1

Point well taken. 

 

*sucks thumb in corner* 

2

^by the way, the thumb sucking reference is a joke.

I don't completely disagree that we need to flesh out some things. Hell, I am all for saying "f*ck off" to worrying about offending people. McCain pushed for Shamnesty, and the Lation bloc rolled him. He courted Catholics, and they rolled him as well.

My beef is that it became waaayy too unnecessarily nasty.

3

You gotta admit that it was fun watching Patticakes duck and weave ...though it was pretty obvious to everyone but him and his fan-boys that every punch Jeff landed was effective (and they all landed). Which exacerbated the turn to nastiness of course (not that I've any problem with that, mind you).

...but I quit reading Patterico on a regular basis years ago, when I discovered he was a bit of a humourless, pedantic squish. His banning Jeff to shut him up was of-a-piece with who he is.

...can't quite recall, but years back we had an argument about some minor something or other, and he just went all missish ...it seemed to me at the time that his ego was a bit fragile, and - though I quit paying attention to 'im after that - I think watching this little episode pretty much confirms my early-on impression.

...and I've seen Jeff effectively take on comers way above Patti's weight class in this particular subject/field ...so I'm hardly impressed with Pat's ability to choose winnable fights, either.

4

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Jeff cries about being banned and his followers repeat it endlessly, even though it turned out he hadn't been banned at all.

It's simply impossible to have a conversation with him because he persists in making bad faith accusations.

5

So Gabe, you have no problem with the bullshit "Death threat" deal? Or  is it just the people you disagree with who have to live up to your standards?

If you read the comment, it's obvious Jeff was the one who was going to be hung, there is no way to read it otherwise.

But I still shouldn't have gone after Patterico's motives, I try to stick to actions but accusing Goldstein of a death threat over that comment fairly reeks of bad faith.

And Goldstein wasn't banned? Really? Do you have a link to prove that?

6 If I may just mention one thing. I did not say the issue was not important, whichever side you support. My point is that the issue was made a side show when both hosts went personal.

They should have stopped arguing when the name calling started and continued to make their cases at their own blogs, using logic, facts or whatever was convincing to the people they were trying to influence. The nasty personal garbage being thrown about by both sides does nothing to advance either argument and distracts from both. The stronger you feel about the importance of the original issue the more upset you should be with the outbreak of hostilities.

While it is better for all parties to work together it would still be better for them to work independently against the common enemy than to be fighting each other.  WW2 would have been much more difficult had we been fighting a war with England and Russia over the best way to attack Germany.

Both sides in this covered themselves with dirt and both are not being honest about what happened. The inflammatory personal attacks against two important people on this side is not going to help us in our common fight.

I would point out I am not taking either side in this regrettable fight. I see fault on both sides and I think that the adults on both sides must agree to end this to stop the bleeding. The kind of irresponsible accusations I am hearing on both sides make this sound less and less likely. We all lose.

Go ahead, have at me. 

7

Because what I saw was Patterico claiming that he hadn't deleted a comment, he didn't address the banning.

So please, a link to prove what you said.

8

Oh, and Gabe?

This is how you handle stuff like this.

9

Crap, the linky thing didn't seem to work so I'll cut n paste my comment on Goldstein's thread.

Jeff, I’ve seen it claimed that you weren’t banned at Patterico’s, is that true?
If you haven’t been banned, could you correct the record so I don’t look like a fool when I say you were?

10

Gabriel Malor - Jeff cries about being banned and his followers repeat it endlessly, even though it turned out he hadn't been banned at all.

Blow it out your ass Gabe (and I mean that in the kindest way possible). Unlike you (apparently), I read both those threads: from Patterico hisself -

This has ceased to be amusing.

I’m on the phone now, but I’m going to go to the computer and close this thread. It’s all fun and games until someone issues a death threat.

[UPDATE 3-23-09 6 p.m. Many have argued that the comment was not a death threat, even though it appeared to me at the time that it was. I have already said that, viewed in hindsight, it may not have been a death threat. Apparently some have missed those comments, which I made as early as 11:35 a.m yesterday. But at the time the comment was made, the hanging reference worried me, given that the thread was moving towards threats of outing a commenter and implied threats of some kind of violence. I'm not going to permit people to physically threaten others on my blog, and that's what it appeared to me was happening when I made the banning decision. The banning was justified whether it was a death threat or not, and will remain in force. -- P]

If Patti' later unbanned him, I'd already left (after reading a 300 and 500-plus comment thread, at last count). But re: your assertion above: j'accuse, Malor? 

I'm a regular reader of JeffG, seldom commenter, but no fan-boy (too arcane mostly, though interesting, and I prefer the rough-and-tumble at Ace's "house" ...hell, I prefer - and agree - with your posts, mostly, to JeffG's stuff), so I don't appreciate the back-bitey ad hominem implication of your little dart above.

I can follow a comment thread, and my observation about winning was about the argumentum ...which anyone who's not brain-dead (or a fan-boy) could see that Patti lost on the merits.

And with the banning, he lost on moral grounds, too.

What's the deal with lawyer/bloggerts thin skins, anyways? (The only time I've ever been banned was on Beldar's blog: another lawyer ...over something equally stupid.)

11 fuck me: NOT fairwhether. Sigh. I'm an idiot ...though not for the non-reasons Malor insinuated.

12 Jesus, political blogs have fanboys?! I post on these sites to get away from that in the bloody nerd-o-sphere (video games, movies, etc.) and now I find they're lurking in these parts too, *sigh.*

13 My take on Jeff's vicious death threat, if'n you don't mind gratuitous link whoring.  It's brief, I promise.

14

I'm with Jeff G. & DPUD on this one.  This fight needs to be engaged in RIGHT NOW, or else it will fester and jump out to sabotage candidates in '10 and '12.  Get it over with now, and whoever wins will dust themselves off and proceed towards the next elections.

  If you can't argue about the twisting of a speakers words to impugn their motives, then exactly what the hell CAN you argue about?  THAT is what REALLY pisses me off:  When spectators come in and start whining "Hey, I only want to see happy things.  Stop fighting!", they are telling the participants that the ultimate truth being sought in the argument is less important than providing a saccharine-soaked playground for squishy moderates who might be frightened off by our SCARY Conservative Principles.

  Do I think that this argument has gotten out of hand?  Yeah.  I think Patterico started out in good faith, but he's painted himself into a corner and has stopped listening to Jeff's arguments in order to declare himself the "better man" and winner of the debate.  And the whole death threats brouhaha?  Ninja PLEASE!  That is so "Special Olympics".

  I've always said (over at Ace's where I've been one of JG's few vocal defenders among the staff) that conservatism needs BOTH Jeff & Patrick in order to succeed in the next 2 elections.....but if I've got a gun to my head and I have to choose sides in this fight, I'm going to side with Jeff.

15 Yes.

I was going to comment, but Russ said exactly what I was going to say -- with more words.

So, yes.

16

  Don't get me wrong.  I respect when Ace (who sides more with Patterico, but was NOT an instigator of this fight, so he's actually more of an observer in this case) says that we've got to tailor our message to appeal to moderates & independents.  I see the value in this; HOWEVER, I do NOT see the value in tossing a fellow conservative "under the bus" for something he/she DID NOT ACTUALLY SAY.  Whether that's The Infamous Four Words, or Goldstein's Phantom Death Threat, its all the same. 

 If you insist on Conservatives NEVER saying anything that can be twisted or misinterpreted by the media or the Carville/Begalla/Soros axis of weasels, then the only conservative spokesman you will be left with will be someone who makes McCain look like Goldwater by comparison.  When your opponents don't need to justify their attacks, they will attack your allies based on their value instead of the substance of what they've said.  We can't stop the unprincipled left from lying about what a conservative said, but we CAN refrain from sticking our own knives in said conservative....unless what he/she said is truly reprehensible.

  Perception may be reality in marketing, but if we totally abandon principles to embrace perceptions we're no better than the effing douchenozzles who abandon principle to oppose us.  And if that's what its going to take to win this war, then what's the use in fighting?  We'll just be the opposite side of the same coin.  "Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss" and all that.

17 Well, now that I know mesa agrees with me, I'm confident that my crazee is calibrated properly.

18

Patterico could have come out of this smelling like a rose, too. All he had to say - even after it was waay obvious to the otherwise disinterested spectators (of which I are one) - was "Uh, y'know Jeff ...now that you put it like that, I agree."

When you're incorrect (as in having nothing to do with moral or ego issues, but having a weak argument), the smartest/bestest thing you can do is man-up and say "You're right." Or maybe "I'm wrong."

Especially when the other party is.

Patterico was stupid to pass up this as the opportunity it represented to show himself as teachable. He would've gained far more credibility by dousing his ego, and letting his brain (which is a good one btw) take over.

...helluva smart way to keep your marriage going smoothly too (sometimes ...even if your other half ain't right but the issue ain't important enough to draw a line in the sand over).

19 aargh. I give up. fairwhether=davis,br

20

davis,br:  I agree that Patterico could have defused this whole thing at any time, but I'll go one step further.  I slogged through the whole thread where the Phantom Death Threat was supposedly unleashed, and I repeatedly saw commenter "nk" go after Jeff with personal insults while Patterico kept chiming in with statements like "nk is a personal friend of mine, and he is A GOOD MAN who would never cross the line".  (not a direct quote, but a summary of my impressions) 

  To me, that whole thing stunk of Pat using "nk" as a cutout to slag Jeff while keeping the moral high ground at the same time. 

  If Pat had stepped into that whole exchange between Jeff and "nk" and simply instructed "nk" to LIGHTEN UP, FRANCIS, then I think he would have actually achieved the moral high ground that he aspired to control.  His passive approval of "nk" and his taunts was even being called out by his own commenter posse in that thread; and given their loyalty to Pat in this fight, that demonstrates to me that he crossed the line even by the standards of his own supporters.

  Of course, maybe he WASN'T passively enabling "nk" and his taunting of JG in that thread........but since The Marquis of Pattericobury Rules of Engagement clearly state that "truth is determined by the interpretation, not by evidence of intent", my interpretation of his actions trump any explanation he could provide for context in this case.

21

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Jeff cries about being banned and his followers repeat it endlessly, even though it turned out he hadn't been banned at all.

It's simply impossible to have a conversation with him because he persists in making bad faith accusations.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at March 25, 2009 12:47 PM (NWnFp)

----------------------------------------------

Except that he actually WAS banned.  Which kinda undercuts your argument.  But then, lawyers are about advocacy not logic, so I understand.  Gotta protect your own and all that.

22 I have never been a fan of Goldstein, his writing style just doesn't really do it for me, and have followed Patterico's blog for years, although I have to admit he often comes off as brittle, but Goldstein definitely held the high ground here both in his argument that we shouldn't cede language and in the idea that he had said something that deserves banning.

The hard part here is I agree with both sides.  I agree with Jeff G that we shouldn't cede language and should fight back with everything when ludictrous accusations are made, but I also aggree with Patterico and Ace that we should be careful in the choice of language when making a public argument.  The two aren't mutually exclusive and honestly sometimes you want to be deliberately contreversial in your choice to get peoples attention.  In that case stand your ground and make your case.

23 Good to see Gabriel talking out of his ass somewhere besides Ace's.

I was banned, Gabriel.  That's a fact.  You might be able to convince a dumbed down jury otherwise -- just as Patrick Frey has convinced people that a remark in which my own hanging was supposedly a death threat against the hangman -- but that doesn't make it any less so.

24 All I knows is I hope Baracky fails and when he does I will point and laugh at him. Also I will say I told you so I told you so to many people. How you like your boy now? I will say laughingly and then say hey I'm just kidding. You want a Pepsi?

Then I will laugh and laugh some more.

25 Gabe just came here and lied.  Then, he didn't retract the lie when it was pointed out.

That reminds me of something.

26 Did someone mention me? I have a sixth sense about these things, you know. I'm kind of a big deal.

27 Tailor the message?  How?  No, how about being honest, principled and not ceding meaning or intent?  I'll take option 2.  Jeff's 100% correct.

28 Malor may be thinking about the disappeared comment earlier, Jeff got banned on what, Monday?  Dunno if Malor's been following the whole thing that closely, obviously I can't answer for him, but it is possible.

29 @25 (and others):  My guess is Gabe misunderstood or misread.  There was a lot of talk about banning/comment deleting on a lot of threads on a lot of sites, so it's easy to get confused.  I spent probably an hour this evening reading comments to figure out what had happened.

Re: the topic at hand, I think Jeff is right.  Patterico has a good point re: courtesy, but he doesn't seem to be aware that he's having an entirely different argument altogether.  And his behavior re: the "death threat" was indefensible.

30 Plus, he's become kind of a douchebag since he lost me.

31 Okay, dpundead, maybe Gabe didn't lie, my bad.  He shouldn't act like he knows what he's talking about though, as he doesn't.

32 I think Gabe misunderstood. He saw posts referring to Jeff writing posts at Patterico's and "landing punches" and assumed this meant Jeff wasn't banned after all, because how could he be banned if he is writing effective posts over there. Thinking error on Gabe's part, he seems not to realize the posts came before the banning, and did not exclude the banning. I think he made a mistake. I hope he comes back to confess his error.

33 By the way, I think part of Pat's difficulty is his vested interest in tearing down Jeff's premises about the technical aspects of language theory, in order to support his position about Rush. One difficulty: Even if one assumes Jeff's theories have gaps or conundrums or fallacies and Patterico would STILL be wrong about Rush. That's because Jeff's conclusion is sound, however he gets there.

34 For the sake of his credibility Gabe needs to say something about his repeated denial of the banning (initially in comment 4 then again in 21) even when presented with the direct quote of Frey bolded in comment 10.

It may be a simple oversight, but color me skeptical.

35 ThomasD, 21 was a quote from another commenter. 

On the larger point, yes, he still hasn't apologized for 4.

36 I'm aware the comment was from another poster. 

Are you aware that the bolded section is a direct quote of Frey from his own website?  It's even linked -   see the bit of blue text that reads 'Patterico'?  Click on it.

37 I think I misunderstood you, ThomasD.

38 NP, that's easy to believe. 

My point was Gabe made the accusation once (mistakenly, as proven by the interlocutor) and then had the audacity to repeat it, even when direct evidence to the contrary was already offered.

Two possibilities either Gabe isn't really keeping up with the conversation, instead just doing drive-by hit jobs, or he's being mendacious in the extreme.

Either way it does not reflect well on him.

39 What the deuce happened to my formatting?

40 Oh wait, now I follow - messed up the bit about #21.

Nevermind.  I have mischaracterized Gabe in extremis.

41 Whoa. Damn, things can get away from ya when you're not looking.

Yes, I thought ya'll were talking about the comment episode. Hadn't heard about the banning episode or the death threat episode yet and got confused (I don't read Patterico or ProteinWisdom). My apologies to Jeff for not having all of the facts and thus making exactly the type of accusation I said he was making. That was stupid.

Still tired of the whole kerfluffle and I agree with Patterico's most recent post on the issue (which was pointed out to me by email).

You guys can frame the issue as: "we can no longer cede the meaning of our own words to the left" but as you'll see by clicking on the first link up there, that's not what this was treated as back in its early days. Seriously, read some of those comments.

42 Really am sorry I didn't look back at this earlier. Since ya'll were demanding answers, would it have killed any of you to simply email me?

And I see now that a helpful commenter has linked this over at Ace's and Jeff has it in his own comments.

Fabulous.

43 This isn't really our fault, Gabe.

Thanks for the correction though.

44 Well, Gabe. You accused me of bad faith.

Glad you made the correction and I accept the apology.  Thanks.

45 Re: the topic at hand, I think Jeff is right.  Patterico has a good point re: courtesy, but he doesn't seem to be aware that he's having an entirely different argument altogether.  And his behavior re: the "death threat" was indefensible.

I think there's something to be said for the bolded observation from Mrs. Peel. That's probably where most of the problem came from.

46 I've been lurking, not commenting, over the several blogs this mess has splattered onto.  It's fascinating and bloody.

Gabe, that's the way to do it--when the situation wasn't what you thought it was, you were polite and did the right thing.  Thank you for not making this even more of a multicar collision than it is already (a whole lane of crashes just opened up at LGF, ferinstance).

47

  Gabe, "good on ya', mate".  That's how you handle a misunderstanding.  And you're right to quote Mrs. Peel on this arguement being two parallel fights instead of one coordinated kerfluffle.  She really summarized the whole problem in one sentence.

  Whoever's commenting as "More Russ, Less Gabe"?  Dude, you're CREEPING me out.  You really don't want to hear my opinion on contract law and Battlestar Galactica, do you?  Just because we disagree on some details doesn't mean that one of us needs to go away.  Besides, that's the beauty of the whole Ace of Spades HQ format:  You can read BOTH of us at the same place.  Sort of a one stop shopping destination for conservative opinions & pudding cups.

48 Thanks, Gabe.  Sorry you got piled on - I went to bed shortly after my comment, so I didn't see that until now.  I figured you were thinking of the "disappeared comment" issue, because I got confused about that as well, and didn't find out what had actually happened until yesterday (and it took a LOT of reading to figure it out...this is what I get for not being one of the cool kids in the blogosphere).

49

I see Gabe still hasn't responded to anything in any substantive manner.

Exactly as I expected.

He did admit he was wrong about Goldstein.

That I didn't expect.

He also didn't apologize for taking a swipe at me.

Exactly as I expected.

He did come back and didn't just leave it as a drive-by hit-job.

That I didn't expect.

So I'm batting .500 at predicting smug, not-so-intelligent-as-they-think-they-are jerks. 

He could have shown a little class and note that I was right about him thinking about the "disappeared comment" deal, but eh, he's classless so that's what I expect from him.

So that means I was batting .600, not bad.

50

Oh wait, he also ignored Patterico's bullshit "death threat" deal.

That I didn't expect.

 I figured if he did respond in any way would have the, I don't know, Integrity? Honest?, eh, something, to admit that he was absolutely wrong and that Patterico was being a jerk with that accusation.

So I'm back to .500.

51 I'm really not liking seeing the piling on here.  It would be fantastic if we could return to the basic issue, instead of taking sides in an argument that's gone way too far for grown people.

So I'm gonna let the mom in me come out and holler at everyone to go to their rooms and drop the personal crap on this one and not come out until you can play nice with the other kids.  By playing nice I mean going back to discussing the real issue at hand, which is a very debatable topic.  Letting it devolve into "he said this" or "he ignored that" or "he misinterpreted this deliberately" or "OMG a death threat" (and I haven't been following this closely enough to know who's been saying what, so that's not intended as a stab at any of the parties at hand) is a good way to destroy potential alliances that we're going to need in a couple of years.  Everyone here is - or should be - grown up enough to recognize straw men and know that it doesn't contribute to healthy and open discussion.  If you really must confront someone (on our side, feel free to unleash all this crap on the libs, heh) personally, please think about whether your words are inflammatory or are in the spirit of a good debate.

Don't make me threaten to take away your video games!

52

Sorry Alice, but Gabe came in here and attacked me and then didn't retract it. Of course, he wrote in that passive aggressive way "People like Veeshir" so he can weasel out and say it wasn't an attack on me, but it was an attack on me.

Also, he was absolutely wrong about everything he said and, while he apologized to Goldstein, he never retracted the other, untrue stuff he wrote.

If he's going to jump in, he has to defend what he wrote. But Gabe only defends when the other person is wrong. Look how quickly he  responded to A. Weasel in the Where the Wild Things Are thread, there, it was opinion so it's hard to be wrong.

But when I challenged him, he didn't respond until Goldstein called him out. "Why didn't you guys email me?" he says, I take it A. Weasel emailed him and that's why he responded?

 

Gabe appears to think that we have to be nicer to the left and he'll be as mean as as he has to be to the right in order to make it so.

 

53 No more Xbox for you, Veeshir!  Do I have to ground you for the rest of the year?!

Seriously, read what you're writing.  "But mom, he started it!"  There's no point in going there. 

54

Heh. At least I admit I wasn't watching the whole mess entirely.

 

55

Actually Veeshir, Gabe with his "...and his [JeffG] followers repeat it endlessly" pap was [initially, at least] responding to my rather innocuous post (3) ...and I didn't particularly like the baseless little allusion to being a PW mind-numbed robot (or whatever, with apologies to the Limbaugh hordes: whom I have no affiliation problem with either btw) ad hominem-ism of Gabe's assertion ...along with his adding some baseless statements about JeffG.

...which I soundly torched him over in (10). While I also - purely coincidentally - responded/answered your [main] question of (5,7,8 &9). He may have thought that was an adequate response to half your question too (dunno, but I'd guess from reading his replies).

He admitted he really hadn't been paying attention (which was pretty damn obvious) and conflated the various independent bits; and he got a well-deserved ass-chewing over it.

...and - especially as the greater-wronged JeffG accepted Gabe's apology - I was satisfied with Gabe's response. He was wrong, he admitted he was ignorant of the facts, he said "sorry" ...it was acceptable to me. He did the right thing (well, right enough ...which should be enough). 

...aside from which, apparently AliceH may spank us all if we don't make nicey ...which may not necessarily be a bad thing, depending upon how you swing. Heh.

 

56

Sorry, "People like Veeshir" seems to appear to me that maybe, just maybe, he was possibly talking about me. That's from the "some perspective" thread, not this one in case you don't realize that.

Nope, Gabe has a history of hit and run comments and avoiding answering anybody who's proved him wrong so I feel it is my duty to call him on it. If he wants to jump in, he has to stay in. He can't just attack me with a bunch of incorrect and easily disproven bullshit and then be about his business.

That's being fucking rude and it's absolutely funny in that he's railing against people being rude.

Now, this is my opinion, but this is how I see it:

He did apologize to Goldstein, after Goldstein publically called him out. But.... I don't have Goldstein's megaphone so I can be safely ignored.

What he does do at Ace's when his posts are attacked is respond to the nitwits but ignore the people with a point. Not just me, go back and read his pontifications where he was educating us about stuff we already knew. Notice that when someone has a good point, he ignores it but when someone asks him for clarification or makes an erroneous assumption he responds.

He makes hit and run assertions that he doesn't back up when challenged, as above and in the other thread with the longer comment from Gabe, and all he did was admit that he was wrong about Goldstein getting banned after Goldstein called him out publically.

Read the comment I linked above and marvel at how it's wrong in every detail (his name isn't even Gabriel Malor) and yet, he still hasn't retracted anything except accusing Goldstein of lying about being banned.

57 Oh, and I'm trying to get spanked, why do you think I wrote a "he started it" post?

58 I was trying to avoid having to use stuff I use with my six year old, but I'm going to have to break one out here. 

I don't care who started it, now it stops. 

And I haven't spanked my six year old in a couple of years, so don't think you're going to get lucky, Veesh.  My three year old is another story, but she's too young to be reasoned with.  But she doesn't get to use Mommy and Daddy's computer except to play Babysmash.  Do we need to take away your Internet, Veeshir?

59

Gabe still hasn't responded to his absolutely untrue assertions, so yes, I'm going to continue calling him out for his actions.

Are you saying that what he did is okay and that he has no obligation to defend his words?

That's a serious question. Could you answer it instead of telling me to shut up? I don't respond to that well.

I tried humor first go around because I like you, but seriously, I don't like being told to shut up by someone who's not party to what I'm talking about. That's between me and Gabe. You can always avoid reading my comments.

He attacked me personally, in a comment that was 100% wrong, and then went about his business. Something he does all the time, and no, I'm not saying he does it to me all the time, he does it to anybody all the time.

So yes, I will continue to call him on it. Why? Because his actions beg for it. It's rude of him not to be happy about it.

60 This whole thing has degraded into a bunch of poo-slinging on both sides.  I'm not trying to take a side on it, and frankly, the level of discourse that this has dropped to has made me reluctant to even discuss the original issue.  I'm not saying that anyone is right or wrong here, what I'm saying is that the personal attacks should stop.

61 ^But is it still OK to call Allah names?

62 I know I deserve that, eddie, LOL

63

I'm sorry Alice, but I apparently have to respond. And, unfortunately, I can't promise to make it my last response, since Veeshir or others may want to disagree and demand more answers.

Veeshir, I absolutely will not retract or apologize for the linked comment on the "some perspective" thread. I wrote: "I agree that it has gone too far, but what do you expect when people like Veeshir keep repeating demonstrably false things like 'Patterico wants to go the Peggy/Kathleen route.'  As long as one side continues to pillory the other, this will never die."

And that is absolutely correct. Veeshir, you went on in the very next comment to say "He [Patterico] wants to make nice with the left because it's rude not to, just like Parker/Noonan."

That is not what Patterico said, as far as I understood his position (acknowledging now that I stopped following this thing weeks ago and have no idea how people have altered their positions; DPUD and davis,br have said that Patterico has changed his). He didn't say "make nice with the left" he said "don't antagonize potential voters." That was the content of his original post at Hot Air.

I am sensitive to this misrepresentation because my own obvservation that we shouldn't be pissing off potential voters was also met with accusations that I wanted to "work with Obama" which is something I have never said. And if it seems to you like I called out a particular group of commenters, including you, it is because they have a repeated tendency to twist and misconstrue what I have written in order to make convenient strawman claims.

Some of that can be assigned to my own failure to communicate clearly. I have myself been accused of misrepresenting arguments I disagree with (alexthechick's several objections over the past few months come to mind), so I can understand how it happens. But after such a sustained period and with such blatant misrepresentations, I tend to think it's more purposeful than accidental.

And that's why I called you out by name and continue to disagree with your characterization. I will not apologize or retract that.

As for the rest of the linked comment in the "some perspective" thread, I wrote: "As I wrote way back at the beginning of the argument, one side just wanted to talk about methods; the other side took it as an attack on conservative doctrine and they simply won't let go of the misrepresentation. It's dissappointing, but there are some people who are never happier than when they are whining about being a minority within their own party."

I don't apologize for that either because it is an accurate statement of what happened. People took criticism of Rush's shock quote methods as criticism of his conservative politics and persisted in arguing the event on those grounds, probably because it's much more defensible than trying to explain why it's a good idea to irritate potential voters. Moreover, it is undeniable that the various party factions have each been attempting to purge the others since November and that a lot of whining about it, yes, whining, has gone on.

64 You know, I'd threaten to toss both of you into the basement, which is what I threaten to do with the kids when they misbehave, but the kids have figured out that that's where all the cool toys actually are.

Just try to keep it civil, pretty please?  I really hate to see people I like (and that includes both of you misbehaving morons) going at each other. 

65

So in other words, you're just going to double down and not address what I wrote. My favorite part about that is that you attacked Goldstein incorrectly and have absolutely ignored the bad faith implicit in Patterico's bullshit assertion that that was err, might be a death threat.

Thanks, and exactly why I have such a low opinion of you.

I will respond to one the defense of one of your points.

No, people didn't take it as "criticism of his conservative politics". That's a blatant misrepresentation (which is funny because you accuse me of that), what people  took it as was a typical Minitru attempt to twist what conservatives say to demonize them. And then, people like Patterico and Frum et al. said Rush was wrong and wanted conservatives to be all careful and not piss off the left.

So yes, their point is to be politer to the left or they'll twist our words.

Oh, and Alice? I believe that "he started it" is a perfectly valid excuse.

To quote that eminent philosopher, J, "Don't start nothing, won't be nothing."

Oh, and I loved your first line Gabe, how silly of me to expect you to defend your words. After all, that's not how the blogosphere works. You can say something, no matter how wrong, and not be expected to defend that statement, right?

Another reason I have such a low opinion of you, you picked me out by name to attack and then act as if I'm being a dick expecting you to defend your words when I called you on it.

That's funny.  

66

I can only repeat what I have said before. You persist in misrepresenting what Patterico said in his Hot Air post and what I myself have said.

You write: "people like Patterico and Frum, et al. said Rush was wrong and wanted conservatives to be all careful and not to piss off the left. So yes, their point is to be politer to the left or they'll twist our words."

As I said before, it's not about being polite to the left. It's about not pissing off potential voters. We had the middle voters in 2004 and 2002 and plenty of other times. We can get them back in 2010 and 2012. It is not out of line to suggest that getting all up in their nostrils is not a good strategy for winning elections.

Furthermore, I am not sympathetic to the argument that El Rushbo would not be so disliked by middle voters, non-movement Republicans, if only it weren't for the Big Bad Media distorting his words. The guy has the largest microphone of any conservative commentator with the largest following. He has the best opportunity to reach the most potential voters.  So I simply don't get the comments that "he's just misunderstood" because of the nefarious coverage of Big Bad Media Meanies. If he can't break through to middle voters--and hasn't been able to in the past twenty years--maybe we should try a different strategy.

That doesn't mean "being nice to the Left." That means engaging middle voters--that is, the ones we had and lost. And engaging them means not antagonizing them. It's almost beside the point (hence Mrs. Peel's observation last night) that Rush might not be such a controversial individual if it weren't for unfair media coverage. You go to war with the army you have, and the middle voters don't like Rush, fairly or not, even after all these years of broadcasting. I renew my suggestion that making him the face of the Republican Party during our wilderness time is not going to be a successful strategy for regaining Congress or the White House.

67 Why not settle it with pistols at ten paces?

68

"Furthermore, I am unsympathetic..."

Sure, he has a big audience, but the NYTimesWashPostCNNABCCBSNBCetc. have a bigger one and they abuse their privileges shamelessly.  

I'll give you an example from the 90s.

Howard Stern (the biggest DJ in the world), was talking about Selena being shot when Fred played gun-fire sound effects.

Stern was called on it. A lot. Loudly and vociferously by all the usual suspects. So he came on air and said, in Spanish, "Get over it" and refused to apologize.

If you read near the bottom of that link, they're still passing the canard that he apologized. He didn't. He said, repeatedly, that he didn't and yet, people at the time who never listened to him and who only get their news from Minitru, thought he apologized.  

Recall also, that many people still get their news from Minitru and will not listen to FoxNews because they're all hatey and stuff.

People like that have never listened to Rush or any other "haters" so they'll only get one side and it wont' be fair to him.

That's the deal with Rush, sure his fans know it was bullshit. I'm not a fan and I don't listen to him but I followed it and I know it was bullshit.

Harry Joe Minitru watcher thinks Rush wants America to fail.

So perhaps you ought to be more sympathetic.

And yes, it's about not pissing off the left. So they won't distort what we say so we can get our message out. I understand you don't like my reframing of the issue, but that's how I see it.

You see, what I think is that we should tell the truth and not worry about the left freaking out, they're going to do it anyway.

Take Patterico's post today that Goldstein linked, about how "See? This is how to do it", talking about Teh Fred. Then go read the comments at the CNN website. They're saying the same things about Fred they said about Rush "He wants the country to fail!!!!!!"

If you disagree with them they'll ravage you so worrying about how they'll take what you say is an exercise in futility.

Notice, you actually addressed points and were polite, so was I.

69

You write: "You see, what I think is that we should tell the truth and not worry about the left freaking out, they're going to do it anyway."

I don't disagree. Nor have I ever disagreed with the quote here or anywhere else.

70 Marginalizing people who highlight the failures of liberal policies and espouse conservative principles, so that the media paints you in a light that isn't likely to turn off "middle voters" in order to elect Republican politicians is not a successful strategy for spreading, furthering, or enacting policies based on conservative principles.

71

Exactly Mob (this time we're on the same side so Go Team Veeshir/Mob).

And Gabe, good for you.

You defended (most of) your points, I still think you should admit that your characterization of "one side is all mean and the other side just wants to address points" was absolutely wrong, and I also think you should admit that Patterico was being a dick with the utterly bullshit attack over the "death threat" that wasn't.... errr... maybe wasn't (according to Patterico). Mostly because you attacked Goldstein and it surely looks as if you're being unfair in attacking one side (I know, you apologized) while ignoring worse behavior by "your" side.

But..... you came back and you were civil. Good work. That's how it should work.

72   Great.  Now that we've solved that problem, let's all go out for a beer.  Gabe's got the first round, right?

73 since The Marquis of Pattericobury Rules of Engagement clearly state that "truth is determined by the interpretation, not by evidence of intent",

Russ, I love ya, guy, but you don't understand what I'm saying.  That quote is Exhibit A.  And you're not alone.

We all must do interpretation, and evidence of intent is of course critical to that.

Some do a "clown nose on, clown nose off" trick when determining intent, however.  Details on that here.

74

Take Patterico's post today that Goldstein linked, about how "See? This is how to do it", talking about Teh Fred. Then go read the comments at the CNN website. They're saying the same things about Fred they said about Rush "He wants the country to fail!!!!!!"

If you disagree with them they'll ravage you so worrying about how they'll take what you say is an exercise in futility.

Some -- not Veershir, I don't think -- seem to take the fact that people are twisting Fred's message as somehow evidence that any criticism of less effective messages is inherently suspect.

Just because that kind Nelson on the Simpsons laughs at everyone doesn't mean that nothing he laughs at is funny.

75 kid Nelson

He's not kind!

76 Fred and Rush said the same damn thing, the only difference is that Rush said it in a way that the left and media could strip it of context, redefine it under their own terms and then use it as a bludgeon against him(and us by extension). Fred had the luxury of seeing what they did to Rush so that he could at least try and phrase things in a slightly less exploitable way...and yet the left and the media is doing pretty much that anyway. 

You're arguing that we should simply accept that this twisting of our words happens, and we're to work around it, or second-guess ourselves to death to make sure nothing we say can ever be twisted by the left, which would result in us saying very little.  Smart tactics maybe, dumb as hell strategery.  Jeff correctly argues that we must not allow this sort of twisting to happen, and reject the left's twisted revisions when they use them against us. 

What the you and the GOP leadership are doing condemning Rush would be like having a prosecutor offer up falsified evidence, and the defense, knowing it to be falsified evidence, nodding, turning around to his innocent client and saying "Yeah, hang the bastard!"  For the life of me I can't understand why you don't see the problem here.  By doing that, you not only condemn someone falsely, but you affirm the prosecutor's unethical behavior, which affirms it for the public at large.  Utterly, utterly foolish, and already proven to be dangerous.

77

So why don't you just fricking admit you were wrong, apologize to JeffG, lift that cowardly ban, and clear the air Pat? - It's been all on you to end this ...since it was apparent to the mildly amused but mostly disinterested - those with no pony in the race - that you were flailing wildly in that exchange: it wasn't pretty watching (funny yes, but 'tweren't pretty).

...at the very least, you sure as hell need to quit regarding your echo choir as indicative of widespread support for your position.

78

  So.......it seems that SOMEONE isn't ready to let this drop just yet.

  Pat, do you agree with my point that you should have discouraged "nk" from taunting Jeff in the thread where The Phantom Death Threat supposedly occured?  Not necessarily a stern rebuke, but at least let him know that he was taking the conversation into an uncomfortable region.

  And the only difference between what Fred said and what Rush said, as far as I can tell, is that Rush summed it up in four words.  He was asked by a magazine to provide a 400 word essay on his "hopes" for the Obama administration, and the four word summary came about because he didn't need 400 words to make his point. 

  Rush didn't just sum it up in four words, because he also provided enough context to explain that he was wishing for Obama to fail because he thinks that Obama's personal success would be harmful to America overall.  And as far as his February statement goes, that's not evidence that you were right in the first place:  Its simply Rush restating that the Stimulus Package, as it was formulated at that time, would be harmful to America so he opposed it and wanted it to fail.

  And The Marquis of Pattericobury Rules DO state that interpretation trumps intent.  That's how I heard it, and I'm sure that others like me who are more "moderate" in the lawyerly ways would interpret it the same way.  You stated that Rush's Four Words were unfortunate because moderates who are not familiar with his context could be swayed by the perceived meaning of the statement.  Your original argument brushed off references to context and said that Rush should have been more precise.  How so?  If he had said the exact same words that Fred Thompson uttered (which you supposedly agree with 100%), wouldn't his words have been just as badly misinterpreted by the media as Fred's words are currently being misinterpreted?

  I just don't get it:  You want to read all sorts of nuance into what Rush or anyone else says & hold them accountable for any possible twisting of the statements, but at the same time you're all over the internet demanding that everyone else respect the Original Intent & Pure Context of YOUR words.  Which way do you want us to jump?  Intent or Interpretation?

79 If you look at the sentences surrounding the Fateful Four Words, Rush said THE EXACT SAME THING that both Fred Thompson and Bobby Jindal said.  The only difference is that he isn't being given the courtesy of context.

Patterico, I do agree with your (and Gabe's) point about courtesy/manners.  Insulting the middle won't help us win.  But Jeff is having a different argument altogether.  Like DPUD said, it's strategy vs. tactics.  Jeff is opposing the tendency by the left to usurp a speaker's intent. 

The Tony Snow tar baby thing is a classic example - some lefty group actually sent a letter to Tony Snow admitting that it was obvious he didn't mean anything racist by the term "tar baby," but he should have avoided it anyway because some hypothetical person could have thought it was racist.  That's utterly ridiculous, and I suspect you agree.

Jeff's argument, I would venture, is larger than elections.  This is a society-wide problem, in which people are pilloried for completely innocent statements.  In your boy/dog hypos, if the kid calls his dog "Here, boy," clearly intending to call the dog, no one should be offended.  But in the real world, people would claim offense, no matter how clear the kid's intent was and even if they weren't actually offended (as in the tar baby example).  So it's not an issue of good manners.  It's a philosophical issue with wide-reaching implications for freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

80

  To quote a movie:

"Forget it Mrs. Peel.  It's Chinatown."

81 Also, prior to the Tony Snow sitch, I had NEVER heard of "tar baby" being used to mean anything other than the obvious (a reference to Brer Fox getting himself stuck in a bad situation).  And prior to reading the kid and his dog hypos, I had NEVER heard of the term "boy" being used to refer to a black man.  Am I supposed to memorize this Wikipedia article and never use any of those words or phrases in my speech ever? 

I mean, according to that article, the word "crow" can be used to mean "a black woman."  So if I say, "Wow, look at that murder of crows!" and a black woman is standing nearby, am I issuing a death threat?

82 >>Forget it Mrs. Peel.  It's Chinatown.

That's just the kind of racist thing I'd expect a round-eye burger muncher like you to say, Russ.  Hmmph.

(I'm totally having a burger for lunch now...)

83

  You do that Peelie!  And chase it down with some snickerdoodles while you're at it.

(Damn, I wish we could make it down for the IBMMP next week.  You're gonna have a GREAT time meeting everyone.)

84

I can't have a hamburger today, what with it being a Friday in lent and all.

hmmph.

85 I can't have a hamburger today, what with it being a Friday in lent and all.

Note to self:  Have double bacon cheeseburger in honor of eddiebear for lunch today.  Because I care. 

Really, I'm so noble it's stunning. 

86 **Takes a peek**
**Throws poo at everyone**
**Runs away**

87

Gee, thanks Alex.

 

Actually, I love sushi, so Fridays in Lent are hardly a sacrifice in our house.

88 ...this is become, like, the Thread That Wouldn't Die.

89 Zombie thread?  Can't you stop those with a head shot?

90 This thread's got red on it!

91

BRAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNS!!!!!!!

(you know...ACTUAL brains.  Not some metaphorical allegory to brains or any other artfag concept like that.  And YES, I do realize that eating brains results in the death of the brain's owner, so I'm going to ban myself for that death threat.  Just don't misinterpret my zombie joke into some performance art piece about the pathetic state of freedom in Tibet.  That's not my INTENT.)

92 Zombie Russ from Winterset

*shoots in head just to be safe*

Well, that can't be a death threat since HE'S ALREADY DEAD.  God, do I have to explain everything around here?

93

Okay, I won't post anything else. I'll let it die. No more comments from me.

 

94 I promise.

95

Don't go all weenie and shit on us now, Veeshir.

I mean, man-up, dude: Pat just threw the fricking gauntlet down again. Don't just leave Russ to take incoming all by his lonesome.

 

...I can haz trollz?

96

Mrs Peel jumped in on Russ's side and I'm a little afraid of her.

So yeah, I'm not going to post here anymore. Just let it die.

97

Alex, that may not technically be a death threat, but I think a "reasonable zombie" could infer that you're threatening to stop my ambulatory rights, so I'm going to go ahead and denounce you anyway.  Just as soon as I get done eating these BRAAAAAIIIINS!

Veeshir with the "let it die" on a thread that's devolved into a zombie-fest.  Irony?

98 As I wrote way back at the beginning of the argument, one side just wanted to talk about methods; the other side took it as an attack on conservative doctrine and they simply won't let go of the misrepresentation. It's dissappointing, but there are some people who are never happier than when they are whining about being a minority within their own party.

Which is which, Gabe?  Because I talked about methods, as well, and argued that a debate over whether we believed Limbaugh's rhetorical choices were sound or defensible given that he has a regular (and very large) audience that he is speaking to that expects one thing from him and one whom he isn't speaking to (but whom he knows to be listening, waiting to pounce) is one I'm certainly willing to have.  To wit:  if Limbaugh has to worry about how those not in his target audience will reframe his words for the "moderates," his style would be such that he likely wouldn't have attracted the audience he has.

So you have to decide -- or at least make the argument:  is Limbaugh a net good for conservatism?   Again, we can have that debate, but that's a different debate from the one I was having with Patterico.  You continue to disagree, but Patterico was saying more than that we shouldn't needlessly alienate the moderate middle, because in order to make that case -- and to do so around Limbaugh as an object lesson -- he was required to suggest how this is done.   And how that is to be done is what I took issue with.  Or to put it another way, whether Patterico thought he was having my argument or not, the very fact of his critique opened him up to mine.

And so that you know, Patterico's Hot Air column was a follow-up to an earlier and slightly different argument that Patterico was making.  His position has evolved repeatedly through all this, whether he admits to it or not.  His latest position seems to be that he's been an intentionalist all along -- which seems at odds with his first post, his Hot Air post, and many of his comments, where he clearly favors a kind of New Critical formalist approach to textual interpretation.

The "clown nose" bit he's talking about and points people towards is so confused, from the point of view of the actual intentionalist stance, as to be useless. 

99

So "die" isn't the word.

I guess now it's a question for Moronpundit:

If zombies run out of brains to eat (say they're at a global warmmongering convention or Congress or something), do they starve to....uhhhhh.....ummmmmmmm (that condition where zombies are no longer ambulatory)?

In other words, can I sit out the zombie invasion until some time after they've eaten all of you?

And Jeff, Gabe is gone. It took relentless attacks from me to get him to respond and, as you can see from his response, he didn't think it was his duty to back up his comments, he only did it to shut me up.

The thread is dead and seeking brains.

100

I'm not an expert, but I believe zombies go through 5 stages of withdrawal when human brains are not available.

1.  Hunger.  This is the form that people most often encounter them in, the staggering & moaning state that indicates that they haven't fed for a day or two.  After a week or so of this, the zombies progress onto.....

2.  Foraging for whatever non-human gray material is available.  Dogs, cats, squirrels, tapirs.  Whatever.  If it moves, its dinner.  This lasts for however long the wildlife population is still available.  Possibly two weeks, depending on their location (zombies at cattle ranches or chicken farms will last quite a bit longer).  About a week after the critters run out, we see them go to....

3.  Cannibalism.  Zombie brains are better than no brains whatever.  The only problem is that the decayed brains of zombies don't contain enough vitamins to keep the zombie metabolism, however slow it may be, going at full speed.  Even though the zombies are gorging themselves on decayed brains, they are weakening the whole time, although not as quickly as they would weaken without ANY brains.  After a few days of zombie foraging, we start to see....

4.  Hibernation.  When the zombies are too weak to prey on each other, they go into a deep hibernation.  Unfortunately for them, they tend to hibernate where they originally fell down and don't take pains to find a sheltered place to hole up.  This means that their bodies will be subject to the ravages of the weather, and many of them will decay past the point of effective feeding.  The parts will still be revivable, but the strength will eventually ebb out of them in a month or two, tops.  Lets call it 6 weeks.  Leading to....

5.  Decay.  Hibernating zombies can be reawakened by the smell of brains, but as time goes on the available energy in the body will pass the point of no return, and the zombies will pass irreversably into decayed piles of tissue.  They can still infect the living through contaminated foodstuff and groundwater, and wild animals who feed on the bodies of zombies will become zombies themselves, able to infect humans. 

  So roughly 11 or 12 weeks from hungry to decayed corpses.  Of course, zombies in enclosed spaces with bountiful food supplies can last longer, so you should stay vigilant for at least 6 months after the last known human predation.

/Cliff Klaven mode off

101

^hey! That helped push the comment total on this thread up to 100!

 

 

102

Only the best for comment #100, eddie.

*looks for a nice tasty brain margarita to celebrate*

103 Braaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnns!

104 It all comes back to zombies, doesn't it?

Obligatory Milla

Yes, yes I know it's from Ultraviolet not RE. Next thing y'all are going to do is start bitching about her elbows.

105   Well, they ARE pretty sharp.

106 Y'know, this one thread is making me rethink googling what the hell an RSS feed is good for. It turned surprisingly hilarious: I'm talking to you Patterico. Heh.

107

Zombies!  Run!  Run for your lives!

The Surfin' Dead?  Yes.  Yes they are.

108

Omigawd: that was like my favorite song when I was in grade school (yeah, do the math: old, old, old) ...haven't heard it (or thought about it) in years. And I did remember correctly that it had recurring tempo changes in the chorus. Brilliant.

But jeez, I don't remember it being quite that high ...of course, my voice hadn't changed yet either, so maybe that explains it. Crap, my balls hurt just hearing it now, tho'.

...the only tune I recall from the Zombies (I don't even remember the B side anymore).

109 Mrs Peel jumped in on Russ's side and I'm a little afraid of her

*flexes mighty blogging muscles*

110 Sooooooo, Malor shat on someone and ran away? Welcome to the club, pal. He's had that MO for years now.

111 Uh, no, Cuffy. I said something false about Jeff and when he asked for an apology or explanation, I apologized because I was wrong.

Then Veeshir demanded I retract or apologize for an earlier comment and I explained why I wouldn't. Then Veeshir stomped his wittle feet and said "I don't want to play anymore."

112 I don't really care about any of this.  It feels really good. 

113 It was cute, really, demanding one minute that I address him and in the next telling me to leave him alone. He also complained earlier that I ignore it when he and others make good points and only respond to nitwits. The mixed signals are making my head spin. 

114

Dude, this is the second time I've called you out for being a dick ... and you never fail to disprove my premise (Malor can't acknowledge/admit he was wrong). When given yet another opportunity, you just did it again, for fuck's sake!

No better illustration.

115 Malor can't acknowledge/admit he was wrong.

Exhibit 1.

116 Incredible.

117   I tried my damndest to steer this sucker off into the ditch, but NOOOOOOOOOOO.  You just HAD to grab the wheel and keep it on the road.  This isn't a zombie thread.  Zombies are susceptible to head shots.  This suckers a full-on demon.

118

Well, in that case: isn't there an Exorcist Russ from Winterset available to perform the rites? (I can't: not qualified at all for anything past minor goosebumps.)

119 "You're arguing that we should simply accept that this twisting of our words happens, and we're to work around it, or second-guess ourselves to death to make sure nothing we say can ever be twisted by the left, which would result in us saying very little."

Not my argument.  Strawman.  You can repeat it all day long, but it's not my argument.

You really want me to be wrong, and so you argue against a different argument than the one I'm making.  Which is that our words will always be twisted, but we should still guard against *reasonable* (not unreasonable, not twisting, only reasonable) misinterpretations of our words.  To make it easier for our defenders to defend us.

*Initially* (for maybe a day?) I articulated a position that also suggested we should guard against unreasonable but known-to-be-likely misinterpretations.  I was persuaded otherwise, and explicitly acknowledged that fact on more than one occasion.  This is never acknowledged by anyone who discusses it with me, so I feel the need to go around and point it out again and again.

When someone misreads my words in an UNREASONABLE manner, that is not proof that my position is wrong.  Say it is all you like.  Doesn't make it true.

120 Which is that our words will always be twisted, but we should still guard against *reasonable* (not unreasonable, not twisting, only reasonable) misinterpretations of our words.

Problem is that there is no reasonable misinterpretation of what Limbaugh said unless you agree to the left's dishonest terms.  You're demanding an insane, impossible standard for any human being.

121 unless you agree to the left's dishonest terms.

Addendum: or are ignorant.  That the GOP leadership decides to take the time to accept the left's false premises instead of educating the public is abhorrent.  Beyond that they then damage the public's perception of what Conservatism and Republicanism truly is because they then build on a foundation of liberal falsehoods.

This is like the GOP accepting the lie that capitalism and corporate greed caused the economic collapse, and going along with the brainless demagoguery of the left.  What is their solution, the market?  The same market they're now trashing by parroting Marxist agitprop?  Rush has done so much for the conservative cause and the GOP.  He and his listeners put those worthless fuckers in their positions of power, and they repay him with betrayal and cowardice.  The idea that Rush isn't careful with his words is asinine to begin with, but that we should look down on him for having put the GOP leadership in a position where they actually had to defend one of their constituents, one of their biggest sources of support for once is ridiculous, insulting even.

122

Which is that our words will always be twisted, but we should still guard against *reasonable* (not unreasonable, not twisting, only reasonable) misinterpretations of our words. To make it easier for our defenders to defend us.

How nonsensical. It may sound reasonable, but it's logically inarticulate and pragmatically impossible.

Patterico: your entire argument's fatal flaw - and demonstrably so by your own analysis, and by mere examination of recent similar events/statements (in re: the distortion by the Left of BOTH the statement - which you seemingly ignore was originally, entirely taken out of context - by Limbaugh which you disapprove of, and the literally same-with-modifier statement by Fred! that you expressed approval of to contrast the difference determined - by you - between the two) - in practice is WHOM is it that pre-decides whether a statement ...any political statement by the Right ...by anyone ...is determined in advance of its public utterance, to be a "'reasonable statement' not subject to 'reasonable misinterpretation'"?

Could we even describe what such a "reasonable statement not subject to reasonable misinterpretation" would be for some event that fits into the soundbite dialogue of the current polity?

Would we run these "reasonable statements" through some theoretical Patterico Pre-Speak Filter to see if they're "okay enough" for public dissemination? - Buddy, I don't think so. You're already batting 0 for 2 (Rush v. Fred!) on your premise.

Worse: in practice, the success of your "reasonable-ness" pre-filter would be inherently dependent upon a politically informed and current-events-aware electorate "center" that simply doesn't exist in this (or perhaps any) country. So your proposed pre-filter ignores the fact that the vast middle of the electorate are political morons, who simply aren't knowledgeable about any of this stuff ...because either they lack the capacity, or they flat-out don't care. The practical result of this politically, is that much (most of?) that electorate is unable to discern between reasonable OR unreasonable statements, let alone rationally articulate the difference between the two.

I'll go a bit further. I'd suspect that no one on the Right is able to reliably come up with an event or statement or critique that cannot be twisted beyond recognition by the Left, and in a fashion that they would regard as reasonable (well, to them).

Because the Left isn't about rationality or argumentum...it merely uses the forms of rational discourse [argumentum] as a means to an end ...and the "end" the Left aims at is adherence to its "faith". In essence, there is no inter-political discourse ...there is only dialogue.

You cannot rationally argue faith-based adherents beliefs outside the paradigm of their belief system!

The greater political world the Right lives in isn't an ordered courtroom, and it [currently] isn't based upon truly rational discourse, and most certainly it is not peopled with a knowledgeable electorate. It's a world where events and words are twisted by a media whose primary goal is political primacy ...and whose single (and singular) method is manipulative demagoguery.

The media bias we experience every single day isn't the cause of, but is rather the result of, Political Correctness ...and Political Correctness itself is the result of the devolution of the rational basis of the American Experiment., caused by the adoption of a dysfunctional educational system, and a secularized worldview.

When we cede the high ground of rational discourse to those whose axiomatic beliefs belie any rational ethical foundation, we can never, ever hope to regain the political center by mere suasion. Our only strategic recourse is to retake and reform the educational system itself.

...so your suggestion to "...guard against reasonable ...misinterpretations" is an oxymoron given the current polity and electorate. It's not that it merely does not work. It's that it cannot work …because your argument's essence is simply a reapplication of the concept of Political Correctness.

123

Malor makes me laugh.

It's funny, but when all kinds of people call you an asshole and you deny it, you're probably a real asshole.

Me? I don't deny it, I revel in it. I generally only try to be an asshole towards people who deserve it, like Gabe. 

Gabe looks to me like an asshole who is sure that he's a 220 IQer slumming in the weed with a bunch of 120ers. 

I notice he still hasn't responded to Jeff but he has plenty of time to take shots at me.

Fun-nee.

124 enter by mere suasion. Our only strategic recourse is to retake and reform t cash advance | payday advance

125 home and try to make it more soft, has no cracks, wear characteristics, and as long as the simple use wet cloth to wipe, can maintain  Honeymoons Thailand

126 has no cracks, wear characteristics, and as long as the simple use wet cloth t Height Increase

127 as long as the simple use wet assignment help|java assignment help|physics assignment help

128 I want to be happy to sponsor the site Thank you very much for this information Excellent site .. essay help|assignment help uk|dissertation help

129 o sponsor the site Thank you very much for this information Excellent site payday loans

130 This is a great post; it was very informative. I look forward in reading more of your work. Also, I made sure to bookmark your website so I can come back later. I enjoyed every moment of reading it

131 stics, and as long as the simple use wet cloth t  payday loans