Digitus Impudicus

"JB" Hits The Big League

JB replied to my post, An Anonymous Reply to My Horsey Post. Here's what he said:

The point is that the ONLY time right-wingers don't bash gays is when they are their own. Where in my post did you see any gay bashing? Now you are bitching about "Daily Kos being on the take from the Kerry campaign". NOT TAXPAYER DOLLARS THERE SKIPPY!! And "just about anybody can get a press room pass"? Not true. Other reporters who actually ask questions that require real answers are crowded out by these phonies who get called on to break the tension after a real question is asked. So yes, you appear to be driven primarily by "naked ideolgy" as you are cool with faux journalism. And again, "independent thought". These people are plants in the press corp and you are lauding them for independent thought. I guess you had me fooled. I thought you were soooooooooo much smarter than that. (JB)

"The point is that the ONLY time right-wingers don't bash gays is when they are their own."

That's ridiculous. Think about it. Right now I'm not bashing gays. And I'm not doing it now, either. Likewise, as I type this, I'm not bashing gays. Nor now. And not now, either. Get it yet?

Hyperbole and $8 will get you a latte at Tully's. It doesn't get you anywhere here. I'm not saying Right-Wingers never bash gays, obviously some do. But I don't usually hear it from my side of the isle. I most frequently hear it from your side.

"Where in my post did you see any gay bashing?"

Now see, this is where I get to use the Lib Rules of Order against you. If I were to make mention of the fact that Andrew Sullivan is gay, and then proceed to verbally burn him in effigy, I would be accused of gay-bashing.

You made quite a point of pointing out the "gayness" of the people you referenced, then proceeded to ridicule them. Thus: "gay-bashing." Why bring up the fact that they were gay unless you thought it added somehow to your point? Was it truly relevant, or was it only relevant as a sharp stick to poke in our Right eye? The point is that you used the "gayness" of the people you were ridiculing to add more thrust to your attack.

"NOT TAXPAYER DOLLARS THERE SKIPPY!!"

Go back and read your comment (by the way, I didn't know it was you because you didn't sign it like you had your others). Your point at the time was not that Bush used taxpayer money. Your point was that it was a disingenuous move on Bush's part to pay for clandestinely lap-dog commentary. I happened to agree with you. But I also pointed out, in the same vein as you opened the discussion about Bush, that Kerry had done the very same thing.

Instead of discussing, or even recognizing and dealing with that, though, you quickly move on to a different subject. I call this kind of thing, "shoot and move." And it's one of the most exasperating aspects of Lib argumentation. Please do try to stick to the topic. Was Kerry just as disingenuous when he clandestinely paid Daily Kos to parrot his campaign points?

That taxpayer dollars were used to buy that Conservative political whore is a separate, potentially criminal, issue. Obviously, since I disagree with Bush doing what he did, I'd be even more opposed to his using taxpayer dollars to do so. And I am.

"And 'just about anybody can get a press room pass'? Not true. Other reporters who actually ask questions that require real answers are crowded out by these phonies who get called on to break the tension after a real question is asked."

Do you ever actually watch press conf... No, lets take a look at your own statement. So, if I have your meaning right, the "plants" crowd out the "real" reporters, making it impossible for them to ask for "real answers"? But then you say that the "plants" are there to break the tension after those very same "real" reporters have asked "real questions"? Which is it? Either "real" reporters are crowded out, or they can ask "real" questions and that causes Bush to need "plants" to "break the tension" afterwards.

(I'd like to take this opportunity to urge all readers to donate to the Cure Cognitive Dissonance Now! campaign - obviously the disease is spreading)

"So yes, you appear to be driven primarily by "naked ideolgy" as you are cool with faux journalism."

You proceed from a myth. The idea of "objective journalism" is something that was the fashion de jour for a few decades last century. For a time it was pretty well just that: objective. But the history of journalism before that period was nothing of the sort. Newspapers were explicitly partisan. And everybody knew it. And after the fashion of "objective journalism" ended in the 1960s, journalism went right back to being partisan. The difference, this time around, was and is that "real" journalists attempt to deceive their viewers/readers that they are in fact not partisan at all. It's a conceit and a deceit that has resulted in viewers/readers abandoning those journalists in (here it comes!) droves once competing partisan news and commentary outlets once again became available.

"These people are plants in the press corp and you are lauding them for independent thought."

That they have a different political point of view to yours is not evidence that they don't exercise independent thought. But that's a consistent theme in Lib Think: if one disagrees, he is obviously a puppet. The problem is, that's not necessarily the case. Disagreement with the dominant Group Think that pervades the MSM can be a form of independence. Or hadn't you considered that?

It's a disagreement, not a deficiency.

"I guess you had me fooled. I thought you were soooooooooo much smarter than that. (JB)"

I disagree = I'm dumb. Somebody wake up the band, we all know this tune.