Heads Up, Hitler-Was-a-Leftist Revisionists!
Because one of your boosters, Glenn Beck, just accidentally stuck his foot clean through Godwin's Law and cut himself badly in the process.
Glenn Beck, 6/5/10:
- this is a book, The Red Network, this came in from 1936. People, McCarthy was absolutely right. Now he may not have, he may have used bad tactics, but he was absolutely right. This is a ( Read more... )
Glenn Beck, 6/5/10:
- this is a book, The Red Network, this came in from 1936. People, McCarthy was absolutely right. Now he may not have, he may have used bad tactics, but he was absolutely right. This is a ( Read more... )
mahnmut made a joke saying that your rhetoric sounds almost as extreme and provocative as that of Steve. I caught the joke and said the similarities that he was talking about could mean that you are moving from the left toward the center while Steve is moving from the right toward the center. To be frank, this is not a bad thing, because I'm a centrist and I don't like either extreme, so I implied that this perceived "evolution" of you moving toward the center and Steve moving toward the center (which I doubt, however, I mean there's no way Steve will ever move toward the center) would be an interesting thing to observe.
All in all, someone decided to make a light-hearted jest of you and I participated in it, and in result you decided to feel extremely and utterly offended by all this, then say that I have somehow insulted you, and that I do not stand by some ... eh, "word".
But here I am, explaining all this in great length, and I guess everyone who's reading this is already dead bored and the initial jest is killed.
But sure. If you were somehow offended by anything that I've said now, yesterday, the day before or within the last year, do try to forgive me if you can, because I hold no ill intentions toward you or anybody else.
Was I at least a little clearer this time?
Reply
Reply
Which is analogous to Beck saying "social justice" is code for socialism/communism.
While socialists *do* believe in social justice and racists would like to see states rights (so that they can be racist in their states) they aren't identical and there are non-racists who believe in states rights like there are non socialists who believe in social justice.
You aren't wrong (IMO) about your points, but you say them in exceedingly black-and-white terms leaving no grey and little room for those you view as wrong to be decent people.
Having said all this--fuck Glen Beck and his absurd bullshit.
Reply
Reply
Reply
The other thing people object to, is how you constantly read everything absolutely literally and this makes them conclude that you suffer from a total lack of humor which prevents you from reading nuance in people's words (as happened here).
Paft, many of your views and stories are indeed interesting and thought provoking. But please, do at least some effort not to take people's words out of context and misinterpret them as it suits you; and don't take everything you ever read for face value and personally. This is an online forum. You have to acknowledge that people sometimes mean something different from what they're saying, and that in most cases this means they're just joking. I'm not appealing to develop a sense of humor which is a long process - I'm just asking you to grow a little thicker skin and stop trying to get offended by anything you hear.
But returning to what people see 'extremist' in you. It's simply the fact that you take a firmly partisan position on almost every issue presented, which often clouds your impartiality, and affects your understanding of said problem. THIS is what I feel mahnmut was talking about when he compared you to Steve. OF COURSE you're not a dumb a-hole like Steve. No-one can be so obnoxious like him. So stop pretending that people have called you 'just another Steve' and calm down already because your constant tantrums are not too funny. I've been dragged into apologizing to you over things I haven't even done on more than one occasion for the last couple of months.
Peace.
Reply
What does "subtle hooking of (my) political opponents' mean here? That I post pieces that I expect responses to?
htpcl: I'm not even talking of you picking up a controversial story and turning it into a huge problem, trying to portray it as if it's the beginning of a crisis - that's your right.
What crisis do you imagine I'm invoking? The worst "crisis" I've invoked is a repeat of the kind of right wing violence we saw in the 1990s. You may disagree with me about whether or not that's likely, but is there something out of line about me saying I'm concerned about it?
htcp: The other thing people object to, is how you constantly read everything absolutely literally and this makes them conclude that you suffer from a total lack of humor which prevents you from reading nuance in people's words (as happened here).
What people seem to object to is being asked questions about, or being asked to expand on statements they made that they didn't think through very carefully.
htcpl.: This is an online forum. You have to acknowledge that people sometimes mean something different from what they're saying, and that in most cases this means they're just joking.
Example?
htcpl: But returning to what people see 'extremist' in you. It's simply the fact that you take a firmly partisan position on almost every issue presented, which often clouds your impartiality, and affects your understanding of said problem.
And other people here aren't firmly partisan?
You know, what's fascinating are the number of people here who object to me answering their posts. I'm an extremist, apparently, because I answer their arguments with my own arguments.
htpcl: THIS is what I feel mahnmut was talking about when he compared you to Steve. OF COURSE you're not a dumb a-hole like Steve. No-one can be so obnoxious like him. So stop pretending that people have called you 'just another Steve' and calm down already because your constant tantrums are not too funny. I've been dragged into apologizing to you over things I haven't even done on more than one occasion for the last couple of months.
I was not the one who demanded that apology of you htpcl. I was certainly owed an apology for what happened two months ago -- and am still owed one -- but I neither wanted nor expected one from you.
Are you,-- in all seriousness-- telling me that my complaining to the moderators about someone waving his dick at me online was a "tantrum?"
Reply
Example? Prove it.
See how easy it is?
Reply
For example, the behavior that consider inappropriate enough to have warranted an apology can be found here:
http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/507867.html?thread=36375771#t36375771
The fact that I never blamed you for what I complained about in the above thread can be found here:
http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/509447.html?thread=36669191#t36669191
Now, given that you are listed on this board as a moderator, I would really like to an answer to my question about what you are characterizing as a "tantrum." Are you saying that my complaining about someone posting an obscene reply to me qualifies as a "tantrum?" Do you consider my complaint in that case to have been unreasonable?
Reply
Reply
Reply
2. Apologizing is never enough, complete capitulation is required.
Reply
Reply
I was just being quite clear about how/where you insulted her.
Maybe it's true--but it's still an obvious insult.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment