Patterico's Pontifications

2/24/2010

Max Blumenthal Has a Nasty Little Booger

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:07 pm



A follow-up to last night’s post, which was titled Max Blumenthal Is a Nasty Little Booger:

Oh, but there’s no serious point being made here, is there? This is just pointless mockery of someone on the other side of the political spectrum. Right?

Indeed. And that is the serious point.

The video comes via Andrew Breitbart, who says: “Max Blumenthal, this is what you do for a living. I can do it too.”

See, when Blumenthal is not writing screeds accusing people of racism that later have to be corrected, his main purpose in life seems to be filming conservatives and cutting the footage to suit his narrative. That’s why he filmed himself being confronting by Breitbart (which we liked but which Blumenthal painted as Breitbart being overly aggressive) . . . but omitted the part where he got owned by Larry O’Connor (who used nothing but facts that Blumenthal couldn’t spin away).

Breitbart is saying: you want to embarrass us? Fine. Two can play that game.

But there is a difference, Andrew. You’re not being dishonest.

Blumenthal did pick his nose like a cretin.

P.S. The second hour of Larry O’Connor’s “Stage Right” radio show last night was delightful. In it, Larry recounted the backstory to that encounter that he and Breitbart had with Max Blumenthal. Click here and (if you’re short on time) forward to the second hour. Start at about 66:00. Trust me. I was smiling and laughing for a good 15 minutes or more.

70 Responses to “Max Blumenthal Has a Nasty Little Booger”

  1. Don’t people carry handkerchiefs anymore?

    AD - RtR/OS! (955a97)

  2. As I said, I didn’t think Breitbart was kidding on Redeye.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  3. Don’t people carry handkerchiefs anymore?

    why do you think shirts have sleeves?

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  4. why do you think shirts have sleeves?

    Why did God make Max Blumenthal’s finger JUST THE RIGHT SIZE to jam up inside his nostril? And somehow he’s supposed to refrain from doing that on camera?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  5. he wasn’t picking his nose, he was scratching his brain…..

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  6. Max ate it, right?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  7. Patterico:

    As I said, I didn’t think Breitbart was kidding on Redeye.

    You were right and I was wrong.

    DRJ (6a8003)

  8. If only Max were black you people would be totally busted for your racism here.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  9. PLEASE tell me that Blumenthal didn’t have a nasal nugget protruding, and that Hannah Giles just said so to induce his usual sinus rooter mode. Not quite the towering intellect, is our Max.

    Patterico: thanks for posting that.

    Eric Blair (03ba54)

  10. This is good. I’ll keep in mind these new standards for mature and productive deliberation, and their general endorsement by the Management. It’ll help me to keep things in perspective the next time someone gets mad at me for saying something mean about a conservative.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  11. Leviticus, you kinda seem like a baby. Max is simply ugly to others. He could never withstand the kind of unfairness and hatred he dishes out. He actually has worse arguments than Perez Hilton… no exaggeration here whatsoever.

    And he eats his own filth apparently.

    If you see someone on the right acting like Max Blumenthal, you absolutely should keep this kind of mockery in mind and employ it at will.

    that you generalize to “any conservative” means you think Max is just any old liberal. Which means you really must hate the left.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  12. Hey Leviticus,

    Speaking of ‘standards for mature and productive deliberation’, do you think that the term ‘conservative’ is descriptive in any meaningful way?

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  13. Max Boogerthal?

    Mitch (e40959)

  14. I dunno, Apogee. You’d better ask Jonathan Krohn.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  15. I’ll keep in mind these new standards for mature and productive deliberation

    Leviticus, you’d impress the hell out of me if you ever disassociated yourself from the pathological liars on your side, rather than expecting us to ignore them just to help you feel better.

    Blumenthal is scum. People like that are everything wrong with the left. But your side has no self-policing mechanism at all, the “no enemies to the left” mentality is absolute.

    Subotai (bda015)

  16. “But your side has no self-policing mechanism at all, the “no enemies to the left” mentality is absolute.”

    What kind of ‘self policing mechanism’ do you find on the right that you would like the left to mimic?

    imdw (5da80f)

  17. The self-policing mechanism by which liars are ostracized.

    But then, you’re a fine exanple of the sort of trash I’d like to see the intelligent liberals repudiate. As it stands, they just try to pretend you don’t exist.

    Subotai (bda015)

  18. “The self-policing mechanism by which liars are ostracized.”

    So not like the 11th commandment. But give me an example of the mechanism that the right has that the left could mimic.

    imdw (78ece3)

  19. Subotai:

    Trolls aren’t restricted to blogs. I ignore people people like Blumenthal just like I ignore people like Intelliology – neither of them are interested in productive debate.

    Leviticus (890614)

  20. I heard that Max picked a five pound booger out of his nose, but his head caved in before he had a chance to eat it.

    Bar Sinister (ab215b)

  21. Leviticus, your number 10 is a bit off-base. Sometimes “point and laugh” is good. It wasn’t meant to be for serious debate of issues or anything other than to poke fun at an idiot who you admit is not interested in productive debate. So why attack a non-productive snark of someone who is non-productive after other productive articles were written?

    Personally, I liked how Maxie asked a hot chick to look up his nose to see if that nasal klingon was gone or not.

    John Hitchcock (2b015f)

  22. But I agree, Maxie and introlliology are both India Delta Ten Tangos.

    John Hitchcock (2b015f)

  23. “you’re a fine exanple of the sort of trash I’d like to see the intelligent liberals repudiate. As it stands, they just try to pretend you don’t exist.”

    – Subotai (directed at imdw)

    Not really. I don’t think of imdw as a troll – he sticks around and argues his points, and asks what I view to be legitimate questions (most of the time). His question at #16, for instance, seems perfectly legitimate in light of the leveled accusation. So we come back to the whole argument over the definition of a “troll”. For my part, I don’t think that asking a question that makes someone uncomfortable is enough to merit the “troll” label.

    Leviticus (35fbde)

  24. For my part, I don’t think that asking a question that makes someone uncomfortable is enough to merit the “troll” label.

    If diwit ever asks me a question that makes me “uncomfortable”, I’ll let you know. The fact that you think his questions have any merit says a lot about you though. You defend the trolls, you open yourself up to the same criticism they get. Pick a side and live with it.

    he sticks around and argues his points, and asks what I view to be legitimate questions

    No, he does not. He quotes what somebody else has said, then writes some nonsense of his own following it, perhaps with a question mark appeneded. Question mark or no, his words have zero bearng on what he is allegedly replying to.

    His bizarre interaction with me about the meaning of the word “nativism” pretty much sums up his slippery dishonesty.

    Subotai (bda015)

  25. I don’t think of imdw as a troll – he sticks around and argues his points

    I don’t understand how these relate. He’s not a hit and run troll. Like most of these guys, he’s actually pretty obsessive. He’s accused people of rape and murder, accused people of being anti-semitic, etc, just because he thinks its funny to say that about conservatives. when asked to back it up he admits he was just making it up.

    That’s a troll.

    A troll is someone who says things just to get as many outraged responses as possible. If you don’t realize that imdw is obviously a troll, you’re crazy.

    For my part, I don’t think that asking a question that makes someone uncomfortable is enough to merit the “troll” label.

    Give me a break. You know that you’re lying about imdw’s behavior. He’s not asking us to explain the Reagan era deficit or how we know a fetus is a person.

    This is all well and good, but shouldn’t we be discussing the fact that Glenn Beck has still not denied the rape and murder of a young girl in 1990?

    Comment by imdw

    And you claim he’s not a troll? Are you sincere, or are you trolling too? Because there’s no way to intelligently identify imdw as anything but a troll.

    It’s not imdw I’m concerned with. You are telling us our standards are too low and we should treat Max Blumenthal better while you express support for really shitty behavior. Hack Partisanship?

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  26. And subotai is right, I’ve asked imdw to explain his views several times, and he never sticks around to do so. He might stay in a thread for a long time, but he’s not engaged in discussion. He’s throwing out outrageous accusations or sarcastic questions that are obviously meant to get a rise out of people.

    Meant to get a bunch of angry reactions and completely derail the thread. That’s all he ever does. That’s exactly what a troll is.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  27. What kind of ’self policing mechanism’ do you find on the right that you would like the left to mimic?

    The self-policing mechansm which prevents their being any right-wing journalistic version of Max Blumenthal.

    The nearest thing I can think of to a right-wing Blumenthal is … James O’Keefe.

    But O’Keefe could never get away with Blumenthals serial dishonesty or be employed by the MSM, and you’ll find nobody on the right sayng that he should.

    Subotai (bda015)

  28. Some ancient history for Imadickwad:
    Ike’s condemnation of “Tail-gunner Joe”!

    AD - RtR/OS! (116c8a)

  29. “The self-policing mechansm which prevents their being any right-wing journalistic version of Max Blumenthal.”

    That doesn’t give me a mechanism. We know it is not Ronald Reagan’s Elenventh Commandment.

    “His bizarre interaction with me about the meaning of the word “nativism” pretty much sums up his slippery dishonesty.”

    I’m again sorry that I misunderstood your thinking that someone born outside of the US would be a native of the US.

    “And you claim he’s not a troll?”

    You never really understood that comment. Even when letters and websites where all presented for you. You claimed to have read them, but where wrong about what was in them. That was funny.

    “Ike’s condemnation of “Tail-gunner Joe”!”

    The left wing has repudiated the odious obstruction on civil rights. Is that something that you see as a “mechanism” ? That we’ve pretty much established a system where pining for the days of democratic obstruction on civil rights is bad?

    imdw (dbe289)

  30. It’s not about you, imdw.

    It’s about how Leviticus thinks you, a proven troll, is totally acceptable, but this, a mild joke at Max Blumenthal’s expense, lowers standards.

    That you went on and on for over a month trying to explain why it’s so funny doesn’t explain your case. Claiming someone raped a child isn’t funny. That was character assassination. I know you claim it resembled Beck’s method of debate, but it doesn’t. You don’t really think Rush is an anti-semite, either. You’re just a troll.

    I could explain, again, how Beck, a total nutcase and annoying commentator, doesn’t actually follow the pattern you claim is satirizing him effectively. but last several times I did that you just disappeared to make the same assertions all over again.

    Like I said, the case is closed on whether or not you’re a troll. It’s not about you. You’re not witty or clever to express your fantasies about raped kids and no one wants to bother with your explanations and lies.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  31. I’m again sorry that I misunderstood your thinking that someone born outside of the US would be a native of the US.

    That sums up dimwits trollhood. He puts words in peoples mouths which they never said, then pats himself on his pointy little head for debunking the figments of his own imagination.

    He also thinks that any opposition to immigration (as opposed to immigrants) is “nativism”, dictionaries be damned. You can’t have a rational conversation with such people, even if they wanted one. And dimwit does not.

    Subotai (bda015)

  32. “I could explain, again, how Beck, a total nutcase and annoying commentator, doesn’t actually follow the pattern you claim is satirizing him effectively”

    So I guess while it is ok to use “retard” for satire, it is not ok to use “rape” ? Ok. I can go with that.

    “You don’t really think Rush is an anti-semite, either. ”

    What’s this one all about again?

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    imdw (0172f3)

  33. I guess another way to put this is, if Patterico or Breitbart anonymously and repeatedly claimed that Max Blumenthal did something extremely horrible, and added a questions mark half the time, would that be a lower standard than this nose picking?

    Leviticus’s argument is that it’s better to accuse people of specific rapes of kids than to laugh at some jerk’s nose pickery.

    Leviticus is wrong.

    this isn’t about whether adding a question mark makes an accusation into a joke. It’s about Leviticus’s partisan standards.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  34. The left wing has repudiated the odious obstruction on civil rights.

    It has? Does that mean the left-wing has ceased obstructing the US Civil Rights Commissions attempts to investigate the Black Panthers obstruction of a voting place?

    Subotai (bda015)

  35. I didn’t know about the Glenn Beck comment (or if I did at some point, I forgot about it), and yes, that’s a reprehensible insinuation. I do know that imdw says inflammatory things sometimes – sometimes to make a point, sometimes just to piss you guys off. I also know that sometimes he raises valid questions, which you guys ignore “because he’s a troll”. And that seems dumb to me.

    When daleyrocks or redC1C4 says something obviously inflammatory, I usually ignore it, because it’s trollish. But sometimes they make very good points, and those points deserve to be addressed.

    That’s the only reason I’m harping on this point: there are double standards on this blog relating to the “troll” label, and they piss me off. This isn’t about me “picking a side” – this is about trying to keep the side I’ve already picked true to its ideals.

    Leviticus (68eff1)

  36. “He also thinks that any opposition to immigration (as opposed to immigrants) is “nativism”, dictionaries be damned.”

    Not “any.” But the kind exercised by Tancredo.

    imdw (603c39)

  37. This isn’t about me “picking a side” – this is about trying to keep the side I’ve already picked true to its ideals.

    Unless you’re coming out as a conservative, that makes no sense. You’re not keeping imdw true to his ideals. (Of course, he has none to be kept to.) You are claiming to be trying to keep us true to ours. So which “side” are you on?

    Subotai (bda015)

  38. Leviticus, you kinda seem like a baby.

    No kidding – what the hell’s the matter with you these days, Leviticus? Someone spit in your milk lately?

    I don’t think of imdw as a troll – he sticks around and argues his points, and asks what I view to be legitimate questions

    Oh, for the love of…you have GOT to be kidding me, right? Please tell me this is joke on your part. If not, please peruse the last few months of our own little cupcake’s silly word games and rampant threadjacking. You can even go back to two days ago, when I posted the exact kind of douchebaggery response that he would post immediately after a new thread was put up – and the idiot actually posted almost an identical statement in another thread about an hour later.

    The guy is a walking self – parody. Try harder next time.

    Dmac (799abd)

  39. Asking Leviticus to answer for dimwit is not at all fair. He is not responsible for what that thing does/says.

    JD (1b1b1b)

  40. Subotai: the “side” to which I was referring was the side of productive debate/deliberation. I come to this site because I’m interested in politics/political philosophy, and would like to discuss it in a civil and productive fashion. I slip up, sometimes – almost everyone does, at some point – but I try to stay civil.

    The thing is, if I don’t stay civil, everyone sees fit to get their panties in a bunch about it. “Oh, look, the resident liberal said something uncivil about someone we like, that’s not fair.” But the same civility that is demanded of liberals toward conservatives is rarely demanded of conservatives toward liberals – more often, the incivility of liberals toward conservatives is met with a hasty Troll-Stamp from which the offending party can scarce recover, while the inverse incivility is tolerated, if not encouraged.

    So: it’s about a double standard. Dmac, Dustin: when imdw or Myron or PCD or anyone else on this site, conservative or liberal, posts comments designed solely to inflame or obfuscate or anything of the sort, then I’m not okay with that… or at least, I don’t endorse that as a legitimate form of mature discussion. In hindsight, saying “I don’t think of imdw as a troll” is a little overbroad – he often does jump into threads just to push conservative buttons, and he has said some indefensible things which probably warrant retractions/apologies (implied through reformed conduct, or explicit) before being accepted as a legitimate voice in a productive exchange of ideas. But he does ask some legitimate questions – I’m not backing away from that, like it or not.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  41. But the kind exercised by Tancredo

    Ex-Congressman Tancredo, the last time I looked, was opposed to ILLEGAL immigration, but supported legal immigration.
    But, of course, condemning someone for breaking the law is sooooo judgemental, and un-fair, and they probably have cooties, too!

    AD - RtR/OS! (116c8a)

  42. The thing is, if I don’t stay civil, everyone sees fit to get their panties in a bunch about it.

    This site has lots of stupid and obnoxious liberal commenters on it. It’s quite possible that you as a liberal get some of the blowback from that. You’d be less likely to get it if you made a little effort to disassociate youself from the crappy commenters in question rather than sticking up for them. When you annouce that imdw is a good commenter in your eyes, you’re painting a bullseye on your own back.

    being accepted as a legitimate voice in a productive exchange of ideas

    You know, it would never even occur to me to wander into Daily Kos and tell the people there who is and is not a “legitimate voice” in that forum. I guess I’m just lacking in that bottomless liberal egoism.

    Subotai (bda015)

  43. the kind exercised by Tancredo

    Ah, yes, Tancredo. Why don’t you elaborate on what exactly you think is “the kind exercised by Tancredo”? I asked you this once before but you slithered away rather than respond.

    Subotai (bda015)

  44. The thing is, if I don’t stay civil, everyone sees fit to get their panties in a bunch about it

    Not everyone.

    JD (b537f4)

  45. This is so similar to the debate we hear raging every time the Right questions the Left’s commitment to Constitutional process, and the rejoinder by the Left is to claim that their patriotism is being questioned.

    We don’t question your patriotism, just your sanity.

    AD - RtR/OS! (116c8a)

  46. “When daleyrocks or redC1C4 says something obviously inflammatory, I usually ignore it, because it’s trollish.”

    Leviticus – I freely admit to the occasional inflammatory comment, but I do not believe you are a regular target. Why is that?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  47. JD: true. Not everyone. My mistake.

    “This site has lots of stupid and obnoxious liberal commenters on it. It’s quite possible that you as a liberal get some of the blowback from that. You’d be less likely to get it if you made a little effort to disassociate youself from the crappy commenters in question rather than sticking up for them. When you annouce that imdw is a good commenter in your eyes, you’re painting a bullseye on your own back.”

    – Subotai

    At the risk of receiving a stern talking-to, there are a handful of stupid and obnoxious conservative commenters on this site too (for the record, I don’t consider anyone commenting on this thread to be in that category), and they receive none of the scolding or scorn that greets their liberal counterparts. And I make more than a little effort to disassociate myself from “the crappy commenters”; you’re just stuck in a mindset that assumes association by shared ideological inclination. And I never said that I considered imdw “a good commenter” – I said that he asked legitimate questions sometimes. There’s a difference.

    “You know, it would never even occur to me to wander into Daily Kos and tell the people there who is and is not a “legitimate voice” in that forum. I guess I’m just lacking in that bottomless liberal egoism.”

    – Subotai

    Really? You seem more than able to decide who is or is not a “legitimate voice” at this site; and that’s not necessarily an unreasonable thing. What’s the difference?

    daleyrocks,

    The sort of inflammatory remarks I’m referring to aren’t directed at other commenters, but at political figures which are the subject of posts. Is your point that you only level inflammatory stuff at trolls, and not at people debating in good faith?

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  48. At the risk of receiving a stern talking-to, there are a handful of stupid and obnoxious conservative commenters on this site too (for the record, I don’t consider anyone commenting on this thread to be in that category), and they receive none of the scolding or scorn that greets their liberal counterparts.

    This is a conservative blog. The web is awash in liberal blogs where no conservative is tolerated, good commenter or no. I’m not saying that no liberal commenters should be tolerated here, good or not. I’m not even saying that the bad ones should be banned. I’m just calling a spade a spade, or in this case a troll a troll. And I’m wondering why that upsets you.

    I make more than a little effort to disassociate myself from “the crappy commenters”; you’re just stuck in a mindset that assumes association by shared ideological inclination

    No, I’m reacting to your defense of imdw, not your “shared ideological inclination”.

    You seem more than able to decide who is or is not a “legitimate voice” at this site; and that’s not necessarily an unreasonable thing. What’s the difference?

    I’m a conservative on a conservative blog? I thought that was fairly explicit in my comment about Kos.

    Subotai (bda015)

  49. Leviticus – I understand your point better since you elaborated on it.

    Dmac (799abd)

  50. “You’d be less likely to get it if you made a little effort to disassociate youself from the crappy commenters in question rather than sticking up for them.”

    Subotai, Leviticus makes such efforts all the time.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  51. The sort of inflammatory remarks I’m referring to aren’t directed at other commenters, but at political figures which are the subject of posts

    Oh, good grief!

    You’re upset because people are making caustic remarks about political figures on a political blog? I’m starting to think that either (a) this world was never made for one as sensitive as you, or (b) you’ve not spent much time on political blogs.

    Go over to Sadly, No! and you’ll see that the post currently top of the page there calls Charles Krauthammer a sociopath. While you’re there, give them the same lecture on civility you give us.

    Subotai (bda015)

  52. I think little Maxie was most bothered by the fact that wee little maxie was getting excited standing that close to Hannah, and she really really really embarrassed him, kind of like pantsing him in front of everyone, on video. And smiled and laughed the whole time.

    JD (b537f4)

  53. “The sort of inflammatory remarks I’m referring to aren’t directed at other commenters, but at political figures which are the subject of posts. Is your point that you only level inflammatory stuff at trolls, and not at people debating in good faith?”

    Leviticus – I was referring more to the latter as opposed to the former. A lot of my comments in the former category are prompted by commenters in the latter category, for important journalistic purposes.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  54. JD – I don’t think Maxie likes girls, but I could be mistaken.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  55. “Oh, good grief! You’re upset because people are making caustic remarks about political figures on a political blog? I’m starting to think that either (a) this world was never made for one as sensitive as you, or (b) you’ve not spent much time on political blogs.”

    – Subotai

    No, I’m “upset” (I’m not really upset) that some people are allowed to make caustic remarks about political figures on a political blog without repercussions and some aren’t. Double standard? I thought I’d emphasized that enough.

    And I don’t want to go to Sadly, No!, for the reasons you just detailed. The reason Patterico’s site is the only blog I visit regularly (and have visited regularly for more than three years) is that it’s a cut above the rest. I’m trying to appeal to the better angels of our collective nature, here.

    daleyrocks,

    Heh. I like the phrasing of your last comment. And I don’t typically think it’s out of bounds when you or anyone else expresses an opinion – even a particularly harsh opinion – about a politician. Half the time I agree with you. But I don’t think it ought to be out of bounds when I or some other liberal commenter expresses a harsh opinion about a politician, either, and it often is treated that way. Do you see what I’m getting at?

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  56. Leviticus,

    Leftists and conservatives are not treated the same on this blog, it’s clear.

    HOWEVER,

    I’m not sure it’s purely a function of how commenters treat other commenters (although I think that also plays a role).

    I think it’s also a function of the fact that it is a conservative blog that attracts primarily conservative readers. Generally, the lefties who come here, do so because they have been pointed to this blog by a lefty site that criticized my posts. And/or (however they got here) they start matters by opposing me even though there are places where they and I agree. I think that colors the relationship.

    I also regret that I no longer have time to read all comments and monitor things as closely as I used to. Sometimes people get piled on and I miss it.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  57. Leviticus,

    I can’t promise that every person gets equal treatment here. Even if we had the time to monitor every comment on every post in real time (and we don’t), speaking for myself – I’m not wise enough to deliver equal justice for all.

    However, I think people generally pay more attention to sincere comments that don’t use insults than they do to the comments of people (on either side) who are insulting. And isn’t the point to offer comments that people read and that gives them something to think about?

    DRJ (6a8003)

  58. “Do you see what I’m getting at?”

    Leviticus – I think I understand what you’re saying and was staying out of the thread until you mentioned my name. Except for your whining, I don’t have problems with you expressing opinions even if they’re wrong, since you’re usually sincere. Heh!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  59. Leviticus,
    As a general rule, commenters on a political blog who are not of the majority persuasion are probably going have a somewhat more difficult time than those who are of the majority. That said, this blog has a far better record of civility to those of different points of view than some prominent lefty blogs, like DK or Sadly, No!, where vile language toward those who disagree with the party line is considered strength.

    I do think it was jarring that you defended imdw, who almost never says anything substantive to contribute to the conversation. That person mostly makes semi-coherent snark and tries to distract. You may be giving undue weight to imdw’s few serious observations.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  60. My idea of political debate in an egalitarian atmosphere (not ideal, but egalitarian) would resemble Australian Rules Football. Ever watch that? It’s more violent than American Football but without the pads. If you play the game right and to the best of your ability, chances are, you’re going to get pretty beat up but respected.

    But the blogosphere tends much more toward Smear The [guy with the football] and on this site, honest liberals tend to have the football. It just goes with the territory sometimes. (And yes, Leviticus, I agree with the other commenter who said you whine too much (or to that effect).)

    I’m an attack-dog. I make no bones about that. But I’ve been called down by Conservatives and Libertarians on this site and others. I’ve also called down other Conservatives and Libertarians when they went too far. It happens. And I do take more heed when people on my side jerk my chain as I’m chasing down someone on the other side. WOOF! WOOF! *choke*

    John Hitchcock (a656f4)

  61. “Asking Leviticus to answer for dimwit is not at all fair. He is not responsible for what that thing does/says.

    Comment by JD ”

    That’s true. I got really busy today and didn’t get to follow this discussion, but my point wasn’t really about imdw. Leviticus praised imdw while saying Patterico is lowering civility standards, and I pointed out an example that shows that’s incoherent.

    There’s really no way “Look at that dude pick his nose” is beneath the standard of “That guy raped and killed girls, didn’t he?”. It’s easy to get caught up in the nitty gritty of either problem, or even worry about imdw’s behavior in any detail (he’s a troll and we all know it).

    But my point was a little more basic than that. You can see that someone praising imdw’s behavior while complaining about Patterico’s is unfair.

    And it’s also clear that leviticus is not a troll. Even though in this specific case, the partisanship is strong and I ask Leviticus to consider why. Every democrat should be annoyed with imdw’s style.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  62. And I missed the Leviticus comment where he noted that imdw’s Beck comment was awful. Thanks Leviticus. I assumed you were familiar with it because I’m had pointed it out several times.

    “I do know that imdw says inflammatory things sometimes – sometimes to make a point, sometimes just to piss you guys off.”

    That’s what I was really getting at. There’s no reason to expect you to keep track of them all.

    Just cut us some slack here. Max Blumenthal? he’s really asking for a lot worse than some silly nose pickery video. A ton of restraint is being shown. People like you and aphrael ask the uncomfortable questions and fight the good fight. If you want to argue for high standards, you can’t praise imdw’s general conduct.

    Anyway, I wish I had just ignored the imdw aspect and been less aggressive in my arguments.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  63. I guess what I am trying to say is that many of the liberals here truly are jerks who deserve mockery. Fewer are non-jerks and don’t deserve it, but may get it nonetheless — which is Leviticus’s point, which I agree with.

    Basically I think any conservative site gets a worse class of liberal on average than liberals in the population as a whole.

    Also, some of the good-natured honest ones end up repeating arguments premised on dishonest premises that they might not even realize are dishonest. Look at Simon Owens from the other thread. I like him. But he has fallen for the bullshit of the Boehlerts and Friedmans.

    Someone like that can be educated. Yet he was vilified immediately because his argument was (unknowingly) premised on assumptions that aren’t true.

    Give new dissenters the benefit of the doubt. Use facts to refute them and see if they respond.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  64. “Ex-Congressman Tancredo, the last time I looked, was opposed to ILLEGAL immigration, but supported legal immigration.”

    This was in another thread. You can try googling for it. But basically the dude also introduced legislation limiting legal immigration. It’s a different approach. I support legal over illegal immigration. That’s why I want legal immigration expanded. Tancredo wants it limited.

    imdw (bf922c)

  65. Tancredo is not mainstream and a lot of us were unhappy that he was given such a big role in the tea party meeting. They are still working out their policies and extreme points of view often get more publicity. I haven’t followed his positions closely but I am opposed to legal immigration when it is chain migration by family. That practice is destroying Britain because entire Pakistani villages are being reconstituted in Britain, along with the Islamist beliefs and practices. It is one reason why girls are being killed by fathers and brothers because they are being “married” to cousins in Pakistan to get them visas. If they refuse and try to go “western” they are useless to the family and women are considered useless anyway in the culture.

    I am all for legal immigration from Europe and China and India.

    I should add that I have treated you imdw, as a responsible left wing commenter and regretted it. You are not a serious person, at least on this blog.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  66. Mike K – Did you enjoy dimwit’s definition of diagnosis on that other thread? Diagnosed with has now morphed to include fear of being diagnosed with or having something ruled out.

    JD (d8c229)

  67. “I haven’t followed his positions closely but I am opposed to legal immigration when it is chain migration by family. That practice is destroying Britain because entire Pakistani villages are being reconstituted in Britain, along with the Islamist beliefs and practices.”

    So subotai here’s another example of nativism for you. Get that? “destroying.”

    “I am all for legal immigration from Europe and China and India.”

    You’re aware that muslims can come from those places too, right?

    “If they refuse and try to go “western” they are useless to the family and women are considered useless anyway in the culture.”

    It’s like a Hanif Kureishi tale.

    “Mike K – Did you enjoy dimwit’s definition of diagnosis on that other thread? Diagnosed with has now morphed to include fear of being diagnosed with or having something ruled out.”

    Did you ever get back to me about whether you had actually read the bill on your “ban”?

    imdw (8806e6)

  68. “Someone like that can be educated. Yet he was vilified immediately because his argument was (unknowingly) premised on assumptions that aren’t true.

    Give new dissenters the benefit of the doubt. Use facts to refute them and see if they respond.”

    – Patterico

    That’s the bigger point I’m getting at. The other day – after you posted your 7th anniversary thread – I went back and looked at some of the comments I posted in my earliest visits to this blog. And, in hindsight, I was a smarmy punk back then. I was overly aggressive in reacting to any perceived slight, and posted a lot of comments solely designed to push conservative buttons.

    Luckily, there were people like DRJ and Patterico around to exemplify respectful behavior; and, more importantly, they were willing to engage me in honest discussion when I was willing to do the same. I wasn’t dismissed outright as a “troll” and ignored or ridiculed (even if I deserved it) – I was guided toward better conduct by a few patient conservatives.

    Now, a lot of that had to do with my own willingness and desire to engage in productive conversation. But if there hadn’t been that same willingness in the conservative commentariat of the day, I probably wouldn’t have stuck around as long as I have.

    Thanks for making that point in your comment, Patterico.

    Leviticus (68eff1)

  69. So subotai here’s another example of nativism for you. Get that? “destroying.”

    And I bet you’re one of the countless liberals who talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. And forget about Britain. I bet even in this country you avoid certain parts of town, certain communities. You definitely avoid sending your kids to certain schools, avoid house hunting (or apartment hunting) in certain areas, avoid fully partaking in a particular culture you perceive as (but only secretly, privately admitting to) inhumane, rowdy or dysfunctional.

    Limousine liberalism (and one does not have to be wealthy to be guilty of that) at its finest and phoniest.

    Mark (411533)

  70. “avoid house hunting (or apartment hunting) ”

    Thanks for being inclusive of those of us who live in city apartments.

    imdw (b62539)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5983 secs.