OK, so we all want to see a new Alien movie... time for a New Pauli Poll!Aren't
As for me, I don't delete comments on my blog. This is not because I've never seen stupid remarks made here, but for exactly the opposite reason. I like to let people have plenty of rope to hang themselves. It's very generous of me, if I may say so myself. The gallows is happily provided by Google and Al Gore.
Of course if I'm dead-as-a-doornail wrong about something, I'd hope a commenter would correct me or at least set the record straight for the sake of other readers. That's what democracy is all about, right? I was serious when I told everyone at the outset to criticize my opinions as much as they saw fit. And I can't help it if Andy Nowicki took his superior intellect elsewhere.
I'll leave it to readers to fill in the details of what was deleted here in the combox(es) in question. I already talked about it last May when it first happened, so it just feels like "déjà vu all over again" to me, as Yogi B. might say.
My last point is that saving comment threads before they are edited can yield dangerously enlightening and hilarious results.
Here's a link to him giving his "reason" for the deletions. Isn't it truly, amazingly laughable for Rod to single out Bub as "boring" and "disrespectful" when you have true paleocon snooze-machines commenting in his boxes along with the glaring disrespect of the gay lobbyists discussing whether homosexual behavior is any more un-natural than hetero using quasi-explicit terms.
ReplyDeleteI've said it before and I'll say it here again because it's worth repeating. Occam's razor is very useful here, and the best and most simple explanation for deletions is that Bub is making good points Some of these, IMHO, are pretty devastating to the head-nodders to the "conservatism sure is in trouble" mantra. Those folks love to rewrite the history of the last 25 years or so, starting with Reagan. Ramesh P. recently deflated the "conservatives were tricked by GWB" thought balloon be pointing out that most knew he wasn't Russell Kirk.
I think I might tackle what I call "laboratory conservatism" next -- it's one of the causes of the strawman fallacy of the so-called "conservative sell-out". The rift between the Cognac-sipping critics and the boots on the ground Republican voters is much easier to see from the ground by the foot-soldiers who are outside the academic mainstream.
that thread! thanks for the memories....
ReplyDelete"I cannot figure out the difference between a "contributor" and an "owner" of a Blog. I have been in correspondence with both Google and Blogger for several weeks on this matter. They seem reluctant, at the present, to clarify this matter.
"For instance are "contributors" Mr. Morton and "torquemada05" also the "owners" of the blog in question? If a third party posts on the FOG blog are they also "contributor"? I have been privileged to work with some very fine investigators. They have told me to always follow the money trail. So I wonder who pays the bills at the FOG blog: Mr. Morton, now identified as an Editor at the Washington Times, "torquemada05," the Washington Times itself, you?
The Church condemns secret societies -- with good reason. In our country, it seems to me, we should have freedom of speech, freedom of information and freedom of religion as well as freedom of the press. We should know if one or more members of the Washington power elite are maintaining a public forum in which they attack co-religionists who uphold their Church's teachings on preventive war and torture. I think we should also know who is financing said forum."
Bub, we cross posted. But notice how your 2nd comment answered my "lab-con" remark. The "Malaise Speech", predicting a decline based on static observations, is tailor made in and for the science lab. The world is actually a dynamic place which doesn't play by the rules of the laboratory with the finite variables constructed in according to the wisdom of the political scientist or commentator. Just look at all the liberals saying now "Of course, communism collapsed under it's own weight." Back in the seventies, only people like Reagan were saying this; the naysayers were saying "learn to live with it; communism's here to stay".
ReplyDeleteGranted, the world does operate according to certain rules & principles -- it's not some fantasy-land from a head-in-the-clouds motivational speaker's spiel where infinite possibilities exist. But if you bet on the "bears" you lose money in the long run. And I keep seeing the image of GKC's "cosmic anti-patriot" in these pessimisticons, and even if the Repubs lose 2 more elections I think the long-run best bet is against them.
It's amazing how Rod and Andrew Sullivan all operate the same way. They all sort of view themselves as the true guardians of the "correct" form of conservatism, putting forth their personal preferences as the basis of ideology. They are both reluctant to address - on an intellectually honest level, anyway - those who disagree with them. And both essentially argue emotionally rather than rationally. I mean, the only thing Rod hasn't done yet is describe something as Gob smackingly vile, though I am sure he's come close.
ReplyDeleteWhat's more, is that they issue sweeping bromides without acknowleding that which contradicts their theses. Rod insists that conservatives were under the sway of Buch until 2005, despite all facts which prove otherwise. Similarly, Sullivan lately has been going on about how D'Souza's new book proves his idiotic "Christianist" theory, and has the unmitigated gall to pretend that no conservative has challenged D'Souza, when in fact pretty much every conservative that has commented- and many have - has blasted D'Souza's book, and some in quite forceful terms.
No wonder Rod links to Sullivan's site. They're like two peas in a pod.
PZ, right. It's the neighborhood of make-believe, I guess. To ignore all the conservative criticism of Bush over the last 7 years is selective reading at best. But this all mimics the liberals narrative; e.g., remember the liberal outrage at "The Path to 9/11" which doesn't make C. Rice or the Repubs really look any smarter/better? They ignored that part; they're not interested in the balance.
ReplyDeleteThe only praise I've heard for D'Souza's book came from Bill Donohue who's in a political class of his own -- not really a movement conservative. He's registered independent, I believe. I read the D'Souza excerpt in Catalyst and I can see that it would fire up someone like AS immediately. It's almost like his thought process is "All the social conservatives are panning this book and theory. Why don't I use the book to pan the social conservatives I don't like to promote my "Christianist" theory? I'm so clever!"
"2 peas in a pod?", I agree. They're also both great writers, that's why they're in business. Someone wisely noted once that any attack on his ideas and beliefs is essentially seen as a personal attack since he's the only person espousing them.
I believe his reasons for deleting Bubba's comments are not only due to those stated in Pauli's poll; but also due to a typical Liberal MSM attitude of I am better than you and definitely unaccountable to you. For him to allow alternative views such as Bubba's would be as likely to happen as him criticizing obvious media bias.
ReplyDeleteboth great writers, but also both second-rate minds. useful to make the distinction.
ReplyDeleteKathleen:
ReplyDeleteI agree that they are second rate minds. However, what makes them who they are is this belief in their "Infallability" on various issues. This infallability they believe comes from their positions in the Liberal MSM.
items 1-3 are very succinctly put.
ReplyDeleteusually when we refer to people who are great writers, it means we respect them intellectually. in that sense, you are right, bubba, dreher's not a great writer. i suppose it would be better to say he has a facility with words.
ironically, all too often people who can string words together persuade themselves that their thoughts must be worth expressing because they can be expressed fluently. also -- since they write to please themselves instead of writing in the service of ideas -- they tend to choose subject matter so turgid it's unsayable in a few dozen words, but requires thousands of words. with such writers you end up with a lot of unreadable, self-serving mish-mosh, like dreher's bizarre entry about who will be the next William F Buckley (why, Rod, of course it's YOU!).
the overarching goal of so many people in our generation is to look and sound smart. it has taken the place of any intellectual substance. so when you get someone like dreher, who constantly derides the lack of substance everywhere but in his own work, the hypocrisy is stunning (and, i guess in our cases, endlessly fascinating)
Jonathan has a point; I think they do see themselves as having "positions"; I remarked in an email that Rod is a new media maven trying to live by old media rules.
ReplyDeleteRelated to that, I wonder if Rod has every been told to "post something about Britney Spears" just so beliefnet can get their share of internet search hits. That would be akin to the old media feeding frenzy re: dead Diana.
However, what makes them who they are is this belief in their "Infallability" on various issues.
ReplyDeleteSome sort of attitude of infallibility seems to be required for opinion journalists. If you don't execute a proper thrust, how can the next journalist properly parry you?
That works all right, I guess (I guess? I'd never make it as an opinion journalist), if the idea is to advance the discussion by means of opposition. But when supportive kibitzers become part of the conversation, they throw the thrust off balance. It's like fencing with someone else pushing your from behind whenever you move forward.
Yeah, well, continuing with Tom's fencing analogy, deleting comments is akin to saying "wait, no fair, I didn't see that coming. Let's try that again." Maybe Bub should leave another comment next time like this: "Oh sorry, Rod. By the way, I just thought of something really bad about large oil companies. If it's true the environmentalists have a point. Isn't that interesting?"
ReplyDeleteOr: "OK RO,D I'm wearimg s blingfold niw. isthis bettwr??"
Bubba:
ReplyDeleteWhile you are dead on in your assesment of his Rolling Stone citation, something that speaks louder is the previous column he did. In it he bemoaned the fate of those loyal Iraqis who helped us when we came in. He also talked about how we owe them because we left them hanging and may need to allow them in this country. Who is we Mr. Dreher? It is because of people like him that the Iraqis are left hanging.