Child of Mog; Extraordinary Comments

1. Discussion continues at OT on the momentous question of replacing the Mystery Person. Though, dismayingly, the OGs are as so often caught up with matters of lesser import – as though anyone’s opinions at the blog on a so-called issue of the day will have any effect on anything – such conversation as we’ve had has produced one innovation that I like enough to have already introduced here, and that I would nominate for OT site branding going forward (if anyone there cared – I have my doubts). Laddies and Gentlepersons, I give you…

…”Child of Mog”:

2. Hierzulande: I’m continuing to play with new comment-featuring approaches, beginning with the question of how best to set “extraordinary comments” apart where they appear in threads and in the “State of the Discussion,” and eventually in “Comments This Thread” and “Commenter Archives.” So, apologies to those who encounter changes in midstream. After I have something I like well enough, I’ll move on to creating sidebar and page displays, and, for the purpose, highlighting some past commenting greatest hits.

I could perform these experiments in a development rather than production environment, but, for one thing, I’ve invited some Ordinarians to view the results here (to little avail, thusfar, Vikram and Will excepted) prior to possible application at OT. For another, I’ve been meaning to do this work for a long time. For a third thing, it’s not as though the fate of the world or of anything else hinges on this blog being pixel perfect 100% of the time or even ever, so why not experiment?

3. Auch: Now, I know that my two fans would like me to get back to writing: I’m getting ready to get ready to do that, but I think, since the posts I’d most like to post are “Untimely Posts” anyway, and the main exception is a major project that relates to these web design projects, I think I’ll do it in conjunction with the next WordPress rabbit I pull out of my bowler: “Subscribe to Forthcoming Posts” or “Post Published Notifications” or some such – haven’t decided on the name yet.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

Posts in this series

13 comments on “Child of Mog; Extraordinary Comments

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. I see, MacLeod–because I pointed out that the newly skinned “Mystery Man”, [ed. – NO YOU DO NOT GET TO USE THAT WORD, IN THAT WAY, MacKenzie: It’s a “fighting word.”] was nevertheless just another variant on the theme of “subhuman degenerate”–perhaps one of those Peruvian savages who wear similarly old-fashioned hats–you decided to stick an apple on his face in order to confuse any attempt at characterizing his race or ethnicity. [ed. – I’m leaving the rest of the comment, however, so we can admire the evidence of how silly you make yourself seem when you give into your bigot’s reflexes.]

    And you think *I’m* immature?

    I’m tempted to mount a scathing criticism of your recent conduct on this blog–instead I’ll offer up a more modest one, but first I’ll criticize myself. I freely admit that most of my comments here–including this one–have been frivolous and I regret that. I intend to remedy that defect in future.

    By way of attempting a modest criticism of you, I won’t point out that–after a four or five month hiatus, where you wrote precisely fuck-all for this site–we’ve now been subjected to two posts in a row about the “avatar” and your efforts to re-design him by placing a hat atop his head, changing his skin tone, and now replacing his face with an apple.

    Instead, permit me to point out that, since you instituted the “Docket” feature some six-odd months ago, not one–not one–of those projected pieces has made it to the blog’s front page.

    If we’re subjected to a third goofy post about your latest re-design of the avatar, I think I’ll just weep over what might have been–what might have been the destiny of one CK MacLeod, “a thoughtful and promising [old] writer”.

    • Sorry, CK–my previous comment went immediately into moderation, so I assumed you had me on permanent moderation and thus I spoke rather more freely than I might have otherwise, on the assumption that my comment would certainly be “moderated into the void”.

      It seems a bit unfair for you to criticize my “bigot’s reflexes”–or my use of the “fighting word” “nigger” (no, it isn’t a “fighting word”, it’s just the standard English word for a black African–it isn’t up to present-day liberal progressives, SWPLs and Social Justice Warriors to re-determine our language, Newspeak style)–when in the previous post you explicitly stated that one of your purposes in re-designing the avatar was to annoy me, “a confessed racist”.

      I don’t particularly care about my comments being deleted, but I do care about words or sentences being excised–and I do wish you wouldn’t insert your editorializations. That strikes me as unjust simpliciter. Please print my comments in toto and free of emendation or not at all–surely you can pay me that much of a courtesy, sir.

      In any event, it would seem that my comment struck a nerve with you–no doubt for reasons that have nothing at all to do with my contempt for the liberal progressive anti-racism ideology–so I do hope you’ll heed my words.

      • I’ll do with your comments as I see fit, and if you don’t like how I treat them, don’t make them – or sue me. When you use terms widely understood, even by small children, to be unacceptable, they will be edited away. I don’t like having to do it. It wastes my time. I don’t like having to discuss the matter every time you leave a comment either. Stop it.

        • Those terms are only “widely understood, even by small children, to be unacceptable” because a distinct political faction is exercising a distinct species of coercive power (over their parents) to make it so. That “wide understanding” is recent and, like all things which come into being, must pass away therefrom.

          Admittedly, I’m surprised that you won’t pay me the courtesy of refraining from editing or emending my comments–as opposed simply to replying to them. If you can’t perform that small justice, how will you ever be up to performing the “social” justice of which you dream? He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.

          • This is a part of your problem, McKenzie: You acknowledge that you are doing wrong, intentionally, and promise to do better, and then immediately turn around to denying that you’ve been doing wrong.

            I specifically instructed you not to use a foul or declared-unacceptable word knowingly except to discuss its usage. Proper orthography is to place such a term, when being discussed as a term, in quotation marks. Doing so would also happen to be a good discipline for someone like you to adopt. Saying things just to “get my goat” is puerile behavior – or trolling: Also unacceptable.

            The following comment – which you left a little while ago, and forced me to “moderate” – is an improper comment:

            As you know, I don’t often use “foul” language–I don’t particularly like it myself. I have on occasion used it–as “f**k-all” above (a comment I assumed wouldn’t see the light of day)–specifically to get your goat.

            However, I’m afraid I don’t consider nigger to be an instance of profanity–as I said, it *just is* the standard English word for a black African. You and your (admittedly, presently influential) political faction don’t get to superintend the historic English language as if it were merely an instrument for the advancement of your political project. (For more, see Heidegger’s Unterwegs zur Sprache.)

            The following comment would be a proper comment, which is not to say I consider it a well-considered comment, or a comment of a type I would encourage now, since I do not have time to get into the subject matter you’re intent on raising with anything like the care I believe required:

            As you know, I don’t often use “foul” language–I don’t particularly like it myself. I have on occasion used it–as “f**k-all” above (a comment I assumed wouldn’t see the light of day)–specifically to get your goat.

            However, I’m afraid I don’t consider “nigger” to be an instance of profanity–as I said, it *just is* the standard English word for a black African. You and your (admittedly, presently influential) political faction don’t get to superintend the historic English language as if it were merely an instrument for the advancement of your political project. (For more, see Heidegger’s Unterwegs zur Sprache.)

            Enough on this today. Any further violations of the rules for commenting that I have made clear – prohibiting use of foul and unacceptable language as I have defined it for you, repeatedly – will be answered by suspension of your commenting privileges.

            • Alright, CK.

              I really must confess–I can’t stand the new “avatar”. Would you please remove it? (Can you not show me even one kindness–I who shared my prize collection of Leo Strauss course transcripts with you?)

                • I just want my name up there, like it was. I don’t want an “avatar”.

                  “I do not have time to get into the subject matter you’re intent on raising with anything like the care I believe required”

                  If you weren’t wasting your time designing “avatars” and writing about it, you might have the time.

                  • Going avatarless where avatars are required will usually be easy, for those who know what needs to be done. If you can manage, say, ten consecutive substantive comments in no need of moderation, then I will show you how. Alternatively, you may learn to love your Magritte apple, or you may decide that not commenting is preferable until such time as I get around to writing another boring instructional web design post that happens to cover this topic.

      • The only excuse for you or anyone else to use the word “nigger” at this blog will be specifically to discuss use of the word “nigger.” Place it in quotation marks when you do so. Any other use of that word – as of other vulgar language – will be subject to editing. I don’t like foul language of any kind, and I may or may not choose to explain myself. Just don’t use it. Don’t use profanity. Don’t seek to offend. Don’t use my blog for your personal campaigns against the evil speech-controlling SJWs unless you can do so in a way that doesn’t tend to justify their existence.

    • As for why the apple, the allusion is to one of the better-known images in the history of art. Its recognizability is not on the level of la Gioconda or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, but for the same reason it may for some divide the world a bit more effectively into the “two kinds of people” of legend.

      I’m not so sure either about the general notion or about that particular dividing line, but your ignorance on that score – maintained stubbornly even in the presence of helpful hints – specifically in combination with your reflexively crude and foul, unacceptable etc. response – does strengthen the case in favor.

      As for the rest, it is not clear to me at all that you are in fact capable of “remedy[-ing] that defect.” You seem instead to be capable only of promising to do so, as you have demonstrated repeatedly, so no longer with any believability. So, go ahead and weep: Regardless of your preferences, which your conduct gives me good reason to reject, I think my next post may have more on this other feature I am working on, already in use in rough form: “comment-featuring” under the title “Extraordinary Comments.”

      As it happens, the EC displays in the sidebar and on its own archive page happen to include, for now, a recent comment of yours, along with your apple, which latter I think you should not disparage, as it may be your best feature, or your most extraordinary one. Perhaps you can use the prospects offered by the new featuring features, and by other new commenting enhancements, both already produced and still to come, as incentives to keep your promises and to produce comments worth highlighting. The ones disfigured by racist epithets, foul language, and special pleading will not make the cut.

      When I’ve gotten far enough along on the featuring feature, I do expect next to turn to the docket, as already mentioned at the end of the post, though first from the point of view of new functionality. I may post one or two or more in the process of testing it, and you’re welcome to participate: Among the key new features I am planning will, if all goes well enough, be one allowing you to subscribe to be notified when a particular post of interest to you is published, freeing you to spend more time at sites like VDARE or Taki’s Magazine or Stormfront or wherever.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins