RE: Are conservatives mean-spirited & hateful???
Well, well, well. A couple of general comments before I attack the meat of this. And that's really what you want to get to, isn't it dear reader? The part where Steve attacks? Stay with me, you won't be disappointed. Well, maybe you will, but I'm really doing my best.
A. The tone on the BP is actually quite mild. Compared to places like The Smirking Chimp, Democratic Underground, Free Republic, and Liberty Post, the tone here is downright "kum bah yah." Those sites are representative of the meatier sides of the political discourse on the left and on the right, respectively. And yes, "Chippigoo," it is discourse, no matter how it might upset your delicate sensibilities.
B. For years, conservatives, or more accurately, constitutional libertarians adopted the William F. Buckley stance in the ideological discourse. That is, we remained aloof, ignored the personal jibes and jabs and pursued a scholarly, disinterested tact in debating our leftist adversaries. What we reaped was exactly that: disinterest. The left kept on winning the argument and rolling over us. During the 1990s, people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and even Sean Hannity came along and changed the tone of the response from the right. They met derision with derision and insult with insult. They parodied and lampooned the insanity of the left, just as leftists had parodied and lampooned the right for thirty years before. All of a sudden, the tactic wasn't so cute or cool for the left any more. All of a sudden, the right was "mean spirited" and "shrill." In typical fashion, the left neglected to acknowledge that they had employed the same tactics to their benefit for years. "Chippigoo" said "In general, your blog is a playground where conservative bloggers get to poke fun and make demeaning comments to your politically liberal co-bloggers." In keeping with the proud leftist tradition of double standard, he/she neglected to note that the liberal bloggers have engaged in their fair share of the same. But in the leftist's world, the right isn't allowed to fight back since that would make the contest unfair.
C. Anyone who thinks that major issues facing our society will be solved here on the BP is kidding themselves. I won't speak for Andy, but the draw of the BP (almost 10,000 visitors worth) is more than likely the entertainment value of the discourse. "Chippigoo" admitted that he/she read the blog to see what "hateful" thing I'm going to say next. I have had a number of people tell me they read it to see what dumb thing the liberals are going to say next (we've been falling down on that end of the deal lately). If Andy and I refrained from engaging the opposition directly, this place would be pretty boring.
But with all of this, as Andy has pointed out, even when I take a shot, I do so with content involved. Tucker's responses were nothing more than diatribe directed at me and me alone. There was not even allusion to the subject other than his utterly specious claim that I was raising straw men. The truth is, I don't think Tucker even knows what a straw-man is (obviously since my rebuttal couldn't even remotely be characterized as raising one). He then went on to trash me on being a "true" conservative (whatever that is), and being politically dishonest, etc., etc., etc. Yes, I may have poked at Tucker, but it was a prod to get content from him. He responded as I knew he would. The truth is, Tucker has been spoiling for a fight since his first post and when he got it, he didn't like it. His interest is simply in spewing venom and vitriol. And just for historical accuracy, "the voters" of Stokes County didn't do anything to me. I won the first primary, but in North Carolina (the last state in the Union to still have this anachronism), I didn't win by enough. So there was a runoff in which several hundred voters participated. I think I lost the runoff by the same margin that I won the primary. The only charge that can be laid on the voters of Stokes County was that most of the Republicans abstained. Also for the record, my life is so much better since I left the tar pits of county government.
Those of you who have been waiting, here it comes...
So don't come whining to me (or to Andy) when you take a verbal swing at me and I knock your scrawny ass down. That's the last refuge of the coward. If you engage in the discourse, you had better be serious about it and come back with content and context. As the old saying goes, if you can't run with the big dogs, you better stay on the porch. If I tell you something you wrote was stupid, I'll tell you exactly why. If you want to tell me what I wrote was stupid, you better be able to tell me why and it better make sense and be backed by logic and facts. Otherwise you're going to get back at least as good as you give out. I come to the table in context. If you want disinterested and impersonal debate, engage me on that level. I'll stand toe-to-toe with you. But if you come at me with personal jibes, non-sequitur, and just plain whining, be prepared for the verbal smack-down.
A. The tone on the BP is actually quite mild. Compared to places like The Smirking Chimp, Democratic Underground, Free Republic, and Liberty Post, the tone here is downright "kum bah yah." Those sites are representative of the meatier sides of the political discourse on the left and on the right, respectively. And yes, "Chippigoo," it is discourse, no matter how it might upset your delicate sensibilities.
B. For years, conservatives, or more accurately, constitutional libertarians adopted the William F. Buckley stance in the ideological discourse. That is, we remained aloof, ignored the personal jibes and jabs and pursued a scholarly, disinterested tact in debating our leftist adversaries. What we reaped was exactly that: disinterest. The left kept on winning the argument and rolling over us. During the 1990s, people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and even Sean Hannity came along and changed the tone of the response from the right. They met derision with derision and insult with insult. They parodied and lampooned the insanity of the left, just as leftists had parodied and lampooned the right for thirty years before. All of a sudden, the tactic wasn't so cute or cool for the left any more. All of a sudden, the right was "mean spirited" and "shrill." In typical fashion, the left neglected to acknowledge that they had employed the same tactics to their benefit for years. "Chippigoo" said "In general, your blog is a playground where conservative bloggers get to poke fun and make demeaning comments to your politically liberal co-bloggers." In keeping with the proud leftist tradition of double standard, he/she neglected to note that the liberal bloggers have engaged in their fair share of the same. But in the leftist's world, the right isn't allowed to fight back since that would make the contest unfair.
C. Anyone who thinks that major issues facing our society will be solved here on the BP is kidding themselves. I won't speak for Andy, but the draw of the BP (almost 10,000 visitors worth) is more than likely the entertainment value of the discourse. "Chippigoo" admitted that he/she read the blog to see what "hateful" thing I'm going to say next. I have had a number of people tell me they read it to see what dumb thing the liberals are going to say next (we've been falling down on that end of the deal lately). If Andy and I refrained from engaging the opposition directly, this place would be pretty boring.
But with all of this, as Andy has pointed out, even when I take a shot, I do so with content involved. Tucker's responses were nothing more than diatribe directed at me and me alone. There was not even allusion to the subject other than his utterly specious claim that I was raising straw men. The truth is, I don't think Tucker even knows what a straw-man is (obviously since my rebuttal couldn't even remotely be characterized as raising one). He then went on to trash me on being a "true" conservative (whatever that is), and being politically dishonest, etc., etc., etc. Yes, I may have poked at Tucker, but it was a prod to get content from him. He responded as I knew he would. The truth is, Tucker has been spoiling for a fight since his first post and when he got it, he didn't like it. His interest is simply in spewing venom and vitriol. And just for historical accuracy, "the voters" of Stokes County didn't do anything to me. I won the first primary, but in North Carolina (the last state in the Union to still have this anachronism), I didn't win by enough. So there was a runoff in which several hundred voters participated. I think I lost the runoff by the same margin that I won the primary. The only charge that can be laid on the voters of Stokes County was that most of the Republicans abstained. Also for the record, my life is so much better since I left the tar pits of county government.
Those of you who have been waiting, here it comes...
So don't come whining to me (or to Andy) when you take a verbal swing at me and I knock your scrawny ass down. That's the last refuge of the coward. If you engage in the discourse, you had better be serious about it and come back with content and context. As the old saying goes, if you can't run with the big dogs, you better stay on the porch. If I tell you something you wrote was stupid, I'll tell you exactly why. If you want to tell me what I wrote was stupid, you better be able to tell me why and it better make sense and be backed by logic and facts. Otherwise you're going to get back at least as good as you give out. I come to the table in context. If you want disinterested and impersonal debate, engage me on that level. I'll stand toe-to-toe with you. But if you come at me with personal jibes, non-sequitur, and just plain whining, be prepared for the verbal smack-down.
posted by Anonymous | 3:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home