elucidator, come on down

The BBQ Pit
21

Are you kidding me??

There’s a huge gulf between the quote you offered up, Squink, the same same quote in its proper context. It may well be that you consider both to be evidence of assholishness, but to any reasonable observer, the first post suggests a genuine hard-line racist, while the second one shows the true intent of the commentary, which was to suggest a racist attack against another group.

Now, we may quibble over wther it’s possible to harbor racist opinions against white men or whether they, as a putative privileged class, are utterly immune from such slights. But we cannot, in any good conscience, claim that the quote you presented is similar enough to the real story that you can brush it off with an airy, “Not really…”

22

The whole party deserves an international war crimes tribunal.

I know international law isn’t as clearly defined as domestic law is. But you don’t see an itsy-bitsy due process problem with this plan?

23

Turn on any random AM radio station or watch Fox News for 5 minutes. Jesus, right wingers are thin-skinned, snivelling, hypocritical crybabies.

24

Yeah, who doesn’t love people who start arguments by bringing in the fucking nazis?
I suppose you consider that a guarantee of reasonable discourse?

25

It’s certainly inflammatory.

But if that’s your objection, then it seems to me the most effective rebuttal is to point out how inflammatory the comparison is. The point of the comparson was to be inflammatory; to cast the comments in a different light by asking the reader to imagine the same words targeted at different groups. Your basic objection is a solid one: that these particular comparisons are so inflammatory that they do not make a good analogy.

26

The piece in the end accuses the writer of being a Nazi and it does manage to also smear the accusation to the administration.

Personally, I’m more concerned by the lies by omission they are committing and while it is like a blog or a wiki I judge it by what they consider important: On the **selected ** “news” on the right column, the “sweetness” site thinks it is important to point at how democratic the coup in Honduras is.

27

Look, Der Trihs, you’ve really got to stop making such broad, hasty generaliza…

Oh, my bad. Sorry Tao.

28

So maybe we should just focus on the leadership of the Bush era, and leave the poor fools stupid enough to vote for him alone. They’re such simpleminded dolts it must be hard enough for them as is.

The ones smart enough to know what kind evil monster Bush is, and still support him, however, deserve a special kind of bad karma, but dispensing it would be more problematic then it’s worth. Anyway those people are evil villainous trash. The wretched traitors of the country. History will remember these assholes with the spit and scorn they deserve. They exploited fear with lies to commit atricities. They’re this generation’s McCarthyists, but murderous times hundreds of thousands, and brutal and tyrannical times every torture victim. Also they’re traitorous by the way they ignored real dangers, that they knew about (such as the housing bubble), to push a fool war of either lies or incompetence, using their lies to whittle away at the freedom the soldiers dieing on their behalf enlisted to protect.
They’re trash. Evil trash.

29

haha, Der Trihs has been doing pretty good lately. That was all me buddy.:slight_smile:

30

No, two of my favorite board people can’t fight. Now kiss and make up … but first let me set up the webcam.

But if you really must pit him, at least title the thread " 'luci, you got some 'splaining to do!"

31

Perfect analogy. elucidator does what he does and he’s good at it. The comments are throwaways sometimes, but he enlightens other times.

32

What he said. I often find is snarky drive-bys educational. Just the other day, I learned all about Curtis LeMay and like, the Cold War and bombing campaigns and stuff. I never would’ve given the name a second thought if not for elucidator’s commentary. Of course, the wikipedia article didn’t really explain the controversy, so 'luci’s comments also ended up serving as a reminder not to rely so heavily on one source of information on the web.
So yeah.

33

My sentiments exactly.

34

De gustibus non est disputandum. Although I don’t much care for prunes, either, nasty things.

35

The only major league asshole here is someone who would deliberately omit information that changes the whole complexion of the piece, knowing that most Dopers would not click the link which would seemingly lead them to an extremist hate site.

Absolutely disgraceful.

36

’luci promised me a courtesy reach around after the election, so I stay bought (even from the other side of the Doper aisle).

He posts with humor, snarkiness and sarcasm. He admits when his links go to Left wing sites - which is admission of bias that more of us could follow.

37

Ohh yeah, that particular use of the NAZI comparison was so fucking clever that it should earn “sweetness an light” top billing on everyone’s favorites list.
Don’t forget to put it on yours, and email a link to all your friends.
I’m certain that will drive a Republican resurgence in 2012!

38

All right, all right, already, I’m here! Three messages telling me I’m Pitted, like maybe I didn’t know?

First off, a statement of general principle: He Had It Coming. The cry of “Cite?” is the very core of Cecilian tradition, it is venerable. A crap cite is an insult to all. And what a crock o’ shit that one was! If he knew it when he did it, he’s a jerk. If he didn’t know, he’s not smart enough to make his own oatmeal. I’m betting he knew, but figured to either get away with it, or claim that his cite is kosher, but he’s the victim of lefty bias blah yadda yadda blah…

It deserved scorn and derision. I happened to be amply stocked.

In good natured humor, when I direct the reader’s attention to a lefty site, I will advise. Simple polite deference to dignity, I am confident of my sources, but I don’t expect the reader to take my word for it. And the lefty sources I use almost always contain direct links to the sources.

But this one was pure-D weapons grade horseshit.

And a pitting? Rather weak tea, so far, I’ve gotten harsher invective from Girl Scouts selling cookies! (OK, I don’t like their cookies, didn’t want to buy any, but that doesn’t make me “cheap” or reveal anything about my mother…smartass little fascist bitch…)

Notes:

For the OP: I would thank you for your advice if I believed it was kindly intended. But we both know it wasn’t, now don’t we?

Oftimes, yes. But that approach is most often admirably performed by others, if not, I’ll step up if I think I’ve got the chops. But too often the argumentative approach drowns in its own rationality, it becomes a rarefied semantic parsing, it needs a hit of snark to keep it centered.

Besides, if I can present a strong case, I may change your mind. If I can make you laugh, I’ve already changed your mind.

Perhaps more later. Lots of terribly important things to do.

39

Ah…okay? Try replacing “Republicans” with the word “politicians” and I think you’ll get a more accurate statement.

40

Well, when the day comes that you make me laugh, I’ll let you know if you’ve changed my mind.