Wednesday, July 09, 2008

And this is why we mock them.


You wonder why we make such sport of the Blogging Tories and their perpetual buffoonery? Sit down ... let me fill you in.

First, there was Clive, who thought he had a pretty good point:

Following the story of the 7 year old snatched from her family home by child welfare operatives, because she showed up at school with a swastika on her arm, I notice that in amongst all the outrage, anger, brouhaha and general pissiness there is one perspective completely missing, and that is the perspective of the 7 year old. She drew the swastika in question herself - not one of her parents as some of the more hysterical commenters are wont to believe. So what of the child's view of the world? ...

... nobody seems to be thinking back to their own childhood, to recover something of the real perspective and outlook on life of a 7 year old...

... When I was that age, I drew swastikas too. I had no clue what they meant, no clue what they really stood for, except that they represented the bad guys...

... So I happily doodled RAF roundels and Luftwaffe crosses and swastikas in the corners of books, blisfully unaware of the wider significance. Should I have been taken away?

Etc, etc and tediously etc. And Clive's point is quite obvious, isn't it? That is, why the fuss over a symbol rendered by someone too young to possibly appreciate its significance? You do see that that's Clive's point, right? I mean, he does pound it home over and over and over, relentlessly. And it is, in fact, a valid point. Except for the fact that Clive is utterly wrong with respect to the facts, as I pointed out back here:

She said her daughter drew the swastika on her own arm after taking part in a "white pride" racist march in Calgary. When the girl's teacher washed the symbol off, the mother and daughter drew it on again with a marker.

Now, take the time to appreciate what just happened here -- Clive no longer has a point, does he? Not even a little one. Clive's entire screed was based on the swastika being drawn solely by the daughter. You do see that, right? Everything hinges on that supposition of Clive's. Which turns out to be hopelessly, gloriously, spectacularly wrong. So how does Clive handle criticism? Not well:

UPDATE: I do stand corrected, by the left's own hate blogger CC, in as much as it seems the parents re-drew the offending emblem in marker after it was washed off.

No, Clive, it wasn't the "parents" who re-applied the symbol. What part of "mother" is giving you such trouble? It's right there in the news piece. How could you fuck up reporting something that simple? But then the wheels come right off:

That does put a rather different complexion on things; ...

Yes, Clive, it does, doesn't it? An entirely new complexion, since the very foundation of your argument has been yanked out from under you. Which means -- and let me flog this thoroughly -- your entire post is meaningless. Does everyone see that? No, really, do you all understand that? Given that Clive's premise has vanished in its entirety, we can safely conclude that that blog post is equally worthless. And yet, what does Clive conclude? You're not going to believe this:

That does put a rather different complexion on things; however, my point still stands.

Pause.

Equally nonsensical Clive: "Even though the very basis for my post has been shredded utterly, my point is still valid."

Now do you see why we mock them? Because there is no possibility of intellectual discourse. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. These are people incapable of logical thought. And I wish I had a catchy and clever punchline for this, but I don't.

These are depressingly stupid people. And they should be ridiculed. They deserve no better than that.

23 comments:

bigcitylib said...

And the claim that the daughter applied the swastika to herself in the first place comes from the mother. Not necessarily a reliable source.

thwap said...

I notice he called you "hateful."

Yes, the BT's have people who advocate genocide, and among the left there's CC, who calls them repulsive assholes for advocating genocide.

In their topsy-turvy world that's "equivalence."

If I had more time and patience I'd check out his blog for the petulant whining and continued lying that's inevitable if he stays with the subject.

If all else fails, he'll thank you for the hits.

Lore_Weaver said...

"Now do you see why we mock them? Because there is no possibility of intellectual discourse. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. These are people incapable of logical thought. And I wish I had a catchy and clever punchline for this, but I don't."

All of them? Nicely done. All members of "that group" are incapable of intellectual discourse. So does that bar me from intellectual discourse with you?

I suppose that's possible, but not from this side. You're always welcome to come over to my place and hang out. However, comments like the above don't engender "intellectual discourse".

Lore_Weaver said...

Oh, and his point does stand. Post his entire paragraph next time... If you still disagree, you can at least state why his entire premise is flawed. You haven't done it with your wall of text above. 7yo's don't understand "Hate". Regardless if it was her or her mother or both, the point is still valid because of the inability of the 7yo to understand the implication of it.

"From the girl's perspective, it's impossible for her to know the meaning behind and deeper associations of the swastika. This was a moment for intervention and education, not for snatching the child away and asking the deeper questions later."

Ti-Guy said...

This was a moment for intervention and education, not for snatching the child away and asking the deeper questions.

No one knows if this was the only reason the child welfare agency removed her, since they can't discuss the case.

Anyway, it must be real drag for sensible conservatives to have to articulate the arguments of their dim-witted fellow travellers for them and to have to defend them against criticism from their detractors. Their time would be better spent mentoring and guiding the dim-bulb rightwingers, but I suspect they know it's as hopeless as the rest of us discovered long ago.

CC said...

No, l_w, his point doesn't stand. In fact, it is entirely irrelevant as to what the daughter thought of the swastika since, when she showed up on the first day, the teacher simply wiped it off. I'm going to speculate that that would have been the end of the story if that's all that happened.

However, when the daughter showed up again with the swastika, that's when it became clear that this was a much bigger issue.

How the daughter felt about the swastika had no bearing on the issue -- it's how the mother got involved that escalated the situation.

Lore_Weaver said...

The child doesn't understand the implications of the symbol, she's merely indoctrinated into it. The Mother's lunatic beliefs are darned scary, but would it have been more effective for them to escalate this slower than to remove the children?

Like Prof. Arthur Schafer said in the store, "... despite their disgusting views, it's not enough for the state to intervene".

The daughter is innocent, the mother is bigoted and racist, but those things aren't illegal, just despicable.

His point still stands, because his point is that the innocence of the messenger doesn't beget the punishment.

Lore_Weaver said...

/store story

LuLu said...

And the point that you and Clive and all the other BT apologists are missing in such a spectacular fashion, is that we have only the mother's word to go on that her child was removed because of the swastika.

You'll forgive me if I find her a somewhat less than reliable source of information.

Romantic Heretic said...

The one thing you should remember about fanatics of all types is that there is one thing they universally loathe: responsibility.

Responsibility, for words or actions, is a burden, often a very heavy one. It's something many people don't want to carry.

So people like the BTs never admit to being mistaken. To do so would make them responsible and they don't want to be responsible.

Lore_Weaver said...

"And the point that you and Clive and all the other BT apologists are missing in such a spectacular fashion, is that we have only the mother's word to go on that her child was removed because of the swastika.

You'll forgive me if I find her a somewhat less than reliable source of information."

What other information are we to use to form an opinion? Gut feeling? What does your gut feeling tell you about this one lulu? Outlook not so good?

Given the way the story is reported, Clive's response is sound. If you want to disagree with it, that's fine, but his premise and argument are sound.

Also, lulu, if the point was to attack Clive's piece on this basis, why not state so in the original posting? Instead, CC HQ called the story 'reality'.

I guess you've destroyed the premise of your own argument. The story doesn't represent reality, but the reality of the story destroys Clive's argument. Thusly, it's even illogical for you to conclude on the soundness of Clive's argument.

===

As for responsibility rh I've readily admitted to being mistaken in the past, and other BT'ers have too. We aren't all cut from the same cloth.

LuLu said...

What other information are we to use to form an opinion? Gut feeling? What does your gut feeling tell you about this one lulu? Outlook not so good?

My "gut feeling" tells me nothing about this, l_w, since it's pretty safe to say that very few of the actual facts about this case have been released to the public. As I stated before, we have only the mother's version of events to go on - Child and Family Services has said nothing ... which is as it should be since a minor is involved.

But, and this is a very important but, contrary to popular belief Child and Family Services and/or Children's Aid does not run about arbitrarily removing children from their homes without a damn good reason. No agency is going to remove a child from her mother's care simply because that mother is a "white pride" mouthbreather who draws swastikas on her kid. There are other events at play here ... and that's not a "gut feeling".

Sheena said...

heheh... I went out with Arthur Schafer's son in Winnipeg years ago. He was pretty hot.

Sheena said...

Unless he *lied* about being Arthur Schafer's son. Name dropping egomaniac.

Frank Frink said...

I went out with Arthur Schafer's son in Winnipeg years ago. He was pretty hot.

...and his hawtness is relevant to this discussion, and topic, exactly how?

And yeah, he probably lied. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened to you, now would it Sheena?

Sheena said...

And yeah, he probably lied. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened to you, now would it Sheena?

Ohhhh... frank frink..
I'm pretty sure I've beaten that whole secret arranged marriage story to death already for the regulars. But if you missed it, let me know.

Adam C said...

His point still stands, because his point is that the innocence of the messenger doesn't beget the punishment.

This point only stands if he (and you) insist on the point-of-view that removing the child is punishment for the child. Instead, however, the goal is to protect the child from an environment that is certainly hate-filled and confrontational added to whatever else CFS is going on.

James Bow said...

"We aren't all cut from the same cloth."

I agree, and I've said before that it is wrong to ascribe blanket responsibility for every wayward Blogging Tory member to every single Blogging Tory member. CC and I, I suspect, have agreed to disagree.

There are plenty of decent Conservatives out there. You're one, as was Andrew Anderson (sadly departed from the blogosphere), as was Olaf Radwanski (also sadly departed from the blogosphere), and Raphael Alexander (in my opinion) and Candace at Waking up on Planet X. However, the point that CC makes is how can these decent people choose to belong to a group like the BTs with the wackos in the midst? Isn't choosing to belong a statement of support?

I don't fully agree, especially as I work with the diverse range of voices on the Blogging Alliance of Non-Partisan Canadians, but it is a question worth asking. And just as the NDP kicked out its Waffle movement, the wackos are a persistent risk to the BTs, lest they co-opt the BT voice.

I personally would like to see less accusations of outgroup homogeneity, and one such example comes from many of the sites that CC shouts out against. Many of these sites are just as willing to criticize all progressives or "lefties" as if they were cut from the same cloth. It would be nice if more decent Conservatives could speak out against that sort of activity when they see it happening on their side of the line.

900 ft Jesus said...

“Regardless if it was her or her mother or both, the point is still valid because of the inability of the 7yo to understand the implication of it.”

No. That’s precisely what invalidates his point. If the child understood the implications then the child is responsible for choosing to wear the symbol.

Because a 7 year old is unable to understand the implications of wearing a symbol which promotes racism, and because her mother does understand and helped her put it back on with...marker (here, honey, let’s make sure it stays on this time), the mother is 100% responsible for using her daughter, or even allowing her daughter to be used as a walking billboard for racism and hatred.

KEvron said...

"The child doesn't understand the implications of the symbol, she's merely indoctrinated into it."

irrelevant. the child's behavior didn't not prompt the action; the mother's did.

"The Mother's lunatic beliefs are darned scary"

god forbid we should protect child from their darned scary, lunatic parents.

"but would it have been more effective for them to escalate this slower than to remove the children?"

my crystal ball's broken, so i'll have to guess: no.

KEvron

KEvron said...

"His point still stands, because his point is that the innocence of the messenger doesn't beget the punishment."

the child wasn't punished; she was removed from her darned scary, lunatic mother's custody.

are we really going to make this a contest of framing? not fair, considering your guy's lack of compunction for dishonest spinning.

KEvron

KEvron

KEvron said...

"There are plenty of decent Conservatives out there. You're one"

excpet when he insists that the child is being punished instead of accepting the fact that the child was removed from her darned scary, lunatic mother. then he's being intellectually dishonest. like the rest.

KEvron

KEvron said...

"the mother is 100% responsible for using her daughter"

yep, exploitation of a child is abuse.

KEvron