.

    Dave – AG?!? Bite your tongue. I haven’t read anything by him or JOM for some time now, & I’m hoping they’ve gone away. For good. Now if only Moonmaiden would follow them. No – that’s not true. When she’s being civil, she’s great; but then she gets offended for no reason, or says something nasty for no discernable reason & there’s no dealing with her anymore. Maybe she has Tourette’s?

    Shark: stay just as sweet as you are….

  • SHARK

    re: #165 “my two cents”

    Dave Vox Populi Nalle, EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS SUSPECT. GO AWAY.

    =======

    Vox on Nalle: “Of the characters in The Magnificent Seven, the picture unquestionably looks most like the Robert Vaughn character.”

    Nalle on Vox: “I’ve seen figures similar to the ones Vox quotes.”

  • moonraven

    Dave prefers not hold in his farts–he converts them immediately to shit (no methane methodology for our ecologically-challenged Texas Longshorn) and smears them all over this site.

    And then he blames all that shit on somebody else. One of his alter-excrementers. Or one of us.

  • moonraven

    Oh–and then he would like to make Montana the goat in all of that.

    I have been to Montana–some good writers have made it their home (Tom McGuane, e.g., who has apparently earned his spurs over the years and has a right to wear the big hat that Dave just looks like a mushroom in). Much nicer place than Texas.

  • Nancy

    I think Maurice is in Montana. Gorgeous country, that.

  • moonraven

    Well, now, I wouldn’t recommend ALL of Montana.

    A few years back another Native American woman friend and I decided to follow the Nez Perce “Trail of Tears” for awhile–as much as we could on fairly main roads–starting in Idaho. Once we crossed into Montana we stayed at a place that was pretty close to 100% Deliverance People and that sort of took the zing out of our arrows.

    Plus the PIE was terrible! Idaho had much better pie, so we put Old Paint in reverse….

  • Clavos

    Actually, Maurice lives in Idaho, Nancy. MCH lives in Montana.

  • Nancy

    Silly me, I got them confused; both their names begin with “M”. My bad. MR is right in that some of the territory up around there looks like moonscapes. Very strange topography. And I sure wouldn’t want to be up there in this weather.

  • moonraven

    Uh, I never said anything about Montana looking like the moon.

    (Being a moonraven, I think I should know.)

    I said was turned off by bad pie and all the Deliverance people.

  • Nancy

    No, you didn’t; I should clarify, YOU said that Montana “took the zing out of [your] arrows” & the pie was terrible; I said it looks like a moonscape in some places. Sorry.