Comments on: Do (and can) conservative bloggers make a difference?

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 20:52:04 +0000

Indeed, suek. Juan Williams is similar to Johnston, although Johnston’s actually smarter than Juan Williams in my view. But that’s probably my bias speaking, as whenever Juan repeated the Leftist propaganda, my view of his working brain would automatically go down. Still, Juan has come to see and more importantly, admit to seeing, racial injustice. Real racial injustice that is. That, in itself, is a heresy and would have been enough IN ITSELF for them to label and punish him for apostasy. They tolerated hm for a long time being connected to Fox News. But that kind of racial stuff like what Bill Cosby said, is too much for the white Left to handle.

So they expurgated Juan Williams. And now Juan Williams is no longer a Leftist. By no choice other than the Left’s. They deliberately engineered and pushed him into the Fox News camp. FNC couldn’t have paid NPR enough to get them to do that, if NPR didn’t want to do it already.

Correction: expel you FROM any connections, not them connections.

Honesty is something I will respect in any individual, man or woman. When Juan Williams said guns make him afraid, I might rag on his Leftist inconsistencies but I also respected him for his honesty in actually saying things that he believes to be true. I neither called him a coward or a “bigot” against guns simply because he had the moral strength to expose his inner fears on camera. I said the same about helenL before. Racist though she be in the eternal war over humanity’s fate, but at least she isn’t like other Leftists and trying to tell us (lie to us) it is about the children or “poverty”.

I would rather have an honorable enemy that tells me his intentions straight out and keeps to his word, than the craptastic sneaking, conniving, Leftist goon squads led by Soros and Obama. Two faced, mealy mouthed, rules lawyers all in all. No honorable foe amongst them.

By: suek

suek — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:55:33 +0000

>>They will crucify you and expel you them any social engagement or business contract themselves.>>

Vis-à-vis Juan Williams in the recent uproar…

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 21:38:59 +0000

First, I think we probably have a tendency to perceive our adversary’s bad conduct with a lot more sensitivity than we do our friend’s.

I would say that is true. We are far more sympathetic to people we only partially agree with than with those we consider “The Other” or “mortal enemies” or “100% different”.

Which is often why a staple of classical argument and debate was the requirement that you be able to rephrase your opponent’s argument in a way that pleases your opponent, before refuting it.

They often do this a lot in Greek dialogues, although whether it is accurate or not is debatable.

In real life, I don’t push people as hard as I do arguing on the net since their body language gives them away when I first see them. On the net, I’m going to need them to actually write something and analyze their emotional state from their writings. My accuracy rate goes up the more material I can collect. SSG Dave can perhaps give you a professional view of analysis tools since he learned it from an official intel capacity and I only picked it up as a side hobby, if you wish to ask him about it.

In my limited experience, I have found that Leftists are often very emotional, even over things I would expect no reaction from. On the other hand, Libertarians and conservatives are very hard to make angry on the internet. Very, very hard. I know, cause I’ve tried a few times over the years.
Why did I try? Simple curiosity. Gathering intel. Getting material to make my own judgments. Take your pick.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 21:17:26 +0000

“So being a “real Leftist” is not about one’s political outlook but about one’s conduct”

A perceptive point. If the alliance of the Left was simply an organization which we differed politically on, there would not be such a problem. Compromise is possible to ensure all parties get what they want. I think lawyers would be familiar with the term of a “settlement”. However, many individuals, and I include myself in this category, believe the Left is an alliance created for the sole purpose of destroying the United States Constitution and then replacing it with their own brand of Power Politics and Aristocratic rule.

Thus we speak not simply of political differences but also of social and alliance differences. You are not part of them, unless you are allied with them. And you are not allied with them if you don’t associate with them or speak the same or have the same lunch clubs or go to the same golf resorts. A simple difference, but it often makes a definitive conclusion.

To use one example, Peggy Noonan has spent a lot of time around progressives and other pro-union type people in DC social parties. That’s why Noonan immediately reacted negatively to Sarah Palin. Because she is not of Noonan’s circle and Noonan’s friends would demand that such be recognized. This is true even though Peggy Noonan was a speech writer for Reagan and believes that America needs another inspirational leader like Reagan. So she voted for Obama because he has speech abilities just like Reagan’s.

That’s not a political issue. That’s an alliance issue.
“I can’t be a “real Leftist” because I have acted reasonably in our discourse.”

Actually, there’s another better indicator for that. I mentioned before that your social circle would penalize you for acting in a way that the Left has deemed impure. So if you act in such a fashion and I don’t see evidence you are being penalized, then you are not associated with such or at least they know nothing of it, yet. For example, both Book and Neo-Neocon, for uttering simple statements about Bush and the war, know very well what would happen if they said so in certain circles.

You can’t be a real Leftist because that behavior, Johnston, would get you crucified by the Left. I have to do nothing. They will crucify you and expel you them any social engagement or business contract themselves. You may not have personal experience on this, but plenty of people, formerly of the Left, can enlighten you very easily.
“The definition becomes tautological: if that which acts irrationally is a liberal, than by definition liberals acts irrationally.”

So the reason why it isn’t a tautology is because the organizations we speak of are real. And those organizations will themselves penalize you, without us saying a thing about it. That is the objective context used to check, often times.

There are many things going on with the internet concerning Left vs Republican or Democrat vs conservatives or Tea Party vs RINC. They’re too complex to go into here in one sitting so I’ll pass on it for now.

By: Richard Johnston

Richard Johnston — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 20:24:05 +0000

“I would mention Richard Johnston as a reasonable person, regardless of his politics or views on ERISA.” … “No real Leftist would do that, if only because their friends and business partners would dump them in no time flat.”

Well first I need to get over blushing at Ymar’s kind remarks. I do try to be reasonable and I do also tend to recoil at over-the-top vituperation. I have two comments to offer here.

First, I think we probably have a tendency to perceive our adversary’s bad conduct with a lot more sensitivity than we do our friend’s. I tend to become frustrated and weary of suggestions that those of a more liberal bent have a mental disorder, or hate America, etc. I hasten to add I find it equally tiresome to hear those of a more conservative bent called fascists, racists, etc. It’s all silly. I was recently called a “liar” for mentioning common unfavorable perceptions about Sarah Palin, which I explicitly said I do not share. I did not find that conducive to continuing the discussion.

Second, I think there’s a definitional issue at work here. Many here seem to me to define a “Leftist” or a “liberal” as someone who acts unreasonably or irrationally. The definition becomes tautological: if that which acts irrationally is a liberal, than by definition liberals acts irrationally. Ymar’s kind remarks about me are, I think, illustrative; regardless of my “politics or views on ERISA” (and the latter are much more doctrinaire than the former) I can’t be a “real Leftist” because I have acted reasonably in our discourse. So being a “real Leftist” is not about one’s political outlook but about one’s conduct, and if “Leftist” and “irrational zealot” are one and the same then of course no one can expect to have a reasonable discussion with a “Leftist.” But if they are one and the same, then equally with saying “Leftists” are jerks, you’re really just saying jerks are jerks. And with that I agree. I have to – it’s a tautology.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:17:25 +0000

I have a feeling that the Lefties have a need for the adrenalin rush that comes with conflict

Suek, if they were truly anti-war, why would they keep using terms like “fight” and always talking about forcing evil companies to their will? Is that really how a pacifist talks? Force, coerce, enforce, fight, and suppress others. So I think you are quite right. They do have a need. A dark, hidden, self-destructive desire. I wouldn’t call it adrenaline. I would describe it more as the fervor of a zealot. A newly converted being who wants to prove his ideological purity and standing.
True pacifists are like the Amish. They don’t get up in your face and talk about how you are a racist hatemonger that needs to be silenced by big government goons. That’s not being pacific

But the Left are illiterate to begin with so you can’t expect them to understand what words mean.

By: suek

suek — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:48:43 +0000

>>In a very simple form, these blogs and the forums allow for discussions that we would otherwise not be able to have.>>

Exactly. Direct opposition is often a good thing – it’s challenging – but it cannot be the _only_ thing. We should not “get hooked” on the conflict. I have a feeling that the Lefties have a need for the adrenalin rush that comes with conflict – that that’s one of the reasons they respond with nothing cerebral, but just name calling. It seems as if they’re itching for a fight…so let them chew on each other.

We need the time and space without conflict to consider the many real issues that need to be addressed – conservative blogs provide that medium. We may all generally agree on the basic issues, but we come with different approaches, different life experiences, different educational backgrounds. What I know is entirely different from what Sadie or Y or SSG Dave knows. Like a wonderful stew, if everybody contributes what they can, the outcome is likely to be much better, because in a very large society like ours, with so many cultural backgrounds – one size does _not_ fit all.

By: Indigo Red

Indigo Red — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 05:18:52 +0000

Yes, conservative blogging does make a difference. There’s just a lull in commenting and posting because we’re between presidential elections. Even with the very important mid-term elections two weeks ago, most folks were not wired in to the debates. Conservative bloggers played a big role in maintaining conservative interest, while liberals thought they had the whole government locked up and the Republican party was dead.

I just come home from a TEA Party meeting where a young college kid stood and asked a question. He said this was his first TP meeting and he was new to the whole political debate. Another guy asked him what got him interested. The kid said he’d been reading some bloggers with whom he agreed and they pointed him to the TEA Party and Conservative philosophies. Yeah, we do make a difference.

By: esurio

esurio — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 01:44:29 +0000

Thanks DQ. I’m always disappointed in the quality of my own writing when I see it in print. However today, I just wanted you and Book to know how important your blogging contributions are to me all the way over here on the East Coast. I highly value the comments of the regular contributors too.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 01:34:36 +0000

It’s similar to what Dave does when he plays the “bad guy”.
Why do you need an “actual bad guy” to train with? Chances are, he’d suck compared to Dave the bad guy. And you wouldn’t risk getting blown up for real like the CIA did with their “informant”.