I haven’t exactly done a scientific study of this, but I’ve noticed a stark difference between the progressive websites and the cornservative websites, at least the ones that have discussion boards. The lefties may require you to register with a valid e-mail address in order to participate in their discussions, but they usually do not (this is especially true of the weblogs). I have noticed, however, that most of the wing-nut sites (I’ve seen FreeRepublic, and I just peeked at something called fuckfrance.com) require a complete registration. The latter one mentioned in the parenthetic reference actually requires potential subscribers to give descriptions of themselves, as the website moderator apparently personally reviews each application for sufficient ideological acceptability.

This dynamic, if it is as prevalent as I am guessing, reminds me of the ‘loyalty oath’ required by potential audience members of a Dick Cheney pre-election fundraiser. These wing-nuts really don’t handle dissent and disagreement well, do they? Personally, I welcome it. I don’t even care if that dissent or disagreement is registered by trolling, right-wing neanderthals who don’t have the balls to leave return addresses. See, I like an honest debate, even if it means I have to spend more than half my response reworking my adversary’s ramblings so that they fit into the real universe (where they can then be responded to).

I understand the right-wing reticence from intellectual opposition, however. Heaven forbid that a thrust of logic or reason should pierce your fetid bubble of self-delusion!

4 comments on “

  1. Anonymous says:

    Well, speaking of your topic…Blogger either makes you start an account (to post with a name) or it lets you post anonymously if you’d rather not.I have read some of your writing, both here and on Oliver Willis’ site, and have elected not to leave my name because I think you are far too angry to have a reasonable debate with. Name-calling seems to be your forte. You know absolutely nothing about me, yet suddenly I am a “trolling, right-wing Neanderthal.” Actually I happen to be a mainstream Democrat who felt the urge to call you on both your whitewash of the Gitmo prisoners and your glorification of the miserable Havana government.Make out of it what you will.

  2. I think you are far too angry to have a reasonable debate withWhat the hell does that mean? Either you can support your positions, or you can’t. Either you make sense, or you don’t. Either you are based in reality, or you aren’t. “Anger” is irrelevant. Name-calling seems to be your forte. You know absolutely nothing about me, yet suddenly I am a “trolling, right-wing Neanderthal.”I can only call ’em as I see ’em. If you come into my space quacking and waddling, then you will be labeled a duck. Anyway, as I see it, “mainstream Democrats” are what lost the election for John Kerry. The ‘mainstream’ in this country is flowing right down the drain into the sewer, and anyone who aspires to that ‘mainstream’ is likely to wind up swimming in fecal matter. Evidence, from your own keyboard:your whitewash of the Gitmo prisoners and your glorification of the miserable Havana government.First of all, your characterization of my description of the Guantanamo situation is what is miserable. Did I once say that any of the prisoners there aren’t actually dangerous terrorists? No. So you can stick that one back in the orifice it oozed from. The point I was clearly making, the one which escaped your my-country-right-or-wrong sensibilities (or maybe its just that you think ‘sand niggers’ have no rights that a Great White Nation is bound to respect?), is that the denial of due process to the Camp X-Ray detainees, as required by both U.S. and international law, puts the U.S. in no position to criticize the Castro regime’s sometimes heavy-handed, autocratic practices. Though the irony might escape you, perhaps you should look up the conditions under which Cuba originally ‘ceded’ control of its own territory to the U.S. The use of Guantanamo for Camp X-Ray violates even the terms of that anachronistic, imperialist ‘treaty.’ This leads me to the other half of your ill-informed observation.As far as the Havana government is concerned, I stand by my (not previously specifically delineated) estimation of the Castro regime. Their biggest problem is an external one. Ever since the turn of the last century, when the U.S. used the cynical ploy of ‘liberating’ Cuba from Spanish colonial rule in order to place the little island under it’s own imperial yoke, the Cubans have been fighting for independence from U.S. aggression. Since the Castro revolution successfully threw out U.S. puppet Fulgencio Batista, the U.S. has assaulted the Cubans’ sovereignty with a direct military assault, countless acts of sabotage and terrorism, and a crippling (and questionably legal) sanctions regime. What I admire about the Cubans is not their somewhat autocratic form of government, but the fact that they’ve managed to survive this long.If being in the ‘mainstream’ means that I have to overlook my government’s imperial excesses and it’s violations of international and it’s own laws, then I’ll leave the mainstream to you. Malcolm X once said: “You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”I don’t think he was restricting that to any specific political party.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I don’t use epithets like ‘sand niggers,’ so I hope you are not presuming to speak for me here.And “Great White Nation???” Have you looked around lately? I thought you said you were in Chicago, not the Idaho panhandle.Can we dispense with the posturing and stick with the subject, or is that just wishful thinking on my part?

  4. Since you’re not familiar with it, I’ll introduce you to a new term:hy·per·bo·le: A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in “I could sleep for a year” or “This book weighs a ton.”Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, I’ll inform you that changing the subject (focusing on style instead of substance) is a privilege I will reserve for myself in this space. If you wish to discuss any of the information I alluded to (the history of Cuba; the illegality of U.S. adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan; etc.), fine. If you wish to evade discussion or debate of such information, you might want to start hanging out at FreeRepublic. They are all about fact avoidance over there.At any rate, it’s just like an imperialist to walk into someone else’s domain and start trying to dictate manners. However, I raised the racism issue to make a point, and it appears to be quite pertinent. I will digress. The terms I used were intentionally caustic, as they are terms I have heard used by individuals who don’t bother pretending to fit into ‘polite society.’ Pretending that you aren’t a racist just because you don’t use those words only risks adding hypocrisy to the bigotry.Your use of the following term– “whitewash of the Gitmo prisoners”– even after I had made clear that hundreds of them have already been released after being held for no good reason, demonstrates a stubborn refusal to accept that the prisoners have rights to due process that were illegally withheld by the Bush administration. Would you consider such treatment acceptable for a white, middle-class U.S. citizen (even the widely demonized John Walker Lindh got his day in kangaroo court)? Does the phrase “…and justice for all” have an asterisk behind it in your “mainstream” set of values?The attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were not motivated by any need to protect U.S. soil. However, the obvious imperialism and immorality of these attacks on sovereign states was hardly a topic of discussion in the ‘mainstream’ media. Questions about the nature of Islam and ‘civilization’ in the Arab/Muslim world were all the rage in the months following 9/11/2001, but there was very little true introspection into the nature of our dealings with that world in the last century. Even our good host Oliver Willis uses blunt, obtuse terms like “killing terrorists,” as though that should be the primary focus of our foreign policy. The thought that our foreign policy is in itself built on terrorism doesn’t seem to compute. This sort of idiotic, hypocritical belligerence is what turned me off about John Kerry, though I held my nose and voted for him, anyway (no more of that, though; if the Dems want to get my vote from now on, they’d better start taking cues from the likes of Dennis Kucinich).To make this simpler, the Bush administration, and every administration before it, gets away with illegally or unjustly invading foreign sovereign states because the higher melanin content in their respective populations’ skins makes them easier to demonize and dehumanize. Face it: the U.S. is a country that has consistently and unflinchingly used racism (overt or subtle) to justify the often yawning crevasse between its stated ideals and its actual deeds. Remember how much flak Clinton got for bombing in the former Yugoslavia? How many ‘mainstream Democrats’ got as angry when he bombed (on the flimsiest of pretexts) a pharmaceutical factory in the already beleaguered Sudan? Who remembers the cynical machinations that led to the U.S.-instigated slaughter in Somalia? To hell with “Blackhawk Down.” That one-sided video game of a movie didn’t give any explanation for why the Somalis might have gotten angry enough to go toe-to-toe with the most powerful military machine in the history of warfare.Alas, I have digressed far too much, and my lovely wife has almost completed the soup. Perhaps if we can all remember that the poor, brown countries have rights, too, I won’t have to waste my time explaining these things to people who ought to know better.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s