Sunday, April 06, 2008

Why stupid people really shouldn't blog.


Blogging Tory Jarrett lets us in on how his thought processes work:

The first is that, we have this thing that declares that how Harper handles it - IE, by actually coming out and condemning Lukiwski's remarks - is of decided importance to Canadian voters.

I'd agree, but why does Harper need to get involved if Lukiwski is stupid? Did Chretien insist that the Liberal party is not full of anti-rural bigots when Hedy Fry made cross burning remarks?

So ... what you're saying, Jarrett, is that the Lukiwski affair is somehow comparable to when Liberal Hedy Fry suggested that racists were burning crosses on lawns in Prince George, B.C.? Is that what you're saying here, Jarrett? Because I really, really want to make sure that that's what you're saying before I hold you up to mockery and ridicule.

First of all, Jarrett, it's quite possible that Fry was simply out to lunch in terms of being mistaken:

Fry ignited a political backlash when, on March 21, 2001, in reply to a question in the House of Commons, she claimed that crosses were being burned on lawns in Prince George, British Columbia "as we speak". No evidence of this had ever been given and, when asked to justify her claim, she stated that the mayor of Prince George had informed her of this. When asked, the mayor denied having said such a thing. It was later suggested Fry had confused Prince George with Merritt, British Columbia, where a Ku Klux Klan grand wizard was arrested following reported racist activity. [1]. It has also been suggested that reports of cross-burning in Prince George, Alabama may have been the cause of her confusion.

But regardless of her motivation, Jarrett, Fry was not making racist comments -- she was using that (albeit misguided) example to condemn racism. As opposed to Lukiwski, who was spewing anti-gay bigotry on that video, referring to dirty, homosexual faggots.

Jesus, what is it with law students these days? Is it a requirement to be a retard to get into law school? The evidence is certainly piling up.

5 comments:

liberal supporter said...

Disagree. This is exactly why stupid people should blog.

Relentless mocking and ridiculing them is taxing the resources of the CPC/BT/Rovian brain trust, causing them to make bigger and bigger mistakes. They had their time of blogs being almost a clear field for them. That has changed, obviously.

Anonymous said...

He does get quite hilarious when he thinks the 1990's were a time of homophobia...

The comments were wrong then and they are now.


And yes CC, it does seem you need to be brain damaged to be get into law school...
I think it's some kind of make work program for obtuse people that would normally be culled in society... how else explain their total lack of usefulness?

Ti-Guy said...

Everyone argues like that these days...not from principles or evidence but by comparison; it takes much more work to think and to craft a sentence than it does to google up an analogy and have it fit into to your narrative. And of course, the results are disastrous...in this case, moral relativity, something the right can't complain enough about.

It's something that shouldn't be happening much past high school, and is probably related to the decline of humanities education, disturbingly, among people in the humanities themselves.

Cameron Campbell said...

ti-guy, worse still everyone wants you source every bit of your thought:

I got in an argument with some dink somewhere else about my interpretation of a recent historical timeline.

He was like "source that or you're wrong" and I said "A happened, then B happened, then C happened, thusly C, is not Y". "What's your source for that?" was the reply. So I showed him where I got the info, but he didn't like that response "Who else agrees with you?, show me sources." And on and on and on.

It's maddening... everything must be compared and contrasted and then sourced by multiple news articles and wikipedia entries...

CDL said...

If he's complaining that the Liberal party is full of "anti-rural bigots" (whatever that means), then it would only make sense that he would condemn any Conservative who makes an anti-urban or anti-Toronto remark. Isn't being anti-urban or anti-Toronto an essential Conservative policy pillar?

Never mind the "culture of victimization" that he seems to be trying to whip up.