More Fun With Wingnuts
After being moderated off the right-wing site RealityCheck.org, I sent the writer of the original post on Captain America the e-mail in the preceding post.
And lo! he responded. Twice, in fact!
First, this pops up on my Palm Pre as I was checking e-mail:
I have no control over what is posted in the comments there.
I'll take some time to look over your reply but the very first line is incorrect, so you aren't starting off well.
WTH
Condescending much? Then, not long after, I get this lovely missive:
Sir,
I will take your message point by point and show where you are wrong…
YOURS: "First, the original article betrays the fact that the book was not apparently read for comprehension: The Tea Partiers are shown as exercising their Constitutional right to protest. The perception that Tea Partiers might “hate the government” is in no way an indictment of their position, nor is it a perception that is all that very surprising, any more than one would think that the liberals who protested outside the Pentagon during the Vietnam War might 'hate the government.'"
Apparently it is you that is ignoring the ACTUAL context of the story and the way you are characterizing it is not true at all as reflected in the way The Falcon and Buckey were talking about the protests. They were professing suspicion about them with The Falcon jabbing them as a "hate the government" movement. You are purposefully ignoring context in order to make it seem less caustic.
YOURS: "Further, the Tea Partiers are in no way shown as villains; instead it is the Watchdogs, an organization which has been in the Marvel Universe since 1987, who are the ones to which Captain America is in opposition."
Wrong again. The Falcon points to these people and says that a black man can't mix in with all those "angry white folks." He is calling them racists and Cappy agrees with him.
I have nothing to say about your Medved stuff as I never heard it. As to your characterization of the commenters, I do not have anything to do with them and don't moderate them so I have nothing to say on them.
Thanks for your message.
Warner Todd Huston
I have now sent him the following reply:
I thank you for your reply, and hope you are well.
I do, however, have to take issue with your characterization of the book. You seem overly insistent on seeing strawmen where none are actually there. How is it that you see a bias there? First--why is it so wrong to see angry people, people who loudly protest that the government is unfairly taxing and spending their monies, as "hating the government"? Go to a Tea Party protest, and you will see all manner of signs demonizing the President, leaders of Congress, and the government in general. You will see bumper stickers professing one's overt hatred for the government, much as you may have seen in a liberal protest circa 2004. Is the feeling that angry protesters are "hating the government" some sort of slur, when it is merely observation? I simply cannot understand your position on this, unless it is to create controversy where none exists.
Further, regarding the ire you profess over the "angry white folks" comment. Reading the entire issue, you will see that captain America and the falcon are talking about Cap's plan for he and the Falcon to infiltrate the Watchdogs, a white supremacist movement. In Idaho. If you were the Falcon--Sam Wilson, a black man from Harlem--would you not profess concern that infiltration might not be a possibility in such a situation? Quite simply, the Falcon would not fit in in such an environment. And once again, I point out that they were not in any way referring to the protesters. The panel of the protesters over which the "angry white folks" dialogue box was chosen merely to point up the fact that the area is not what you would call particularly integrated, and it would not be easy for a black man to pass unnoticed.
As for what you said in your earlier e-mail, that you have no control over what is posted there, I cannot see that as anything but disingenuous: You are listed as one of the featured writers on the website. Can you honestly say that you cannot drop the moderator a line, pointing out that racist or bigoted commenters supporting your viewpoint paint you and those who share your beliefs in a bad light, and that they should be removed? Or that opposing viewpoints should not be removed, to show that you are interested in a fair and balanced discussion?
I do hope that you are interested in an open discussion of what the reality may be (and I freely admit that it may rest somewhere between our two positions.
Yours sincerely,
Alex Jay Berman
I honestly don't expect him to reply with anything approaching reasoned thought, but the attempt has to be made.
And lo! he responded. Twice, in fact!
First, this pops up on my Palm Pre as I was checking e-mail:
I have no control over what is posted in the comments there.
I'll take some time to look over your reply but the very first line is incorrect, so you aren't starting off well.
WTH
Condescending much? Then, not long after, I get this lovely missive:
Sir,
I will take your message point by point and show where you are wrong…
YOURS: "First, the original article betrays the fact that the book was not apparently read for comprehension: The Tea Partiers are shown as exercising their Constitutional right to protest. The perception that Tea Partiers might “hate the government” is in no way an indictment of their position, nor is it a perception that is all that very surprising, any more than one would think that the liberals who protested outside the Pentagon during the Vietnam War might 'hate the government.'"
Apparently it is you that is ignoring the ACTUAL context of the story and the way you are characterizing it is not true at all as reflected in the way The Falcon and Buckey were talking about the protests. They were professing suspicion about them with The Falcon jabbing them as a "hate the government" movement. You are purposefully ignoring context in order to make it seem less caustic.
YOURS: "Further, the Tea Partiers are in no way shown as villains; instead it is the Watchdogs, an organization which has been in the Marvel Universe since 1987, who are the ones to which Captain America is in opposition."
Wrong again. The Falcon points to these people and says that a black man can't mix in with all those "angry white folks." He is calling them racists and Cappy agrees with him.
I have nothing to say about your Medved stuff as I never heard it. As to your characterization of the commenters, I do not have anything to do with them and don't moderate them so I have nothing to say on them.
Thanks for your message.
Warner Todd Huston
I have now sent him the following reply:
I thank you for your reply, and hope you are well.
I do, however, have to take issue with your characterization of the book. You seem overly insistent on seeing strawmen where none are actually there. How is it that you see a bias there? First--why is it so wrong to see angry people, people who loudly protest that the government is unfairly taxing and spending their monies, as "hating the government"? Go to a Tea Party protest, and you will see all manner of signs demonizing the President, leaders of Congress, and the government in general. You will see bumper stickers professing one's overt hatred for the government, much as you may have seen in a liberal protest circa 2004. Is the feeling that angry protesters are "hating the government" some sort of slur, when it is merely observation? I simply cannot understand your position on this, unless it is to create controversy where none exists.
Further, regarding the ire you profess over the "angry white folks" comment. Reading the entire issue, you will see that captain America and the falcon are talking about Cap's plan for he and the Falcon to infiltrate the Watchdogs, a white supremacist movement. In Idaho. If you were the Falcon--Sam Wilson, a black man from Harlem--would you not profess concern that infiltration might not be a possibility in such a situation? Quite simply, the Falcon would not fit in in such an environment. And once again, I point out that they were not in any way referring to the protesters. The panel of the protesters over which the "angry white folks" dialogue box was chosen merely to point up the fact that the area is not what you would call particularly integrated, and it would not be easy for a black man to pass unnoticed.
As for what you said in your earlier e-mail, that you have no control over what is posted there, I cannot see that as anything but disingenuous: You are listed as one of the featured writers on the website. Can you honestly say that you cannot drop the moderator a line, pointing out that racist or bigoted commenters supporting your viewpoint paint you and those who share your beliefs in a bad light, and that they should be removed? Or that opposing viewpoints should not be removed, to show that you are interested in a fair and balanced discussion?
I do hope that you are interested in an open discussion of what the reality may be (and I freely admit that it may rest somewhere between our two positions.
Yours sincerely,
Alex Jay Berman
I honestly don't expect him to reply with anything approaching reasoned thought, but the attempt has to be made.