Thursday, June 14, 2007

Hermetically-sealed wingnuttia, Joanne-style.


An alert e-mailer points out something about our recently favourite wingnut Joanne that had escaped me:

As near as I can figure it, if you summarize what Joanne's written in various places, she:
  1. writes for only those people who agree with her,
  2. refers to people who don't agree with her as "trolls", and
  3. doesn't really care what you think if you disagree with her
That kind of defines the right-wing echo chamber, doesn't it?

Yes ... yes, it does. Good point.

12 comments:

Emily said...

Sorta like, when you've served in the Armed Forces, I'll value your opinion.

With us, or agin us.That's the Agressive Conservative Groupthink, in or out of Parliament.

E in Md said...

The echo is between her ears.

If she doesn't care what people think of her why bother having a blog at all? The whole purpose of a blog is to get your opinions to reach out to other people.

Do Canadians have any neat synonyms for 'asshat' up there?

Chester N. Scoville said...

I believe that would be "le chapeau d'un ass."

Ti-Guy said...

"Douche-bag" has been around since I was in grade 6 or 7 (1973 or 1974). The classics never fail.

Anonymous said...

Not that different from Sensitive CC deleting comments that are critical of him. "Boo hoo hoo, this one's so mean-spirited!"

Frank Frink said...

E in Md asked.

Do Canadians have any neat synonyms for 'asshat' up there?

Yep, we've got two.

1) Asstouque

and in Alberta

2) Medicine Asshat

In French:
Tuque de cul

cc said...

Pot (to Kettle): " You're so fucking black!!"

Anonymous said...

What a fucking retard this Joanne person is. The stupidity astounds me.

E in MD said...

I get smacked by my wife every time I say it, but I've had a soft spot for 'Twatwaffle' ever since I first heard it. So elegant an insult in so small a package.

mikmik said...

Anonymous said...

What a fucking retard this Joanne person is. The stupidity astounds me.
- - -
I tried to explain the difference between linking to something you agree with as opposed to linking to something you agree with and is credible.

Then I had to explain to someone what credible meant (i-yi-yi, I know!)
However, seems wudrick blog (comments page link only) couldn't handle showing my reply.
I was polite, and more importantly (to wingnuttiers) I used correct grammar and spelling and didn't swear, I used a link to a site on logic and to Stanford's philosophy site. I even appealed that if common sense and formal rules of construct (which give sense to staements) aren't followed, the ability to exchange ideas clearly is lost, and that both parties (speaker and listener) lose out in the long run.

It wasn't published?!?!

Looks like we can absolutely include well reasoned, polite statements the the list of censorship criteria - if it is contrary to their opinion, and irrefutable.
Oh yah, you said that already!

Red Tory said...

I’ve pretty much given up commenting on any of their sites. It’s usually not worth the effort. Olaf @ Prairie Wrangler is just about the only one I’ve encountered with whom it’s possible to have a reasonable, thoughtful argument or discussion. Most of the rest are a ridiculous waste of time. How simply presenting a contrary opinion automatically makes one a “troll” is beyond me.

cc said...

"How simply presenting a contrary opinion automatically makes one a “troll” is beyond me."

Probably in the same way that a woman whose opinion you disagree with becomes a "slut" and a "cunt"? Fuck, you can't be that fucking stupid, can you?

Don't answer, shithead, it's called a rhetorical question.