This is just silly, or is it?
This whole censoring from your blog thing and then continuing to comment that this fellow has going. Actually, it would be rather nice if blogger had a way to link comments together so that you could just write from your own blog.
But anyway, he's running off on a tangent now, the whole SSM issue is lost. And it is lost, because he has no argument for that. It was odd that he kept failing to answer in a thread and then going to his front page to write something. Now this, a back and forth between blogs because he feels the need to censor someone pointing out some of the basic facts of life to him such as the biosocial complementarity of the sexes.
"In a response to my post on his ridiculous equation of private and public forums, mynym has taken his own already-established absurdity and raised it to a whole new level. In response to my statement that "The Constitution's free speech provision applies to governments....", he replies, "But a principle that the law is based on applies to all." But he is obviously wrong. If someone came into your home and called your wife a whore, and you threw him out of your house, would you say that you have violated the principle of free speech? Of course not."
So now his blog is "like" his house and pointing out the basic facts of life to him or calling his viewpoints ignorant and stupid is "like" coming into his house and calling his wife a whore. (This is odd writing "him" as if he doesn't read this. So I'll just say you.) You don't think that the censors at the university also have some associative arguments and victimization propaganda up their sleeves to justify their own censorship? Of course they will make the same type of arguments for their censorship, just as you make for your own. The censor never thinks that their censorship is wrong and will always provide some argument for it, typically they will be increasingly inane. You cannot even quote something and demonstrate, "This needed to be censored." Instead, you have your rationalizations, just as the Leftist university does. They have their victimization propaganda too. In fact, victimization is generally the way that the modern censor attempts to justify themselves. So you pretend or make some associative argument about how I've supposedly victimized you. If you are a Victim of having ignorant and stupid ideas refuted, then so be it. You are free to censor.
As to this analogy,
If one really must use such an analogy then it is more like Ed is waging a "culture war" from his house, he speaks from his front porch and then people walking down the street may listen or come on to his lawn to talk about his "culture war." But if someone comes along who starts disproving Ed on something then he gets a lil' upset about it all. Then he calls the police to make the person get off of his lawn. So the person goes across the street to their own house and Ed is disproven anyway.
"If someone stood up in the middle of a restaurant and began screaming out a political speech and disturbing the other diners who are just there to eat their lunch, would the restaurant owner be violating the principle of free speech by removing the offending person from his restaurant? Again, of course not."
I know, and what if two people were in a truck having a conversation. But then, they disagreed. (gasp!) They argued quite vociferously! So the owner of the truck told the passenger to get out, then they left them on the side of the road. (yikes!) What does this associative argument have to do with blogging where there is a forum specifically for writing? Pretty much nothing, but I say that if you're going to have an associative argument that evokes some emotions, one may as well have some trucks in it. Otherwise, how will the people in other associative arguments get to the restaurant to see the show?
"If someone stood up in the middle of a church service and began to call the people there stupid and ignorant because of their religious beliefs, would the church be violating the principle of free speech by having him removed for disrupting a church service? Again the answer is, of course not."
And now, your blog is like a church service! Look, I think you need to change the name of your blog from "culture war" to "I'm just a prissy lil' fella who does not like to be disturbed."
"Because all sane people....recognize that there is no principle of free speech that applies in someone else's home or business or privately owned forum. They own it, and if you choose to go there, you implicitly agree to abide by their rules."
It's really too bad, everything that Leftists touch seems to turn into censorship and attempted emotional conditioning, etc. It's the same in the university. To my fellow bloggers, do not change the blogs into this nonsense based on the principles that he is trying to set up. Rather, try to uphold the principle of free speech much better than this little fella with all his supposed victimization does. Yes, funny but true, no one is coming into his house to attack his wife or anything of the sort.
"Now here's what is so funny about this. The only person who has thus far been banned from commenting at the Panda's Thumb is Great White Wonder."
Wrong. And the thing about it is that one really cannot tell on Leftist blogs just what is going on. Perhaps they have censored all their strongest or most vociferous opposition. Blogs do give the appearance of allowing free speech, but it seems increasingly important to note that on Leftist blogs that may be just an appearance.
"If anything, we've shown far more leeway to....even to mynym himself....."
I'd like to see what you are talking about, this claim that I need "leeway." I am curious about what gives you the impulse to censor. I have some ideas about it. It seems that the same urge to merge is there in the SSM issue as in the evolution issue. And that is part of the pattern. It is a proto-Nazi pattern, thus the rumblings of and attempted justification of censorship.
"See, this is a perfect illustration of the absurdity of the argumentum ad labelum. He has labelled me a "leftist" and therefore assumed that I would support the violation of free speech through the recent campaign finance reforms. But in fact I have strongly opposed those reforms as unconstitutional in numerous posts on this blog over the last year and a half. I should also point out that even if his assumption was not completely false, it would still be a ridiculous thing to label those reforms as "leftist" given that Bush went to court during the campaign to go even further than the BCFRA did and also try to ban all soft money organizations from buying ads."
The impulse for "reform" generally came from progressives on the Left, and I did not say that you specifically, were one of them. Politics is a messy business, one that must deal in generalizations. For one who labels their blog a part of the "war" you do not seem very aware of how it is fought. Politics is generalizations, if you want to note or argue that you do not fit a pattern then that is fine with me. Ironically, this whole pattern recognition and so on is a part of the evolution debate.
All I would say of you specifically is that you have demonstrated yourself to be a radical egalitarian (or social Leftist) by taking political positions in denial of such a basic biosocial fact as the complementarity of the sexes.
I hope you understand that biosocial is a word, just like complementarity.
"But such facts are completely lost upon people like mynym, who simply are incapable of thinking beyond this simple left vs. right dichotomy. They just can't go any deeper than argument by label."
All words are labels, all types are not stereotypes....
I think you have the urge to merge. A failure to discriminate will make you indiscriminate. That Left vs. Right dichotomy is there and is a very real pattern to things. Pattern recognition, this begins to leave evolutionists behind.
"....he still insists on grouping me in with the very people I oppose?"
A hypocrite who condemns others, actually stands with them. Again, do you honestly think that the professors and the like who seek to censor do not also have emotionally based or associative arguments as to why it is all so very justified?
I appreciate that you do not fit all the way into the most radical portions of Leftism, few people do.
"Just a textbook example of how the mediocre mind gets trapped inside these false dichotomies and is incapable of extricating itself to see beyond the label."
The Right and the Left is a very real and true dichotomy. All words are labels, most based on patterns and pattern recognition and definition, they are a way to insight.
"This is of course a very common tactic among those who simply cannot help but portray themselves as persecuted martyrs."
Sheesh, have I made associative arguments that you are a Big Meanie coming into my house to call my wife a whore, etc.? Let's face facts here, you have the urge to merge. It seems that you feel that anything that may draw you up or out is victimization, like someone coming into your house or what not. Like most on the American Left these days you want to avoid definition and the discrimination that comes with words and labels. In fact, it seems that you do not know that some words exist. That's one way to avoid them, I suppose.
All I would say about you specifically is that you are a social Leftist because of the radical egalitarianism you illustrate with respect to SSM.
"And even while banning my last two trollers, Robert O'Brien and Mynym, I have also provided links to their blogs, wherein they exercise their constitutional right to speak their mind and call me names and the like."
It is just important to note when reading the Panda's Thumb and these other blogs of the Left that there is no telling what sound opposition has been censored away, given their tendency. The sad thing is that some people will assume by the fact that they have comments that the principle of free speech is adhered to.
They will no doubt object to the category of Left. What is it that keeps on slithering about in words trying to avoid all definition, anyway? Words are definition, by definition! I think they need to read some Karl Kraus. Evolutionists, they are probably too busy picking up rocks from the bottom of the sea and saying, "You know, this looks a little like that. ....Hey, maybe it came from that! ...or, well, at least has a common ancestor. Are you sure there is not some way we can merge this? Because I have the urge to merge!"
But anyway, he's running off on a tangent now, the whole SSM issue is lost. And it is lost, because he has no argument for that. It was odd that he kept failing to answer in a thread and then going to his front page to write something. Now this, a back and forth between blogs because he feels the need to censor someone pointing out some of the basic facts of life to him such as the biosocial complementarity of the sexes.
"In a response to my post on his ridiculous equation of private and public forums, mynym has taken his own already-established absurdity and raised it to a whole new level. In response to my statement that "The Constitution's free speech provision applies to governments....", he replies, "But a principle that the law is based on applies to all." But he is obviously wrong. If someone came into your home and called your wife a whore, and you threw him out of your house, would you say that you have violated the principle of free speech? Of course not."
So now his blog is "like" his house and pointing out the basic facts of life to him or calling his viewpoints ignorant and stupid is "like" coming into his house and calling his wife a whore. (This is odd writing "him" as if he doesn't read this. So I'll just say you.) You don't think that the censors at the university also have some associative arguments and victimization propaganda up their sleeves to justify their own censorship? Of course they will make the same type of arguments for their censorship, just as you make for your own. The censor never thinks that their censorship is wrong and will always provide some argument for it, typically they will be increasingly inane. You cannot even quote something and demonstrate, "This needed to be censored." Instead, you have your rationalizations, just as the Leftist university does. They have their victimization propaganda too. In fact, victimization is generally the way that the modern censor attempts to justify themselves. So you pretend or make some associative argument about how I've supposedly victimized you. If you are a Victim of having ignorant and stupid ideas refuted, then so be it. You are free to censor.
As to this analogy,
If one really must use such an analogy then it is more like Ed is waging a "culture war" from his house, he speaks from his front porch and then people walking down the street may listen or come on to his lawn to talk about his "culture war." But if someone comes along who starts disproving Ed on something then he gets a lil' upset about it all. Then he calls the police to make the person get off of his lawn. So the person goes across the street to their own house and Ed is disproven anyway.
"If someone stood up in the middle of a restaurant and began screaming out a political speech and disturbing the other diners who are just there to eat their lunch, would the restaurant owner be violating the principle of free speech by removing the offending person from his restaurant? Again, of course not."
I know, and what if two people were in a truck having a conversation. But then, they disagreed. (gasp!) They argued quite vociferously! So the owner of the truck told the passenger to get out, then they left them on the side of the road. (yikes!) What does this associative argument have to do with blogging where there is a forum specifically for writing? Pretty much nothing, but I say that if you're going to have an associative argument that evokes some emotions, one may as well have some trucks in it. Otherwise, how will the people in other associative arguments get to the restaurant to see the show?
"If someone stood up in the middle of a church service and began to call the people there stupid and ignorant because of their religious beliefs, would the church be violating the principle of free speech by having him removed for disrupting a church service? Again the answer is, of course not."
And now, your blog is like a church service! Look, I think you need to change the name of your blog from "culture war" to "I'm just a prissy lil' fella who does not like to be disturbed."
"Because all sane people....recognize that there is no principle of free speech that applies in someone else's home or business or privately owned forum. They own it, and if you choose to go there, you implicitly agree to abide by their rules."
It's really too bad, everything that Leftists touch seems to turn into censorship and attempted emotional conditioning, etc. It's the same in the university. To my fellow bloggers, do not change the blogs into this nonsense based on the principles that he is trying to set up. Rather, try to uphold the principle of free speech much better than this little fella with all his supposed victimization does. Yes, funny but true, no one is coming into his house to attack his wife or anything of the sort.
"Now here's what is so funny about this. The only person who has thus far been banned from commenting at the Panda's Thumb is Great White Wonder."
Wrong. And the thing about it is that one really cannot tell on Leftist blogs just what is going on. Perhaps they have censored all their strongest or most vociferous opposition. Blogs do give the appearance of allowing free speech, but it seems increasingly important to note that on Leftist blogs that may be just an appearance.
"If anything, we've shown far more leeway to....even to mynym himself....."
I'd like to see what you are talking about, this claim that I need "leeway." I am curious about what gives you the impulse to censor. I have some ideas about it. It seems that the same urge to merge is there in the SSM issue as in the evolution issue. And that is part of the pattern. It is a proto-Nazi pattern, thus the rumblings of and attempted justification of censorship.
"See, this is a perfect illustration of the absurdity of the argumentum ad labelum. He has labelled me a "leftist" and therefore assumed that I would support the violation of free speech through the recent campaign finance reforms. But in fact I have strongly opposed those reforms as unconstitutional in numerous posts on this blog over the last year and a half. I should also point out that even if his assumption was not completely false, it would still be a ridiculous thing to label those reforms as "leftist" given that Bush went to court during the campaign to go even further than the BCFRA did and also try to ban all soft money organizations from buying ads."
The impulse for "reform" generally came from progressives on the Left, and I did not say that you specifically, were one of them. Politics is a messy business, one that must deal in generalizations. For one who labels their blog a part of the "war" you do not seem very aware of how it is fought. Politics is generalizations, if you want to note or argue that you do not fit a pattern then that is fine with me. Ironically, this whole pattern recognition and so on is a part of the evolution debate.
All I would say of you specifically is that you have demonstrated yourself to be a radical egalitarian (or social Leftist) by taking political positions in denial of such a basic biosocial fact as the complementarity of the sexes.
I hope you understand that biosocial is a word, just like complementarity.
"But such facts are completely lost upon people like mynym, who simply are incapable of thinking beyond this simple left vs. right dichotomy. They just can't go any deeper than argument by label."
All words are labels, all types are not stereotypes....
I think you have the urge to merge. A failure to discriminate will make you indiscriminate. That Left vs. Right dichotomy is there and is a very real pattern to things. Pattern recognition, this begins to leave evolutionists behind.
"....he still insists on grouping me in with the very people I oppose?"
A hypocrite who condemns others, actually stands with them. Again, do you honestly think that the professors and the like who seek to censor do not also have emotionally based or associative arguments as to why it is all so very justified?
I appreciate that you do not fit all the way into the most radical portions of Leftism, few people do.
"Just a textbook example of how the mediocre mind gets trapped inside these false dichotomies and is incapable of extricating itself to see beyond the label."
The Right and the Left is a very real and true dichotomy. All words are labels, most based on patterns and pattern recognition and definition, they are a way to insight.
"This is of course a very common tactic among those who simply cannot help but portray themselves as persecuted martyrs."
Sheesh, have I made associative arguments that you are a Big Meanie coming into my house to call my wife a whore, etc.? Let's face facts here, you have the urge to merge. It seems that you feel that anything that may draw you up or out is victimization, like someone coming into your house or what not. Like most on the American Left these days you want to avoid definition and the discrimination that comes with words and labels. In fact, it seems that you do not know that some words exist. That's one way to avoid them, I suppose.
All I would say about you specifically is that you are a social Leftist because of the radical egalitarianism you illustrate with respect to SSM.
"And even while banning my last two trollers, Robert O'Brien and Mynym, I have also provided links to their blogs, wherein they exercise their constitutional right to speak their mind and call me names and the like."
It is just important to note when reading the Panda's Thumb and these other blogs of the Left that there is no telling what sound opposition has been censored away, given their tendency. The sad thing is that some people will assume by the fact that they have comments that the principle of free speech is adhered to.
They will no doubt object to the category of Left. What is it that keeps on slithering about in words trying to avoid all definition, anyway? Words are definition, by definition! I think they need to read some Karl Kraus. Evolutionists, they are probably too busy picking up rocks from the bottom of the sea and saying, "You know, this looks a little like that. ....Hey, maybe it came from that! ...or, well, at least has a common ancestor. Are you sure there is not some way we can merge this? Because I have the urge to merge!"
posted by mynym at 1:15 PM
<< Home