Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters posts on a recent form of intolerance that seems to be used mostly by Leftists
One of the least-welcome developments of the Internet has been the rise of e-graffiti, especially at places like Amazon.com, where the victims overwhelmingly have been conservative writers.Morrissey has a lot more to say here.
It appears that those who oppose conservative thought have little love for free speech when practiced by those who disagree with them, and their only intellectual recourse is to deface websites that sell the books written by conservatives.
10 comments:
It's odd, John, that you would portray this as a partisan issue.
You published your blog entry at 3:54 pm, while over at Captain’s Quarters, the poster calling themselves "llamaschool" had previously posted -- at 1:49 pm -- the following helpful comment, which is only 7th in line from the top:
"Have you gone through the one-star comments for Al Franken's book ... Or how about Bill Clinton's biography ... If you browse through the one-star reviews of these books (and there are a lot), they are replete with short reviews based on the opinions of the customers about the author with little content about the book itself ... But you're taking these recent examples [of comments on conservative books] and turning it into some illogical indictment of "the Left", when this is something that people have done to books by liberal authors on Amazon for years now."
The phenomena is well known to anyone who's purchased from Amazon or perused the site. Regardless, it appears, John, like a little due diligence on your part would have allowed you to focus your comments on the issue affecting everyone -- that Amazon is not a reliable source of information for books of a political nature.
Pastor Ray
John, you characterized the issue as partisan by saying, "intolerance that seems to be used mostly by Leftists," which attributes the bulk of the blame to one group, rather than apportioning the blame among all, where it clearly belongs.
As far as some questions, somewhere, that you think I should answer because you demand it (not that you have felt moved to reiterate those questions or summarize those questions or paraphrase those questions or articulate why your curiosity is peaked to such a high degree and encoded in those questions), what I see is:
your own discourtesy in failing to acknowledge the helpfulness and pertinence of the information and links, which I have provided for you already;
your disinterest in conducting even the most cursory Google search, yourself, to satisfy your avowed curiosity about the issue of Wal-Mart and North Carolina [hint: if you conducted such a search, you’d be pleasantly surprised, I’m sure, at what else North Carolina is famous for in the controversy];
your defiantly tiresome confrontational – and intermittently mocking – tone and words;
your juvenile refusal – across two blog entries – to take responsibility for the meaning of your own words; and
your uncivil refusal to engage in a conversation that acknowledges differences of point-of-view, yet sees value in exploring the dimensions of the divide.
And you (!) presume to publish a blog entry on "Intolerance on the Internet"?! Sir, you're a first-string example of the phenomenon.
Pastor Ray
Dear Pastor Ray of the Church Of the Stopwatch;
While we lurkers at J in C enjoy the spectacle of fuzzy thinking liberalism dashing itself against the rocks of precise language, please try to make your posts shorter.
I think I broke a rib laughing at your last Wooseter-esque howler, and my Wal-Mart health insurance doesn't cover repeated visits.
-AC
Two things, if I may. This type of thing is not partisan. It is an issue of integrity. Sad to say we have some on our side that tend to not be honest also. Just not nearly so many.
Pastor Ray, what you are doing is called "cloaking". You are wrapping yourself in imaginary insult in an effort to garner special treatment in the debate and therefore win by default because for an opponent to avoid insulting you, he must not challenge your view. Ergo, you may make a statement that defies logic, offer no proof to substantiate the view and when challenged, just repeat the charges of being insulted and intimate an inferiority to the questioner, either of social graces or courtesy. That is patently dishonest.
The one thing that stands out to all thinking people, is that you do not defend your position. After numerous opportunities to do so and yet it is not done, logic suggests you cannot. Hence the "cloaking".
I fear you may never be taken seriously if you do not start playing by grown man rules.
If you have substantiation for your viewpoint, everyone, well, I, at least, would be interested. I suspect, though, what I will get is a treatise on my lack of manners. (best case, could be worse)
JinC, forgive me if my previous post seems presumptive. I have just left a forum where so much of that was going on. Participants were literally told what opinions they were allowed to express, else it resulted in the dishonest behavior mentioned. Since it was the owners of the site doing it,I left.
I know you don't need me defending you, I wasn't. I was just reacting as I always do to dishonesty. It sets my teeth on edge to see someone make an ad hominem attack on someone while claiming to be the victim of same.
I sincerely hope the man isn't a real Pastor. If I am out of line, I apologize. Do what you need about my posts.
AC,
The questions you pose for Pastor Ray are incisive, fair, and would produce a lot of information. That may why Pastor Ray doesn't want ot answer them.
straightarrow,
You comments are at the same level as AC's. They're also well within the bounds of reasonable discourse.
I think we are all wondering why Pastor Ray won't address them with the seriousness they deserve.
I hope you keep commenting.
Thank you both,
John
hmmmm ... *I quote precisely from JWM's posts. *I provide hyperlinks to information that's under discussion. *I bring new information to the table...
For individuals -- such as yourselves, apparently -- who are not use to the possibilities of conversation, my approach is pretty foreign, incomprehensible -- interpreted as "dishonest" because that, along with complaisance between like-thinkers, is the only thing you know -- which is a loss for all of us.
Incidentally, what you call "defending your position" is better defined as "a pissing contest": "a dispute that's a matter of one side's claims or bluster against the other's; a word feud; bickering..." Sound familiar to you? Don't bother with word feuds. It's like Barry Goldwater said, "To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable."
Pastor Ray
Straight -
Good points.
I think Pastor Ray is a troll.
-AC
Pretty good predictor, aren't I?
His inability to logically debate and hold forth for his view is somehow our fault because we recognize a snake oil salesman when we see one.
That's us. BOSSOS. pronounced boss ohse. both long o's
BOSSOS= Bane of Silly Snake Oil Salesman
I ask you how can that be a bad thing? Unless of course you have a rusty reptile that needs oiled.
That is an entirely different dynamic and falls under the purview of the GRRR, or Great Rusty Reptile Renovators. I know I often think GRRR after reading why I am not nice enough to understand why he attacks the people instead of their position on a topic. See? There I go again.....GRRR
HA!
-AC
Post a Comment