Thursday, September 06, 2007

Halls of hypocrisy: The anonymous blogger edition.


I suspect this whole "outing anonymous bloggers" issue isn't going away any time soon, so it might be fun to check in on someone who has decided to expound on that very issue while slathering himself in childish hypocrisy while doing so.

I speak of one "Neo Conservative" over at "Halls of Macadamia", who takes me to task for my wish to remain anonymous while, oddly enough, doing it from a blog at which he posts anonymously. Ah, the unintentional irony. Anyhoo ...

As I read it, Neo seems to think I deserve outing because I was, well, intemperate in a post some time ago. This is moderately amusing since Neo doesn't seem to have any problem with loading up on some well-chosen invectives himself.

For instance, here's Neo periodically making snarky references to "moonbats." And here's Neo wielding an amazingly wide paint brush in describing the "lunatic left." Yes, Neo, you're the very person who should be lecturing the rest of us on a lack of decorum and civility, or something like that. But that's not why we're here. There are bigger points to make.

See, I'm guessing that Neo has no problem with bloggers retaining their anonymity as long as they behave themselves. Or, at least, behave themselves using a very Neo-centric definition of the word "behave." In other words, as long as you don't say anything that pisses Neo off, you're safe. But if you offend his delicate sensibilities, well, all bets are off. In short, if I may paraphrase, Neo's position is that you have a right to anonymity, unless you write the wrong things; then you don't. And doesn't that sound disturbingly familiar?

It's like saying, "Sure, I believe in freedom of speech. Well, OK, not for that speech over there, but for everything else, you bet."

Or, "Well, of course I believe in freedom of expression. Unless it's expression that I don't care for."

Or, "Naturally, I support freedom of religion. Well, not for those peoples' weird religion, but for everybody else's, absolutely!"

Or, "In the interests of fairness, all religious schools in Ontario should be funded equally. Well, actually, when I say 'all,' I mean all of those religions that I agree with, of course."

See how that works? Right-wing hacks like Neo are the masters of the conditional qualifier. We all have inherent rights ... except for those people who we'd rather not have those rights. Yes, the hypocrisy is delightful, isn't it?

And I'd be more than happy for Neo to address the actual points I've made here, but I suspect he'll just call me a "moonbat." After all, it's what he does.

AH, THE COMMENTERS: By all means, read the comments over there. I particularly enjoy the first one:

Roy Eappen said...

Why bother? CC is pretty insignificant. I suspect he is a 17 year old high school student with bad grades.

Yeaaaaaahhh. That's Blogging Tory "Dr. Roy," casting aspersions on my intellectual prowess. Wrap your head around that baby.

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's a lot of tap dancing to avoid the fact that there is a limit even to poor taste, and you crossed it when you said "Fuck you!" to a grieving mother. "Neo" obviously has no problem with anonymous blogging so there's no double standard here, he just wants to see you get your arse kicked in some way because he doesn't like you.

CC said...

Shorter "anonymous":

"Neo's not offended by anonymous bloggers; just those anonymous bloggers who offend him."

I couldn't possibly have made my point more succinctly.

CC said...

P.S.: One wonders how many other intellectually-stunted commenters are going to stop by and make my case for me without even realizing it.

I should start a pool.

Anonymous said...

Are you really that stupid? He just doesn't like you.

It's got fuck all to do with anything but that. Whine all you want about double standards, blah, blah, blah. He's just having a laugh at your expense.

Apparently you're too fucking dense to grok that.

CC said...

Ah ... so, Neo supports blogger anonymity, except for those bloggers he doesn't like. Gotcha.

And here I thought he was being completely arbitrary. Silly me.

Red Tory said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ALW said...

I haven't scrolled down far enough - CC, do you give some reason for remaining anonymous? Or do you just like it that way, nothing more? Just wondering.

E in MD said...

Fuck Neo and the anonymous rabble rouser with Senator Craig's 'I am not gay and have never been gay' dick. Worthless human excrement the whole lot of them.

Ti-Guy said...

I haven't scrolled down far enough - CC, do you give some reason for remaining anonymous? Or do you just like it that way, nothing more? Just wondering.

How passive-aggressive...how childish...

What's your interest in this, Aaron Lee Wudrick? Can't resist a little fascist pile on?

You should know very well that nothing except the law compels anyone to reveal their identity. Case closed.

...fuck...even the smart ones are assholes.

CC said...

No, Ti-Guy, ALW has a fair question that I'll be happy to answer.

Given my not-so-secret political and religious leanings, if my identity became public, it might affect my professional life, and I'd rather that didn't happen.

As a simple example, given that I think Stephen Harper is a creepy, soulless, pathological liar and hypocrite, chances are that would kill any chances I'd have of getting a technical contract with anyone who is a staunch conservative.

I simply prefer to keep my personal/blogging life and my professional life safely separated.

P.S. And there are the numerous, previous threats of physical abuse from some of your delightful right-wing colleagues, ALW. Those, too.

Ti-Guy said...

No, Ti-Guy, ALW has a fair question that I'll be happy to answer.

It don't think it's a fair question...it's cross-examination coming from someone with a dregree in law and who is therefore well acquainted with the law. I'm sure ALW is well aware of the reasons for people to be pseudonymous, but thinks it's clever to try and get you to provide an answer he can then work with.

I don't think you should have answered it, but that's your choice.

It'd be fair if he asked the same question of that toxic "Neo-Conservative," but I went over there and didn't see it...just a collection a raving lunatics including one (TangoJuliette) who sounds armed and dangerous. Now that's someone who needs to have the police drop by for a little chat...

ALW said...

Ti-guy, I don't know what's up your ass today but you can relax. I was asking honestly. I wasn't being snarky, or rude. There's no hidden agenda, no ulterior motive. I was just asking a question. Geez.

Thanks for your answer, CC. I can't say I blame you for wanting to remain anonymous, given your level of rhetoric. I once took the same view, so I can't really knock it (even though I have admittedly, in the past, criticized your choice to remain anonymous).

I will say that posting under one's own name (as I now do) forces one to be much more circumspect with one's opinions. When I decided to start blogging, I accepted that I couldn't have it both ways, and that if you are going to slag others, you need to be prepared to stand behind everything you say.

Oh and I've had a slew of physical threats over the years from some of your delightful left-wing colleagues, CC, so I don't think the right has a monopoly on would-be thuggery.

One other unrelated point: if you are going to infer that a failure to write posts about Current Issue X means the Blogging Tories are collectively all nodding their silent approval, then you should infer the same when some Blogging Tories don't jump to the defence of the ones you justifiably excoriate.

ALW said...

Oh and Ti-Guy, the reason I don't go and ask other people who they are is because I don't read blogs all day so I don't know who the hell you are talking about.

Never have I seen someone flip out so much over a simply question!

Ti-Guy said...

I don't know what's up your ass today but you can relax. I was asking honestly. I wasn't being snarky, or rude. There's no hidden agenda, no ulterior motive. I was just asking a question. Geez.

What's up my ass today? The same thing that's been up my ass for quite a while now...fascist rightwingers...who continue to be woefully under-condemned by conservatives and Conservatives who should know better.

Ti-Guy said...

Oh and I've had a slew of physical threats over the years from some of your delightful left-wing colleagues, CC, so I don't think the right has a monopoly on would-be thuggery.

I'd like see you back that up, ALW. The most threatening I've ever been is recommending that some anonymous troll get a good ass-kicking (or something along those lines), but I draw the line at interfering in someone's real life. And I'm a prick.

The Right has a monopoly on thuggery...everyone knows that...so don't be so intellectually dishonest as to suggest otherwise.

ALW said...

Ti-guy

1) If you don't know the difference between fascism and libertarianism, you aren't very bright. The latter is the philosophy a lot of Conservatives subscribe to. I don't spend my time "condemning" stuff because I never even read the stuff in the first place, so I don't even know it exists. And when I discover it, I IGNORE it for the tripe it is. Unlike some people, I have better things to do than spend 12 hours a day online sniping at idiots (and I should know: I used to spend way too much time doing it.)

2) Re: threats - just go peruse any of the comments sections in any of my posts on my blog about Matthew Good.

David said...

"Re: threats - just go peruse any of the comments sections in any of my posts on my blog about Matthew Good."

Wow, one goofball Matthew Good fan threatens to throw something at you and suddenly everyone on the left is too blame. You have a hard knock life.

ALW said...

david,

And one goofball wingut Blogging Tory does it and suddenly everyone who votes Conservative is to blame? A little even-handedness here, maybe?

Phyl said...

alw, we get those threats from right-wingers all the time. Everyone from Ann Coulter's "everyone who votes Democrat is a traitor and should be shot" to the current threats to CC. It's all over the place. It's disingenous (sp?) to try to claim that it's just one rightwing person, and we go ballistic unjustifiably.

On the other hand, I concede the point (which I don't often see left-wingers do) that the fundamentalist attitude of oppression can take place in the mind of a left-winger as well. You get fundamentalist socialists, Maoists, Christian Democrats etc etc etc all the time. So I agree there's no monopoly on the right.

Interestingly, a friend who just got the book "The Authoritarians" was telling me today that while there are instances of this attitude on the left as well as the right, studies appear to show that there are far fewer. (I don't know if he studied states like the Soviet Union, though; I suspect he was dealing mostly with western Democratic countries.)

I gather that the author suggests that the reason is that the right wing world view makes it much easier to support that kind of oppressive mind set; in theory, at least, the left wing view is much more open and less afraid. So it makes it harder for a fundamentalist, oppressive attitude to thrive.

Anyway. My ten cents. But if we go a bit ballistic over right wingers issuing threats, the past few years and what we've seen consistently coming from that camp are the reason.

(And by the way - I was very heavily libertarian for years and years. I didn't even believe in a police force, let alone government! What changed my mind, finally, was seeing what libertarians actually DID and advocated over a decade or so. It horrified me. I don't swallow left-wing ideas whole either, but I came to think that that way of leaning created much, much more humane results in the end.)

David said...

"And one goofball wingut Blogging Tory does it and suddenly everyone who votes Conservative is to blame? A little even-handedness here, maybe?"

Alw, you asked us to peruse your blog and see all the threats in the comments about your Matthew Good posts. I found one (1) fan who seemed more pissed off at Western students in general (and law students in particular) than he was in any political stance. If you have instances of threats to you concerning your stance on Mr. Good, and they come from a left wing / progressive point of view, then do share.

Frank Frink said...

Echoing Phyl.

The Authoritarians is a must-read, and can even be read online.

ALW said...

phyl - I don't think we really have any quarrel. Anyone who threatens violence against someone else simply because of the opinions they hold should be condemned, full stop. The person's personal philosophy is irrelevant.

I'm curious as to what it is that libertarians 'did' since I can't really think of anywhere that has had a serious libertarian government empowered to do libertarian things, but I digress.

David - I'm sorry I don't carry around a camera/recorder all the time. Do you know how many times over the course of the last ten years I have been physically threatened on campus by overzealous left-wingers? At least a dozen. I've been told I should be dragged out into the street and shot, that if I was lying in a ditch and someone walked by they'd finish me off, and that I and those who think like me should be rounded up and either exported or jailed.

But you're right. I guess that somehow proves that all conservatives make death threats...

David said...

Al, you are moving the goal posts. You can't suddenly take the discussion into the realm of your campus life when you can't back up your previous claims. And nobody suggested that all conservatives make death threats. You are projecting.

How about this; you are right. You have had a tough go of things. Left-wingers are just as bad as everyone else ever. Feel better now?

jj said...

Phyl - "What changed my mind, finally, was seeing what libertarians actually DID and advocated over a decade or so."

the Libertarian Left is quite different from the Libertarian right. I'd highly recommend Mike's blog, Rational Reasons, for good info and discussions on the LL.

ALW said...

David - I don't see why you're painting me as a whiner when I wasn't the one who brought up threats in the first place. I was only trying to point out it's not just the poor old truth seekers on the left who are subject to abuse.

Ti-Guy said...

Well, Aaron's gone from "threats" (which he has problems backing up) to "abuse."

*yawn*...Same old distractions from the fascist enablers.

Anonymous said...

*yawn*...Same old pretentious bullshit from ti-guy whenever he has his ass handed to him in a battle of wits.

Ti-Guy said...

Ah, shut up.

See, ALW? These are your people. You must be proud.

David said...

Alw, I suggest that we move this discussion over to my blog as we are wildly off topic here. And that broken vase was totally not my fault CC.

Anonymous said...

*yawn* The usual comeback by ti-guy after one points out his lack of skills. Such a thin, thin skin. It is to laugh.

M@ said...

Such a thin, thin skin. It is to laugh.

Oh, Ti-Guy, you are so PWNED right there!

(Seriously, anon, is that really the best you can do? "It is to laugh"? Well, I guess it seemed clever to you or something.)

Anonymous said...

No, not my best at all, but I thought I'd come down to the level of this blog's regular readers.

ALW said...

david,

OK, but I don't really know what there is to discuss - I think we agree.

Ti-guy, I could come here and write "good morning" and you'd find some way to imply I was doing something nefarious or "fascist-enabling".

Crabgräss said...

Anonymous said...
"No, not my best at all, but I thought I'd come down to the level of this blog's regular readers."

Well, as always, one must be aware of the danger of badly overshooting one's target.

Ti-Guy said...

Ti-guy, I could come here and write "good morning"...

I seriously doubt you could do that. GLIBertarians are rarely known for being succinct.