PDA

View Full Version : Ann Althouse


listener
11-20-2009, 03:52 AM
In general, I really appreciate the tone of the diavlogs on BHTV, where people who disagree politically can listen to and be civil, even friendly, to each other. It is refreshing, even inspiring, to see. In contrast, it was very dismaying to see the ugly spectacle of Ann Althouse behaving in such a vicious, inflammatory, and attacking manner to her partner in today's diavlog. I have come to expect more from BHTV and hope that the kind of bomb-throwing vitriol emanating from Ms. Althouse will be avoided in the future. Meanwhile, I will be sure to skip any diavlogs in which she is a participant.

JonathanFC
11-20-2009, 12:59 PM
I'm watching it right now. This diavlog is simply a train wreck. She keeps saying she shouldn't have been asked to do it. Was she forced?

Whatfur
11-20-2009, 03:34 PM
I'm watching it right now. This diavlog is simply a train wreck. She keeps saying she shouldn't have been asked to do it. Was she forced?

I don't know...do you walk to school or carry your lunch?

Whatfur
11-20-2009, 05:47 PM
Your insult doesn't make much sense. Neither did Althouse during this diavlog.

Jonathan,

My statement was an example of mutually exclusive events that, you are correct, make very little sense when placed together. AA was obviously not saying anything about whether she wanted to do the vlog or not and no one is forced to do one...that silly. Thus, the statement you said she often repeated and your question concerning it were also mutually exclusive entities. I hope this provides some clarity.

She was merely suggesting she might not have been the best choice, but as you can see...she was happy to oblige. She's a trooper!

Concerning her not making sense...well...there is a bunch of that going around.

dabliss
11-20-2009, 07:25 PM
You know, I want to thank you for posting this. I've been watching BHTV regularly since August, but this is my first time visiting the forums, and I came just in the hope that members would be discussing Ann Althouse's damnable behavior. I agree with your assessment totally. With bitter condescension and a refusal to give her partner a word in edgewise, Ann ruined what could have been an elucidating debate, and I think Michelle deserves an apology.

Lyle
11-20-2009, 08:24 PM
Bullshit... Althouse just gave Goldberg a dose of her own medicine. All's fair, I think.

JonathanFC
11-20-2009, 08:55 PM
What a collegiate riposte, and explanation, and the latter pretty unnecessary since I deleted what you've quoted quite a while ago. I had googled your gag and was well impressed. ...Sorry about my error! No, she obviously couldn't have literally been forced, since she was asked. Thanks. I had pictured Bob Wright in a ski mask, with an uzi.

As for Althouse being "a trooper," I assume that's the sarcasm of a man who's not-so-secretly pleased that his dog foams at the mouth and snaps at strangers. My impression was that she threw a fit for the first ten minutes of the diavlog. Her arbitrary laughter and Tom Cruise super-smiling, throughout the rest of the conversation, will haunt my dreams tonight.

If she thought this wasn't going to work, she could have said no.

Or couldn't she? Could the Norma Desmond of Bloggingheads turn down another closeup?

Whatfur
11-20-2009, 09:11 PM
...Sorry about my error!...

Not a problem.

I agree, most the vlog was not informative, but it was entertaining at times. If I did not spend as much time here as I do, I would have been astonished by the level of ignorance and blind, hero-worship portrayed by Ms. Goldberg...not to mention the misguided energy and amazing vitriol the left has demonstrated for a year towards a failed VP candidate.

I am pretty sure that if Goldberg had made Althouse look as silly as Althouse did Goldberg here and even if in the same way...y'all would be running off at the mouth about how it was fair, or she had it coming or....

With any luck we won't see them together again until Obama actually makes some sort of decision on something other than a photo op... Afghanistan maybe?

JonathanFC
11-20-2009, 09:29 PM
a failed VP candidate.

...who could well be the next Republican nominee for President. And thank you so much for accepting my apology.

I haven't read many of your posts here. Is disingenuousness your speciality?

AemJeff
11-20-2009, 09:32 PM
...who could well be the next Republican nominee for President. And thank you so much for accepting my apology.

I haven't read many of your posts here. Is disingenuousness your speciality?

Heh. You're pretty quick on the uptake.

Baltimoron
11-20-2009, 09:36 PM
I have come to expect more from BHTV and hope that the kind of bomb-throwing vitriol emanating from Ms. Althouse will be avoided in the future. Meanwhile, I will be sure to skip any diavlogs in which she is a participant.

That's always your right, and I'm surprised more people don't avail themselves of the remedy. However, I would suggest that, if you truly do oppose a 'head, that you not contribute to, or start, a thread with that 'head's name. I'm not savvy about how bhTV staffers decide on diavlog pairings, since bhTV has chosen not to be transparent about its operations. But, I think a big doughnut hole for a thread count would help convince bhTV to find another 'head.

bjkeefe
11-20-2009, 09:37 PM
Heh. You're pretty quick on the uptake.

That whining sound you hear? That's 'fur's persecution complex, tumescing.

Whatfur
11-20-2009, 09:48 PM
...who could well be the next Republican nominee for President. And thank you so much for accepting my apology.

I haven't read many of your posts here. Is disingenuousness your speciality?

Only when I deem it necessary. I suppose you thought the post of yours I was responding to was sincere then? I started this making a simple point with a simple statement. You decided to be insulted. I now say, feel free to be.

In any case, you should read more of me. I have quite the following as you can see.

Whatfur
11-20-2009, 09:56 PM
That's always your right, and I'm surprised more people don't avail themselves of the remedy. However, I would suggest that, if you truly do oppose a 'head, that you not contribute to, or start, a thread with that 'head's name. I'm not savvy about how the bhTV decides, since it has chosen not to be transparent about its operations. But, I think a big doughnut hole for a thread count would help convince bhTV to find another 'head.

Sound thinking. Now we will watch for the dicipline.

bjkeefe
11-20-2009, 11:15 PM
In any case, you should read more of me. I have quite the following as you can see.

Yep, same reason as Sarah Palin attracts a lot of attention: trainwrecks are fun to watch.

listener
11-21-2009, 07:08 AM
dabliss, thanks for your message. I too have been visiting bhTV for a while, and I too was motivated to visit the forum for the first time because I felt that I needed to say something about the tone of this diavlog.

What I have come to value most at bhTV may be summed up in something Matt Lewis said in his most recent diavlog with Bill Scher: "I really try to be open-minded and to consider that I may be wrong about things." This is exactly what seemed to me utterly lacking in Ms. Althouse's smirking certitude and her willingness to say anything, no matter how far-fetched, to score a point.

Can't we accept that we all have different viewpoints and use forums like bhTV to understand and learn from each other, rather than being so fearful that we think we have to obliterate the other person's point of view in order to make ourselves heard?




.

Whatfur
11-21-2009, 09:59 AM
dabliss, thanks for your message. I too have been visiting bhTV for a while, and I too was motivated to visit the forum for the first time because I felt that I needed to say something about the tone of this diavlog.

What I have come to value most at bhTV may be summed up in something Matt Lewis said in his most recent diavlog with Bill Scher: "I really try to be open-minded and to consider that I may be wrong about things." This is exactly what seemed to me utterly lacking in Ms. Althouse's smirking certitude and her willingness to say anything, no matter how far-fetched, to score a point.

Can't we accept that we all have different viewpoints and use forums like bhTV to understand and learn from each other, rather than being so fearful that we think we have to obliterate the other person's point of view in order to make ourselves heard?

.

Hellooooo. And you think Ms. Goldberg was not stalwart in her views? AA was actually rather nice I think to let her get away with what she let her get away with. Again..."Obama is like, like the best president Evaaa."

Whatfur
11-21-2009, 10:01 AM
Yep, same reason as Sarah Palin attracts a lot of attention: trainwrecks are fun to watch.

That and you get to see Brenden dance and twist and sidestep along the way.

dabliss
11-21-2009, 11:09 AM
Well said!

dabliss
11-21-2009, 11:21 AM
Just to be clear, my point is not that Althouse was wrong and Goldberg right; it's that a good debate requires good etiquette, like turn-taking, listening, mutual respect, and the principle of charity. In general, BHTV participants fulfill these criteria exceptionally well, even in cases of strongly differing viewpoints. Althouse stands in such sharp contrast with the good-mannered, eloquent, and thoughtful BH community, that I couldn't let her behavior go unnoticed. Even if Goldberg's arguments were absurd, the proper response was not to cut off her every argument, misquote her (due to failure to listen to what she was saying), and verbally bully her into submission. However poignant they may be, it's hard to accept Althouse's conclusions when they've been arrived at by these means. I'm done. I'll let those who dispute my claims have the final say.

Whatfur
11-21-2009, 06:33 PM
They can't all be gems. A little human emotion interjected every once in awhile does not disturb me. This one was a little payback actually...and if there is something/someone you don't like...guess what, exit and move on.

Lyle
11-21-2009, 07:28 PM
How can you actually say this about Ann Althouse and not say the exact same thing about Goldberg? Have you actually watched Goldberg's diavlogs? She's got to be one of the least open minded persons who graces bh.tv. Althouse drags Goldberg around like a sock monkey, because Goldberg is so closed minded.

ledocs
11-22-2009, 06:42 AM
You know, Lyle, that's crap. I read Goldberg's book of reportage about American fundamentalist Christianity. It wasn't a particularly good book, It was like a long magazine piece, although it was far from awful. I was surprised to learn how young she was, when I saw her on bhtv. But the point is, no fair-minded person could read that book and conclude that it was written by someone with a closed mind. A closed-minded person does not go and live among people whose culture is quite alien to them. She also did a lot of travel to write her more recent book about women's issues, I believe. She is a young person with some "liberal" convictions. Perhaps you could cite a particular example of something she said or did that was closed-minded. Obviously, Althouse was still harboring resentment about a previous diavlog they had, because Althouse said as much. I don't remember if I saw that episode or not.

When you say that Goldberg is closed-minded, what do you mean? That she does not believe that the earth was created by God 4500 years ago? Does she refuse to read von Hayek and von Mises?

JonIrenicus
11-22-2009, 07:23 AM
...

When you say that Goldberg is closed-minded, what do you mean? That she does not believe that the earth was created by God 4500 years ago? Does she refuse to read von Hayek and von Mises?

Goldberg's problem is an inability to see an opposing view as having anything undergirding it but deranged motives.

Matt Welch tried to open her up to a less warped take on why others may not reach the same conclusions she does. Those efforts failed. This go round she was more subdued, and Ann was more aggressive. The problem this time, is that an aggressive and acerbic tone is only tolerated if aimed at a conservative viewpoint.

Glass jaws, I mean liberals, can't handle that kind of behavior.

ledocs
11-22-2009, 07:54 AM
The problem this time, is that an aggressive and acerbic tone is only tolerated if aimed at a conservative viewpoint.

Glass jaws, I mean liberals, can't handle that kind of behavior.


More crap. What about the Scher-Carroll pairing that went on for months? Scher is mild-mannered and very rarely, if ever, either acerbic or sarcastic. Carroll was often acerbic, sometimes sarcastic. Didn't seem to rattle Scher that much, and he seemed to me to hold his own.

From my point of view, the problem here was that Althouse said things that are almost certainly false, mainly that Obama's memoir is in no way superior to Palin's. And my suspicion is that she doesn't really believe this. In order to make the point that Obama's memoir was, like Palin's, a politically calculated document (probably true in part, but not the whole story), she overstates her case. More generally, I don't have enough interest in Althouse to think deeply about why I don't like her, but I do have the impression that she is a provocateur who likes to argue, doesn't care too much which side of an argument she's on, and in that sense is quite representative of a certain kind of lawyer. She has an anti-elitist, anti-intellectual tendency that strikes me as simultaneously disingenuous and as compensatory for her own intellectual limitations.

Whatfur
11-22-2009, 08:56 AM
More crap. ...From my point of view, the problem here was that Althouse said things that are almost certainly false, mainly that Obama's memoir is in no way superior to Palin's. ...

Nice to see you are supplying your own crap. "Certainly false". Have you read either? And your certainty comes from what? Obama's book WAS pretty much amateurish crap.

bjkeefe
11-22-2009, 09:03 AM
Shorter 'fur (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=139603#post139603):

Having belittled your daring to confidently express your own views, I will now assert my opinions as fact, and win by TYPING IN ALL CAPS.

Whatfur
11-22-2009, 10:04 AM
Shorter 'fur (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=139603#post139603):

Caps?

Poor Brandun. Flailing around, jumping from thread to thread seeking out "Fur" posts in an attempt to save face.

Brandoon, building up your own cred, might work better than running around trying to tear down others. Such a sad little boy.

ledocs
11-22-2009, 11:39 AM
Whatfur: do you know the difference between "almost certainly false" and "certainly false?" Please cite me correctly, or at least not misleadingly.

bjkeefe
11-22-2009, 11:57 AM
Whatfur: do you know the difference between "almost certainly false" and "certainly false?" Please cite me correctly, or at least not misleadingly.

Up next: ledocs asks water to flow uphill.

Whatfur
11-22-2009, 12:18 PM
Whatfur: do you know the difference between "almost certainly false" and "certainly false?" Please cite me correctly, or at least not misleadingly.

Oh yes there is a huge distinction there. Maybe you would like to supply me with the %s you would apply...

Of course, certainly false = 100%

so "almost certainly false" = almost 100% or what specifically?

...because right now I stand at "almost" misleading, but if you would like me to back it off to me being say 90% correct....I can live with that.

And once we clear that up and as I see Branflake has already come to your defense (because obviously he doesn't feel you have much of an argument here and that you need his esteemed help), I suggest you ask him for a more effective manner of backpedalling as he has a bunch of experience in that area.

I might just have to change my user name to goatfarmer. There is a price to pay for my boarding yours, Branflake.

bjkeefe
11-22-2009, 12:21 PM
[...]

I do love to watch 'fur try to cover up his backpedaling with nothing better than his usual third-grade tactic of getting others' names wrong.

And I think we all know the real reason why he longs to call himself "goatfarmer."

ledocs
11-22-2009, 05:28 PM
Whatfur, could you explain to me why you bother to cite someone's actual words, only in the next breath to abridge them in a misleading way? Was this just a mistake on your part, or do you really think that this sort of thing doesn't matter? Or is this a way of provoking people? Are you, like Althouse, mainly a provocateur?

Whatfur
11-22-2009, 06:58 PM
Whatfur, could you explain to me why you bother to cite someone's actual words, only in the next breath to abridge them in a misleading way? Was this just a mistake on your part, or do you really think that this sort of thing doesn't matter? Or is this a way of provoking people? Are you, like Althouse, mainly a provocateur?

Actually ledocs, I found your statement with or without the "almost", preposterous. I "certainly" did not leave the "almost" out to change the meaning. My response to your objection of that omission was done merely to show you how riduculous your taking offense to it was.

I hope I have made myself clear. As far as "provocateur"...umm...did you not start the post I originally responded to with "More crap."? Why do most all libtards work from a baseline of hypocrisy?

Bottom line is, you were making statements about the books that only someone who has read both books could even come close to being even "almost" certain of. I am going out on a limb and betting you have not read Palin's, and probably have not read Obama's either. That probably also explains why you chose to mince my words as opposed to just answering my question or defending your position.

handle
11-22-2009, 07:00 PM
Whatfur, could you explain to me why you bother to cite someone's actual words, only in the next breath to abridge them in a misleading way?

FYI he actually tried editing the quotes to twist their meaning, while they still showed the original author, until he got slapped by the nanny, and has been whining about it ever since. He actually laments the loss of this practice in a later post, calling it an "effective tool".
If you want to know what sort you are dealing with here, try watching the videos of the town hall screamers, 9/12 project, and the teabag demonstrations. He is here to bring noise from the fringe, and confront those who refute him. The more effective the rebuttal, the more he claims victory. That's why I have dubbed him the Black Knight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4) .

Whatfur
11-22-2009, 07:28 PM
..."effective tool"...

Ledocs, FYI, about 90% of the time handle posts here on BHtv it is to respond with some insult to me. How do you define provocateur?

Its ok though, I have decided to consider it a form of flattery. Kind of like the neighbors dog who comes running over every time he sees me to get his ears scratched or part of a biscuit.

Gooood boy handle. Gooood boy.

Lyle
11-22-2009, 07:35 PM
She's a cloistered progressive bigot who has no time for anyone who does not agree with her. She's cool if you think just like her or have the same shallow life experience, but woe to anyone who is different. Every time she says, "I just don't get why it is they think that we, it's beyond me" (I paraphrase), that to me is saying, I haven't walked a whole lot of miles in life and haven't interacted with many people other than in my neat little Brooklyn, fellow-traveler life. That's just my opinion.

JonI sums her up well, I think.

handle
11-22-2009, 07:47 PM
Ledocs, FYI, about 90% of the time handle posts here on BHtv it is to respond with some insult to me. How do you define provocateur?

Its ok though, I have decided to consider it a form of flattery. Kind of like the neighbors dog who comes running over every time he sees me to get his ears scratched or part of a biscuit.

Gooood boy handle. Gooood boy.

Uhhhh... that would be responding to the provocateur, by your own description of the sequence of events. What makes you think anyone gives shit about this anyway?

I'm sorry I strayed that 10% of the time, but you never seemed to read my posts anymore, it was like the magic had faded from our relationship. But I've resolved to recommit myself to this until you take your happy horseshit back to the redneck bar where you belong.

I'll be the one sitting in the corner looking to kick some bully's ass.

JonIrenicus
11-22-2009, 08:21 PM
More crap. What about the Scher-Carroll pairing that went on for months? Scher is mild-mannered and very rarely, if ever, either acerbic or sarcastic. Carroll was often acerbic, sometimes sarcastic. Didn't seem to rattle Scher that much, and he seemed to me to hold his own.

From my point of view, the problem here was that Althouse said things that are almost certainly false, mainly that Obama's memoir is in no way superior to Palin's. And my suspicion is that she doesn't really believe this. In order to make the point that Obama's memoir was, like Palin's, a politically calculated document (probably true in part, but not the whole story), she overstates her case. More generally, I don't have enough interest in Althouse to think deeply about why I don't like her, but I do have the impression that she is a provocateur who likes to argue, doesn't care too much which side of an argument she's on, and in that sense is quite representative of a certain kind of lawyer. She has an anti-elitist, anti-intellectual tendency that strikes me as simultaneously disingenuous and as compensatory for her own intellectual limitations.


Who said Caroll/Scher were firebrands?

Here is a clearer example of barely contained disgust and contempt for his fellow diavlogger.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22603

Now in that discussion, I thought Farley had the upper hand, his critiques had no proper pushback from Goldfarb. But I don't think anyone would say calling his tone acerbic or agitated was off base.


But now the goal post changes, it's about whether you are right now, not simply how something is said. This is fine, but then why lament tone when it means next to nothing to you?


Actually no, it does mean something. I think it is one of those combination/emergent phenomenons.

acidic tone + disagreeing with arguments = abominable

acidic tone + agreement with the arguments = look the other way, support



As to Ann taking positions just to be a contrarian, that she may not even believe, who knows. I have not seen enough with her to draw that conclusion. The only clear cut case of a man who could literally say anything, make any argument, is Andrew Sullivan.

Is there a word for sociopath of the blog posts? It's like tourettes but with postings of positions instead of wild bursts of sound. Next to Andrew, any other claimed to be as bad is like trying to spot a candle on the sun.

ledocs
11-22-2009, 08:29 PM
OK, I'm getting the picture. It really is beneath my dignity to discuss anything with you, whatfur. What I said was "more crap," whatfur, was your generalization about liberals and acerbic rhetoric.

Now I discover that Palin hired a ghost-writer named Lynn Vincent. I believe that Obama wrote his own memoir; I've never heard otherwise. So the comparison between these two books really need go no farther, because there is no comparison. Apparently, AP has discovered eleven alleged errors of fact in Palin's book. Whatever, she's an idiot, I don't need to read her book to know this. Having heard her speak, I know in advance that she could not have written a good book. Now I discover that she probably did not write a book, just as Bill Bennent did not write his bestsellers. It's true that I did not read Obama's book either. Someone whose judgment I trust commended it to me, however. My guess is that I would not think it great in any way, but the only thing I was commenting on was its likely merits relative to Palin's ghost-written memoir.

But as to the original thread, Ann Althouse must have known, although I did not, that Palin did not write her own book. Yet, Althouse goes on at length about the mediocrity, or worse, of Obama's writing. This is dishonest. Althouse is dishonest.

nikkibong
11-22-2009, 08:31 PM
She's a cloistered progressive bigot who has no time for anyone who does not agree with her. She's cool if you think just like her or have the same shallow life experience, but woe to anyone who is different. Every time she says, "I just don't get why it is they think that we, it's beyond me" (I paraphrase), that to me is saying, I haven't walked a whole lot of miles in life and haven't interacted with many people other than in my neat little Brooklyn, fellow-traveler life. That's just my opinion.

JonI sums her up well, I think.

You know nothing of Michelle or her oeuvre.

She's written two (http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-0393060942-0) books (http://www.powells.com/biblio/2-9781594202087-1) about people "who do not agree with her." I'd say that qualifies as "knowing something."

Also, incidentally, she's not from Brooklyn. She grew up in upstate New York, around people that even you, Lyle, would consider "real Americans," right?

What's more, your "critique" is not substantive; it's sociological. Hurling "Brooklyn!" an epithet does not a coherent argument make.

Plus, there's this (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=139596&postcount=38). (Didn't wanna get in trouble for saying it again!)

Whatfur
11-22-2009, 08:38 PM
Uhhhh... that would be responding to the provocateur, by your own description of the sequence of events. What makes you think anyone gives shit about this anyway?

I'm sorry I strayed that 10% of the time, but you never seemed to read my posts anymore, it was like the magic had faded from our relationship. But I've resolved to recommit myself to this until you take your happy horseshit back to the redneck bar where you belong.

I'll be the one sitting in the corner looking to kick some bully's ass.

Then I will be here for you. Actually PM me your address and I will give you the real deal.

Whatfur
11-22-2009, 08:43 PM
OK, I'm getting the picture. It really is beneath my dignity to discuss anything with you, whatfur. What I said was "more crap," whatfur, was your generalization about liberals and acerbic rhetoric.

Now I discover that Palin hired a ghost-writer named Lynn Vincent. I believe that Obama wrote his own memoir; I've never heard otherwise. So the comparison between these two books really need go no farther, because there is no comparison. Apparently, AP has discovered eleven alleged errors of fact in Palin's book. Whatever, she's an idiot, I don't need to read her book to know this. Having heard her speak, I know in advance that she could not have written a good book. Now I discover that she probably did not write a book, just as Bill Bennent did not write his bestsellers. It's true that I did not read Obama's book either. Someone whose judgment I trust commended it to me, however. My guess is that I would not think it great in any way, but the only thing I was commenting on was its likely merits relative to Palin's ghost-written memoir.

But as to the original thread, Ann Althouse must have known, although I did not, that Palin did not write her own book. Yet, Althouse goes on at length about the mediocrity, or worse, of Obama's writing. This is dishonest. Althouse is dishonest.

In other words, you haven't read anything and your opinion is what others tell you your opinion should be...which pretty much validates my original post. Run along then...your dignity is showing.

handle
11-22-2009, 08:49 PM
Then I will be here for you. Actually PM me your address and I will give you the real deal.

The Black Knight:
I'll bite yer legs off!

handle
11-22-2009, 08:59 PM
In other words, you haven't read anything and your opinion is what others tell you your opinion should be...which pretty much validates my original post. Run along then...your dignity is showing.

This isn't provocative at all!

Translation: You just made total sense, so I will accuse you of something I am guilty of, declare victory, and then follow with an attempt at condescension...

You can set a clock by him, campers!

Whatfur
11-22-2009, 09:06 PM
This isn't provocative at all!

Translation: You just made total sense, so I will accuse you of something I am guilty of, declare victory, and then follow with an attempt at condescension...

You can set a clock by him, campers!

Complete with snooze alarm by handle.

handle
11-22-2009, 09:10 PM
Complete with snooze alarm by handle.

"snooze alarm handle" that's actually pretty funny!

Whatfur
11-22-2009, 09:11 PM
"snooze alarm handle" that actually pretty funny!

Stick around friend...I have a million of them.

handle
11-22-2009, 09:21 PM
<rimshot>
And yes folks he will be here all weak...

handle
11-22-2009, 09:22 PM
week!... sorry.

Whatfur
11-22-2009, 09:25 PM
week!... sorry.

Actually you might have just edited the first...or come to think of it, interchanged them.

Bye handle.

handle
11-22-2009, 09:28 PM
Actually you might have just edited the first...or come to think of it, interchanged them.

Bye handle.

And mess up the punchline?

Lyle
11-22-2009, 10:33 PM
You just don't recognize immaturity and ignorance when it is right in your face nikkibong. I know she's written two books about people she doesn't agree with. As I told you once before that means jack all. People write books about people and things they totally fail to understand all the time. You'll write magazine articles one day just like that as well, I bet.

She doesn't know what the heck she's talking about on a number of levels, books or no books.

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-22-2009, 10:53 PM
Unrelated: congrats on True/Slant Ethan. I wrote about them (http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/08/21/youve-got-blogs-ex-aolers-build-sites-for-writers-documentarians/) once; it's a cool place, and Lew is a sharp guy.

nikkibong
11-22-2009, 11:07 PM
Unrelated: congrats on True/Slant Ethan. I wrote about them (http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/08/21/youve-got-blogs-ex-aolers-build-sites-for-writers-documentarians/) once; it's a cool place, and Lew is a sharp guy.

Thanks!

BTW: am enjoying your dispatches here

http://pulitzercenter.typepad.com/untold_stories/south-asia-the-economics-of-security/

and am eagerly awaiting more.

bjkeefe
11-22-2009, 11:34 PM
week!... sorry.

I thought the original was intentional. It was in any case better.

And this (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=139704#post139704) says it all. There must be a hundred threads where 'fur tries to retain a shred of dignity in just that way. For him, "run along now" is equivalent to calling names is equivalent to making threats of physical violence is equivalent to him coming as close as he ever will to acknowledging he just got whupped.

handle
11-23-2009, 03:11 AM
I thought the original was intentional. It was in any case better.

It was.. I just did a sarcastic follow up to make sure it was obvious. Now I will get accused of lying about it, oops I mean "back peddling" by the Black Knight.

And this (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=139704#post139704) says it all. There must be a hundred threads where 'fur tries to retain a shred of dignity in just that way. For him, "run along now" is equivalent to calling names is equivalent to making threats of physical violence is equivalent to him coming as close as he ever will to acknowledging he just got whupped.

Thanks! I have to disagree on your dignity point, hopwever, as I believe an unbridled narcissist can never lose their dignity, no matter what. I think instead we are dealing with someone fiercely defending a lifetime of denial. And always successfully, in his mind.

The Black Knight:
Runnin' away are ya?

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-23-2009, 04:54 AM
Thanks!

BTW: am enjoying your dispatches here

http://pulitzercenter.typepad.com/untold_stories/south-asia-the-economics-of-security/

and am eagerly awaiting more.

Glad someone's reading 'em. :)

ledocs
11-23-2009, 06:43 AM
Lyle, addressing nikkibong:

You just don't recognize immaturity and ignorance when it is right in your face nikkibong. I know she's written two books about people she doesn't agree with. As I told you once before that means jack all. People write books about people and things they totally fail to understand all the time. You'll write magazine articles one day just like that as well, I bet.

She doesn't know what the heck she's talking about on a number of levels, books or no books.


This is not exactly a cogent argument. You have failed to provide a specific example of Goldberg's alleged closed-mindedness. I think we all get the fact that she is a young, liberal cosmopolite who ventures into foreign territories, reporting on people whose ideas and cultures are often not her own. The fact that she does not become a convert to Christian fundamentalism does not prove that she has little or no understanding of Christian fundamentalism or its adherents. But even if it were true that she has little understanding of Christian fundamentalists, that still would not entail that she is closed-minded. Why don't you convert to liberalism and secular humanism, Lyle? Are you closed-minded? You must be.

ledocs
11-23-2009, 09:26 AM
Corrigendum:

Jon Irenicus posted as follows, apparently in response to me, in #39 of this thread:

Who said Caroll/Scher were firebrands?

Here is a clearer example of barely contained disgust and contempt for his fellow diavlogger.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22603

Now in that discussion, I thought Farley had the upper hand, his critiques had no proper pushback from Goldfarb. But I don't think anyone would say calling his tone acerbic or agitated was off base.


But now the goal post changes, it's about whether you are right now, not simply how something is said. This is fine, but then why lament tone when it means next to nothing to you?


Actually no, it does mean something. I think it is one of those combination/emergent phenomenons.

acidic tone + disagreeing with arguments = abominable

acidic tone + agreement with the arguments = look the other way, support

As to Ann taking positions just to be a contrarian, that she may not even believe, who knows. I have not seen enough with her to draw that conclusion. The only clear cut case of a man who could literally say anything, make any argument, is Andrew Sullivan.

Is there a word for sociopath of the blog posts? It's like tourettes but with postings of positions instead of wild bursts of sound. Next to Andrew, any other claimed to be as bad is like trying to spot a candle on the sun.

I need to apologize to whatfur, because I got confused about who had said what in this discussion. I forgot that it was Jon Irenicus who had said that liberals have glass jaws and are the ones who wield acerbic rhetoric.

So, in response to your opening question in the post cited above, "Who said Caroll/Scher were firebrands?", the answer is that no one said this. I certainly did not. I simply pointed out that, between the two of them, Caroll or Carroll is the more acerbic/sarcastic and that Scher could handle this rhetorical tone. I cited this as a counter-example to your absurd generalization about liberal v. conversative diavlogs or conversations.

You then go on in the same post to say a lot of irrelevant things, irrelevant because the person under discussion is Althouse, about whom you mostly profess no opinion at the end of your post. You go on to say, “But now the goal post changes, it's about whether you are right now, not simply how something is said. This is fine, but then why lament tone when it means next to nothing to you?” I have no idea what prompted these sentences. Who ever said or implied that tone is irrelevant in a diavlog? And who ever said or implied that content or substance, as opposed to tone, is irrelevant in a diavlog? These nonsensical sentences just come out of nowhere, as does the reference to a diavlog in which Henry Farley becomes aggressive, as does the concluding rant about Andrew Sullivan. This is all irrelevant. I had responded to a generalization that you made about rhetorical tone employed by interlocutors in liberal-conservative conversations, and we were ostensibly talking about Michelle Goldberg and Ann Althouse.

So your entire post #39 consists of sentences that seem to be addressed to no one, for no particular reason.

I was wondering about your user name, Irenicus. I was going to ask, is this your real name, is it a reference to an obscure Christian father of the early church, are you a peace-loving man, what? So I google the name, and it’s a goddam video game character. Is this also your real name, or do you just use this name on the Internet?

No offense, dude, but I’m not going to talk to you in the future as though you were my equal. In fact, I would like to avoid talking to you at all. But really, and I am saying this without sarcasm, try to get your act together as regards staying on point. And if you are the same Jon Irenicus listed in “Linked.In” as a student of computer science at NYU, good luck with your studies. Again, I mean that sincerely. I think your prospects as a computer scientist would be substantially better than as a political thinker.

Peace.

kezboard
11-23-2009, 02:23 PM
Hey hey hey, you're forgetting he supports gay marriage. ;)

JonIrenicus
11-23-2009, 04:23 PM
I need to apologize to whatfur, because I got confused about who had said what in this discussion. I forgot that it was Jon Irenicus who had said that liberals have glass jaws and are the ones who wield acerbic rhetoric.

So, in response to your opening question in the post cited above, "Who said Caroll/Scher were firebrands?", the answer is that no one said this. I certainly did not. I simply pointed out that, between the two of them, Caroll or Carroll is the more acerbic/sarcastic and that Scher could handle this rhetorical tone. I cited this as a counter-example to your absurd generalization about liberal v. conversative diavlogs or conversations.

I was not referring to how people on camera take things, I am talking about the reactions of the commenters in general. They tend to get up in arms about the "tone" and faulty points from a more conservative source. No compunction calling them out on it. The link to the other log was simply to point out a case where they did NOT go off the rails in rage in disgust at someone who clearly had an harsh tone the entire log. Not the sort of mild sarcasm Caroll might employ (honestly, there is nothing there to mention on Caroll), this was a sort of tension that was saying in his delivery, without actually saying it, you are a complete fool, worthless in every conceivable way etc etc. Scher is not the one with the glass jaw.

Ah, but I guess saying liberals is too general, they tend to hate that. Should I change it to some liberals? Or some liberal commenters? What if I think there is more sensitivity among the liberal commenter body than the conservative commenter body?

No one batted an eye at Farleys very harsh and sometimes painfully brutal tone. Do I mind? No. I brought it up to brush away this idea that harsh tones elicit the same responses all the time from commenters. They do not. And before you go crazy, tone was brought up at the start. I was simply responding to you because you seemed to think the ruckus was based purely off being wrong or making bad points by Ann. I have seen far worse, no special category for them when the offender was completely off base from a liberal perspective.

That is the glass jaw. If they were honest, they would stamp such things out wherever they saw it, even from their own camp.


... I had responded to a generalization that you made about rhetorical tone employed by interlocutors in liberal-conservative conversations, and we were ostensibly talking about Michelle Goldberg and Ann Althouse.

...

Again, was talking about commenter reaction to different clashes and what sets them off, everything mentioned was an effort to support my claims about that, effectively mentioned or not, that was the point of it. But aside from that, I DO ramble.


I was wondering about your user name, Irenicus. I was going to ask, is this your real name, is it a reference to an obscure Christian father of the early church, are you a peace-loving man, what? So I google the name, and it’s a goddam video game character. Is this also your real name, or do you just use this name on the Internet?

No offense, dude, but I’m not going to talk to you in the future as though you were my equal. In fact, I would like to avoid talking to you at all. But really, and I am saying this without sarcasm, try to get your act together as regards staying on point. And if you are the same Jon Irenicus listed in “Linked.In” as a student of computer science at NYU, good luck with your studies. Again, I mean that sincerely. I think your prospects as a computer scientist would be substantially better than as a political thinker.

Peace.


No, not me at NYU, and yes, it is a game character from about 9 years ago now. And now some advice. Don't worry about whether who you are talking to is your "equal." If you consider them so far gone, then simply stop responding. Talking of equals is a conceit, and frankly, a hollow one. A point stands on its own, no matter where it comes from.

TwinSwords
11-23-2009, 08:05 PM
Here is a clearer example of barely contained disgust and contempt for his fellow diavlogger.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22603
I just watched about 80% of this (and I watched it when it was intially posted), and it bears absolutely no resemblence to your description. I think you must have posted the wrong link. The Farley/Golbfarb diavlog is pretty much standard BHTV fare. It's not even remotely similar to Althouse's sociopathic behavior in her last diavlog with Goldberg.

Listen, if you want to defend sociopathic behavior, you should not have to cite an example of the other side doing it to support your case. Either you believe in bad behavior or you don't. Whether you can find a liberal behaving badly, too, is beside the point. Still, in this case you have failed at your task. Robert Farley is no Ann Althouse.

kezboard
11-25-2009, 01:20 AM
What if I think there is more sensitivity among the liberal commenter body than the conservative commenter body?

Then, seriously, that's because you identify more with the conservative commenters than the liberal ones. Personally, I think the conservatives -- both here at the forums and in the wider commentariat -- are vastly more likely to get their panties in a twist over stupid things, but when I'm being wiser, I realize that the only reason I don't notice as often when the liberals get their panties in a twist over stupid things is because my panties are in a twist too because I'm a liberal. I agree with you completely, by the way, on this point you made up the thread:

acidic tone + disagreeing with arguments = abominable

acidic tone + agreement with the arguments = look the other way, support

How can you not see that the phenomenon of liberal commenters not being outraged by snark on the part of liberals and the phenomenon of JonIrenicus thinking that liberals have "glass jaws" and get outraged all the time are the exact same thing?

ETA: That whole post I just made is all about JonI's argument and not at all about Althouse, and it shouldn't be construed as my endorsement of Althouse or implying that I take her seriously or anything like that, because I don't. I'm not outraged that she's featured on bhtv, although I do wish she would be paired with someone more combative (and...I don't know if this is kosher to say, but I think she has an issue with younger women. She may be reading this right now and be here in a second to yell at me, so in that case, hi Ann. I went to her blog just now and she's back on the breast controversy again (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/11/at-state-dinner-in-1996-low-decolletage.html)! And I thought just the tiniest mention of it upset her) I think she's fun to kick around, I think she's nuts, I wouldn't be part of a diavlog with her again if I were Michelle, and I'd like to see her with a more partisan, shouty liberal who would tell her she's being silly when she's being silly. I'd even like to see her with Bob again if he promises to bring the eye-rolls and scoffs and leave mild-mannered Bob at home.

TwinSwords
11-25-2009, 09:26 AM
I'd even like to see her with Bob again if he promises to bring the eye-rolls and scoffs and leave mild-mannered Bob at home.

LOL! But I doubt that would happen; Bob would, I expect, treat her with kid gloves. I think Althouse is the wingnut loon who laid the golden egg. That is, my guess is that she generates the traffic that pays the bills that allow Bob to feature serious, thoughtful people like Steven Pinker and Glenn Lourey. Every circus needs a freak.

Lyle
11-25-2009, 08:20 PM
Why don't I convert? Haha... modern day liberalism. I must convert to it. Hahahahahahaha!!! So liberal, so progressive... YOU MUST CONVERT!!!! Wrarrrrrrrr!!!!

And argues you must convert something to understand it? Not I.