Monday, December 03, 2007

Would you like a Kleenex, Junker?


You know, for folks who like to advertise themselves as he-men, kick-ass, Canadian milbloggers, they really are whiny bunch of runts, aren't they?

AFTERSNARK: It's amusing to hear someone like Junker whinge on about politeness and courtesy after you get a look at the blogroll over there. Seriously, Junker wants to lecture us about the civility of discourse given that his regular reading list includes:

  • The racist, Nazi-supporting Kate McMillan of "Small Dead Animals",

  • The equally racist "Free Dominion",

  • The creepy, NAMBLA-obsessed Dick Evans who, just to be well-rounded, links to white supremacist sites,

  • The rancid bigotry and stupidity of "Little Green Footballs",

  • The shrieking, pathologically dishonest Michelle Malkin,

and a host of lesser but equally sociopathic hacks, losers, wingnuts, whackjobs and bigots.

Yes, Junker, why don't you tell us all about civility? I can't wait to hear this.

20 comments:

Ti-Guy said...

Why do they bother to imply that the rest of us care that we use naughty words or that we care that a bunch of bilious, cretinous and over-medicated rightwing liars feign consternation when confronted with coarse language? They've been doing this for years, and it's certainly hasn't changed anything.

It really is too bad that rightwingers can't or won't distinguish between civility and decency, but then, that's why they're rightwingers.

Red Tory said...

Ah yes, the usual de rigueur moaning about civility and the “crassness” of the Left. It is to laugh. These of course are the same hearties who think nothing of “nuking” millions of people, regard the notion of torture as slapstick fun, and shrug with indifference or chortle dismissively when incitements to murder homosexuals are issued by a “full-time Nazi” and sympathized with by “Canada’s Best Blogger.” Oh, but just look at them sanctimoniously bewail how coarsened our discourse has become because of those foul-mouthed “leftards” and “Commies”…. Boo,hoo,hoo,hoo,hoo!

Dave said...

I notice he-man Junker didn't bother to quote back the comment he made from which Boris totally eviscerated him over at my place.

Junker is playing something of a game with his readers, methinks. He alludes to an absence, obviously work related and plays his CF connection (which would put him at odds with his superiors, by the way).

His love of bright shiny equipment, particularly the killing kind, and his description of the M777 as "deadly" sheds some light on his experience. I don't know anybody who's been down range of incoming fire, who's witnessed killing in combat or some likeness of it, who speaks the way Junker does... which tells me he's not getting his boots dirty and he's not getting dust up his nose. (Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.)

In any case he's typical of the Right-Wing Authoritarian type who yearns to be led around by the nose and believes himself less fallible than others.

In short: He's made himself irrelevant.

Crabgräss said...

CC, you have to recognize that while these folks are bigots, racists, homophobes and Nazi sympathizer sympathizers, at least they don't go around swearing or any shit like that.

Hence the moral high ground.

KEvron said...

from junker's post:

"I recently poked my head into the left side of the blogosphere, and made a reasonable comment or two on a post."

let's take a closer look at one of those "reasonable" comments:

[....]

"So, are you supporting the troops who fight in your name when you don’t support their majority sanctioned mission, a mission the troops are 110% behind?"

passive/aggressive fuckhead....

KEvron

M@ said...

Even many of those who chose to put forth a decent argument just can’t restrain themselves from lacing their comments with all sorts of slag.

This is basically a version of "we're fighting them over there so they don't have to fight over here", with about as much truth to it.

I believe an appropriate translation is, "I was shot down and had nothing to come back with, so I decided to criticize their language instead."

Crabgräss said...

Yep. Stupid fucker.

Scotian said...

I just finished leaving what I expect will be a totally ignored comment expressing my annoyance at his selection of something I said out of context and misrepresented/portrayed, indeed from the middle of a sentence which he also did not indicate was prompted by Junker’s attacking me personally first/already. Not to mention his inability to attribute statements to authors, nor his acknowledgment that at least in one of the cases he cited (mine) he started the personal attacks (as by his definition of personal attacks) instead of portraying himself as attacked without provocation nor cause merely because he was not of the right political affiliation. I found it especially ironic that he used RA's comments in the same thread to "corroborate" his views on the discourse there and the claim he advanced about it being about poltiical affiliation/ideological purity instead of intellectual honesty despite how heavily RA had his head handed to him there and here for misrepresentation and ignorance of basic facts whle claiming otherwise and attacking those that showed that to be the case.

Someone call these boys Whaaaaaambulances, they are clearly too frail to handle robust intellectual discourse/debate where they actually have to back up what they claim instead of simply being treated as if everything they say is proven fact. Typical though of the modern Conservatives, as I have said many times before they dishonour what was once a respectable political philosophy with such crap, and is one of many reasons why I will always call them CPCers and not Tories, that is a long standing honourable name that their connection no matter how flimsy/superficial/in name only would besmirch that does not deserve it IMHO.

Red Tory said...

You called him a "mealy mouthed prick" Scotian... Tut, tut. You wicked, horridly awful person. Sorry, now what were you saying?

Scotian said...

RT:

*chuckle*

Not bad old man...:)

Seriously though, I don't even know why I bothered, it is not like I haven't been down this road before with others on the right that live in their mythological based world instead of the harsh reality that the rest of us try to deal with. I think it just irritated me that he included some of my words to make his argument without attribution; context or even noting it was a small part of a larger sentence via the use of ellipses (...) at each end. Not to mention his acting like he was a victim of an unprovoked response on top of it all.

This hypocrisy (in this case the word doesn't do justice to the reality IMHO) these folks have on language when applied to them or their side as opposed to the language they find acceptable to use/agree with when used by their side to describe those they disagree with/oppose speaks volumes about their credibility and seriousness let alone their intellectual or for that matter any other kind of honesty as well.

In any event, we all know how this will play out, and personally I'll leave the harsh sarcastic smacking of right wing idiocy to those with the knack of it like CC here, I'm much better at the long winded tedious dissection of their arguments/premises style instead, not to say CC is not also quite capable in that regard when he chooses to be of course. While I may find the language more biting then I would tend to use, given the amount of abuse I have spent years watching the right pour on the left and middle (let alone received first hand) I see it very much as leveling the playing field and fighting fire with fire. Given the amount of whining we routinely see from the right about it given how much they have relied upon it for their own partisan uses/gains it is clear just how much they fear an activist and aggressively combative left instead of the punching bag nice guys they have been lucky enough to face until fairly recently.

Classic case of reaping what you sow in my view, and for righties to be whining about it, especially since it still tends to be less abusive/aggressive then much of the righties standard rhetoric even to this day regarding those of the left yet again underscores that for righties they want to eat their cake and have it but no one else can because then they are liars and hypocrites and moral relativists. Feh.

Red Tory said...

Scotian — It’s a silly discussion in my opinion. Shakespeare would laugh.

Scotian said...

RT:

So would I if the stakes were not as high in my view. While individually these sorts aren't all that dangerous, when they manage to form a functional collective identity they can be downright dangerous to all outside their collective. There are some things in life that I would prefer I was overly cautious/paranoid about rather than not enough and this is one of them. I studied too much human history and the horrors we have done to each other when such mentalities rule/control things to feel otherwise no matter how foolish I may look doing so. Not to mention watching what happened down south over the past few decades.

Red Tory said...

I know and I didn’t mean to come across as so dismissive. It’s just hard not to find it amusing to see these right-wing “droogs” sanctimoniously posturing behind the mask of civility. I find it difficult to take them seriously. They’re so fantastically dumb it would seem that they actually believe some sort of specious moral superiority can be achieved by bowdlerizing the discourse. First step on an Orwellian slippery slope... Or just plain goofy? I’m torn.

Junker said...

Glad to see everyone here is in agreement.

Please note, those that have deemed me irrelevant, please ignore the following.

Yes, you'll find the same sort of garbage on right wing blogs. I guess it had just been a while since I've dealt with it. Forgot how ridicules it gets.

What really surprised me was the offense people took to the offhand comment of "deadly M777". I got an impressive demo this fall, and whether or not you like it doesn't change the fact that it’s true. It's deadly in a very literal sense, although a lot of people seemed to interpret "deadly" in the pre-pubescent “cool” meaning of the word. Whatever.

In my books, a more accurate gun like the M777 means more dead Taliban, less dead civilians, and improved odds for our boys. The response I got for the original comment made it sound like we're using our M777s to deliberately shell innocent afghan civilians on a daily basis. What a joke.

CC said...

Junker wrote:

"Glad to see everyone here is in agreement."

Yes, Junker ... we all think you're a complete twat-waffle. But, hey, feel free to change the subject to not have to address that issue.

Good boy.

Scotian said...

Junker:

There is a difference between recognizing a tool's usefulness and acting like it is a sexual stimulant, which was how that comment read to many there, including myself I might add even though I chose not to respond to it at the time. As for being in agreement, that happens because we all recognize that you have acted like an ass (to quote one of your defenders, one arctic_front) been wrong on the facts while claiming it is everyone else that is wrong and then whined about it when you had your head handed to you for being so factually inaccurate/delusional. Deal with it, and besides, given the echo chamber in your own blog post that you have all agreeing with you about the horrors of incivility on lefty blogs for you to comment about the general agreement here regarding you is particularly rich as well as hypocritical. Not to mention that you whined about being personally attacked without mentioning that in my case at least you attacked personally first and without substantiation of your claim to boot.

Either come armed with facts (and not conservative myths that are treated as facts yet are not actually proven facts) to support your positions when you critique the work of others or expect to be getting more of the same. You were the one that declared for example that my take on the current reality of the US military ground force component was massive ignorance in action and that Dave would at least in part support you on this when you were completely wrong on both counts and then you whined about how you were being picked on unfairly. Oh how juvenile you have shown yourself to be in all of this.

RT:

They think that way because they were successful in doing so with Americans, and we all know how Harper and his followers do not think there is any real difference between American and Canadian culture/society, that it is all superficial. I know you are not dismissive of these folks overall, but part of why the left in the US was blindsided was because they took that attitude until it was too late to stop the right’s redefinition of the political/social language to suit their needs in the Orwellian (or really Luntzian) manner that they have. Until I am sure they are defeated here and unable to replicate that feat in this country I am going to do as I have always been doing on that front no matter how it may look to some, it is too important IMHO not to.

Junker said...

So, just to chase your train of thought for a second, I'm a complete twat because?

Because my opinions run opposite to yours? Is that what it boils down to?

Or my arguements aren't up to your standard?

Or simply because i'm a right winger?

Or because I support stuff like the Afghan mission?

All of the above?

You're gonna have to go half speed here, cause I'm not tracking. Do you really hate people that much because of different opinions?

Scotian said...

Junker:

No, because you claimed I was totally ignorant of the status of the US military and never backed it up, and when I pointed you to areas which corroborate my point that you declared total ignorance you did not deal with it instead continuing on your high horse. As I said at the time the US ground forces are near shattered in their current state, that the retention rates of officers at the company level is seriously down, same with non-com equivalents (which wrecks your claim about combat experience improving the quality of the military since for that to work requires retention of the experienced especially at the company level), that the recruitment standards have dropped severely to make acceptable many that would never have been accepted since the all volunteer army started after Vietnam before this overstressing including one in five needing waivers to get in along with massive subsidies/bribes/recruiting bonuses to get even these dregs in uniform, and the massive equipment wear and tear and poor maintenance/replacement.

Instead of addressing these points which underline why I advance the argument that the US ground forces component of their military is effectively shattered and incapable of responding effectively to a threat in another theater thanks to their putting all those eggs in the Iraq basket you simply claim I am wrong and ignorant but without any substantiation nor demonstrating any awareness of the significance of the elements listed above, this despite your claims of being so well versed in military matters/issues.

Then you went on a tirade about civility instead of ever actually proving my points to be wrong/false as you did with others as well, claimed you were unfairly and unreasonably attacked and on a personal level at that while neglecting to add you were also making personal attacks and in my case did so first, and have whined about it ever since. That I would suggest is enough to make you a "twat", although that was not a word I ever used prior to this comment, my criticisms were based on the apparent level of ignorance, arrogance, and juvenile conduct you displayed instead of simply making reasoned counterarguments supported by something remotely resembling factual accuracy. Then, to add insult to injury you used my words out of context without attribution and without showing the words were sliced out of the middle of a sentence (You ever heard of ellipses before and after the excerpted part?) and claimed it proved how you were unfairly and without cause attacked for your writing. For someone that appears to think they are a serious thinker and well informed you have been remarkably transparent in displaying your ignorance and your preference for partisan rhetoric/spin instead of substance.

I hope that answers your question, because this is the last time I am coming back to this here. I don't hate different opinions so long as they are fact/reality based which was where your problem lay, ignorance masquerading arrogantly as informed opinion deserves derision and not credence regardless of what political affiliations are involved. Some of us care more for facts than ideological purity; you should try it some time.

E in MD said...

Ah yes, that old "You're cursing" argument. I'm sorry I thought I was done getting castigated by holier than thou assholes when I left private school.


I'd have put a hell of a lot of cursing into my side of the scale to balance out the wonderful things the right wing has done for the world over the last decade. You know what? When I'm angry about something, I fucking curse. So fucking what.

I've been damned angry for almost the last ten years as the rights and freedoms I am guaranteed by the founding documents of my nation are stripped away one by one so some smirking right wing asshole voted in because people thought a Republican meant 'small government and low taxes' can keep promoting old drinking buddies to positions of power and authority. Every new right he destroys, every law he breaks, every person he abducts and tortures, every country he invades, every dollar he borrows or diverts to fight his bullshit never ending GWOT, every signing statement he makes is just that much more of a mess WE are going to have to clean up.

So you'll forgive me if I seem a little perturbed by the situation and if not who gives a damn.

Don't like the cursing? Then turn on your fucking v-chip, go back to your right wing bloglodytes and whine all you want.

Red Tory said...

You're gonna have to go half speed here, cause I'm not tracking.

Truer words were never spoken.

Can we get that engraved on a plaque or something?