“I, MadisonConservative – whoever or whatever that is – don’t like it and you should care.”
CK MacLeod on May 16, 2010 at 8:06 PM
You never cease with the strawmans. I've never said you should care. I'm making my opinion known, and you're free to disregard it as you choose. You seem to be real sore about that.
So, you can’t show how my descriptions or assessments are wrong: You simply castigate me for having opinions that, in your mind, are the same as those you’ve heard in the mainstream media, or similar to ones you’ve heard from other people who offend your self-regard. That’s not an argument, that’s just a form of ad hominem – and petulance. You go on and on with your tender feelings about the “air of superiority” and “snooty contempt” you detect, completely unconcerned with your own presumed superiority and the contempt you indulge in.
That's just criticism of your style, sir. It appears you can dish it out, but can't take it yourself. How is it that pointing out your generalizations and labeling of the HA community with the same type of loaded terminology is somehow "ad hominem"...but the generalizations and labeling aren't?
So, in the end, anything’s OK, as long as it comes from someone you agree with or from yourself, nothing is offensive as long as it comes from someone you agree with or from yourself, anything that is said by someone you don’t like, or in a way that you don’t like, is prima facie unworthy of consideration, and you have nothing to say about the content of any particular argument.
CK MacLeod on May 16, 2010 at 6:45 PM
What a delicious strawman, and chock full of irony. I'm not addressing your argument, I'm addressing your secondary messages that you deliver in your articles. Passive-aggressive snipes at the community you take part in. This is something we've discussed before, and in my opinion it's gotten worse. Hence my comparison of you to the likes of Frum and Brooks...two elitists notorious for their blanket characterizations of the conservative movement as somehow fringe or extreme because of their refusal to chime in with moderates. Your pieces on Wilson and the definition of "progressivism" do them great homage.
So your problem is with criticism? I’ve written posts that have used examples of statements drawn from HotAir and other sites, posts and comments, positive and negative.
They’re a valid topic for discussion, unless your problem is with discussion itself. Mutual admiration society is not interesting to me. It’s my explicit position that the right needs to take seriously the responsibility it’s anticipating taking on.
As for the commenter community, it can take it. Certainly has no problem dishing it out.
CK MacLeod on May 16, 2010 at 4:54 PM
First you claim it's mere "criticism", while simultaneously labeling them in much the same way the mainstream media labels conservatives, tea partiers, etc. Love the "if you're not ripping on each, you're mutually admiring each other" argument. Classic all or nothing.
Doesn't change the fact that in multiple articles you've affected an air of superiority and expressed snooty contempt for the people who post here. How apposite that you take a moment to defend people like Frum and Brooks while simultaneously ripping Beck. You speak with the same air of disdain that they regularly employ.
Fashioned from just a splinter of that astoundingly large chip you lug around on your shoulder.
CK MacLeod on May 16, 2010 at 2:30 PM
Wait...you're the one who's made multiple posts where you chide and reproach the Hot Air commenter community...but I'm the one with a chip on their shoulder?
Which failed miserably, regularly in the era prior to the Fed. A depression every 10 years. A panic in 1907 that required the personal intervention of JP Morgan to rescue the capital markets. Farmers who felt severely enough disadvantaged, especially during the depressions and panics, to start the free silver movement that propelled Bryan to national prominence. Vertically integrated economic combines – trusts and holding companies that made it impossible for small and medium-sized business to compete, wiped out local artisans, cornered or controlled transportation and resources, and were vastly larger than the government entities weakly empowered to cope with them.
For starters. It was to preserve the possibility of a meaningfully “free” market that the “junk” was created. Most free market conservatives, at least until recently, understood that.
CK MacLeod on May 16, 2010 at 1:24 AM
So you're saying you would see no difference if that same process were applied in a consumer-driven economy like we have now, which is starkly different from the civilization of 1900?
I gave some examples of annihilating anger in my prior piece. “Tyrannical fascist f**k you” qualifies, for instance; Beck’s demagogy, which he’s tried to blunt with his Gandhi shtick, but can’t stay away from; Levin’s rage and derision; the first five or six commenters on any HotAir headline thread that mentions David Frum, David Brooks, Ross Douthat, and other well-known “polite company conservatives”; anger that is reflexive and radical enough to annihilate the possibility for dialogue, compromise, or consideration, that seeks to criminalize political differences, that depicts fellow citizens on the other side as diseases, traitors, virtual invaders, etc., etc., that distorts their arguments or always puts whatever they say in the worst possible light, that assumes unbridgeable polarization and then goes about making sure things stay that way.
Off the top of my head. You got a better expression than “annihilating anger,” I’m all ears and will consider editing the post. As for who’s a member of the “scary” (your expression) hard right, I think the term is a pretty conventional one. It should go without saying – nothing I wrote implies otherwise – that not everyone on the hard right is angry about it or expresses anger, hostility, and other violent emotions as a regular part of their politics, and I’d be the first to admit that there’s a hard left that’s at least as far gone if not further.
CK MacLeod on May 16, 2010 at 1:37 AM
I'm sorry, you'll have to speak up. That's an incredibly tall cardboard pedestal you're standing on.
It suddenly becomes clear why you defend Brooks and Frum. Kindred spirits.
You never cease with the strawmans. I've never said you should care. I'm making my opinion known, and you're free to disregard it as you choose. You seem to be real sore about that.
That's just criticism of your style, sir. It appears you can dish it out, but can't take it yourself. How is it that pointing out your generalizations and labeling of the HA community with the same type of loaded terminology is somehow "ad hominem"...but the generalizations and labeling aren't?
What a delicious strawman, and chock full of irony. I'm not addressing your argument, I'm addressing your secondary messages that you deliver in your articles. Passive-aggressive snipes at the community you take part in. This is something we've discussed before, and in my opinion it's gotten worse. Hence my comparison of you to the likes of Frum and Brooks...two elitists notorious for their blanket characterizations of the conservative movement as somehow fringe or extreme because of their refusal to chime in with moderates. Your pieces on Wilson and the definition of "progressivism" do them great homage.
First you claim it's mere "criticism", while simultaneously labeling them in much the same way the mainstream media labels conservatives, tea partiers, etc. Love the "if you're not ripping on each, you're mutually admiring each other" argument. Classic all or nothing.
Doesn't change the fact that in multiple articles you've affected an air of superiority and expressed snooty contempt for the people who post here. How apposite that you take a moment to defend people like Frum and Brooks while simultaneously ripping Beck. You speak with the same air of disdain that they regularly employ.
Wait...you're the one who's made multiple posts where you chide and reproach the Hot Air commenter community...but I'm the one with a chip on their shoulder?
Right.
So you're saying you would see no difference if that same process were applied in a consumer-driven economy like we have now, which is starkly different from the civilization of 1900?
I'm sorry, you'll have to speak up. That's an incredibly tall cardboard pedestal you're standing on.