James B. Webb: Depths of Psychological Denial

This post is a lengthy response to yet another iteration of the recent attacks on this blog. (Actually, a couple of iterations. James "Barebacker" Webb" has photoshopped me again since I started working on this post! And this time, with this particular Photoshop, James appears to imply a physical threat. I don't buckle to threats, so if big boy James is really calling me out, he knows where I am. He's a sorry-assed punk who's been beaten badly already, for all to see. But if he's looking for serious trouble, he'll need to get real personal and kick me to the curb like a man - put up or shut up!)

**********

Anyway, as readers know, I like the online debates. And I recognize that sometimes things get a little hot. But after three years of this stuff one gets the knack for holding their own. The leftists are bullies and brutes. After Wonkette posted more links to the demonic Trig Palin Photoshops, the moral balance had really turned against the leftists. My own commenter, Grizzy Mama, summed things up (link):

This is unreal. These lefty bloggers are incapable of behaving like adults. It's like they are a bunch of nasty, spoiled little kids. They're like some of the 'publics' (as I call them) on the block in the old neighborhood - desperately in need of mature parental guidance. That they are fully grown and have a forum for their base thoughts and so-called humor is shocking, really.

With that, and the commentaries of William Jacobson, it was manifestly clear that it'd be impossible for James B. Webb to continue his defense of the indefensible. Yet, when he Photoshopped me one more time, I responded:

An apology for your depraved attacks would be the decent thing to do, and I'll publish it at my blog with your denuniciation of Wonkette and your disavowal of using your sister as a shield.

Well, there's more: Mr Webb, after the merciless thrashing he's gotten, indeed offers a summary apology - but not to me! It's to his readers, and includes this:

The apology I'd like to offer is to say that I'm sorry to the readers of this site. This latest rhetorical scuffle between Don and myself was mean and it was ugly and I'm sure that it was hard to read about at times. I'll admit that I wrote some fairly unfriendly words in the course of things but I still feel justified in the stance that I took and I still stand behind every word that I wrote. I realize that by this point in my life I should be able to resist getting dragged down into the gutter by someone with Don's level of intellectual dishonesty in the blogger world but for as long as I can remember I've always had a problem backing down from an argument when I've known that I was on the right side of it.

There's actually a diagnosis for this in psychiatric medicine. James clearly manifests the indications of acute psychological denial. As Dr. Sanity points out in her post, "STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH DENIAL - Part III":

At the center of all psychological denial is a hidden agenda. That agenda is usually not completely conscious--meaning that the denier has not thought through the issues surrounding his denial; and may not even be aware of what his motivation is in asserting something is true when it isn't; or false when it isn't.

Denial need not be absolute and completely cut off from reality. Even among alcoholics and drug users there is a varying level of awareness of their problem. Some accept that they are in jail or sick because of their substance use, but yet are still not willing to do anything about it. Some may recognize some facts about their drinking (like that they get put in jail), but completely deny the impact of those facts on themselves or their families; or the future implications of continued drinking or drug use (e.g., that they are killing themselves and will die).

The hidden agenda or underlying motivation behind the denial is very frequently related to the potential adverse consequences that could ensue if the denial were eliminated and reality acknowledged. That is where the unnacceptable feelings, needs, and thoughts come in. The denier (or part of him) has made an unconscious decision that awareness of certain feelings, needs, or thoughts is more threatening to his sense of self than the act of denial.

(ASIDE: Dr. Sanity's example of an alcholic's denial is hypothetical, and is not specific to my criticism of James B. Webb. It is interesting, though, that with James B. Webb, many of his attacks are alcohol-fueled. I don't know if James' drinking problem is related to the supression of the other feelings and conflicting guilts, but there's no doubt that when someone has been shown as not just badly wrong, but bereft of moral virtue, some kind of psychological clinical adaptation must take place. Absent that, one might completely breakdown to a catatonic state.)

But let's recap the whole week-long debate with James B. Webb, the king of postmodern hypocrisy. In response to my first post over a week ago, on the Photoshopping attacks on Trig Palin, we got this from Mr. Webb:

My youngest sister also has Down Syndrome so you can imagine that I too would be considerably offended and justifiably outraged at such an attack against a defenseless child, only I have taken the time to arm myself with a few weapons that Don appears to lack: restraint, common sense and the Google ...

In a recent post about the faux Palin/Letterman controversy I asked what the next outrage du jour from the Republicans would be, a question that I think was aptly phrased in that it certainly does appear that there is something new that positively infuriates these people every single day. The term "sore losers" seems a bit simplistic and trite to explain this apparent derangement and never ending persecution complex ...

Famous last words? Mr. Webb has written four posts [six now, but who's counting?] since that time, most in response to my blogging on the controversy. But finally, earler, after William Jacobson pointed out Wonkette's latest reprehensible attack on Sarah Palin - including completely stomach-churning Photoshops of Governor Palin's son - it turns out that James B. Webb has finally eaten his words dissing the "ghoulshopping" of Baby Trig:

I understand ... any of those photoshops attacking or making fun of Trig are disgusting and should rightly be condemned ...

Well, why didn't you say that in the first place, big boy? You might have avoided a bit of, what's it called? Oh yeah, hypocrisy:

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

2. An act or instance of such falseness.

Now, it's bad enough to be hypocritical. But what's worse is hopelessly attempting to escape such hypocrisy to the point of denying the accepted definition of the word:

I called you on your inability to recognize or define hypocrisy and dared you to publically prove your claim you went apeshit and wrote a rambling screed trying to smear me as being gay ...

Well, there's ample evidence to James' hypocrisy, not just in the example above, but here as well, "James Webb, Atheist Hypocrite, Loves teh Gays." God only knows James' sexual orientation for sure, although we have no hard evidence to rebut the suspicions that surround him. No matter, since that time James has stopped backlinking his posts attacking me to my own blog. I guess the notion that that might be a little hypocritical finally sunk in, especially having once denounced such practice himself. Oh, and James has yet to start calling me "Dr. Douglas," despite his hysterical demands that I show "respect" by addressing him as "James B. Webb." I won't hold my breath for a little recipical respect on my side. No matter though. There's certainly some comfort, altogether, that James' moral bankruptcy and nihilist hypocrisy are on brilliant display by now, for the whole world to see. Note too that this complete break with intellectual honesty is the hallmark of the postmodern left:

Those individuals, groups, or nations who live in the world of deep denial are practically untouchable by reality or rational argument. They go through their daily lives secure in the knowledge that their self-image is protected against any information, feelings, or awareness that might make them have to change their view of the world. Nothing--not facts, not observable behavior; not the use of reason, logic, or the evidence of their own senses will make them reevaluate that world view.

This last section is key. Because when James sees this post, he'll embark on another round of alcohol-fueled irrationalism and denial in and attempt to get out from under the weight of the unmistakable proof of the complete collapse of virtuous character.