Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Support Canadian snark!
Syndicate
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(3428)
-
▼
November
(282)
- Is it just me ...
- Let me explain the concept of an "analogy."
- When the mainstream media does its job.
- One of these things is not like the other.
- Document the dumbassitude.
- And a pony.
- Take a deep breath. Smell that?
- Don't Worry Kids!
- Distractions
- What does that even mean?
- Because they really do need babysitting, that's why.
- You know it's coming.
- Thanks for coming, Stephen.
- Sunday Funnies.
- In twenty words or less ...
- Left hand, meet right hand.
- It's because they lie. All the time.
- When total douchebags blog.
- Kill him. Kill him dead.
- Who knew …
- HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
- Left, right, left, right ...
- Oh la la …
- How stupid? Tom Lukiwski stupid, that's how stupid.
- Dear Harper Youth: Let's talk about "democracy," ...
- Democracy in action, baby.
- I'm just sayin' ...
- Saturday Morning Cartoons.
- Ignorant dumbass open thread.
- Cry, Stephen, ...
- Oooooooooooh ...
- I know! I know!
- When totally douchebaggy fuckwits blog.
- The lies of Stephen Harper.
- Dance, Big Daddy, dance.
- Document the dumbfuckitude.
- Oh, for fuck's sake, Stephen!
- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
- Leaving a trail of urine wherever he goes ...
- Carthago delenda est.
- Show me your tits. Again and again and ...
- Free speech, motherfucker!
- What Adam Radwanski said.
- Document the screeching assholitude.
- How ... odd.
- Julie Morand Terrorism Watch: Day Two.
- Dear dumbfucks: Elections have consequences.
- Your lede of the week.
- By the way, Stephen, ...
- All politics, all the time.
- Attention Liberals
- Let The Kid Keep The Pony
- As Google slowly awakens to its task ...
- Just Awesome!
- You have the right to shut the hell up and take it.
- And you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny,...
- Um, yeah, but that's different.
- *Sigh*.
- A Vote To Rock!
- It's because I'm an evil prick, that's why.
- Ask a stupid question.
- And suddenly ...
- Apparently, it was dr. roy's turn ...
- Just because ...
- And that cloud? It looks just like an aborted fet...
- Hello? CDNBA? Best feminist blog?
- What kind of fuckery is this?
- Dear Canadian Blog Awards: I'm going to enjoy this.
- Fucking liberal media.
- But on the third hand ...
- Yeah, that sounds about right.
- How very Hunteresque of him.
- Your regular Denyseitude.
- Oh, dear ... that's gonna leave a mark.
- Dear Paul: Generalize much?
- Go fuck off.
- Sorry ... how did you spell your name again?
- Finally! A Movie Worth Seeing.
- That's good advice, Doc, I'd support that.
- ... and that's when reality slapped him in the fac...
- Dear CDNBA: Bite me. Again.
- If she were any less self-aware ...
- Conservative Clothing...
- Most Illogical
- Dear Kate: Shut the fuck up.
- Up is down, black is white.
- All the news …
- Sunday Funnies.
- Sunday Is For Cath-o-licks
- HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
- There's stupid, and there's Blogging Tory stupid.
- Somewhere ...
- What do we have for the even bigger losers, Johnny?
- They Spelled Ignatieff Wrong
- Janke's Cover Blown
- Today Is Sponsored By...
- Oh, please, dear God ...
- Ooooooh, snap!
- I am ninja cat ...
- How can we miss her if she won't go away?
-
▼
November
(282)
20 comments:
Cynic,
Check your sources.
Dawg wasn't quoting my post; he was quoting Yoshda's comment on my post. That comment was removed as soon as I saw it (this morning.)
Dawg was honest enough to update his post to reflect that fact.
Care to comment on the actual post?
Why, no, Terrence, I don't, for the simple reason that I linked to Dawg's piece, whereupon I conclude that my regular readers, being reasonably intelligent (unlike Western Standard followers), are capable of puzzling out the actual details of what happened without me having to guide them through it sentence by sentence or chewing their food for them, as it were.
See how that works, Terrence? That's how life works in the bloggy world when you don't have mentally deranged, criminally imbecilic readers. It sure do make life easy, don't it?
Ok, Cynic. But your post doesn't make sense. You were criticizing the management of the Western Standard, but the management acted even before your post went up.
So what are you criticizing?
I'm sure your readers will be able to figure out that you didn't know what you were talking about, but is that really the impression you want to give to them?
Terence dear, CC's point -- the one you're so obviously missing -- is that it's impossible to take the Western Standard seriously as long as someone as dangerously stupid as Adam Yoshida is a part of it.
See how easy that was or should I use smaller words?
Oh, lulu.
Yoshida posted a comment. The comment was removed.
If your sole test to determine whether a blog should be taken seriously is whether Yoshida has ever posted a comment on it, then your test is unreasonable.
If the comment was allowed to stand, you and Cynic might have a point.
It wasn't, so you don't. As simple as that.
Some of you need to get over your bigotry about the Western Standard.
Wow, just ... wow. Words fail me.
I rendered the Canadian Cynic speechless?
What an honor.
But seriously, if Yoshida or his like came here and made a comment, and then you guys promptly removed it, who would hold you responsible for it?
I wouldn't; so why are you?
We don't have a registration system and we're not planning on implementing one. That means comments get removed as we become aware of them.
Perhaps I can be criticized for falling down on due diligence. Perhaps I should have checked the thread before leaving this morning. I didn't, and I take responsibility for that -- for the hours or so the comment stayed on the Shotgun.
But please don't hold me responsible for the content of the comment. Even Dr. Dawg called the post that instigated the comment -- i.e. mine, congratulating Barack Obama on his victory -- "classy."
And it was, compared to what was up on many of the other right-wing blogs we still get lumped in with. I should add: sometimes with good reason, sometimes not.
In this case, lumping us in with those other blogs is unwarranted bigotry.
Dear Leader just shared that he remains Commander in Chief until 11:59:59 a.m., January 20, 2009, and he is going to keep fucking things up as usual until then.
*Sigh*
Terence sweetie, darling, cupcake ... I'm not talking about Yoshida's mouthbreathing comments, I'm talking about the fact that he writes for the Western Standard.
Are we done here?
Let it go, LuLu ... we've been down this road too many times
Some of you need to get over your bigotry about the Western Standard.
Well, I wouldn't call it bigotry; just a judgement based on its reputation. I am trying to, but just when I start to think sensible, classically-liberal, fair-minded, reality-based discourse is asserting itself, I see Steyn's and Shaidle's and Yoshida's name over there and I'm sent, once again, rushing to the vomitorium.
What you need to find are thinkers and writers who don't develop their arguments exclusively in relation to what their hated adversaries think, but ones who advance them on the basis of their soundness alone. It's the same criticism I lob against socialists who are always railing against capitalism. Both sides have to try harder to persuade rather than shame, scold, vilify, bully or worse.
Terrance,
When will you fire Yoshida? Until the Western Standard does that, CC is right.
Simple enough for ya?
Whining about bigotry against the Western Standard - a magazine that oozes bigotry against everyone and everything else - proves that irony truly is dead.
I don't know: I'm starting think most publications, not just The Western Standard are addicted to controversy since everyone's pretty much run out of stimulating ideas.
Ti-guy,
There is much truth to that.
On the other hand, I've discovered that practically everything is controversial to someone.
I won't respond to Lulu until she does something about her condescending tone. I wasn't condescending in my response to her; I expect reciprocity.
Mike,
Firing Yoshida isn't my prerogative, and I don't want to get into internal WS business, especially not here.
I will say an ultimatum was given recently. If you and certain others can get through your bigotry -- and that's what it is -- you might be able to piece together what happened.
Suppose the Western Standard promoted bigotry in the past. Fair enough. I wasn't around back then, and wouldn't have participated even if invited.
Now if the WS has changed, perhaps not completely, but significantly, there are at least two responses those who pointed out the bigotry in the past can make now:
1. They can continue to condemn, ignore, and demonize the WS. They can denigrate and deny all effort made toward progress.
2. Or they can congratulate the WS and its new management for what they have done so far, and encourage them to do more.
One of these responses sounds rational to me, if you care about civil discourse.
I have a feeling some of your compatriots on the left have figured this out, and made their choices. Now, and in the future, we will endeavor to vindicate that measure of faith, however small.
Dear Terrence:
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry that you've managed to get your oh-so-earnest panties in the most bunchiest of bunches over a little something we here at CC HQ like to call the truth.
Kisses,
LuLu
P.S. Life's rough ... perhaps you should wear a helmet.
So, if you're bigoted against the Western Standard, does that mean you're bigoted against ALL things stupid?
On the other hand, I've discovered that practically everything is controversial to someone.
Well, in an age of widespread ignorance, poor socialisation and which lacks a sense of history, even issues settled long ago might appear controversial.
There needs to be some judgement and wisdom applied, sometimes.
Terrence,
I respect the fact that the Western Standard is trying to change. I really do.
You and I already touched base on this on Dawg's blog so I won't repeat it all here.
I don't think you were around when some of the most insane bigotted people were regular contributors to the Western Standard. So perhaps that is why you view the comments by various people as "bigoted" or "prejudiced".
Indeed they are. But it's not an ignorant sort of "bigotry" or "prejudice" -- People are still responding to what they have experienced in the past from the Western Standard. They are "prejudiced" in the strictest sense of that term. They are pre-judging what they have already experienced in the past. Their attitudes are not based on willful or blind pre-judice.
As for "bigotry" -- I don't think that is a technically accurate way to describe what's happening either.
You see one of the problems is that while the previous Western Standard regularly engaged in absolutely insane frothing racism and dreck - and people responded to it - we were all also treated to ferverant denials that what was going on was not in the LEAST racism, bigotry or prejudiced.
Hence, the irony that people feel when you come around a few years later - now calling US the bigots.
I think sooner or later you are going to have to realize that the rehabilitation of the Western Standard might be impossible. The brand has been made. And it's an ugly one. You might be succesful with your re-branding at some point - but now when crazy fucks like Yoshida are contributors.
It's going to take a lot more than a few sympathetic souls like yourself and Peter to convince people that things have really changed. The Western Standard did have sympathetic people before as well... They were slowly but surely either given the heave-ho, or they quit.
I respect the fact that you took Yoshida's comments down. But I, and quite a few others probably won't take the "change of heart" at the Western Standard seriously until people like Yoshida are no longer part of the mast-head.
Sorry.
I can understand that you have a double-pronged problem.. On the one hand you are probably getting flack from WS regulars who don't like the new direction you are going - and you are getting flack from non-readers who chose to be non-readers because of past content - whom you are trying to reach out to.
I guess at some point you guys are going to have to make up your minds as to what kind of market you are looking for.
Personally I don't think Adam Yoshida has very much reader loyalty from the old-guard WS readers to make it worth your while to retain him, so long as you are trying to recruit new readers.
Mr. Yoshida has done a fine job of being a 'post racial' reichwinger. I do wonder at times if the other, paler fellow travellers tolerate him as a token POC dancing to their organ grinding, or sincerely see him as one of 'theirs'.
Given the indiscriminate reactionism against *ungrateful* people of colour and their liberal whitey err...puppets or puppeteers ( I can never tell if it's one or the other or both at the same time), I lean strongly towards the "aw, lookit'm dance, it's almost like he's real" tokenism. Makes me wonder if that's why Mr. Yoshida is so vitriolic. He has to try harder to be accepted at the right parties. And yet they still keep him 'at distance'. He's just writing a blog after all. Not one of them. Not a 'front door' visitor.
Gawd. Those post-racial-reichists are the worst. The worst I tells ya!
Post a Comment