I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Some mod will likely point out that “fuck you” is against the rules. I don’t know why, but that’s what I understand the rules to be. Deliberately breaking those rules for whatever point you’re trying to make here seems ridiculous.
Beyond that, I really have no idea what the fuck you’re on about. Charlotte Allen wrote an idiotic column filled with paternalistic stereotypes, which concerned the tragedy in Newtown. Jas09 started a thread here about Charlotte Allen’s mind-bogglingly stupid column. I think you’re trying to draw some sort of equivalence between the column cited in the OP and the OP itself. But the two are obviously not the same, and you really aren’t making any sense at this.
It was a stupid column. That’s really not in dispute.
I’m not defending her 'ya idiot. I am, however, a bit pissed off at the OP’s excuse for an argument. Maybe you, waterj2, can explain to me how the two kids that perpetrated the Columbine massacre factor in to this one. Maybe you can explain how a seriously mentally ill guy killing people in Aurora will prove any kind of political point. The OP touched on both of those. He is not arguing the article.
There are sooooooo… many things wrong with the National Review’s opinion piece. I can’t even begin to critique that. It is just wrong. But the OP isn’t arguing the article. There was nothing about Columbine, Aurora, or Fort Hood in there. That’s the thing. The column and the OP are equally stupid.
I’m neither waterj2 nor the OP, but I think I can field this one.
The references to the Columbine and Aurora massacres were specifically addressing the columnist’s moronic “point” about needing to have more men around to take down the baddies.
What the OP is saying, AFAICT, is basically “Look, you vapid bitch, given that the presence of lots of adult males in places like Columbine and Aurora (not to mention the THOUSANDS of fighting-fit male SOLDIERS in the area during the Fort Hood massacre) didn’t significantly deter or check mass murderers, why are you suggesting it would have helped in this case?”
[QUOTE=A Monkey With a Gun]
But the OP isn’t arguing the article. There was nothing about Columbine, Aurora, or Fort Hood in there. That’s the thing. The column and the OP are equally stupid.
[/QUOTE]
Nope, I disagree. The OP is not trying to politicize the shooting per se, but rather using undisputed neutral facts about earlier shootings (i.e., the fact that there were plenty of men around during them) to expose the illogicality of the commentator’s claim about this shooting. That’s arguing the article.
There have been several times on this board that I’ve seen completely ridiculous arguments going on and want to scream at my computer monitor about people’s inability to actually read the arguments they were responding to. And I’ve wondered at those times why nobody was pointing out some blindingly obvious fact. And by the time I got to the end of the thread, Kimstu had showed up to make that point. I meant to point this out a few years ago when there was a whole run of this pattern in rapid succession, but I don’t think I did. I will now, though. Or, I just did. Or I will have done so once I hit the submit button.
Not really. From the title I thought it was going to be blaming the feminization of our culture for the kid actually being a crazy nutjob and if he had a strong male presence in his life he’d be fine. But he’s just saying the school needed more strong men to repel the attacker. Kinda stupid sure, but pretty weak against the competition, e.g.:
God using him to execute his judgment onto us for being fag enablers
An Obama false flag operation as a basis for gun regulation
Secularism, since God has been kicked out of school he can’t help us
Regarding Charlotte Allen’s comments – the grammar school I attended was a parochial school, run by nuns. The lay teachers were also female, and so was the janitor. I kinda thought such Catholic schools were the sort NR supported. Are they turning on their own?
As for the fighting prowess of nuns, their skills with rulers and yardsticks are legendary. And oyur janitor was built like a refrigerator, and cleaned with muriatic acid.
I’ll agree that it’s not The Stupidest, but it’s in the running for “stupidest published by an institutional that was once dedicated to intellectually rigorous conservatism.”
I’m not sure if that’s an accurate description of the W. F. Buckley era National Review, since I’ve never read National Review. But Mr. Buckley wasn’t a dummy, while Charlotte Allen does appear to be one.
Before this thread, the last story I remember about National Review was their dismissal of their founder’s son because he questioned the fitness of Sarah Palin to be president. So I’m not much surprised to see new idiocy coming from their direction.
The failure of William F. Buckley to return to earth and give Charlotte Allen a scare to leave her psychologically incapable of weilding any writing implement in future may serve as a final rebuttal to the notion that ghosts exist and are inclined to avenge desecrations of the works they built in life.
Look, the political comment was more exasperation with NRO for publishing this crap. You (MWaG, I mean) may not believe I actual give a shit about smart conservative writing, and there is no way I could ever convince you. But this article, to me at least, summed up so much that is wrong with the loudest voices in current conservative commentary:
(a) Complete disregard for the facts. There were numerous obvious errors with this article, things that are trivial to verify. They were not irrelevant facts, but rather ones which contribute directly to the argument.
(b) Complete lack of historical context. Even if her facts about this incident were correct, her inability to consider previous mass shootings that immediately undermine her argument is obvious to anyone with any sort of memory of past events.
(c) Instinctive blaming of “the culture” whether that includes secularism, feminism, or modernism. The scare quotes around “reading specialist” give this away just as much as the ridiculous claim that modern culture somehow coddles mentally ill young men into killing machines.
(d) Setting up idiotic false dilemmas (either keep your guns or house and care for your mentally troubled child) and then choosing the morally wrong option.
I guess I rank on a bit of a scale. There’s no doubt that Phelps’ crew is just as idiotic, but then again they’re not being published in what was, at one time at least, a preeminent conservative publication.
I had forgotten about the Bachmann false-flag claim, however. Since she’s an elected official and major-party primary candidate I guess we can put her at the top of the list if you’d like.
[I believe you may have left out something (after the right paren?)].
More importantly, based on your subsequent clarifying post (#38) this seems completely illogical.
You should be a conservative or liberal based on whether you believe in conservative or liberal principles. Which group contains a larger number of people who disregard facts and historical context etc. shouldn’t be part of the equation.
Unless you’re not thinking things through on your own, and just adopt the beliefs of whichever team you judge to have the Smarter People.
You’re either clueless or deliberately disingenuous.
It’s clear that “being a conservative” in the context of the OP means identifying with the current conservative movement (which the OP does not for reasons already given) and not on notions of where he lies on a theoretical classical liberal/conservative spectrum.
One of the most vocal groups of current conservatives labels some conservatives RINOs because of supposed violations of conservative orthodoxy. That being the case, I don’t blame the OP for trying to avoid being lumped in with them.
