Friday, December 28, 2007
Bring it on, Kate
I'm apparently guilty of libel for posting the following over at a moderate conservative website I like, Daimnation. It was a response to a poster's complaint about comments found in a Globe & Mail comments thread about Harper and Afghanistan.
I think, with respect, that looking for ideological "character" in comboxes is a fool's errand. I could point to the spittle-flecked comments over at Kate's, or Malkin's, or Free Dominion, and maybe indeed I already have, and drawn some rhetorical conclusions, too. But one New Year's resolution I am making is not to do that sort of thing any more.
I actually asked Mark to point to some comments that qualified as "hateful," because I had only read the first few, and found them unexceptionable. The ones that 2Sheds quotes are run-of-the-mill angry. Hateful? Not so much. If you want hateful, check out Small Dead Animals, or Stormfront, or Shaidle's current stuff, which is well off the deep end. If you want sober conservative commentary, on the other hand, this is a good spot, and so are half-a-dozen other places I could name--Tarantino, Selley, Coyne, Thompson (who says he's not a conservative, but no matter).
There are shrieky people right across the political spectrum. It's just too easily to move from ideological critique to moral judgement about those with whom you disagree. I'm an offender too, so consider this in part a piece of self-criticism. Lucky I have you guys around to remind me of the error of my ways.
A poster took exception to my Stormfront reference. He appears to believe that some kind of invisible force-field walls off fascism from conservatism. Maybe he's bought into that "liberal fascism" baloney. Who knows.
In any case, this time Kate didn't send one of her winged monkeys, but showed up herself, in full pointy-hatted, black-caped regalia:
"Your comparison of Stormfront and Small Dead Animals is not only odious and tragically wrong in its delusion..."
It's also demonstrably false and libelous.
But remember, this is John Baglow, who finds no problem with hanging out at Canadian Cynic - a site that has actually posted my address together with an explicit invitation to do me harm.
In their progressive, respectful world, there are only two types of women - those who agree with them, and c*nts. No wonder they can't recognize hate when they see it - it feels like home.
The simply breathtaking, staggering hypocrisy of this post is, well, breathtaking and staggering. This from the blogger who posted Belinda Stronach's phone number after the latter defected to the Liberals. This from the blogger who celebrated National Aboriginal Day with this comment:
Mark my words - the moment is approaching when a bandana [sic] prowling these police protected barricades will end up in the crosshairs of someone's high powered rifle.
And who allows comments like this one:
maybe we need a couple of more duddly georges
and this one:
dawg you and all the muslims in this country belong in the same place, AT THE END OF A ROPE!!!
And who rushes into battle to defend European neo-Nazis. And who refers to Islam as "the religion of detonation."
Even a cursory read of her commenters, who have found themselves a nice, welcoming home over there, is like taking a bath in warm cobra venom.
As for Kate's comments about my recent visits to Canadian Cynic's house, she has managed to take guilt by association to an entirely new level. Indeed, the phrase "quantum leap" comes to mind. I know nothing of CC's alleged misdeeds vis-à-vis Kate: I had nothing to do with them, nor with him at the time they supposedly occurred. Nor do I use words like "c*nt" to describe political opponents. Never have. Not my style.
But back to the "libellous" part, buried in her post. She can send the writ at her leisure--she knows where to find me. I would respectfully suggest, however, that she ruminate on the fate of a certain Oscar Wilde, who once overplayed his hand in like fashion. In the meantime, let her return to her attacks on Human Rights Commissions for infringing upon freedom of speech.
Posted by Dr.Dawg at 5:37 PM