LGF’s commentators aim low — and hit! Sully’s the latest target, for having the gumption to suggest that torture is wrong. Charles responds by proving he’s not really all that clear on such nuanced things as "dictionary definitions," "the issues," and "the kind of website he chooses to run."
So it goes. If you want uninformed political commentary from a guy whose reaction to the Madrid bombings was to make fun of the mourners; who presides over one of the most insular and profane commentaraits in the blogosphere; who has the fervor of the zealot without the restraining humility of actual belief; and who engages in rational thought only to the extent that he needs to rationalize the latest fact into his preset response tree — well, by all means, read Charles Johnson.
Incidentally, the guy isn’t pro-Israel. He’s anti-Moslem. There’s a difference. (I wouldn’t rely on him in a pinch.)
UPDATE: Presumably under the principle that "if you can’t refute it, ignore it," Charles Johnson has blocked access to LGF. You can view the relevant threads here: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=14477#comments; http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=14492_Sullivan_Off_the_Rails_Again#comments.
von: he’s blocked your link. Everyone else: just go text“>here (I’ll see if that works once I post this. It certainly works to paste the url in and go.)
I don’t hang out at LGF, and I just remembered why.
“I’m getting sick hearing about the so-called torture at Abu Ghraib.
Do you realize how much money some guys in Hollywood would pay to be led around by a chick in fatigues while wearing a collar?”
“he needs to pop it and get it over with.”
“Actually, given the descriptions of the “torture” methods used by coalition jailers, it sounds indistinguishable to a night of the kind of clubbing Mr. Sullivan is inclined toward.”
And so on, and so forth. The level of homoophobia is also pretty amazing.
Non- screwed-up (I hope) link:here.
Doesn’t work. Paste this in:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=14477_Sullivans_Tortured_Logic
von: he’s blocked your link.
It’s amazing how quickly Johnson blocks links from critical articles. Either it’s automated, or he’s obsessive about scanning the blogosphere for criticism. Pretty thin-skinned considering his content and commentariat.
I think I have to go give my computer a bath.
ain’t they cute… blocking links like it will keep people from seeing them acting like idiots. “not doing nothing in here , mom. just leave me alone!”
IE users : right-click on the link, Copy Shortcut, paste it into your address bar.
It would be easy to block referrers from critical sites on the internets. Its also pretty pansy-ish for such a tough-talking crowd. Typical bullies.
Did he redirect that link from here to the IDF? Loonies.
Are LGF attacks still happening? I haven’t seen any recently.
I think its easy enough to say that atleast he isn’t pro-terrorist, pro-Hussein, pro-insurgency, or a Bush-hater.
I think its easy enough to say that atleast he isn’t pro-terrorist, pro-Hussein, pro-insurgency, or a Bush-hater.
For a free pass to the real world, kids, answer the following question: which of the foregoing is not like the others?
I expect an immediate and unconditional retraction from smlook for implicitly lumping those who hate Bush in with murderers and criminals.
Speaking of Bush haters, I wonder how they will suffer throught the upcoming election. You know liberty on the march.
Catsy do you care to respond?
Speaking of Bush haters, I wonder how they will suffer throught the upcoming election. You know liberty on the march.
In case any of you are wondering what a Timmy attempt at derailing someone’s point with an irrelevancy looks like, I offer Exhibit A.
You, like smlook, are somehow laboring under the misapprehension that opposing/loathing/hating/et al Bush is synonymous with opposing freedom for Iraqis.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not surprised. It’s precisely this persistent lie–and it is a lie; enough people have set you and others straight about this that your persistence in spreading it can only be willful–which renders meaningful discussion of Iraq difficult. I’m just disappointed, mildly annoyed, and a little offended.
To the extent that I care to respond to you, I will “suffer” Sunday’s elections with hope that as few people as possible will die, that as many Iraqis as possible will participate, and that the outcome will be regarded as legitimate by enough of the Iraqi people that a lasting peace can be achieved.
it’s amusing to see exactly who comes over to try to deflect the topic away from criticism of LGF. one can wonder about the motives, but the tactics are right out there for all to see.
I second that, Catsy. However…
Reported today in a NYT article:
If conditions had been like this in the US during the Presidential elections, would anyone have minded postponing elections until the crisis was dealt with? Or is the hope that elections will put an end to the Iraq insurgency?
smlook: I think its easy enough to say that atleast he isn’t pro-terrorist, pro-Hussein, pro-insurgency, or a Bush-hater.
Sorry, missed the point on that one. Are you implying that anyone here is any of those things? Or that any amount of bigotry and bile can be excused as long as they’re pro-Bush and against terrorism? Clarify please.
Not that I’d piss on an LGFer if he was on fire, but isn’t mocking LGF like making fun of a fat guy in a tutu?
hating/et al Bush is synonymous with opposing freedom for Iraqis
Spoton Catsy, simple as that.
atleast he isn’t pro-terrorist, pro-Hussein, pro-insurgency, or a Bush-hater.
And that’s enough, is it? so long as he is anti-terrorist, anti-Hussein, anti-insurgency, and pro-Bush, any other behavior is excusable, or at least, mitigated by these wonderful qualities?
Timmy: Spoton Catsy, simple as that.
Sounds kind of like the logic that if you voted for Bush, you support torture.
hating/et al Bush is synonymous with opposing freedom for Iraqis
Spoton Catsy, simple as that.
Wow. I don’t even know how to respond to that. What must it look like, from your chair. I can’t imagine how evil and self-obsessed we must all appear.
I can’t imagine how evil and self-obsessed we must all appear
No you can’t. You (plural) do remind me of a combination of Walter Duranty and Wallace.
I’m just wondering in your little world when Bush ever supported torture?
What on earth brought all this on? Please, make it stop.
Timmy: I’m just wondering in your little world when Bush ever supported torture?
Was that question directed at me? I was the only one to put Bush and torture in the same sentence, not st.
I get the Duranty thing, but why Wallace?
Specifically, make this stop: “You (plural) do remind me of a combination of Walter Duranty and Wallace.”
You are comparing people here, and some as yet unclear bunch of other people, to apologists for the Soviet Union during the period in which it was killing millions. If you don’t want to justify that, by explaining who exactly you think is defending someone who is responsible for the killing of millions (hundreds of thousands will do in a pinch), and, more importantly, why you say this about them, please retract it.
I’m sorry, hilzoy. I’m just baiting him to see how far he’ll go, and that’s not cool. I apologize, I retract the question about Wallace, and I’m going to bed before I say something in actual response to the comments above that will get you really upset.
Was that question directed at me?
Nope to all the “Bush Haters” on this site.
No, hilzoy I’m not, as Walt wasn’t an apologist, he exalted Stalin, and failed to report what was going on in the Ukraine. Walt won a prize for that reporting if memory serves me right.
Did you know that they have started voting in Iraq, as the “Bush haters” continue to drum on.
Thanks, st, I appreciate it. We try, however ineffectually, to have a site where people with wildly differing views, like, oh, me and Charles Bird can just argue it out. If I hadn’t gone off to, you know, have a life, I would have stopped this earlier.
For the record, it’s not clear to me (this with respect to earlier comments) that if I say about someone (say, edward or von or Sebastian) that he is neither a serial killer, a pedophile, or a woman, I am necessarily equating being female with being a pedophile.
I think Timmy’s saying that we’re all apologists for Saddam Hussein. Is that it?
hilzoy,
I think futher comments made pretty clear what smlook and TWD thought it meant.
Nope to all the “Bush Haters” on this site.
I searched, and no one in this thread made the assertion that Bush supports torture.
Timmy: Merriam webster defines ‘apologist’ this way:
“one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something”
and that’s how I was using it. (Similarly, attempts to defend Christianity, or to prove its truth to the unconverted, are called Christian apologetics.) Duranty did speak in defense of the Soviet Union while it was killing millions, which, as you note, he failed to report. Again, do you mean to say that Bush-haters are similar in this respect? If you meant in some other respect, like, oh, hat size, now would be a good time to clarify.
By the way, congrats to Timmy for obfuscating the topic at hand in a mere couple dozen posts. Well done sir.
I guess that criticism of the LGF trolls must hit a bit too close to home, eh?
While I have a problem with a great number of the policies of Gorge W. Bush, I can’t classify myself as a Bush-hater. I’ve never met the man.
I have read, however, that in person he’s quite personable and likeable. But so is my dentist, and I wouldn’t want him in charge of the last superpower either. It’s nothing personal.
Nope to all the “Bush Haters” on this site.
Quit evading and say what you mean. I hate Bush, for a variety of very well-grounded reasons which are meaningful to me. Are you therefore accusing me of supporting terrorism, likening me to Stalin and Saddam supporters, and accusing me of advocating for the insurgency in Iraq?
No more bullshit, Timmy. No more evasions. No more word games. If that’s what you’re saying, nut up and say it, and we will next discuss this in a libel suit. Otherwise you will retract what you said, you will apologize, and you will refrain from ever insinuating such a thing again.
Sorry, “George W. Bush”, not “Gorge W. Bush.” Good name for a canyon though.
Simply put, fascism in the Middle East has been ignored (similar to the plight of North Korean refugees), the situation in Iraq has been grossly misrepresented, the people of Iraq are going to the polls, risking their lives, and we get this drivel.
A historical moment is taking place. Accordingly, the
Wallace-Duaranty analogy is apt. Wallace didn’t want to confront the situation whereas Duaranty misrepresented what was going on and both were embraced by the left at the time as heroes. And yes hilzoy my comments are designed to make you feel uneasy. BTW, I don’t remember you getting involved when I was called a fascist, not that I’m complaining.
Timmy, you obviously feel strongly about the upcoming election, and that’s fine. But the fact that you’re making an attack on something completely different seems a little odd. And misplaced
And I just searched again, and I don’t see where you were called a fascist.
Timmy: if I didn’t get involved when someone called you a fascist, it might have been because I was away or something. Or I could have missed it, in which case I apologize.
But as to the present case: we all agree that the Iraqi elections are historic. That doesn’t answer Catsy’s question, though.
TtWD,
And your statement has what to do with the OP? Iraqis are heading to the polls. Nobody asserts this is false. What do you have to say about LGF being run by a hack? If it smacks of liberal masterbation to you, I’d pass on this thread. Or at least chide von for writing the OP instead of completely freaking out.
Dear Timmy,
::The following message left in writer’s head for violating all posting rules, Robert’s Rules of Order, the Rules of dating, and, mysteriously, the 3rd Amendment.::
Are you therefore accusing me of supporting terrorism, likening me to Stalin and Saddam supporters, and accusing me of advocating for the insurgency in Iraq?
Catsy, abosolutely not, rather than engage on what is going you focus on your hatred on man who is doing something about it. Duaranty, just as the MSM today, lied about the situation in the Ukraine (if you grew up with Ukrainians you would know something about this) missed the genocide which was going on and Wallace didn’t want to face up to it. You know who Wallace was don’t you?
This is the weirdest freaking thread that I’ve seen all week, including the big one a couple of days ago. Timmy, what the hell are you talking about? What do the Iraqi elections have to do with LGF and Charles Johnson? I’m having a great deal of trouble following your discussion.
[simpsons]
Grandpa Simpson: That doll is evil I tell ya! Eeeeeeeevvviiilll!
Lisa Simpson: Oh Grandpa, you say that about everything.
GS: I know. I just want attention…
[/simpsons]
You know, I think this blog (not to mention America and the world at large) would be better off if we could agree that there might, just might, be more than one position on Iraq that people of good faith took without it making them morally equivalent to Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Saddam/Bin-laden/evil-robot-Santa-Clause and/or their apologists.
Catsy, abosolutely not, rather than engage on what is going you focus on your hatred on man who is doing something about it.
You are misinformed. I, like most adult human beings, am capable of engaging on more than one issue. You do understand how that works, right? Or do you abdicate your ability to care about what’s going on in Iraq in order to singlemindedly pursue your opposition to Democrats?
If that’s your limitation, then by all means own it. But don’t assume that it’s one I share. And don’t ever–ever–accuse me again of opposing freedom for Iraqis, or any other shade of terrorist sympathizing.
Timmy, thanks for clarifying that. If the point of the comparison was, Wallace and Duranty are ignoring something important, rather than: Wallace and Duranty are ignoring the murder of millions, and (in Duranty’s case, I’m not sure about Wallace) actually speaking in favor of it, it’s a pretty loaded comparison. Like comparing me to Stalin because there is something important that neither of us is ignoring (him: the Nazi invasion of Russia. Me: the election in Iraq.)
It’s worth noting that I have no idea at all what anyone on this blog might or might not be doing off it. So I don’t think I can accuse, say, Edward (picked as an example solely to avoid picking someone who’s either in this thread now or on the other side from me politically) of not doing anything about problem X. I have no idea whether he is or he isn’t.
One last time, I invite the gentle commenters here to scroll up and see the topic of this post. Timmy’s comments are completely off-topic, having nothing to do with the odious LGF trolls and their support for torture. If he wants to push his “George Bush, fighter of facism” mishegoss, perhaps he can find a post where that’s at least marginally on topic.
As well, I suspect that Timmy has crossed way over the line into posting rules territory.
Hmmm. Well over 57 million Americans would have preferred that George W. Bush no longer be President. Presumably, many of those 57 million felt strongly about it. Think of it. Not just one because:
Everybody now.
one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something
Duranty, didn’t report what was going on, which was Walt’s real sin. You can’t defend it, if you don’t acknowledge what is going on, now can you? Instead Walt painted the Soviet experiment (sell the grain to raise foreign reserves in order to produce steel and starve the serfs in the process) as wonderous when it wasn’t. Whereas Wallace attacked Truman (the Truman Doctrine as well as the Marshall Plan) and preached engagement.
hilzoy, you need not apologize, it didn’t bother me, as the individual who used the term doesn’t understand what it means.
Timmy,
Are you saying Catsy (and all other Bush-haters) are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers?
One last time, I invite the gentle commenters here to scroll up and see the topic of this post. Timmy’s comments are completely off-topic, having nothing to do with the odious LGF trolls and their support for torture.
Moving back towards that topic, I admit I struggle with confusion whenever anyone puts up a post like this. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s good to shine a light into the fringes every now and then and watch the cockroaches scurry, just to remind people they’re there. But even so, it reeks of futility to me: who, precisely is going to be swayed by this further evidence of Charles Johnson’s depravity? Those who comment on LGF (among whom may well be decent, regular people) are already aware of the things said on there. Those who don’t, probably already know the score.
I guess my question for von is: who’s the intended audience here?
Are you saying Catsy (and all other Bush-haters) are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers?
Nope!
dpu: And I just searched again, and I don’t see where you were called a fascist.
I did it in the following thread: A Challenge to the Blogosphere. [FWIW, I also notified the ObWi staff immediately upon so doing on the grounds that they should hear it from me first.] Incidentally, Timmy, I find the passive-aggressive “I’m not complaining!” schtick amusing, your paltry attempts at condescension notwithstanding — as was once remarked of Sir Geoffrey Howe, it’s like being savaged by a dead sheep — but maybe you should actually take this up with the mods instead of beating your chest about how you was done wrong? It’d be more productive and less, well, pathetic.
Catsy: To the extent that I care to respond to you, I will “suffer” Sunday’s elections with hope that as few people as possible will die, that as many Iraqis as possible will participate, and that the outcome will be regarded as legitimate by enough of the Iraqi people that a lasting peace can be achieved.
Amen, brother. Here’s to hoping.
As for the OP… yeah, LGF’s a sinkhole and Charles Johnson is a coward. What of it?
Carpeicthus: as (I think) the only person other than me to bring up the third amendment on this blog, you might enjoy the skit from grade school, about the 3rd amendment, that I mention in one of my very first posts, here. (It has always stuck in my mind as an example of a particular kind of grade school inanity.)
OK, I see. You’re response to Catsy’s comment
which was
was in no way meant to infer that you were saying Catsy (and all other Bush-haters) are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. Of course. How could we all have been so obtuse! My humblest apologies to you, sir.
JerryN: I am trying to get clear on who meant what by various things, and one reason I didn’t bring that one up was that it occurred to me that it might have been sarcastic. Don’t know whether it was or not, don’t have any conclusions to draw; just saying.
wow, this has to be one of the most vile threads I’ve seen on ObWi ever. apparently smlook (9:45) and ttwd (10:13 and 10:50) want to start a fight.
well, i’m in.
the only apologists for torture and mass murder on this thread are smlook and ttwd, for their support of the current administration. we liberals have a clear conscience — at least i know i do.
Unless they can point to their public opposition when Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam’s hand, or when Bush I failed to destroy the remainder of the Iraqi army when it was destroying the Marsh Arabs and the other Saddam opposition WHICH ROSE UP AT BUSH I’s INVITATION AND WAS BETRAYED, it is the conservatives, not the liberals, who bear the bloodstains of being apologists for a mass murderer.
go ahead, i’ve got all night. let’s see contemporary evidence of your outrage.
as for Bush II hating, i don’t have the energy, and he’s too pathetic to deserve hatred. i’ve stopped at contempt.
pro-terrorist, pro-Hussein, pro-insurgency — no, no, and that’s complicated. George Washington was an insurgent. So was Jefferson Davis. sometimes thoughtfulness has to replace sloganeering.
March of freedom? Does the term “Quisling” mean anything to you two? how about “Vichy Government”? how many millions of iraqis are going to despise the government simply because it was formed under american occupation?
you two appear to think that i hope for failure. what kind of monsters are you? i get no pleasure by reading about casualties, either american or iraqi. the fact that you think otherwise is … contemptible. [i’d say much more but for posting restrictions.]
catsy, at 10:36, pretty clearly stated my position. I would only add that recent Yugoslavian history shows that elections can expedite civil war. Everything the admin has done seems to be designed to aggravate that possibility.
The Kurds have the best troops around and appear to be spoiling for a fight. Are we going to betray them again? Are we going to try to muscle Turkey to stay out? Might we have to rely on the EU, god forbid, to muscle Turkey?
What are the Kurds to you two: insurgents / terrorists or freedom fighters?
feh.
it’s like being savaged by a dead sheep
Obviously, you never been in a field where dead sheep were rippening, savaged is the appropriate verb (the smell is bad enough when they are all still bleating), although I don’t believe that is what you had in mind. 🙂
was done wrong here moi, never. Just a reminder, while you all tilt at wimdmills, history is in the making, liberty on the march so to speak.
“apparently smlook (9:45) and ttwd (10:13 and 10:50) want to start a fight.
well, i’m in.”
Please, no, just walk away, everybody.
Jerry, JFTR here is the actual exchange
hating/et al Bush is synonymous with opposing freedom for Iraqis
Spoton Catsy, simple as that.
the only apologists for torture and mass murder on this thread are smlook and ttwd, for their support of the current administration. we liberals have a clear conscience — at least i know i do.
I have a clear conscience and when the vote is finished in Iraq and the country moves towards a constitutional republic, I’m sure the liberals come up with some rationale and I’m looking forward to it.
Please, no, just walk away, everybody.
You’re right. Back to the topic: does anyone have a peg on what Sully’s positions are? I’m having a hard time gauging his ideological stance nowadays.
Yep. I echo rilkefan’s plea.
For the record: I have no idea whether either Catsy or Timmy or anyone else on this thread was protesting Irqa’s actions. With one exception, namely me (I was. I was following that region fairly closely at the time, since I was involved with a Turkish Kurd.) When Donald Rumsfeld shook Saddam’s hand in (I think) 1984, and when the Reagan administration was feeding the Iraqi army our satelite data in (I think) 1986, for all I know either Timmy or Catsy or anyone else could have been firing off anguished letters to their representatives, or whatever, pleading with them to stop it. I have no idea, and neither does anyone who does not know them personally.
What I do know is that if anyone accuses anyone on this site of supporting terrorists, or Saddam, or Stalin, or Hitler or Pol Pot, or mass murder, or anything of the kind, without being able to provide clear evidence in support of their claim, then I will temporarily ban them and ask the others whether they think a permanent ban is in order. This is my last nice message on this score. (Nice messages on other topics are still an option 😉 )
Well said, rilkefan.
I was out playing bridge, but if hilzoy had banned I would have seconded it.
Please, no, just walk away, everybody.
That’s why Timmy still gets to post. He acts just inconsequentially enough that you don’t want to bother wasting effort on him, but it never changes the fact that he tosses off the grossest insults and accusations blithely and carefree.
He did it routinely at Tacitus and he does it routinely here. I wouldn’t miss him for a second were he gone. I’d miss Charles Bird, if only because he provides good argument (and cos we have the same last name, which freaks me out a little sometimes). But Timmy? Nah.
If you really think that Timmy doesn’t provide anything just ignore him.
Catsy: I guess my question for von is: who’s the intended audience here?
Beats me. I’ve never been banned from LGF because I’ve never commented there, because I’ve never managed to get more than a third of the way down a thread of comments without concluding that there’s nothing at all I have to say to these people – nor would they listen if I did.
My feeling is that LGF is clearly the perfect place for the bigots and the nutters to roam and play and lick each other and wag their tails, and the rest of us should just let them crap in their own little dogpen.
Glad to see we aren’t the only ones wading through the blog-muck that is LGF to show them up for the despicable little bigots they are.
Oh my god.
LGF watch? That’s a horrific, thankless job if ever I heard one.
I suspect Charles blocked the link because I advised him of my critical comment. Notice and response are pretty important to me. His response was telling.
If you really think that [a given poster] doesn’t provide anything just ignore him.
IMO, this piece of advice should be added to the posting rules.
Johnson fascinates me in the same way that say, David Icke fascinates me (they’re both into lizards–what’s up with that?), but I don’t really care (or care to read) what he or his commenters say on his own site. Jesurgislac is OTM here.
At least Chas Johnson has come out against honor killings. I checked the Obwi search button, and found no results for “honor killing” or “honour killing”. This does not mean in any way that Obwi is FOR honor killing, but it also is an indication that some people dont particularly care about it. I would guess that Obwi commenters would be close to 100% against honor killings. So why should it be up to the bad guys at LGF to point out that honor killing is bad?
unowhat – probably for the same reason that ObWi has not “come out against” child rape.
I don’t think Obsidian Wings has come out against tapioca pudding, either, and it ought to. Immediately.
I object strenuously to your baseless smear against tapioca pudding, Jes. Just because it bears a strong resemblance to a certain male reproductive by-product is no reason not to give it a fair shake. You should be ashamed.
I think we need an open thread to discuss this important issue: What should Obsidian Wing collectively and pre-emptively declare itself to have Come Out Against, in case anyone should think that ObWing might support it?
I’d vote for tapioca pudding, sugared tea, and the laugh track on M*A*S*H.
WOne thing we in the U.S. could do about honor killings would be to allow persecution on account of gender to form the basis for an asylum claim. I wrote about that once, here. (The post was about a domestic violence case but the logic applies equally to honor killings–there have been women denied asylum because the judge considered the threat of an honor killing to be a “personal problem.”)
Ashcroft’s decision in the Alvarado case was better than expected: he punted to his successor. It will depend on the regulations that the Department of Homeland Security writes. I would guess that they find some way to allow Rodi Alvarado to stay, but that they will do so in a narrow way and not go as far as they ought–which is again, to say that persecution on the basis of gender is a legitimate grounds for asylum.
But wouldn’t Anti-Honour-Killing Right be a more accurate label than Pro-Torture Right? I think that Pro-Secularized-Muslim-Civil-Society Right would be a more accurate label than Anti-Moslem.
Now if a right-winger came out against child sex slavery, would that be wrong? Of course everybody is against that, but it seems like mainly fundamentalist Christians want to do something about it. And of course, using the words “fundamentalist Christian” in a perjorative kind of way.
Oops I forgot to tip my hat to hilzoy, who already beat me to crediting fundy’s for doing good in a previous post (actual post not a comment)
Unowhat: But wouldn’t Anti-Honour-Killing Right be a more accurate label than Pro-Torture Right?
Not for this post, no, since it links to a LGF post which is pro-torture. No reference to honor-killing one way or another.
I think that Pro-Secularized-Muslim-Civil-Society Right would be a more accurate label than Anti-Moslem.
For LGF? Not that I’ve seen. Admittedly I don’t read it very often, nor do I read it very much, but its posts and it commenters seem to be anti-Muslim, very definitely. If you would care to provide links to LGF posts which were Pro-Secularized-Civil-Society – with no biased focus on Muslims, ignoring the problem of fundy-Christians who don’t like secularized civil society either – please do so.
Sorry von, I was totally out of line. I thought the categorization was “Pro-Torture Right” when it was actually “Pro-Toture Right”, which is probably some legal jargon I am not familiar with. I think I had better crack my dictionary so I can understand nuanced things like “dictionary definitions” of Toture.
Just for the record, I oppose honor killings, rape, murder, tapioca pudding, burst pipes, child abuse and molestation, Madonna’s entire musical career, Hummel figurines, domestic violence, most other kinds of violence, drunk driving, and all the other things I oppose. Since I have now declared that I oppose the things I oppose, no one gets to say that I have not come out publicly against something without knowing whether I actually oppose it. Hah: the joys of self-reference.
Sebastian,
Some things you can’t just ignore. Timmy has the habit of insulting and accusing those that don’t agree with him of being pro Saddam and anti-American. He has done it many times at tacitus, to me among others.
You have a good debate site here with different opinions. Trust me, it’s a question of time before you will be forced to ban Timmy. He only knows how to insult.
“Madonna’s entire musical career”
Madonna has a least a couple of great songs – “Drowned World / Substitute For Love” comes to mind.
If you really think that Timmy doesn’t provide anything just ignore him.
Advising people to ignore him is useless. They won’t. And it’s your responsibility as a moderator to deal with the fact that they won’t.
As Teresa Nielsen Hayden puts it, “There’s no more useless advice than to tell people to just ignore such things. We can’t. We automatically read what falls under our eyes.”
Read the entire link. It should be required reading for anyone who wants to be a moderator of any online community.
Hilzoy, have you ever tried Thai tapioca puding? The kind in that comes in little banana leaves, made with coconut milk? They are to die for! Really!
In Timmy‘s case it’s quite easy to ignore him by not translating his Timmyese into standard English. I hope this was just a bad thread for him though.
Sorry von, I was totally out of line. I thought the categorization was “Pro-Torture Right” when it was actually “Pro-Toture Right”, which is probably some legal jargon I am not familiar with. I think I had better crack my dictionary so I can understand nuanced things like “dictionary definitions” of Toture.
I get the vague sense that you’re trying to do a clever dig here; if so, however, my sole response is that, yes, you should crack a dictionary. The post is titled The Pro-Torture Right. Accordingly, the word “right” is not a verb. It’s a noun. And Mr. Johnson does need to crack a dictionary before he says again that “[t]he English language is demeaned and degraded by using such a word [torture]” to describe what went on at Abu Ghraib. Contra Johnson, torture has a fairly well-established definition (which I provide by link) which unequivocally fits the known facts. Saying that its use in this situtation “demean[s]” or “degrade[s]” the English language, as Johnson does, reflects either idiocy or malice on his part — and neither should be praised or silently accepted.
To the extent that you’re not being snarky, though, my apologies.
Hilzoy, have you ever tried Thai tapioca puding? The kind in that comes in little banana leaves, made with coconut milk? They are to die for! Really!
Oh yeah, I love that stuff. Touch of almond powder in there? Maybe a few water chestnuts as well for textural contrast? To die for.
von: Our Mysterious Stranger is making fun of the fact that you misspelled “Torture” in the title of the post.
Hahaha… how did I miss that?
Advising people to ignore him is useless. They won’t. And it’s your responsibility as a moderator to deal with the fact that they won’t.
Hang on folks. Suggestions on how to run the site are much appreciated, in the form of “suggestions.” Please stop short of dictating what the moderators’ “responsibilities” are.
Ignoring comments that offend you is a very practical constructive suggestion. Banning everyone that someone is offended by is not. Moe wanted to turn comments off altogether at a few points before he left because he got tired of trying to please everyone. It can’t be done in this context.
After the last banning we made a concerted effort to improve things so that hopefully fewer bannings would be necessary moving forward.
It’s getting boring spending all this time discussing who should or shouldn’t be banned. Really…if everyone would own their part of keeping things civil (and yes, Timmy, that goes primarily to you here…your email doesn’t work, btw), then we’d all be able to spend more time doing what he come here to do…debate the issues.
“Some things you can’t just ignore. Timmy has the habit of insulting and accusing those that don’t agree with him of being pro Saddam and anti-American. He has done it many times at tacitus, to me among others.”
I agree that there are some things you can’t ignore. But just for comparison, I regularly ignore–on this very board–suggestions that people who support Social Security reform want elderly people to starve on the streets, suggestions that conservatives support the War of Iraq because they want to steal oil from brown people, and that opposition to affirmative action equals hidden racism. And if they are not so brazen, the typical suggestion is that of course I am not actually racist, but I am one of the very very few conservatives who isn’t–most of the rest of them oppose affirmative action because they are racist and I am providing them cover for their awful views.
I typically ignore such things because they are so common that if I bothered to respond to them all the time I would never get to talk about any substantive point. And if I bothered to ban everyone who did that, some of our most prolific commenters would be banned.
In my opinion TimmytheWonderDog is playing a game. He is seeing how much he can get away with without getting banned. I don’t approve of the game at all. I think it is disruptive and unhelpful. But you are making it too easy for him. I suspect that if you ignore his provocations one of three things will happen.
1) He calms down and becomes a productive commentor. This is my most preferred outcome.
2) He escalates and I ban him.
3) He continues at a medium level and we eventually have to decide whether or not it is worth it to ban him for being a generally disruptive influence.
You should consider disemvowelling egregeriously offensive posts, on either side. Imho.
Where is that being done votermom? I’ve never seen it and can’t imagine what it’s effect is.
Actually, GT , IMO, Timmy’s best trick is to ornament his simplistic political “insults” (e.g., in effect saying one’s dislike for George W. Bush translates to direct support for “terrorism” or “fascism”) with references to fairly obscure figures or events out of 1940’s-50’s political history (Walter Duranty? GMAB!) – typically with a slant towards tarring today’s “liberals” (or some strawman variety thereof) with the sins of some long-gone Communist-apologist or pinko naïf – thus, “proving” his point (such as it may be).
FDR’s failings at the Yalta Conference of 1944 seem to one of his favorites flails to thrash his oppponents with: I wonder how long it would have taken for him to toss that in if the thread hadn’t veered off back on topic?
Suggestions on how to run the site are much appreciated, in the form of “suggestions.” Please stop short of dictating what the moderators’ “responsibilities” are.
Ack. I’m not trying to dictate how you run the site. I’m pointing out that suggesting that people ignore offensive comments is futile, and that eventually you’re going to have to deal with the fact that it’s futile. (That’s the generic “you”, there.) There are multiple ways of dealing with that fact, and banning is only one of them. (And please note that not only have I not suggested that anyone be banned, I’ve suggested alternative ways of dealing with the problem short of banning.)
Where is that being done votermom? I’ve never seen it and can’t imagine what it’s effect is.
Read the link in my first post on this thread, Edward. Disemvowelling is Teresa Nielsen Hayden’s invention, and it works a treat.
FDR’s failings at the Yalta Conference of 1944 seem to one of his favorites flails to thrash his oppponents with
Until he needs to appropriate his mantle and make GWB into an FDR manque, fighting fascism around the world and protecting the poor with a New New Deal!
For an example of disemvoweling in action, check out the comments on this Electrolite post.
Disemvowelling is editing the post and taking the vowels out. I’d hope there’s an automated way to do it, though.
Thnks Jsh,
Tht thrd s gd rd.
Cn nn pnt t wht dsmvwllng lks lk?
update
hmmm….me likey.
but about that automation…
Dsmvwllng lks lke ths.
Prsnlly t dsn’t wrk fr m, bcs hv ths strng cmplsn t dcphr th whl dmn pst. thnk dd t mny crsswrds s kd. Bt ‘m prbbly jst wrd; othr ppl swr b t.
Behold the Disemvoweller. You just cut and copy the results over the original post, I guess.
Von wrote:
Oh come on, you know that isn’t the case. Andrew Sullivan didn’t write a piece in which he merely “suggest[ed] that torture is wrong,” he instead took an inflammatory comment from someone who posted it at the LGF site and used it to imply that this was somehow the position of Charles Johnson. Johnson was responding to the smear.
BTW while semantics exercises about defining what “torture” is might be interesting (or even useful if done constructively for the purpose of clarification as Sebastien Holsclaw has suggested doing on more than one occasion), it doesn’t follow from his comments that Johnson is somehow “pro-torture.” He said rather clearly that while he didn’t think the abuses at Abu Gharib rose to the level of “torture,” that he was nonetheless against them and supported prosecuting and punishing the offenders. Even if you want to make the argument that they should be considered “torture” and that Johnson was wrong for not designating them as such, the fact that he was against the abuses in question negates the charge.
What I’d like to see is a reemvoweller. (double-l?)
Behold the Disemvoweller.
Awesome! But I think you’re right. I spent a fair bit of time trying to sort out what the original was on the Electrolite post…I guess you tire of that eventually though…either that or get good at reading vowelless text.
Not the derail the thread back to its original intent, but I went over to LGF to read some more of the comments on the post that Von originally linked to, and was surprised to see some intelligent discussion near the bottom.
Or maybe it was like finding a rock while digging through sewage. Looks pretty good in comaprison. TIFWIW.
Hwvr, t ds tk h stng t f nslts, nd trn thrws slss r dtrmntl psts nt fn wy t mprv yr vrbl sklls.
nd whn smn splls ‘cmprsn’ s ‘cmprsn’, thr’s n w t tll!
Thgh ‘ttr’ s stll mssplld.
Thorley Winston: Andrew Sullivan didn’t write a piece in which he merely “suggest[ed] that torture is wrong,” he instead took an inflammatory comment from someone who posted it at the LGF site and used it to imply that this was somehow the position of Charles Johnson. Johnson was responding to the smear.
Here’s Sullivan’s post (emph. mine):
Where does he imply this was from Charles Johnson?
Katherine, no fair removing the occasional consonant as well — that raises the level of difficulty way too high.
Srry.
[/disemvoweller](I couldn’t figure out how to handle y’s. If it wasn’t a Y I left out, it was an accident.)
Ths s fn! spcll lk wht hppns t nnvrbl ntrjctns, lk ‘t h h ‘ r ‘h h h’.
Thgh ‘ttr’ s stll mssplld.
s s ‘h’ n Kthrn’s 12:44pm pst.
knw, bt ws t nc t s s.
Hw sd s t tht ‘v bn tpng ths drctl wtht th Dsmvwllr?
Ww, d blv tht’s th frst tm n m lf ‘v vr mssplld “th.” Nw fl rll stpd. Frm nw n ‘m nl sng th cmptr prgrm.
thnk ths thrd prvs tht dsmvwllng wld prvnt flm wrs, bt mght ls mk t vn sr t thrw dscssns ff tpc.
Poor Thorley and double-plus-good…trying to have meaningful debate through the dark vowellessness…
perhaps we need a voweless open thread so this one can return to its original purpose.
ncrch: vr, vr sd. hv t.
r hndl s wndrfl wtht vwls.
dwrd: t hd n rgnl prps? frgt.
To interject a scientific point – it was once claimed by (I believe) an antievolutionist that early human mouths couldn’t produce a range of vowels and hence couldn’t have evolved language use, and in response a scientist wrote a disemvowelled or all-vowels-to-“e” rebuttal.
Nvr mnd hndls: mn cms t s “J C” whch knd of dfts th whl prps f th Dsmvwllr nywy!
Cn w gt bck n thrd?
o aou i e o e ae i i ooa?
[nope, doesn’t work nearly as well to do the same thing with consonants…but we’d probably waste less time trying to decipher them]
J C: splsprt 😉
Srr! Shld rd “knd f dfts” bv.
(Vn dsmvwllmt cn’t vd tps!
Catsy,
Riddle me this then… does voting for Bush mean that it’s “our” fault that innocent people have died in Iraq.
C’mon let’s be honest Catsy… you want it both ways. Just the other day you were making comments about how Bush votes helped cause the deaths of innocents. Well, guess what Bush haters could also be the cause of deaths in Iraq.
The duplicity at ObWi never ends… bravo Catsy for for validating it.
in response a scientist wrote a disemvowelled or all-vowels-to-“e” rebuttal.
There are extant languages that only use a single vowel. I could dig up the examples if anyone’s interested. IIRC, they tend to have much longer words to make up for the loss of paradigmatic variation.
Do speak up, kids, no one can understand you when you mumble. 🙂
r hndl s wndrfl wtht vwls
Nt f y spll t rght 😉
smlook: Duplicity is dishonesty. Accusing someone here of dishonesty, without providing supporting evidence, violates the posting rules. Your evidence at best shows inconsistency, which is entirely different from dishonesty. Stop it.
In my opinion, you don’t even show that Catsy is inconsistent. The link between voting for someone whose policies caused deaths and those deaths is a lot more obvious than any link between someone’s attitudes towards Bush and deaths. You are of course right to point out that there could be such a link — more or less anything could cause anything else — but you haven’t begun to show one.
Hilzoy,
Catsy defines herself by her posts. It’s easy to see what she is/supports. No one else define her.
This is sort of funny… let’s ban Timmy from the site for doing what Catsy and Dianne do.
nrch: ps.
“To interject a scientific point – it was once claimed by (I believe) an antievolutionist that early human mouths couldn’t produce a range of vowels and hence couldn’t have evolved language use, and in response a scientist wrote a disemvowelled or all-vowels-to-“e” rebuttal.”
But it’s an imperfect rebutal, because one is spoken and one is read. If someone passed me a note saying “f crs y cn hv lngg wtht vwls y nncmpp” I’d be able to decode it. If they tried to leave that message on my voicemail, not so much.
I do think you could get by with just one vowel sound, but don’t you need at least one?
It’s easy to see what she is
Apparently not so easy, since she’s a he.
double-plus-ungood asks:
Well according to Johnson:
There are two things to take away here. First Johnson is responding to the charge that LGF is an “enthusiastically pro-torture site.” Second, he refers to his disclaimer which reads in part: Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs. Here Johnson is clearly stating that (a) what someone puts in the comments section is not necessarily the view of LGF and conversely (b) only the opinions of the host (Johnson) represent the view of LGF (the “site”). By making a characterization of the opinions of the “site” after Johnson has specifically and conspicuously disclaimed that the comments were not the opinion of the site (LGF) and conversely only his opinions are the position of LGF, Sullivan was in effect taking a swipe at Johnson.
Anyone remember the word mixer-upper that was in the news last year?
-or-
Anoyne rmmeeber the wrod mexir-ueppr taht was in the nwes lsat yaer? It seems taht eevn wehn all lteetrs whtiin a wrod are mexid up, epecxt eehihr end, the wrod is sltil ubaslernndadte.
Eepcxt lnog oens lkie “ubaslernndadte”, arnaltpapy.
kenB: Apparently not so easy, since she’s a he.
People do have trouble spotting another person’s gender online, though.
Thorley: Given that Johnson routinely deletes comments he doesn’t like, I think it’s fair to assume that the comments he leaves up are comments he approves of, whatever he says in his disclaimer.
TW: Well according to Johnson..
IMO, Johnson is a paranoid loon. Where do YOU see where Sullivan, as you allege, implying that the smear was Johnson’s? He quite plainly states that he’s quoting from LGF posters in a thread, and not quoting Johnson.
…and yeah, what Jes said. Johnson can put all the disclaimers he wants on the site, but I think that the way Sullivan has expressed it is the correct way. I supposed he could have said “enthusiastically-pro-torture-commenter infested site”, but I think that’s a bit of a linguistic burden just in order to protect a guy who doesn’t classify anything that happened at Abu Ghraib as torture, including people beaten to death.
People do have trouble spotting another person’s gender online, though.
🙂
Actually, I also assumed from his handle that Catsy was female. Had to modify my mental picture when I found out otherwise, though not quite as much as I needed to in your case.
Thorley —
Andrew wrote that LGF is an enthusiastically pro-torture site (IIRC), and then cited to the LGF commentariat, who (as noted) tend to aim low. Charles took offense (shocker!) and argued that he wasn’t pro-torture — but his support was a post that displayed a stunning amount of ignorance (or maliciousness) regarding such esoteric subjects as the ordinary, dictionary definition of torture. It was, at best, a very confused post.
But Charles’ posts alone don’t alone tell us whether LGF is a very pro-torture site. LGF also consists of comments — thousands and thousands of them. They too are part of LGF, and they very much lean pro-torture.
Finally, it’s not as if CJ is an innocent victim of the kind of site he chooses to run. He set it up, he moderates it, and he sets the tone. Moreover, CJ requires registration to comment (it’s currently closed) and has, in the past, freely banned commentators. not ban commentators (he does). Nor does CJ
BTW while semantics exercises about defining what “torture” is might be interesting (or even useful if done constructively for the purpose of clarification as Sebastien Holsclaw has suggested doing on more than one occasion), it doesn’t follow from his comments that Johnson is somehow “pro-torture.”
See above on the pro-torture charge. On semantics, it was CJ who chose to employ them. I just called him out.
Catsy’s a he?
Last I checked.
Trivia: the handle is a diminuitive of “Catspaw”, which dates back about 12 years to the days of BBSes. My closest friends were people from a local Seattle BBS, and since there were two Brandons in the group, we called each other by our handles. Catspaw eventually got shortened to Catsy. It stuck; even Microsoft called me Catsy when I worked there.
But it is rather feminine, absent all other context.
Just goes to show that you can’t assume too much about someone by the face they present to the net.
That’s kind of neat. A Catspaw vs. A Bird and Wonder Dog. 😉
Sounds like a recipe for Saturday morning cartoons. :>
Anyone notice that LGF’s Chucky Johnson, really comes off as an insolent brat?
Can’t you just seem him stamping his his feet!
-R
I’d just like to weigh in and say I agree with Seb Holsclaw’s most recent post in this thread.
Not that we’re even vaguely talking about that any more.
Not that we’re even vaguely talking about that any more.
Tht’s fr dmn sr! 😉
then we’d all be able to spend more time doing what he come here to do…debate the issues.
Actually, Eddie I haven’t seen much debating going on and no analyis. GT is right on one issue though, over Tac, we (Ken and others) have consistently questioned his analysis or lack thereof, because it has been wrong (might I interject here that GT was extremely disappointed when Sadr’s uprising wasn’t a Shia uprising). But I don’t remember anyone suggesting that he be banned which seems to be the flavor of the day here.
You know tolerance on the left has never been a strong point.
My analysis or analogy remains consistent that the “hatred of Bush” distorts the conversation at Wings. And the continued focus on torture is simply to deflect what is current going on in Iraq right now (a historical moment btw). That is, Wings won’t acknowledge the making of history but will continute to focus on the torture meme (comparative analysis of torture posts as compared to an Iraqi Republic).
Now I’m more than happy to engage in a conversation on both but Edward how many posts have you had on torture at Wings and how much of it was just regurjitating previous positions, as compared to the accomplishment of an Iraqi Republic would entail. In fact Eddie, you lost a bet on the subject.
Thus bringing the Duranty and Wallace portraits, my apparent crime, into the conservation was certainly not happen chance but predicated on previous history. Now if banning is warranted for that activity so be it.
Now please continue to beat the same drum over and over.
Eddie, if *you* want me to leave, just ask. You probably will feel better because no one will challenge you unless you migrate off of the “liberal” reservation.
cat’s-paw or catspaw via answers.com:
1. A person used by another as a dupe or tool.
2. A light breeze that ruffles small areas of a water surface.
3. Nautical. A knot made by twisting a section of rope to form two adjacent eyes through which a hook is passed, used in hoisting.
[From a fable about a monkey that used a cat’s paw to pull chestnuts out of a fire.]
rilkefan: cat’s-paw or catspaw via answers.com:
Also an excellent novel by Joan Vinge, whence the handle comes.
Timmy: You know tolerance on the left has never been a strong point.
See, it’s patently false and sweepingly general throwaway lines like this that make you impossible to take seriously.
And the continued focus on torture is simply to deflect what is current going on in Iraq right now (a historical moment btw).
Because, heavens, the continued focus on torture couldn’t be because 1) some of us actually think torture and its like are wrong, 2) this administration has yet to do anything which gives us confidence that they’ve truly disavowed its use and in fact have appointed the architect of our most shameful policies on it to the post of Attorney General, and 3) whenever we try to raise the issue’s visibility, apologists like you come out of the woodwork to deflect the issue in any way you can.
That is, Wings won’t acknowledge the making of history but will continute to focus on the torture meme (comparative analysis of torture posts as compared to an Iraqi Republic).
Poppycock. I seem to note that there are more conservative and right-leaning commentors on ObWi than left-leaning. Yet your diatribe reserves judgement on your supposed ideological brethern, instead heaping scorn on the left for our supposed devotion to ignoring anything good going on in Iraq.
Thus bringing the Duranty and Wallace portraits, my apparent crime, into the conservation was certainly not happen chance but predicated on previous history. Now if banning is warranted for that activity so be it.
Poppycock again, and hogswaddle to boot. If you did not stop to think about the deeply insulting implications of comparing The Left to Soviet apologists, then I have given you far too much credit for forethought, forethought you would be well advised to exercise at length before dipping into a well of metaphors that you clearly don’t understand as well as you think you do.
Furthermore, only three people talked about banning you specifically: GT, hilzoy, and Sebastian–and the last two discussed it only in the context of continued misbehavior. While whining about how oppressed you are might make you feel better, you really ought to take notice of the fact that the low opinion of your behavior is quite bipartisan.
What’s currently going on in Iraq.
Why would we need to distract attention from it, Timmy?
I dont trust lawyers to be conservative, even if they present themselves as such. They will suck up to the leftists if they can go with the popular opinion. Say, if hilzoy filed suit against the Hoopeston HS district because the “Lady Corn-Jerkers” is an undignified, possibly sexist or homophobic nickname, then my bet is that von would seize the opportunity to rail against Corn-Jerker ball, or Corn-Jerker water polo. Timmy at least would support a pro Corn-Jerker “conservation”. and possibly Edward as well.
And what if that succeeds and everybody has to preface their remarks with, “well I think Corn-Jerkers is a bad name” before giving their opinion. Where will it stop? Katherine will get indignant over the Hurley “Fighting Midgets” and then everyone will have to chime in on that. Myself, I have seen fighting midgets at the county fair and enjoyed them very much, but the appropriateness for a HS mascot, I will concede is questionable.
There are far too many academics and lawyers here. It makes my head hurt.
For a similar site to LGF without vitriol, try
watch.windsofchange.net.
Actually the main Winds of Change is pretty great.
My college aged son manned a protest puppet. The world has gone completely to hell.
uno, what’s with the spamming?
Don’t walk into the light, Carol Ann.
Seriously, Timmy, you know better. Don’t turn into the Right’s equivalent of Michael Kimmitt, please.
The Left to Soviet apologists
Catsy, Walt wasn’t an apologist. Walt failed to report what was going on, as such there was nothing to apologize for. Catsy, have you ever read what Walt wrote. As for Wallace (Catsy, you do know who Henry was) he wasn’t an apologist either. Thus for the third or fourth time you’ve got it wrong. Please keep trying, I’m sure that you will eventually figure it out.
Timmy: I posted the definition of ‘apologist’ earlier. It has nothing to do with apologizing. Just so we’re all clear who Timmy is comparing those of us on the left to, here are some details:
About the Ukrainian famine: “The Ukrainian famine of 1929-33, named the “Harvest of Sorrow” by historian Robert Conquest in his classic book on the subject, was the largest single act of genocide in European history. The death toll even exceeded the Nazi Holocaust against the Jewish people a few years later.
In all, 10 million Ukrainians, most of them peasants, died as catastrophic, stupid and cruel collectivization policies were imposed by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin on the richest, most fertile, wheat-exporting breadbasket in the world. In the decades before World War I, its annual grain exports regularly vastly outstripped those of the American Midwest.
The enforced collectivization of land and the unbelievable death toll were deliberately whipped up by conscious policy and malice. Stalin was determined to crush the slightest remaining glimmer of Ukrainian national identity and also to liquidate the “kulaks” or wealthy peasants, which in practical terms meant any family with the expertise to raise a decent crop on the land. Mass shootings of entire families, or so-called liquidations, were commonplace. The production of food collapsed.” (cite)
What Duranty wrote about it: “”There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be.”
–New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1
“Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.”
–New York Times, August 23, 1933
“Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin’s program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding.”
–New York Times, December 9, 1932, page 6
“You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.”
–New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 18
“There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition.”
–New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13″ (cite)
What Duranty said about it privately at the time: “Ralph Barnes, the New York Herald Tribune reporter, turned to Duranty and asked him what he was going to write. Duranty replied:
Nothing. What are a few million dead Russians in a situation like this? Quite unimportant. This is just an incident in the sweeping historical changes here. I think the entire matter is exaggerated.
And this was at a time when peasants in Ukraine were dying of starvation at the rate of 25,000 a day.
In his masterwork about Stalin’s imposed famine on Ukraine, “Harvest of Sorrow,” Robert Conquest has written:
As one of the best known correspondents in the world for one of the best known newspapers in the world, Mr. Duranty’s denial that there was a famine was accepted as gospel. Thus Mr. Duranty gulled not only the readers of the New York Times but because of the newspaper’s prestige, he influenced the thinking of countless thousands of other readers about the character of Josef Stalin and the Soviet regime. And he certainly influenced the newly-elected President Roosevelt to recognize the Soviet Union.” (cite)
More of what he said privately, this time from British diplomatic reports:
“5. According to Mr. Duranty, the population of the North Caucasus and the Lower Volga has decreased in the past year by 3 million, and the population of Ukraine by 4-5 million…
7. From Rostov Mr. Duranty went to Kharkov, and on the way he noticed that large quantities of grain were in evidence at the railway stations, of which a large portion was lying in the open air. Conditions in Kharkov were worse than in Rostov. There was less to eat and the people had evidently been on very short commons. There was a dearth of cattle and poultry. Supervision over visitors was also stricter in Kharkov. During the year the death rate in Kharkov was, he thought, not more than 10 per cent above the normal. Numerous peasants, however, who had come into the town had died off like flies…
10. …Ukraine had been bled white…
12. At Kharkov Mr. Duranty saw the Polish consul, who told him the following story: A Communist friend employed in the Control Commission was surprised at not getting reports from a certain locality. He went out to see for himself, and on arrival he found the village completely deserted. Most of the houses were standing empty, while others contained only corpses. The consul also mentioned that during the early part of the spring, stones were thrown at any car passing through a village, it being supposed that any such car must be an official one…
13. Mr. Duranty thinks it quite possible that as many as 10 million people may have died directly or indirectly from lack of food in the Soviet Union during the past year…
Star reporter for the New York Times, Walter Duranty, conveyed the information contained in document #50 to a British diplomat off the record. Officially he wrote the following: “And here are the facts… there is no actual starvation or death from starvation, but there is widespread mortality from disease due to malnutrition… These conditions are bad but there is no famine.” New York Times, 31 March 1933, p.13. ” (cite)
More: “Writing 40 years later in his classic memoirs “Chronicles of Wasted Time,” Muggeridge concluded that Duranty was a sociopath without a grain of professional integrity or human decency to his name. (…)
Duranty may well have been blackmailed or bribed or both by the Soviets, but Muggeridge concluded that his real motive in lying outright about what he knew to be true and helping the Soviets in their unprecedented, astonishingly successful cover-up was a far simpler one: He loved and revered Stalin precisely because he was so colossally murderous and cruel.
“He admired Stalin and the regime precisely because they were so strong and ruthless. ‘I put my money on Stalin’ was one of his favorite sayings.'” Indeed, Muggeridge related that in one conversation they had, Duranty even admitted to him that he knew there was a catastrophic food shortage, even famine in Ukraine and that he knew the Soviet authorities were prepared to kill large numbers of people there to keep control.
As Muggeridge described the conversation, “But, he said, banging the sides of the sofa, remember that you can’t make omelettes without breaking eggs — another favorite saying. They’ll win, he went on; they’re bound to win. If necessary, they’ll harness the peasants to the ploughs but I tell you they’ll get the harvest in and feed the people that matter. The people that mattered were the men in the Kremlin and their underlings. … The others were just serfs, reserves of the proletariat, as Stalin called them. Some would die, surely, perhaps, quite a lot, but there were enough, and to spare.” (cite)
So you see why we might object to the comparison.
I won’t bother to duplicate hilzoy’s fantastic citations, except to note that I unequivocally stand by my definition of Duranty as a Stalin apologist, and by my righteous outrage at being implicitly compared to him.
Wow. I hadn’t quite realized the breadth of Duranty’s apologias relative to his knowledge of what was happening; thanks for the cites, hilzoy.
It’s kinda sorta why I got upset. — And may I take this opportunity to say that Google is a wonderful, wonderful thing.
Oh, I knew it was bad mojo. I just didn’t realize how bad the mojo was.
And yes, shiiiiiiiiny, shiny Google.
“This post is titled The Pro-Torture Right.”
Laying aside the lack of use of quotation marks, it’s quite clearly titled “The Pro-Toture Right,” actually, Von. (But if you change it now, any prior links from anywhere to it will fail; links such as here, say.)
So you see why we might object to the comparison.
Well absolutely hilzoy, as you illustrate Walt, writing for the NY Times, ignored the story and until recently the West ignored the story. I had the opportunity to grow up with the children of Ukranians who lived through it, told stories about it and cried about it. Walt admired Stalin but he wasn’t an apologist for Stalin as he never acknowledge Stalin’s sins, certainly not in public.
Hilzoy you fail to mention Henry, who again shared in the same shame as Walt.
And while this segue is getting old, North Korean refugees continue to be ignored by the MSM and their plight is very similar to the Ukranians of the 1930s. Now what did Albright say about “Dear Leader” and is that another “Walt and Henry” moment? I believe it is. Maybe you don’t. Here is an idea, maybe someone at Wings should write about them, North Korean refugees that is, here. Just a suggestion.
Wow, Gary’s still alive! Kick ass. 🙂
Pace Timmy, I’m quite aware of the records of those with whom I was being unfavorably compared. One strongly suspects that it is he, not I, who did not fully understand the comparison being made–either that, or he does not understand the meaning of the word “apologist”, which still does not excuse the original comparison, which dipped perilously close to libel.
Now what did Albright say about “Dear Leader” and is that another “Walt and Henry” moment?
Why don’t you tell us? That would, incidentally, require stating your argument and its supporting evidence outright, as opposed to dropping breezy drive-by asides and incomplete thoughts from which you invite your opponents to draw their own conclusions.
Walt admired Stalin but he wasn’t an apologist for Stalin as he never acknowledge Stalin’s sins, certainly not in public.
I reiterate: you do not understand the meaning of the word “apologist”. Hilzoy was courteous enough to provide you with the definition above. Understanding its nuances and use in context may, I understand, require some examples, so I might offer C.S. Lewis, widely regarded as one of the preeminent Christian apologists of the last century. Indeed, the word is most often used in a religious context for those who devote great intellect and research to defending and supporting the validity of their faith to outsiders.
At this point, I suspect you are engaging in base pedantry. Duranty was by definition an apologist for Stalin, but whether he was or not is not germane to the fact that you directly compared the entire left to him, and that this was an extremely offensive and unflattering–to say nothing of groundless–comparison. You are deflecting this central charge, which you have yet to retract, by essentially arguing over whether you were comparing us to a someone who sympathized with mass murder or just turned a blind eye to it. Neither of these are accurate or tolerable.
Quit prevaricating, and either support your allegation or retract it.
Actually Catsy, the comparison was to the “combination” of Walt and Henry, go back and look it up.
Walt, by definition, wasn’t an apologist as I’ve pointed out, he never acknowledged Stalin’s sins.
Catsy: maybe he thinks that the Apoligia Pro Vita Sua was Cardinal Newman’s ‘Apology for his Life’ …
(Which reminds me of a wonderful skit by Flanders and Swann in which Swann says: “Flanders spent a fortnight in Paris once — quinze jours, as the French say, quinze being the French word for fourteen — in the company of someone who shall be nameless. (pause) Named Mabel Figworthy. (pause) Better known as La Belle Dame Sans Merci: The Beautiful Lady Who Never Syas Thank You…”)
I might offer C.S. Lewis, widely regarded as one of the preeminent Christian apologists of the last century.
I’ll also toss Hardy’s “A Mathematician’s Apology” into the ring.
And yay Flanders & Swann! So few people know about them nowadays…
In my first ever philosophy class, I had a great section leader. One day, in section, we were discussing the ethics of cannibalism (why? I have no idea), and before I could stop myself I said “Roast leg of insurance salesman!”, and without missing a beat my section leader said” A chorus of yums ran round the table…” Then the class just went on, and no one else had the slightest idea what we were talking about.
Actually Catsy, the comparison was to the “combination” of Walt and Henry, go back and look it up.
I know what you said, and I know who Henry Wallace was. That has nothing to do what my point, and you know it–you’re deflecting again.
Walt, by definition, wasn’t an apologist as I’ve pointed out, he never acknowledged Stalin’s sins.
First of all, you’re simply wrong in your facts: Duranty did, in fact, acknowledge some of Stalin’s wrongs. He simply didn’t classify them as such. He rationalized, minimized, lied about, and even defended them if necessary.
Second of all, whether or not he acknowledge Stalin’s “sins” has nothing to do with whether or not he was an apologist for Stalin. You can keep saying it until you’re blue in the fact, but at some point people are simply going to conclude that you really don’t know what you’re talking about and aren’t worth their time to try to prove that 1 + 1 equals 2, not 3.14.
Finally–and I do tire of having to repeat this to you–it has nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of the sweeping and offensive comparison you made to The Left.
I know what you said, and I know who Henry Wallace was. That has nothing to do what my point, and you know it
It has everything to do with my point, Walt and Henry, go hand in hand, they both enabled and failed to take a stand against Stalin. The Stalinist had a word for it and current posting rules preclude my use of it.
Timmy: Walt and Henry, go hand in hand, they both enabled and failed to take a stand against Stalin. The Stalinist had a word for it and current posting rules preclude my use of it.
Current posting rules precluded your sweeping insult at at January 27, 2005 11:05 PM. You haven’t retracted that insult or apologized for it.
Actually Catsy, the comparison was to the “combination” of Walt and Henry, go back and look it up
Don’t worry, guys, I’m sure that Timmy is only comparing the Left to the good parts. It’s always a mix and match thing for him.
“I’m going to teach you how to talk to respectable folks if it’s my last act,” says Brer Rabbit, says he. “If you don’t take off that hat and say howdy, I’m going to bust you wide open,” says he.
Tar-Baby stayed still and Brer Fox, he lay low.
Brer Rabbit kept on asking her why she wouldn’t talk and the Tar-Baby kept on saying nothing until Brer Rabbit finally drew back his fist, he did, and blip–he hit the Tar-Baby on the jaw. But his fist stuck and he couldn’t pull it loose. The tar held him. But Tar-Baby, she stayed still, and Brer Fox, he lay low.
“If you don’t let me loose, I’m going to hit you again,” says Brer Rabbit, says he, and with that he drew back his other fist and blap–he hit the Tar-Baby with the other hand and that one stuck fast too.
By my count, that is three posts in a row in which you’ve ignored the fundamental point of contention here–that you directly compared the chimeric left with a Stalin apologist–and refused to actually address what you did wrong when confronted with a direct demand to support or retract your words.
At this point I can only conclude that you are not operating in good faith here, and are instead playing puerile games and trolling. I have no further time I wish to waste on you.
Don’t worry, guys, I’m sure that Timmy is only comparing the Left to the good parts.
They had good parts? A cite.
At this point I can only conclude that you are not operating in good faith here
Catsy, the last post lays it out and I see you understand. See that wasn’t so hard.
Huh. Timmy’s now a self-confessed troll. Go fig.
Did someone edit, I wonder
Thorley:
Here Johnson is clearly stating that (a) what someone puts in the comments section is not necessarily the view of LGF and conversely (b) only the opinions of the host (Johnson) represent the view of LGF (the “site”).
Although the comments at LGF may not mirror Johnson’s actual thoughts, the comments of regulars(defined by me as posters with > 500 comments)are indicative of the site Johnson chooses to run.
For example…
Regular LGF commenter piglet has over 1100 posts to his name on LGF. After the tsunami disaster, his first comment on a thread that had nothing to do with religion or politcs was:
“Am I the only one wondering how many muslim women drowned in these waters because they were wearing islamic dress and were weighed down by their clothes?”
Now, it is certainly unfair to say that Charles Johnson wondered how many Muslim women perished because of the clothing they wear minutes after what was then thought to be 100,000 people died. But it speaks volumes that this piglet, who is a long-time commenter, felt his views would be welcome on a thread that simply reported the disaster.
The second point here is that it is impossible to decipher what Johnson’s actual views are. There is no analysis at LGF. Basically, Johnson will cut and paste some news item, set it up as the “Outrage of the Day”, and his posters will use it as a jumping board for invective against Muslims and Democrats. The meat of LGF is in the comments, where any analysis (in the loosest sense of the word) or opinions are. Given Johnson’s lack of actually giving an opinion on anything, the comments are a proxy to try and figure out what LGF is all about.
Well said, The Truth.
911 JUDGMENT of GOD
Does anyone doubt 911 as the JUDGMENT of GOD upon AMERICA, and the NATIONS of the WORLD? Read on now; writes Ivor Manuel, Branch of the Lord.
Yesterday 10/22/06 Associated Press published the following story: NEW YORK – Searchers found more bones believed to belong to Sept. 11 World Trade Center attack victims Sunday in manholes and utility areas, areas that apparently were overlooked years ago…
Utility and city officials have excavated more than five hundred areas, yielding more than 100 pieces of human remains, since construction workers discovered bones earlier in the week in a manhole excavated as part of work in a transit hub…
The medical examiner’s office said 18 pieces of remains were found Sunday. The bones found thus far range from tiny fragments to recognizable bones from the sculls, torso, feet and hands. Some are as large as whole arms and legs bones…
Now read the WORD of the LORD by Prophet ISAIAH chapter 34: 1, 2, 3, 4. For the LORD shall accomplish His purpose according to the WORD by His prophets; writes Ivor Manuel.
“Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken ye people; let the Earth hear, and all that is therein; the World and all things that come forth of it. For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and His fury upon all their ARMIES; He hath utterly destroyed them; He has delivered them to the slaughter. THEIR SLAIN also SHALL BE CAST OUT, and THEIR STINK SHALL COME UP OUT of their CARCASES, and the MOUNTAINS SHALL BE MELTED (mountains in Afghanistan) with their BLOOD. And all the Host of Heaven shall be dissolved, and the Heavens shall be rolled together as (Tsunami, Earthquakes and Hurricanes) a scroll; and all their entire host (idols of America and the World) shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.”
Now, read the WORD of the LORD given to Ivor Manuel prophet, and published before the Presidential elections of 2004, in his Web Page named http://www.Aleuzenev.com
End of page 4 and part of page 5 of 22 pages:
Then from there; JESUS the son of man; The MESSIAH SON of GOD; The HIGHEST PRIEST and PROPHET of the prophets; ALEUZENEV; HIS NEW NAME (Revelation 3:12); Our HEAVENLY BROTHER whom is set down with OUR FATHER in HIS THRONE; spoke saying to HIS brother: “Write all that I AM saying in your ears; that MY sheep may read and understand MY FATHER’S WORD, and also hear MY VOICE in their ears; to understand “The COVENANT of PEACE and ETERNAL LIFE.” And HIS prophet opened the LORD’S BOOK of REVELATION given to HIS servant; Saint JOHN THE DIVINE 2:23 and read HIS Written WORDS: “And I will kill her children with death [JEZEBEL’S children, those who idolized their own FREDOM, Statue of Liberty, Goddess of Liberties; worshipers of Baal god of material images from the church of THYATIRA]; and all the churches shall know that I AM He whom searches the rains and the hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your Works.”
Thereon, the prophet recalled December of 1998; after President Clinton had been impeached by the House of Representatives, and before the Senate of the United States would vote on February 12, 1999, Year of Our LORD, to either remove or leave the President in office. The following testimony of JESUS was dictated to HIS brother Ivor Manuel (prodigal son); by HIM; The SPIRIT of PROPHESY. The testimony was published in a tourist magazine named ORIENTATION; and was read by people all over the World visiting Orlando; and few shall know, they were blessed with this knowledge during their visit to Florida. It was titled, “KING and COURT vs. the people;” and it is written: “Raising the consciousness of the planet is the job of the King (Establish Morality and Peace by the WORD of GOD), but the King is a liar (then, President Bill Clinton) and teaches immorality and adultery to the people. The King has broken The Law of the land and that of Heaven. He has lied to his people and murdered his brothers [lies about adultery and bombing of Baghdad during Ramadan] as they prayed. The House has judge the King and found him guilty (Impeachment by the House), but the King and his court (The President and Senators that voted against his Impeachment) believe he is above The Law. The King is arrogant, his court is in darkness and they blind the people with the veil of money and idolatry to the host of impurity. The speaker of the House has shown the way and has asked the King to follow in the way of constriction (resign as President), but the King and his court will not yield to the wisdom of repentance. Therefore the people (common people must raise a voice against the President and the Congress) must raise the consciousness of the King and his court. The people who say: “In GOD we TRUST,” must follow The Consciousness of Light (CHRIST’S CONSCIOUSNESS) and punish the King. If the people fail to fire (Impeach the President) the King, they will bring GREAT CONDEMNATION UPON the LAND of AMERICA.”
It was signed, prophet for the new millennium. Then he (Ivor Manuel prophet) recalled that February 12 of 1999 Year of Our LORD came; which is also his birthday as well. On that day, the Senate voted to leave the President in office. Then on April 20th 1999, the day of the prophet’s 25th wedding anniversary, while US. Jet-fighters where bombing Kosovo; The LORD began to pass through the land of America; Littleton, Chicago, Atlanta, etc; and smite the children of the Christian nation, according to “The WORKS” the leaders of America have Glorified; “THE TEACHINGS of WAR [Kosovo then, now Afghanistan and Iraq] and VIOLENCE”, just as The LORD had prophesized it would happened in HIS BOOK of REVELATION chapter 2: 23; and had told HIS prophet to warn the nation before February 12 of 1999, which he did accordingly. “I pray for you to understand in The LIGHT”, says Ivor Manuel.
Today, October 23, 2006, the WORD of the LORD remains with HIS JUDGMENT and CONDEMNATION upon the LAND of AMERICA; unless the people REPENT and IMPEACH President George W. Bush; thus says The LORD, and writes His prophet Ivor Manuel; the children of America are dying, the poor has been being sacrifice because of his taste for Violence, his vision of Peace is a “Covenant with Death.”
“And He said unto me, THOU MUST PROPHESY again BEFORE MANY PEOPLES and NATIONS, and TONGUES, and KINGS.” Revelation 10:11
And I praise Him: ALELUYA! AMEN! ALEUZENEV! Vengan mis hermanos Judios (Los Aztecas and all Immigrants) para ALEUZENEV! I pray for you and Peace for the World, Ivor Manuel prophet, the pillar branch of the Lord.