Starpass goes mainstream :-)

[legin]

From the actual paper newspapers delivered to peoples front doors, although it is Sully again in the News Review Section which is one of the big wad of diffent sections that is worth reading along with the Sport section.

It's worth reading the whole article to see Sully acting quite convincingly as a sensible, moderate, centrist, of course totally above all this rather low partisan rhetoric. The lying sack ......

<<snip>>

The Iraq war has exacerbated the tension even further. Here’s a bowdlerised version of an e-mail posted on the Democratic Underground website last week. DU is a radical left publication, although it obviously uses the party name: “I Hope the Bloodshed Continues in Iraq . . . The only way to get rid of this slime bag Wasp-Mafia, oil baron-ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call ‘a democracy’, relies heavily on what a hole Iraq turns into.”

No, this is not representative of the left as a whole. But the fact that it exists shows how alienated some people are. And you can find similarly wacko views on the right on such websites as Free Republic, which is sometimes just as outrageous in the other direction as Democratic Underground.

<<snip>>

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-886320,00.html

[qanda]

1. Just as a warning...

You're thread is going to be locked if you don't alter it to remove the swearing.

[legin]

4. Thanks pbl n/t

.

[legin]

2. In the british Sunday Times

forgeting the most important bit just for a change.

[LittleApple81]

3. Does that mean that we will get cartloads of freepers again? n/t

[legin]

6. I dunno

"... And you can find similarly wacko views on the right on such websites as Free Republic, which is sometimes just as outrageous in the other direction as Democratic Underground."

is a bit rude for a hero of FreeRepublic to say about that site.

(Just repeating to make sure any lurkers don't miss it)

[Silverhair]

5. The RWs monitor this site 24/7/365-366.

They look for the outrageous posts. And you can bet we will see some of the ultra extreme posts again as we enter the actual campaign phase of the election.

Think twice about spelling America with a "k", or all those posts that show hostility or condesention to Joe & Jane Average.

[legin]

8. Quoted from the National Review

"Let's say you take a chunk of real estate the size of a small continent, devastate it with two of the biggest wars in the history of human conflict, then add a couple of massive genocides, a near-total collapse of most social structures, a megadose of intolerant secularism, a decline in educational standards, a flat-line birthrate and a truly impressive brain drain. Now try to imagine what kind of ideas would survive to emerge from the wreckage.

"Right. You get nihilism, anti-Semitism, and anti-Americanism, the three knee-jerk, irrational sentiments - they fail to rise to the level of actual `ideas' that inform the modern intellectual life of Europe. In other words, you get cockroaches."

Daily Telegraph editorial

If a journalist writing in a mainstream publiction such as the National Review can write such as that with zero come back, then by my way of thinking it is perfectly acceptable for Starpass to write what she wants.

[Silverhair]

23. How many voters in AMERICAN elections did he insult?

Get the point? We insult voters in our own elections at our peril. Which do you want - to vent, or to win elections.

[Guaranteed]

7. LOL at least they got a kick in on FR too....nt

[JailBush]

9. Can someone e-mail this article to me?

Your link leads to a page that tells me to register, which leads to another page that says they can't register me right now, due to technical difficulties.

Thanks.

GeoBearFREEDOMgeobop.com (Replace FREEDOM with @.)

[DuctapeFatwa]

10. Radical left???!! They must be thinking of some other site

God help these people if they ever come across anything anywhere near radical left.

[Selwynn]

18. Hear Hear.

[Tinoire]

22. Oh the irony! lol n/t

[Skittles]

11. with all due respect to Starpass' frustration

to wish for bloodshed is absolutely disgusting.

[KoKo]

27. She didn't "Wish for Blood" she was doing "Ultimate Sarcasm." There's a

difference!

[KoKo]

28. Starpass has been Crowned : "Coulter of the Left" we should applaud her

and not disparage her....

[Clark Can WIN]

35. I can't applaud anyone who makes a joke of death

If that's what she was doing. I don't believe she was.

I can't applaud anyone who calls for more bloodshed and destruction. I can't applaud anyone who calls for our kids to suffer.

I do decry and disparge her for this.

[KoKo]

41. Since her post isn't available we can't do "line for line" rebuttals or

verification. That's sad....because I read the original...and had a different take from most of you on this thread.

[iverglas]

61. am I to understand

... that the thread in question has been deleted from DU?

(I searched for it -- I had posted in it -- to no avail.)

Talk about yer self-censorship, eh? Whew, sad.

.

[eileen_d]

55. I can't applaud "the Coulter" of anything

I didn't read the original post, however, so I'll withhold judgement.

[Skittles]

29. I confess

I did not read the thread to which they refer

[KoKo]

38. Oh Skittles....it was just a sarcastic rant....and we who know Starpass,

know her language and rants are a DU tradtion. I think she got a
"Lounge Award" aways back for worst language (maybe she came in second), whatever....I didn't stay around for the final award but she was "up at the top" last I looked aways back.

Her rant, was very pointed....with terrible frustration..saying what it would take before we pulled out or Chimps policy was shown for the total
f**ing DISASTER IT IS! It wasn't really that bad......But in today's McCarthy Times I guess DU is getting attention because of the very fact that we live in McCarthy Censorship of anything but RW propaganda acceptable to the masses who watch FAUX!

She got "bad press" on that one. And, I'm a DU Prude as far as language, and some other stuff...but I can't go after "Starpass" for this post which has gotten so much attention. She has had others I've cringed from...but this one must have touched wounds of the RW that they had to take it and put it out everywhere and site DU about. They must be running short of ideas and their bankrupt policies are tearing them apart so they go over here looking for something to complain about.

[Military Brat]

31. I agree, Skittles. There must be an alternate way of solving this.

It seems to me that if we are going to make any headway whatsoever on this bush/iraq issue, we have to absolutely negate the notion that extreme bloodshed will cure either of those ills. These are the lives of soldiers and citizens we are considering here, and it is not a video game. How many body bags did the chickenhawks plan for before the war even began? Does anyone know? Well, that's how many of our troops they were willing to sacrifice. If my memory is correct, that number was in the thousands. Fortunately for us, the Iraqi fighters "faded away" as we assaulted Baghdad. And now they have returned.

At this point I have no alternative plan except to withdraw our troops and just give the money to the Iraqi Council that we're spending over there anyway. Of course, if it had been my decision to make, there would never have been this ignominous war to begin with. Our efforts should have been concentrated on Afghanistan and capturing Osama bush forgot'im. But this is just me, beating my head against the wall, to no avail.

Now that we're in this mess, it's time to look to wiser counsel, such as Al Gore, for safe passage from Iraq that causes the least harm and paves the way for the eventual greater good. But I cannot be quiet when someone advocates greater bloodshed, no matter how "noble" the hoped-for outcome will be.

[DuctapeFatwa]

32. The odd thing, what she said is what the cover-ban policy is based on

Namely the idea that casualties would erode support for the Crusade.

That is what she was saying, just let the war rage on, and the people will begin to oppose it because of the casualties.

Personally, I do not agree with her premise and I think the regime is being overcautious and the cover ban is unecessary.

Most of the casualties are poor and/or ethnic minorities who were considered undesirables before they joined the military, and disposable once they joined it.

[Cleita]

12. I wish Starpass hadn't posted that.

Even though it was sincere, it makes us look bad. Most of us don't wish even one soldier dead and she doesn't speak for the majority of us. When we get called names as extreme and radical, it only speaks for a few. To be really radically left-wing, the majority of us would have to be in favor of nationalizing and socializing everything. If any group is radical it is the present day right wingers in power who are trying to privitize and corporatize everything, even our military and education systems, things Americans have always held dear and uncorruptible.

I hope other DU'ers think before they post as to how we will look to others. Even Democrats in my local club have snooted down their nose at DU because it has appeared to be a nest of commie proletariats chomping at the bit to grab everything for the state.

Now I am not saying we should be worried about what others think as much as we should think about how extreme our ideas are from the majority of DU'ers before we put it out on the internet where it can't be taken back. I think sentiments like Starpass's are more suitable for a personal website or blog.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

13. Starpass also said Osama Bin Laden should be Chair of the DNC

Funny one, that Starpass

[KoKo]

40. It was a DU RANT! I've seen much worse here in 2 1/2 Years! Much!

I don't go along with this taking her "out of context."

[nostamj]

24. the subject line was wrong

and did not reflect the content of the post.

SP did not wish a single death on either side.

the grim analysis is this:

if bush* is able to contain the bloodshed he has unleashed in Iraq (and the forgotten Afghanistan) it is likely he will be re-elected and will expand the conflict resulting in thousands more dead.

the GRIM analysis is this:

if bush* is seen as winning Iraq, the imperialism will continue with unimaginable losses.

i wish Starpass has posted a less inflammatory subject line because the content of the post deserved better.

the occupation must be ended, to the appropriate humiliation of bush & co.

but what 'if' they are perceived to 'win' this monstrosity?

flame away BUT

I do not wish the death of a single soldier or civilian.
I want this to end and be exposed as the criminal endeavor it has always been.

and I believe that far more than enough have died already for this corrupt administration to be forced to reliquish control and withdraw.

it is clear the US will never control Iraq without overpowering force and ongoing death.

the occupation must be ended, to the appropriate humiliation of bush & co.

[DuctapeFatwa]

34. I hope you are not advocating READING! That is un-American

Don't you realize that uncontrolled reading could erode support for the Wawonterra?

[Minstrel Boy]

14. If we can't speak our minds, even here,

then the terrorists win. You know the ones I mean?

I censor myself, naturally. Having second thoughts helps make first thoughts presentable. But the day I worry what the right might make of something I post on an anonymous board is the day I throw up my hands and join the Gitmo of the mind.

[Cleita]

15. Make sure it is qualified without a question of a doubt

that it is your mind speaking, if you are going out on an extreme limb like Starpass did, and no one elses. As a matter-of-fact be very specific to say that the majority of your peers would not feel the same way. I don't like being lumped in with someone else's angst especially if I don't agree and in this case I was horrified.

[legin]

20. I would dispute 'extreme limb'

The fact of the matter is if bush* is sucessful in Iraq then we are all in the shit, especially if you live in the Middle East. It will be Syria, Iran, Lybia, North Korea etc etc.

I never got on this planet just so I could sit around and be the powerless accomplice to the next Gengis Khan, Attila the Hun, Napoloan, Hitler type figure, it insults my entire moral being.

[Cleita]

21. No argument with me there, but Hitler is alive and well

in the White House. Now shall we give him all the ammunition he needs to destroy us, the lefties, who are the only true sanity left in this crazy country? If you wish for dead soldiers, then they should be the enemy's not ours.

[iverglas]

30. not getting it

"Make sure it is qualified without a question of a doubt
that it is your mind speaking, if you are going out on
an extreme limb like Starpass did, and no one elses."

Who else's mind do people usually speak?

Would *you* ever suggest that someone who expressed an opinion was speaking for anyone else in particular, or any group in general?

Would the reason why you would not do that (I assume) be that you are generally an honest person?


"As a matter-of-fact be very specific to say that
the majority of your peers would not feel the same way."

And just who would anyone be to speak in this way for the majority of anyone??

If anyone does not feel the same way, my advice would be for him/her to say so, if s/he thinks it relevant.


Let people speak their own opinions. That's my advice.

Honest people will not portray them as speaking for anyone else.

And none of us has the slightest control over what dishonest people will portray them as. It's to be expected that dishonest people will say dishonest things, for pity's sake.

(I only wish that the dishonest things said about DU members by other DU members, at DU, attracted quite as much attention. This there is control of, and here there ought to be an expectation of honesty.)


"I don't like being lumped in with someone else's angst
especially if I don't agree and in this case I was horrified."

Horrifed at what starpass said? Fair enough. I'm horrified at what lots of people say, both here and elsewhere. That's life.

Horrified at being misrepresented? Again -- what the hell else do you expect will be done, despite anyone's best efforts, by dishonest people?


Frankly, who could even disagree with the columnist's conclusion? (I can't get the site to respond to a registration request just now, so I'm limited to what's quoted in the lead post.)

But the fact that it exists shows how alienated some people are.

I think that "alienated" kinda sums up the feeling.

.

(edited 'cause I got the sequence jumbled)

[Cleita]

33. Yeah, but she didn't speak for me and yet because I

belong to DU, I will be lumped into that demographic won't I? Hey I posted something about rural people once and how they think and I had the whole of DU come down on me because it had been copied and spread around Free Republic and other right wingnut sites.

Now what I posted was my observation of right wing proclivities among white rural people. It wasn't even an opinion but an observation. I was called racist and that I possibly could have been the cause of the loses in the 2002 elections etc. I did realize then that this website was not insular and that what I said could go beyond it, so I have been careful since then because I know other DU'ers would be associated with me.

Now I have been setting up my own website so that I can put up my thoughts on things, stuff I don't post here and everyone or no one who reads it will consider it only my thoughts not that of a group of similar minded people. I hope Starpass does the same.

ON EDIT: I also want to add that I love most of Starpass's thoughtful posts, just not the beginning of this one.

[iverglas]

36. Are you not seeing a difference?

If anyone ever MISREPRESENTS something you have said, or MISREPRESENTS something you have said as being what someone else thinks, let me know.

What was apparently done was to take what you said and repeat it, and criticize it. (By the way, one person's "observation" really is another person's "opinion", since an "observation" seldom reports all potentially relevant factors in a situation.)

If what you said was reported as being representative of what anyone else thought, when it wasn't, then you were the victim of someone DISHONEST. Like I said.

"I did realize then that this website was not insular and that what I said could go beyond it, so I have been careful since then because I know other DU'ers would be associated with me."

That's your choice.

It's not a choice that I see as reasonable to demand that anyone else make.

It is an opinion that one person's opinion is harmful to the left, or whatever the allegations that are made might be. Some people might really not share that opinion.

Me, I just can't imagine how anyone could think that people who listen to the dishonest people who are "associating" you, or anyone else, with what starpass, or anyone else, says are affected in any serious way by that dishonesty.

At least, that is, I can't imagine that the particular grain of dishonesty, added to the mountain of dishonesty they already listen to and are prepared (or conditioned, or whatever) to swallow, would make a pinch of difference.


It seems very obvious to me that the problem here is that some people apparently disagreed with starpass. If someone had said something that they agreed with and THAT had been misrepresented in the dishonest press -- either as being something it wasn't, or as being the collective opinion of a group of people who had not voiced it -- I expect that they'd be screaming at the dishonest press, not at the person who had been misrepresented by it.

And so it just looks like another attempt to stifle unpopular opinion ... to me.

.

[Cleita]

37. Well, I offered my opinion of Starpass's post

and apparently you are attempting to stifle it. So who is right? To have DU called a radical site by a RW radio host to me is associating everyone here with radicals. Nevermind that the ass never read beyond the headline of the post, it still puts us all in the same tempestuous teacup.

I live in a part of my state that is predominantly Republican. There is so much bad blood between Repblicans and Democrats since Bush became the President that I am afraid to put a sign on my gate or bumper sticker on my car for my candidate for fear of some kind of vandalism. It used to be that we cheered for our candidates like people cheer for football teams. Now it's not so wise to do so when you are the minority. Letting these talking wingnuts up the ante makes things worse.

So yes I am very concerned about a careless statement, opinion or not.

[Cleita]

39. Another thing.

Do you remember Vietnam? Do you remember when the soldiers who returned from action were spit upon by anti-war doves after going through hell? Many were draftees who didn't want to be there anymore than we wanted them there. Suggesting that they should die even in jest is not just throwing out an opinion or a metaphor. It's spitting in the face of our soldiers as much as it was back then.

[KoKo]

42. Spitting on Soldiers was not universal but has been put about by RW'ers

for years. I can't believe you really believe that the whole anti-War Movement was out waiting to find "soldiers to spit on." Don't you realize we had "forces of darkness" out there spinning and lying in the media even then. I know Will Pitt claims his father was spit on when he returned from Viet Nam. But, he might not be aware that by the end of the war there were many "flamboyant types" who were out looking to make statements to get the media to focus on them. In the South and other parts of the country there weren't people out there "spitting on soldiers." I've not asked Pitt where his father came home to....Boston or Alabama.....but it was an incident that looms large in his and his father's experience....but it was NOT THE NORM!

And, I get upset wondering who wants to keep perpetuating this "Hate the Troops" stuff on and on and on. There's always a "fringe group" waiting to do a "media event." And the media loves that...always has. But, for us here, to perpetuate this stuff and say.....tread carefully.....shhhhh.....you might have freepers thinking you "Don't Support the Troops" just goes beyond anything I can stomach. I didn't want our troops in Viet Nam or in Iraq! I don't spit on them....I tried to save them. But, folks yelled crap out of car windows at us who demonstrated against this Invasion and said "Go Get a Job......Leave America if you Don't Like it...! All the crap that went on during Viet Nam.

The Messenger is always villified and in some cases killed or silenced, while the "spin doctors" live forever.

It's disgusting to me that we still have to keep arguing this over and over...but it seems to always be out there.

[Cleita]

43. It was a big problem, spitting either real or metaphorical

was the order of the day. Vietnam veterans were treated very shabbily. I know I lived through those days. Yes, probably the right wing hijacked it as a rallying point sort of like the family values thing, but it's not right I don't care what side of the fence you are on. I am sure the DU mother who wrote here about her son doesn't appreciate someone say they wish them to die. Whether it's metaphorical or not it's almost like a curse to anyone who has loved ones overseas, in danger and fearful each day that they won't come home.

[Robin Hood]

46. Nobody is wishing them to die, it's just a given that we are in a quagmire

Starpass was pointing out the obvious.

[KoKo]

56. The anti-war movement was infiltrated by Government Agents, to stir up

trouble. Spitting was probably part of it. You are aware of Freep behavior are you not? Haven't you seen them come over here and instigate trouble?

Starpass was not "advocating" troops dying. Sheesh....

[iverglas]

48. uh huh

"But, folks yelled crap out of car windows at us
who demonstrated against this Invasion and said
'Go Get a Job......Leave America if you Don't Like it...!
All the crap that went on during Viet Nam.

Yup. And I just don't see anyone on the left whining and carping about how the right treats people on the anti-war left. We make our choices and we know the consequences and we take our lumps. We aren't lurking around 30 years later griping about how we were treated with disrespect, despite the fact that *we* were doing what we believed was right and were vilified for it far more, qualitatively and quantitatively, than US troops fighting in Vietnam were.

(I was not in the US, but I was involved in the anti-war movement outside the US, and do indeed remember those days.)

If only everybody would just take responsibility for his/her own choices, and direct his/her hostility for the consequences of those choices to the people actually responsible for the consequences. In the case of the Vietnam war, it was the US government who was responsible for the tragedy, including any tragic consequence suffered by troops sent to the war (i.e. the unwitting-victim draftee types), *not* the anti-war movement. If any troops were spit on, the action was the consequence of the policy and conduct of the US government, and the responsibility of anyone who actually did it, *not* the anti-war movement.

And in any event, any moral equivalence between the "left" action of spitting on troops and the "right" action of waging an imperialist war that destroyed a country's environment and economy and murdered its children children is to be rejected. Just because the right says something does not make it so, and just because the right makes an issue of something does not make it one.

.

[iverglas]

47. try again

"Well, I offered my opinion of Starpass's post
and apparently you are attempting to stifle it."

Perhaps you could actually copy and paste the portion of my post where I directed you not to state your opinion about starpass's post.

Still a little problem making distinctions, it seems.

I disagree with your opinion. I challenge it. I do not request or require that you refrain from expressing it, or that you include a disclaimer that you are not speaking for me when you express it. (I ask only that you not claim to be speaking for me, of course.)

Or maybe an illustration of another problem I alluded to. You have stated (with the cute modifier "apparently") that I have done something I have not done.

"To have DU called a radical site by a RW radio host
to me is associating everyone here with radicals."

And that is YOUR problem. The fact that you are concerned about DISHONEST, RIGHT-WING opinion -- and think that ANYONE has any control over that opinion -- is YOUR problem. (Not that it isn't evidently other people's problem too -- but making it one's problem is a personal choice that others do not choose to make.)

"I am afraid to put a sign on my gate or bumper sticker
on my car for my candidate for fear of some kind of vandalism ..."

The fact that you would attempt to lay this problem at the doorstep of a person who expressed opinions that the vandals disagree with instead of at the doorstep of the people who incite and commit such vandalism is the problem I see.

Self-censorship is a serious enough problem among progressives. Progressives advocating that other progressives self-censor and exerting pressure on them to do that is not something I'm pleased to see.

For pity's sake, OF COURSE the right is going to attack opinion expressed on the left -- and OF COURSE the right is going to misrepresent that opinion. If one restricts one's self, and pressures others to restrict themselves, to expressing only opinions that the right can't possibly have any problem with, or distort into something they are not, one will be silent.

And THAT is the aim of the right, and that is when the right will have won.

The proper course of action, if you want my opinion, is to vigorously (and honestly and sincerely and in good faith) challenge opinion that you disagree with, *not* to exert pressure for its holder to stifle it. Is that not, after all, precisely what the right ought to do when it addresses the left's opinions, and is it not precisely the fact that it instead misrepresents and attempts to stifle that is objectionable?

.

[KoKo]

57. Well said, Iverglas. Well Said! n/t

n/t

[Ripley]

50. I agree with your sentiment.

She occasionally has a good rant, but like Richard Pryor, after awhile the fucking this and fucking that gets boring and old and her point is obscured by her style and the revolutionary stance becomes non-engaging.

People should be allowed to "disagree" or simply not like all of one person's postings here. We are becoming personality obsessed just like TV. Will Pitt has some excellent writings and speeches, but to worship at each and every post of his is as silly as claiming Starpass is the best ranter.

[KoKo]

59. huh, Ripley are you replying to Iverglas....? Not how I read what he/she

was saying. :shrug:

[iverglas]

60. uh oh

I followed the dots ;) and I think Ripley was responding to Cleita.

Not that I disagree with Ripley on the general point of that second paragraph. The ad personam stuff cuts both ways -- "x" is great because AB said it, "y" is shit because CD said it. Both are to be avoided. The idea is the thing, and the idea, not the expression or expresser of it, ought to be the thing addressed.

Ta for your kind comments. I note that I've managed to be pretty unvulgar myself in this thread ... I tend more often to the naughty word side of the dictionary, sometimes just for the smirking pleasure of watching someone pretend, ad personamly, that s/he can dismiss what I said because of how I said it. Ya gotta laugh, or you'd puke, sometimes.

.

[legin]

17. Yup

Absolutly spot on perfect. :-)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

19. And freepers can post their "opinions" too

Let's not pretend this is a board for "us" - there are plenty of people who post here for many different reasons, not all of them positive for "us".

[neuvocat]

16. Yeah but I bet that site never mentions this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1016815/posts?q=1&&page=1#1

[jeter]

25. Hey we're famous.

Bravo.

[Nlighten1]

26. This is a good thing from a bad thing.

I can't help but notice the member count is off the hook since Sully began writing about us.

Thanks Sully!

[maggrwaggr]

44. so why isn't the "liberal media" quoting freepers??

just wondering ......

someone might want to look into this ....

[Robin Hood]

45. Again The press is attempting to silence individual speech

by attempting to shame people for how they feel and view the world. WTF would the British press know what the hell we are enduring here? To try and paint Starpasses words as the reason why we are getting our asses kicked in Iraq is nothing but a lie attempting to obfuscate the real blame away from Bush.

Who got us and the Brits into this mess in the first place? Bush did! THe media did! That's who. If the dingle berry is reading this, I'd like to say, Go fuck your self scum bag. There!! Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Ripley]

49. Sorry, I didn't ask for her to be my spokeswoman.

Everyone likes to think she speaks with a "free spirit" for all liberals. Well, she certainly doesn't speak for any southerners here.

[iverglas]

51. and oddly enough

You don't speak for me:

"Everyone likes to think she speaks with a 'free spirit' for all liberals"

Who's this "everyone"? Apparently not you, and I assure you not me. I'd actually never encountered starpass before the thread in question.

Who are you claiming is expressing this thought?

How is your misrepresentation of the thought that *is* being expressed any different from the misrepresentation of left thought that the right engages in on an hourly basis?

If you disagree with starpass or anyone else about anything at all, you should feel quite free to express your disagreement. I know I do.

I've been told twice in the last week, on DU by DUers, on two different subjects (and repeatedly in both instances), to shut up lest I rattle a Republican cage too hard and prompt some sort of backlash. I take this business just a little personally.


"Well, she certainly doesn't speak for any southerners here."

Perhaps if she had claimed to be doing that, you would have a point.

.

[Ripley]

52. She has started many hateful posts about the south.

I guess you admitted you had never read her before so you clearly did not see them. She is very venomous in these... So for you to tell me I don't have a point, when you admit you are uneducated about her posts...is funny.

[iverglas]

53. "admitted"?

"She has started many hateful posts about the south.
I guess you admitted you had never read her before
so you clearly did not see them."

What, exactly, is to "admit" in relation to my having or not having read starpass before?

I didn't claim to have read her before. I didn't say anything whatsoever that implied that I had read her before. I didn't say anything whatsoever that depended, for its validity, on my having read her before.

So why do you use language that implies that I have had to confess to something?

The discussion I am involved in has to do with a particular post, a particular expression of a particular opinion. It has to do with response to that post and that opinion. I have expressed the concern I feel when I see attempts at "self"-censorship -- i.e. efforts to persuade (or shame) someone into stifling an opinion -- on the left.

I got nothing to "admit", thank you.


"So for you to tell me I don't have a point,
when you admit you are uneducated about her posts
...is funny."

And for you to try to make it look as if the point that I was making had anything to do with, or depended in any way on, my knowledge of starpass's previous posts is ... well, who wants to get deleted?

After making a statement about what "everyone likes to think" for which there was no basis, you said that she "certainly doesn't speak for any southerners here". Since neither she nor anyone else had claimed that she *did* speak for anyone at all, as far as I can tell (except anyone who might have said or implied that starpass did speak for him/her personally), your statement was a response to nothing. (Of course, what it was, was acceptance of the legitimacy right-wing misrepresentation of her opinion as representing anyone else's, in your apparent belief that the right's dishonest portrayal of this required rebuttal. Way to buy into the agenda.)

The fact that you made the statement, however, gave the impression that it was in response to *something*. You've heard of those straw folk that some people like to set up in order to knock down? How some people will portray their adversaries as having taken a position they never took, and then skilfully demolish it? How they do this to make their adversaries look bad? Yeah. The problem is that not all those people are on the "right".

You were either tilting at a straw person of your own making, i.e. leaving the impression that starpass had made such a claim by saying that it was not true, or being manipulated by the right into protesting so much that you confer legitimacy on the right's dishonesty. Not good ideas, either way.

.

[Ripley]

54. You said this in previous post:

"I'd actually never encountered starpass before the thread in question."

Well, I have and I told you why I made my statement. I suppose I could waste my time and dig up those threads, nah. I'm not setting anything up bub. I gave you a reason why some people here don't hold her up as a paragon of DU as many others do. Gee, look at some of the posts here.

Enough though, you clearly want an argument, I don't. In fact I have no idea why you are attacking me.

[iverglas]

58. yup

I said "I'd actually never encountered starpass before the thread in question."

And you characterized what I said (twice) as an ADMISSION. And you have yet to explain why you think, or would say, that I "admitted" something I never denied, that I never implied the opposite of, and that was completely irrelevant to the validity of what I was saying.

My entire point was that *your* statement -- "Everyone likes to think she speaks with a 'free spirit' for all liberals" -- was unfounded. Since *I* had never encountered starpass before, *I* obviously did not "like to think" any such thing. My statement was therefore no ADMISSION, it was evidence to support my allegation that YOUR statement was inaccurate.

"Well, I have and I told you why I made my statement."

Dandy. And I have said that I don't see your previous knowledge of starpass to be a REASON for making that statement. You have stated the bloody obvious -- that starpass doesn't speak for whomever -- and when people state the obvious, they tend to have *another* reason for doing it.

"I gave you a reason why some people here don't hold her
up as a paragon of DU as many others do."

Straw alert! Straw alert!

Was this thread about the holding up of starpass as a paragon of DU? Had anyone done that? If so, why did you not respond to the person who did that? (Could it be that you actually hadn't bothered to read the other posts in the thread before posting your comment?)

Once again -- stating the bloody obvious: "some people here don't hold her up as a paragon of DU as many others do." Why does it need stating?

Basically, in the context of a discussion about a particular thing said by starpass and the misrepresentation of that thing in the right-wing press, a statement that one does not "hold her up as a paragon" is kinda an ad personam argument. It doesn't address the validity of what she said, it doesn't address the misrepresentation of what she said in the right-wing press. It avoids those issues, and dismisses her. It just doesn't contribute to the discourse.

"Enough though, you clearly want an argument, I don't.
In fact I have no idea why you are attacking me."

Perhaps that would be because I wasn't attacking you.

I was challenging you to explain and defend your statements. Gosh, silly me, I thought that was what "debate" meant.

But not to worry, I've become pretty used to the notion that "debate", to an awful lot of people, means "stating my opinion and never having to explain or defend it".

Jerry Springer smiles.

.