Noted Anti-Semite Believes That Hostility to Bloomberg's Anti-Gun Agitation is Probably Anti-Semitic

Well, he'd be the one to know.

The parrot trained by Chris Matthews to always agree with a leftist's racial demagoguery, Mike "Plagiarist" Barnicle, immediately parrots Sharpton.

You won't be surprised to know that you cannot disagree with the left on any points without immediately being accused of a whole raft of monstrous motivations.

Which brings me to Ashley Judd.

It's actually possible to have a difference of opoinion & not cast aspersions on each others' souls. It's just not practiced much.

Is it? Will she be taking her MSNBC supporters to task, then? Or does she just mean she doesn't want her "soul" questioned but retains the right to question everyone else's?

Of course it's the latter. Although I got into the weeds with Conor Friedersdorf over his link-bait liberal-flattering deliberate Blogger War with Michelle Malkin, I objected to his piece on a much more general level.

After Sexton pointed out that Friedersdorf had made very similar statements to the ones he called Michelle Malkin a hateful, America-destroying xenophobe for, he wrote what he intended to be a thoughtful reply noting his errors.

But why are his statements merely forgivable errors whereas Michelle Malkin's statements are reason for link-whoring Blog Warring liberal-ego-flattering condemnation? Well, because while liberals are Righteously Censorious about the alleged sins of their enemies, they are admirably forgiving of their own trespasses, of course.

As Sexton wrote about Friedersdorf's later Mistakes Were Inadvertently Made column...

So Friedersdorf admits he could have written his post on xenophobic panic about himself. Thank you. That was exactly my point. And if he'd done so the whole contretemps would have been avoided. But of course he didn't do that. Instead he seized on an 11 year old column and blamed someone else for saying the things he wrote and felt, somehow forgetting he more or less agreed. Friedersdorf calls this an "ostensible 'gotcha'" but I don't see anything ostensible about it.

Well, exactly. What is galling is that Conor Friedersdorf postures (and preens) as a thoughtful guy who's just Interested in the Truth. And yet the columns he produces are link-whoring troll-baiting stuff.

He could have actually written an initial column about ideas. That is how he flatters himself -- he writes about ideas. Except he doesn't. Instead of writing about an idea -- and one that he himself had espoused, and now walks away from, chagrined, with the emotional heat confined to a critique of himself -- he chose instead to write about a personality, and throw out Michelle Malkin's name for all the Michelle Malkin haters at the very liberal Atlantic website.

He wasn't writing about ideas or policies. He was writing about personalities, period, because he knew it would be an easy piece to write and he knew it would go over well with his liberal readers. He knew they'd devour the red meat he was serving up.

He was right.

And I don't really question his Giving the Partisans What They Want tour. That is, doubtless, one of the four major food groups of blogging. (At least one of them, maybe three of them.)

But please do spare me this cloying pussymouth horseshit about being somehow elevated and merely a Seeker of Truth. Please, do spare me that. Keep your embarrassing self-flatteries where they belong, in the privacy of your own home, privately among your own friends, as you all mutually stroke each other off about how noble you are compared to the Evil Other.

Please spare us of the social horror of being forced to publicly witness this embarrassing peacocking.

Mild content warning for weird The Wall cartoon imagery:

posted by Ace at 03:34 PM

| Access Comments