A matter of tone

I got pinged back to a blog called the Culture Warrior. It’s a liberal blog, and my posts wouldn’t normally show up there. The Culture Warrior, however, is the blogger who expressed disappointment that Judge Roberts had merely had a seizure, rather than died. A lot of conservative bloggers found that sentiment in bad taste and blogged about it, as did I. The Culture Warrior seemed surprised that his remarks might upset people, and thoughtfully gathered in one place all of the conservative posts that linked to him, which is how I ended up pinged back. What I found interesting was the tone Culture Warrior took in this post. Here, read it yourself:

The other day, I made a little joke over at Wonkette about being dead that raised some ire among some self-righteous conservative folks. They took a break from pretending not to get erect from hate speech long enough to produce pages and pages of Technorati listings. All the big names are there (Malkin, LGF, Althouse) and lots of little ones, in no particular order, after the jump.

You’ll notice that I assumed, without checking, that Culture Warrior is a guy. I did so in part because it’s truly a guy thing to launch a massive insult and then retreat without apology by saying “I was just joking.” You know: “I couldn’t believe how stupid you looked in that red dress. [pause] Aw, honey, why are you getting all mad at me for saying that? I was just joking.”

The other thing I noticed was the crudity. At periodic intervals I’ve mentioned the fact that I’m more likely to find sexual references, scatalogical references, racial insults, and sexual insults in political commentary at liberal blogs than I am at conservative blogs. I’m not accusing Culture Warrior of racial or sexual insults here, or even scatalogical references, but I do find intriguing the fact that he assumes a sexual component to political beliefs.

UPDATESome recent evidence of the crude tone that seems to characterize the Lefter side of the blogosphere.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    Hi Bookworm,

    I saw the traffic coming into Webloggin from the Culture Warrior this morning. It turns out that they have Webloggin on their “We Heart Nutcases” blogroll! We are in good company as the list only includes 5 blogs, two of which are Michelle Malkin and National Review Online!

    Trip

  2. pacificus says

    I think the crudity on display on the left is central to its radical patrimony. David Horowitz emphasized the cultural attack of the marxist agitators in the 60′s; along with loosening sexual mores, encouraging drup use, and devaluing personal hygiene, they deliberately targeted language to further coarsen the proletariat. Seems to have worked.

  3. says

    Here’s another example, Book.

    Maybe neo cons and Chavez have more in common than they’d like to think…outside of soiled sheets resulting from Madonna-driven wet dreams, that is.

    Apart from how Chavez’s social revolution is supposed to be aligned with neo-conism and Trotskyism, there remains the subject of why the Left often abandons their own people. If the Left wins a revolution then the first thing they do is to kill anyone that starts to disagree, regardless of what role they might have played in throwing down the previous regime. Also if they don’t win, then as with Kos and the Democrats, they will begin to attack each other over ideological purity.

  4. Keiki says

    I think pacifus has something going in tying the crudity to the 60s: it’s an expression of freedom. Unfortunately, it’s an expression of poor discernment, as well.
    My uncle once told me not to swear when arguing: coarseness just demeans the speaker and puts effort into over-emoting, rather than logic. The trick, then, is not to descend into defensive aggression in response to someone else’s parry.

  5. says

    There is no particular reason why the Left would like Chavez. It is only sufficient for an alliance of convenience that folks have a common enemy. Sunni Syria and Shia Iran may hate as sunnis and shias, but with a common enemy, they become bosom buddies.

  6. Mike Devx says

    Y -
    There’s no reason why the left would like radical Islam either. Hatred towards and the hanging of gays, the severest forms of repression of women, absolute prohibitions on freedom of speech, rule by theocracy.

    I examine, in my mind, the repression of blacks in our history, including the hangings and burnings and lynchings, and I reflect on all the honor killings of women in theocratic Islamic countries. Many of these killings are just as horrific. I look at the beatings of women by enforcers who demand they be under the constant control of designated men in their households.

    It is clear to me that leftists of any sort, if they have any principled consistency in their stands, must be utterly opposed to this. Yet they are not.

    What is driving this? Can it be explained entirely, and simply, by self hate? By hatred toward their own Western Civ? By hatred for their own values; and therefore they look favorably towards anything that opposes it?

  7. says

    What is driving this? Can it be explained entirely, and simply, by self hate? By hatred toward their own Western Civ? By hatred for their own values; and therefore they look favorably towards anything that opposes it?

    If you ever watched the video of Yuri the Soviet defector I posted up a few weeks ago, you would be familiar with the progress of the Left when the Soviets created them.

    Link

    Essentially I asked myself that question, Mike, and while there were a couple of psychological and other behavioral explanations, the one I settled on recently is a little more simple. In essence, the Left were created as tools by the Soviets to destabilize the West. When the Soviet Union fell, their plans fell with them. Originally they had planned on taking power after the Left had weakened the West from the inside out, and then executing the useful idiots and journalists and anyone else naive enough to believe that they would join in the creation of a perfect Utopia.

    Anyways, when the Soviets went away, the Left were left without a master. So they tried to carry on their duties as best they could without guidance from their creators. This means that they automatically recognize allies in their quest to fight against the nation that they were created to fight. They are lost tools in search of a higher purpose and they regain some of that lost purpose when they ally themselves with Chavez, Syria, Iran, or the Islamic Jihad. The principles of liberty and human justice are simply surface programming designed to give the tools the correct exterior look.

    The Prime Directive was always to weaken and destabilize the United States and its Constitution. Regardless of anything else, if they can see a useful tool, weapon, or ally that could help them to do so, everything else becomes secondary.

    This is understandable. For what other purpose can the Left cement themselves to, given their beliefs in nihilism and their feelings of abandonment at the fall of the Soviet Empire?

    The Kos folks, however, seem to be trying to achieve power on their own. Trying to become independent from their Soviet creators?

  8. Mike Devx says

    Y, thanks for your reply in #12.

    I think that a portion of the population is always in favor of government control, and the leftists were simpatico with the Soviet Union in the 20′s, 30′s and onward. If the Soviets exploited that affinity and supported it, is that actually surprising? Many advocate that the solution to our difficulties with Iran is to destabilize the mullahcracy by pouring in support for dissident movements within Iran. You can point as well to the threat of Wahhabi jihad literature in the U.S. by Saudi Arabia as they pour in support for radical Islam here. (That last is an interesting parallel, isn’t it?)

    It is easier to influence people in a free and open society, even to nefarious ends.

  9. Ymarsakar says

    Not surprising that they could do so, just surprising the extent to which they succeded. Europe had and perhaps still have free societies, so why couldn’t the US have made them pro-American and sustain it? I think that even if the idea of supporting destabilization groups within enemy nations is common, the Western belief in human rights, transparency, and truth telling does much to hamstring the efficiency of spycraft (or tradecraft).

    Essentially the way I see it, America is quite incompetent at the diplomacy and spycraft games. These operations are better played by the former Soviet Union and by our current crop of enemies. America’s advantage is present in defections, however, given AMerica’s lure to the disillusioned spymaster that can no longer tolerate totalitarianism. We gain the benefits of spies and saboteurs without having to implement the system that created such people.

    This is of course, assuming that the State Department doesn’t leak the names of potential defectors to the Soviet Union. Or to Iran.

  10. says

    As a liberal blogger- I find your comments rather absurd. First of all- what a sexist remark to assume that men react in a certain way. I guess in the conversative blogosphere- sexist remarks only go one way. And I find the comment posted by one of your readers about genders in San Francisco a rather primitive remark worthy of a troglodyte. I am sorry to see that Ann Coulter is not the only conversative that uses invective rather than reason when arguing a point. You might be interested in looking at my blog http://alligatorreport.wordpress.com/ to see some reeasoned pieces by a liberal.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply