The original entry is at Big Think:
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Jimmy Carter: America is Ready for a Gay President
Or as Pat Dollard puts it, rather indelicately, "Jimmy Carter: America is Ready For a Male President Who Enjoys Being Anally Sodomized."
The original entry is at Big Think:
The original entry is at Big Think:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I thought Jimmy had already filled that role.
Actually that ought to read "that American is ready for anybody who will actually be the President of the United States and know what he/she is doing. We need someone who can do more than read a teleprompter and carry the title.
We might even be some what satisfied if he actually liked this country and its people.
I have a question: When you link to other blogs with their takes on things it seems like you are giving an endorsement of that blogger, his words, and any comments. You certainly didn't call out any of the idiotic comments at Pat's place, so does that mean you are in agreement with them?
If I linked to fellow liberal blogs talking about an issue I was planning on blogging about, I wouldn't just tacitly accept their opinions, especially if they were offensive and bigoted.
I think you answered your question for yourself, Jeff. Let's just say that I like Pat Dollard, although you wouldn't see that comment thread on my blog.
Now, are you a regular reader here, or did you come from one of the atheist hate sites?
Neither. I make semi-weekly visits here to see what sort of politicks you're engaging in. Unfortunately it's always politicks with a "k".
That you said "atheist hate sites" merely proves my point.
No, that doesn't prove your point. You allege basically that I endorse the comments at Pat Dollard's. I don't, although I find them interesting, hence the link. You won't find that commentary in my threads, Jeff, but I can tell that you'd love to, so you'd have something, anything, to prove your point that I'm a bad, bad man.
Thanks for reading, in any KKKase.
Oh no, I think you misunderstood--you responding with "atheist hate sites" didn't prove anything regarding Pat Dollard's site or any potential endorsement of the batshit-insane comments there, I was talking about my reference to politicks.
When I write politics, I am talking about reasoned discourse on issues. Trying to solve problems without resorting to debate tactics, not entering into the discussion with an angle of making the other guy look bad. Treating it as an opportunity to grow rather than to fight.
Politicks with a K is more akin to schoolyard taunting fests in elementary school. "Gotcha" journalism at it's finest, waiting and waiting for the inevitable slip-up and then pouncing on it. Using a soapbox to preach extremist rhetoric, etc, etc.
Most of what you post is politicks. There is almost never even an avenue for discussion, the way you frame anything is set-up to dissuade any real discourse. That's not to say you are wrong, or that you don't know what you are talking about. I just think that what you do falls under that category much more often than it would under politics.
Much as I am aware you dislike the folks at LGM, their posts fall under politics much more than they do politicks. Oh sure, you and SEK get into your little spats, but if I want to genuinely have a conversation about something, no matter how obscure or technical, the way they present themselves is more friendly and open. (Heck, the first time I posted here you responded with several strong "fuck you's" and other such language.)
So when I say that proves my point, I mean it does so because after a comment of mine that is entirely appropriate and as unoffensive as I could manage, you wrote "atheist hate sites".
Small example, sure, but enough to let me know where you are coming from.
Yep, Jeff, those guys and gals at LGM are God's angels, I know. I could never match that kind of supreme morality and reason.
Look, the fact that I've even taken time to engage you disproves the point of your last post. I have not attacked you, and there are atheist hate sites sending folks my way.
So say what you will, but it's not irrationalism you're finding here. I'm combating it, and by the looks of things lately, doing a darned good job of it.
Yep, Jeff, those guys and gals at LGM are God's angels, I know.
-But..but I never said they were perfect, I didn't say anything of the sort. I only mentioned that a majority of the time, reasoned discourse is much more welcoming there than here.
I could never match that kind of supreme morality and reason.
-You..you just linked to exactly the kind of post that is politicking. That's exactly the problem, and you just used an example of it to prove you somehow..don't engage in that and are also moral and reasonable? Supreme morality? (That wasn't connected to my claim, I said nothing about your personal morality. I don't know why you decided to make it about that.)
Look, the fact that I've even taken time to engage you disproves the point of your last post.
-But..but in an earlier comment on this very same post you wrote "atheist hate sites". You even write it in the next line! That's exactly the type of extremist language, the false dichotomy that you adhere to that is the problem. Every one who disagrees with you comes from a ____hate site. Atheist, feminist, leftist, socialist, etc. You frame the debate in a way so that from the outset you are intent on making them your enemy. Discussion can't happen after that, only debate.
I have not attacked you, and there are atheist hate sites sending folks my way.
-I consider the phrase that you have just used again an attack, I am an atheist, and using language like that to denounce people you disagree with is shallow and indefensible. And you have attacked me, directly, in previous encounters. That you don't remember it doesn't change anything.
--But that is beside the point, because there is no such thing as an atheist hate site. I think I just read in one of your posts above the phrase "God-hating" in reference to the pharyngula crowd. Except god-hating doesn't enter into it. If you think it does, then that shows you simply don't understand the atheist movement. You've invented a phrase to describe something that doesn't exist, except in your mind. Because in your mind you see it as an attack-an attack on a morally upstanding, Christian person (yourself), by godless, hating heathens. Even you should be able to acknowledge that to them, it's not about "attacking" you. They see what you have said in previous posts as morally indefensible, and are calling you on it. Much like they will call each other out, if deemed appropriate. You don't have to agree with them, but calling them "god-hating" and "atheist hate sites" is exactly the problem.
So say what you will, but it's not irrationalism you're finding here. I'm combating it, and by the looks of things lately, doing a darned good job of it.
-I never said it was about rationalism. It's about how you play the blogging game. You are a person who aggregates gotcha-journalism and low-brow name-calling, and you call it politics. It's not, it's politiks. Even if I wanted to comment on something you post, the style of how it's written, the entire narrative you adhere to (the header at the top of your blog is a good example) makes anything other than a debate impossible.
I have not attacked you, and there are atheist hate sites sending folks my way.
-I consider the phrase that you have just used again an attack, I am an atheist, and using language like that to denounce people you disagree with is shallow and indefensible. And you have attacked me, directly, in previous encounters. That you don't remember it doesn't change anything.
--But that is beside the point, because there is no such thing as an atheist hate site. I think I just read in one of your posts above the phrase "God-hating" in reference to the pharyngula crowd. Except god-hating doesn't enter into it. If you think it does, then that shows you simply don't understand the atheist movement. You've invented a phrase to describe something that doesn't exist, except in your mind. Because in your mind you see it as an attack-an attack on a morally upstanding, Christian person (yourself), by godless, hating heathens. Even you should be able to acknowledge that to them, it's not about "attacking" you. They see what you have said in previous posts as morally indefensible, and are calling you on it. Much like they will call each other out, if deemed appropriate. You don't have to agree with them, but calling them "god-hating" and "atheist hate sites" is exactly the problem.
So say what you will, but it's not irrationalism you're finding here. I'm combating it, and by the looks of things lately, doing a darned good job of it.
-I never said it was about rationalism. It's about how you play the blogging game. You are a person who aggregates gotcha-journalism and low-brow name-calling, and you call it politics. It's not, it's politiks. Even if I wanted to comment on something you post, the style of how it's written, the entire narrative you adhere to (the header at the top of your blog is a good example) makes anything other than a debate impossible.
My internet (or maybe your blog?) had some very weird brain farts, and I was unable to post my entire response in one comment, and when breaking it up it told me that only part of it had been saved, but now I fear that there will be triple posts or something. Hopefully it's not too confusing.
Comment length is limited on Blogger now, Jeff. Write brief comments, a couple of paragraphs long, post them to the thread, and then start another.
Look, these people are not only my enemies, but enemies of the Good. My blog is a response to the environement. I've been blogging for five years, and I've changed. I simply don't believe in good will on the left. Thus, I don't pretent to make nice with my opponents. They want destruction for the traditional way of life in America, and they're aiding our enemies abroad to as well.
And there are indeed atheist hate sites. I'm sorry you don't believe in God. But I can't help you with the hatred that infests the atheistic left.
Post a Comment