Saturday, October 22, 2005

America's Dumbest Wanker™: The gift that keeps on giving.

Only after you read the original piece should you continue this descent into right-wing stupidity, as Jinx doesn't even bother to remove one foot before firmly inserting the other.

He writes

Well, it looks like some people actually can admit that this guy is racist, ...

Why, yes, Jinx, we can. What part of my article where I wrote:

... is Kambon racist? In a word, fuck, yes. Of course he's racist, fer Chrissake. What kind of stupid question is that? Who the hell would even think of denying that?

is so difficult for you to understand?

So ... Jinx snidely challenges us on the left to own up to Kambon's racism, I do precisely that, at which point the ever so appropriately named Weasel Boy moves the goalposts so as to not give me any credit for doing exactly what he challenged me to do in the first place. There's a word for this: predictable. But (and you knew this was coming) it gets better, as Jinx writes:

"But," they say, "this man does not represent the left like Bill Bennett represents the right." (Or words to that effect.) To that I say, "Hardly." Ask yourselves this, liberals: what was Bill Bennett doing before this controversy? You don't know, do you?

To that I say, you are so full of shit, Jinx, it's a wonder you don't spontaneously explode. We on the left knew very well what Bennett was doing, as we are very aware of his history as a pompous, sanctimonious blowhard who gets his jollies telling everyone else how to be moral and virtuous while quietly satisfying his gambling addiction.

On the other hand, Jinx, let me ask you a simple question: Had you ever heard of Kamau Kambon before this recent controversy? Be honest. As difficult and as unprecedented as it may be for you, tell us the truth. Then we can talk about bogus equivalence again.

BY THE WAY, it should be obvious to regular readers that there is no example of conservative speech or writing that is so vile that Weasel Boy would actually condemn it. From his perspective, there's always a different interpretation or contextual perspective that makes it somehow acceptable. See, Bennett wasn't actually calling for the abortion of black babies, he was just pointing out how doing that would be good for society in terms of the crime rate. No racism there, no sirree.

It's sort of like when someone says, "Hey, I'm not a racist, I just don't really like niggers." Or, "No way am I an anti-Semite, but I just can't stand kikes, know what I mean?" Sound familiar? And with a little tweaking, you get, "I'm not promoting the abortion of all black babies, no way. I'm just demonstrating how it would be a benefit for society. But that doesn't make me racist."

Is there any conservative hate speech that Jinx would actually condemn? How about something like this:

Fresno residents and community leaders, outraged by an e-mail message in which City Council Member Jerry Duncan wished he had a "dirty bomb" to kill every liberal in Fresno, called Thursday for his resignation, recall or reprimand.

No doubt he was just joking, right, Jinx? I'll bet there was some important context we missed there, right? Or how about just collecting countless examples of right-wing hate speech in one place, like here?

And who can forget everyone's favourite bloviating, right-wing talk show host and Oxy Contin addict Rush Limbaugh when he said:

"I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus — living fossils — so we will never forget what these people stood for."

Or conservative screech harpy Ann Coulter:

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

But don't worry. Give Jinx some time, and he'll start explaining how it all has to do with context: "Killing all the whites? Oh, man, that's so racist. Killing all the liberals? Oh, man, that's ... that's ... hey, let's talk about context, OK?"

, you'll notice that Weasel Boy quietly failed to address any of the other points I raised in my original post -- that Kambon was only a sessional faculty member at NC State, that he isn't even there anymore, and that NC State emphatically condemned Kambon for his remarks. And WB's reaction? Just quietly move on -- no clarification, no retraction, no update -- and hope no one notices. How utterly typical.

(By way of contrast, one can read the coverage of this incident at The Locker Room, and note how that site clarifies Kambon's status at NC State, which is what any moderately responsible site should do. Unlike Weasel Boy's.)

The lies, of course, don't stop there. WB suggests I'm trying to qualify my opinion of Kambon when he (WB) writes:

Well, it looks like some people actually can admit that this guy is racist, yet they add a "but," of course. "But," they say, "this man does not represent the left like Bill Bennett represents the right."

There was no "but" involved in my description of Kambon as a racist. He's a racist. Period. No qualification. No "but" involved -- WB is flat-out lying here. The "but" had to do with bringing Bennett back into the conversation, it had nothing to do with Kambon. Another Weasel Boy lie. It's a good thing I'm a mathematician, otherwise I'd have trouble counting them all.

And there is, of course, one more (sort of) lie where WB writes:

Kambon unquestioningly and unapologetically called for the deaths of whites - and people clapped for it!

Did they? Let's go to the Locker Room's coverage and see what they wrote about that:

And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem. *tepid applause*

"Tepid?" The applause was "tepid?" That's kind of an important qualifier as it makes it clear that Kambon didn't have what you'd call rousing support. But you can see the pattern here -- WB will howl incessantly about how you have to take context into account and, if he doesn't like the context, well ... he'll just change it.

So, so predictable.

HOW THE RULES WORK: If you condense this dialogue into its essence, it went something like this:

WB: So which liberal is going to admit Kambon is a racist, huh? Go ahead, admit it. I dare you. No, I double dog dare you. Come on, admit it!

Me: No problem. He's a racist. Absolutely. Unequivocally.

WB: Well, ... no fair, that doesn't count! Because ... you didn't stand on one foot and close one eye and touch your nose when you said it. So it doesn't count. Nyah nyah nyah.

That's pretty much the recipe for any attempt at dicussion with your basic wanker, which invariably goes something like this:

  1. Wanker makes claim.
  2. Liberal responds with total and devastating smackdown of wanker claim.
  3. Wanker suddenly and arbitrarily changes the basis of the argument, then criticizes liberal for not responding to redefined argument in earlier reply.

Seriously, if you're going to engage in an argument with a wanker, you might want to familiarize yourself with the rules first. It saves time.


stellababy said...

I think its fairly well established now that this Jinx yahoo is a complete moron. You would think your efforts proving him wrong in every single scrap so far might instigate some critical thinking on his part, but that terribly misleading label 'liberal' just keeps popping up again and again in his little rants. This is a common theme among ignorant people who have no concept of what 'liberal' means. But really, CC, you could be directing your superior debating skills and intellect at others who are worthy of smackdown. This Jinx nutjob is not.

jedwards said...

i agree with stellababy...

teseract said...

I second the motion.

Jason said...

I love how you falsely portray my arguments and move your own goalposts, then claim that's what I'm doing to you. Completely laughable.