July 23, 2007

I call bullsh*t on TPM's defense of its bullsh*t video.

TPM Café's Greg Sargent tries to respond to various bloggers, including me, who wrote about his blog post featuring a video clip of Giuliani supposedly "unhinged" and "screaming" the word "bullshit." Here's Greg in his new post:
Really, it almost seems at times as if the wingnut bloggers delight in setting themselves up for mockery and parody.
Typical beginning for a lefty blogpost. He assumes anyone not on his side is a "wingnut" -- someone who barely deserves any regard from his readers. (Hint to Sargent: I voted for Russ Feingold (every time he's run), Al Gore, Bill Clinton (twice), etc. etc.) And he assumes his opponents have written nothing that will require much of any argument from him -- it's already just a set-up for "mockery and parody." Oh, Greg, you moonbat, your lame post is beyond parody because it is already its own parody. (Hint: I'm just pretending to write like a lefty blogger for fun. I don't really write like that. But I note how damned easy it is.)
The latest winger pratfall-in-the-making concerns the video we posted the other day of Rudy screaming "bulls#$t" at a cop rally 15 years ago.
Pratfall-in-the-making? Greg, you've started off this post on your ass. Get to the point.
Bloggers Michelle Malkin, Ann Althouse, and Ace of Spades are all taking shots at us for posting the vid, arguing that it was absurd to do so because it has no significance in any way.

It's the usual ham-fisted and heavy-handed stuff....
And your post is the usual wheel-spinning. Are you paid by the word? Did you go to the Glenn Greenwald Summer Camp for Lefty Bloggers?
Althouse says we're simply "trying to hurt" Rudy (sniffle, sniffle) and even tries to claim that Rudy isn't "screaming," but rather is "shouting" (now there's a critical distinction).
Greg apparently doesn't know the first thing about gender studies. "Screaming" is a feminizing word. [ADDED: "Screaming" also calls to mind the way that word was used to bring down Howard Dean in 2004. Presidential candidates can't "scream," we learned, so you may think that if you can say he "screamed," you can destroy him the way Dean was destroyed. (I defended Dean about the scream at the time, by the way.)]

Obviously, there's a difference between "screaming" and "shouting." And you left out your word "unhinged." You said he was "unhinged" and "screaming." You know damned well -- unless you're incredibly inept -- that those words conveyed an image of a crazy, out-of-control guy. "Screaming" itself connotes loss of control -- which would be terrible problem for a President -- and when you've paired it with the word "unhinged," the connotation isn't the slightest bit subtle. You are trying to get readers to think that Giuliani is emotionally unfit to be President. If you had accurately described how Giuliani sounded in the video -- shouting the word -- it wouldn't have twisted the reader's mind the way you wanted. I called you on your deception. So that damned well is a "critical distinction."

Now get up off your ass and write a real response to me. I'm sick of these cranked out non-responses that pretend you've suffered no real attack. You have!
Memo to wingnuts: There's a little something about Rudy's "bulls#$t" moment that we know and that you don't know....
Blah blah blah... Sargent brings up the context of the video, which he didn't give in his original post, but which the NYT covered in an article yesterday. Since I updated my post as soon as I saw the article and included the relevant excerpt, this part of Greg's post is entirely meaningless.
Note to wingnuts: This moment actually had great resonance for African Americans in New York for many, many years. It was a key chapter in the history of both race relations in the city and of Rudy's own rise to power. And Rudy's own campaign internally conceded that this was really, really bad -- that he'd sought to rile up an audience carrying signs saying things about Dinkins like "dump the washroom attendant" without denouncing their crude displays of racism. This is all actually common knowledge to lots of people. You could have established this basic history and context with five minutes on Google or Nexis before holding forth on it.
You should have put that in your original post, too, loser. We bloggers were responding to your post, not generating new material. Your post wasn't about the larger context. You know damned well that you just thought you could make conservatives tremble because the guy yelled "bullshit." We called bullshit on you for that. You're now bringing up new material, after it became really easily available in the NYT. I saw that too and blogged an update as soon as I saw it.

You mock me for saying you were "simply 'trying to hurt' Rudy (sniffle, sniffle)," but I was right. You had no decent substance to your post. It was nothing but ooh, Rudy said a bad word... tee hee... that's gonna shock conservatives. That was and is bullshit. I wasn't saying don't hurt my guy -- which is what you're implying with that "sniffle, sniffle" attempt at mockery. I was saying you had no substance. I was right! Bringing up this racial context after the fact doesn't change the deceptiveness of your original post.
But let's say it's not even your fault that you didn't know anything about this. And let's even concede that we should have spelled the history and context out better in our initial post. Now that you actually know a little something about the topic at hand, isn't it time for some follow-up posts explaining to your readers whether the moment's worthy of attention and what people should think of it?

Update: It gets better. Althouse has now linked to The Times piece -- with no comment at all as to whether she now thinks the moment is significant.
Greg, I didn't merely link to the NYT article. I put up the entire relevant passage. So it is absolutely clear that I think it's significant. You're grasping at straws with that "no comment at all" business. Your "update" shows that you don't have the balls to admit you got it wrong about me.

Now, do a proper update and apologize to me. If you don't, you are conceding that you are indeed a deceptive, manipulative writer.

UPDATE: David Wiegel at Reason.com criticizes my original post saying "[s]keptical (mostly conservative) bloggers thought Sargent meant that the word 'bullshit' would alienate conservative voters." Well, David, Sargent quite obviously did mean that! If you're going to criticize me you'd better refer to the post I was writing about, not some later post full of new material. Sargent's original point about the video was only that it "might tell us something about the reliability and temperament of this man who is asking us to make him our next Commander in Chief -- especially now that he's trying to win the support of GOP 'values voters.'" There's not a blessed word about race in that. So I'm calling bullshit on you too, David.

210 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 210 of 210
Luckyoldson said...

vivian said..."You liberals all need to go away and play on a more sympathetic defeatist blog. This blog supports our president and republicans and if you don't like it get over it and go away."

Yeah, you and the other 25% of America.

Anonymous said...

Only 25 percent of all Americans can even remotely stand any Republican or the Bush administration and yet the Republicans and Bush hold the presidency and naerly half of both Houses of Congress, not to mention the state governments.

Strange mathematical times we live in.

Revenant said...

Obviously I was in a hurry and did not proofread my post. Nonetheless, you have not addressed the issues raised by my posts...nor has Ann.

I don't intend to, either, since I don't think a rational person could honestly hold the beliefs you profess about Ann and her blog. You're pretty obviously trolling, and while I sometimes engage with trolls for my own personal amusement, I'm just not in the mood at the moment.

Revenant said...

Dr Zen -- Do you know what misogyny means?

Apparently "criticizing a woman for posing with a philandering serial harasser of women who stands accused of rape" qualifies, whatever Zen's definition is.

Oh wait. I forgot to add "but who is also an important Democrat" after "rape". It is a given that posing with a Republican who had Clinton's history with women would... well, would *also* be misogynist to Zen, oddly enough.

Mindsteps said...

Revenant said...
you have not addressed the issues raised by my posts...nor has Ann.

I and while I sometimes engage with trolls for my own personal amusement, I'm just not in the mood at the moment.

Talk about irrational. You initiated it by personally engaging me! Moreover, you prefer (or maybe this is the best you can do) to engage in insults and name calling rather than addressing the issue.

Ann's curiuous and frequent demands for apologies have become part of her calling card and her silence on the issue speaks volumes.

"Bullsh*t" was the theme of this post...created by Ann. I would like to see her and her pals cut through some of their own.

Paco Wové said...

Ann's curiuous and frequent demands for apologies have become part of her calling card and her silence on the issue speaks volumes."

One of the things that strikes me most frequently about blog commentary is the willingness of participants to make great leaps towards conclusions that seem -- to me -- to be completely unwarranted and unsupported by any available, or at least provided, evidence. Such as assuming that asking for apologies, or not explaining why you do so, is some great big hairy deal.

I think I started this line of commentary here when I asked Althouse a question, but I was just curious. The chances that anyone is going to apologize for anything in the political blogworld are so low as to be indistinguishable from zero, and I'm sure Althouse knows that, so I was wondering why she bothered.

It does make me wonder if she is used to discussion in more civil forums where people do put more effort into not being jackasses, and she expects those conventions to be observed in blogspace as well. In the blog context, it makes her look like she has a rather prickly sense of amour propre -- You, sir, have insulted my honor! I demand satisfaction! But that's just idle supposition on my part. If she doesn't care to answer, I'm unwilling to assume some deep dark secret behind it.

On the original topic of the post -- of course TPM hoped that 'bullshit' would rile up all the yahoos and godbags. When that turned out to be a dud, like-minded partisans broke out the Big Racism Shotgun, and started firing it wildly in all directions.

Mr.Murder said...

Plus, the only group of people on the planet, in history, who are largely pro-Iraq War are American Republicans. Meanwhile lots of people all over the world are, and have been for some time, pro-universal health care. It's not a distinctively Nazi position.


Khomeni. Iran's past mullah in chief. God told him to invade Iraq during the 80s.

Mr.Murder said...

You have to be kidding me. You with the ears....have you ever kissed a girl!

Are you so naive as to think women have other reasons than the obvious for showing cleavage? I suppose you could argue that a woman wants to show cleavage to upend some other woman, but in the end the ultimate purpose is the same.



Ann, you agree? Have you ever kissed a woman Ann? Certainly your motivations match his. Or should we be asking Pammy?

Sir Archy said...

Mr. Wové: You make the mistake of assuming La Professora thinks of this as a "civil forum," where apologies might be asked for and graciously given.

The call for an apology was a rhetorical device, intended to rile the groundlings. It was also intended to collect traffic and links, much in the manner a saucer of beer collects slugs. One could draw a further analogy to horse droppings and flies, but logical consistency and delicacy forbid it.

Taken in the right spirit, this is a wonderful entertainment, rather like an excursion to Bedlam to see the inmates.

Luckyoldson said...

seven says: "Strange mathematical times we live in."

But not for long...2008 will change everything for the far right...and America...for the better.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 210 of 210   Newer› Newest»