Dada is the sun, Dada is the egg. Dada is the Police of the Police.


Wingnut logic

I know--a contradiction in terms. As evidenced by this remark from a post I linked to earlier:

The thing I find odd is that I can't imagine a conservative going to a very partisan left-wing site and pestering the author of an article like the liberals have done here. We would just read it, comment to ourselves on the idiocy of the writer, and move on. The left, on the other hand, trolls conservative sites as an act of espionage; they want to see what we are thinking in order to craft a line of attack.

So much here it's hard to know where to start. First of all, you can't imagine conservatives 'pestering' left-wing bloggers? I would venture to guess that any lefty blogger gets a steady stream of right-wing criticism. I'm not complaining, mind you; I actually appreciate hearing an opposing point of view, unlike many conservative bloggers. For instance, Michelle Malkin and Blogs for Bush have both blocked me from sending trackback pings to their sites, for no particular reason other than the fact that I wrote posts critical of them. Many of the people who read this blog are to my right politically, and disagree with me often, and sometimes tell me so. What's wrong with that? Why do so many conservatives go out of their way to avoid hearing any dissenting opinions?

(Now, it's important to point out that there are exceptions to this. A lot of the right-wing blogs that I read on a regular basis have never been reluctant to listen to criticism, and I find myself very appreciative of this because it so rare. Some of these sites are: Right Reason, Catallarchy, Libertopia, No Angst Zone, Liberal Quicksand, among others.)

Then there's this:

The left, on the other hand, trolls conservative sites as an act of espionage; they want to see what we are thinking in order to craft a line of attack.

What the fuck? So if you are a liberal reading a conservative blog, you're a 'troll' seeking to commit 'espionage'?!? Is there something wrong with wanting to see what you are thinking? To attempt to argue against you? Why is this seen as some kind of duplicitous act?

I've seen this bizarre idea before. Keith Burgess-Jackson, the proprietor of The Conservative Philosopher, is probably the worst offender in this regard. Another example: during the Terri Schiavo business a while back, I wrote this post, poking fun at a blogger named Paulie for simultaneously bemoaning Terri Schiavo's death and proclaiming how happy she was up in heaven. Paulie then wrote a response, which was perfectly polite and reasonable. But a reader of his wrote in the comments section:

I followed his trackback last night after I commented on your earlier post.

What struck me most was how he went intentionally trolling conservative and Christian blogs so that he would have something to write about. He was and probably always will be afraid to look within himself for inspiration.

Instead of searching his own heart for how he felt he chooses to be reactionary. To him Christians make easy enemies, sadly though he doesn't realize that to us he shows himself only as empty and weak.

Again, simply reading and responding to what a conservative says is seen as 'trolling'!! Not 'researching,' not 'debating,' but 'trolling'. I simply don't understand this logic.

It occurs to me, though, that it may be behind the annoying tendency of right-wingers, when they are criticizing the Left, to create ridiculous strawmen. For instance, in response to the news that France is supporting China's 'anti-secession' law with regard to Taiwan, Blogger for Bush Mark Noonan writes:

So, France is in favor of arming one of the most tyrannical regimes on Earth, and has no problem if China decides that it has to invade Taiwan ... ok, liberals, tell us again about how we shouldn't make the French mad because they have a greater wisdom in the world than our cowboy President...

Mark simply isn't fazed by the fact that no liberal has ever said anything like this. He doesn't even know this, in all likelihood, because the SOP for wingnuts is not to find out what their opponents believe straight from the horse's mouth, but rather to listen to Rush and Ann Coulter tell them what liberals believe and then attack that. Thus you get wingers claiming that liberals want to ban the bible, think all Southerners are idiots, want to destroy 'the family', hope for the fall of Christianity, believe in moral relativism, want the U.S. to turn its sovereignty over to the U.N., worship Michael Moore and Hillary Clinton, and are obsessed with France and anal sex.

But I guess actually knowing what the fuck you're talking about is for pointy-headed elitist French queers.

Blogarama - The Blog Directory Sanity is not statistical.