Comments on: Smears

By: Person of Choler

Person of Choler — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:24:36 +0000

We certainly can’t allow truth to interfere with the noble task of mythmaking.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Fri, 27 Feb 2004 06:53:27 +0000

I have two blogs, one with comments. Don’t even think of it. I have had several potentially interesting conversations here aborted by thorley and his ilk.

By: robbo

robbo — Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:27:03 +0000

As noted aptly by zizka and others, it’s really no use explaining the obvious to folks like vinteuil. They, like Coulter, obviously know who would lose in a straight-up comparison between Bush and Cleland or Kerry. Hence their dogged insistence on focusing on Coulter’s carefully chosen words and discussing the topic only under the wildly biased argumentative structure that Coulter so carefully established. Once people finally yield to the temptation of pointing out the quite literal falsehoods in Coulter’s labored screed—e.g., Cleland didn’t actually drop the grenade on his foot—her defenders predictably respond as though the larger arguments have been conceded to Coulter, leaving only the “small beer” that they are magnanimous enough to concede. This tactic is lame, self-deluding, and frustrating. Much like the entire Bush presidency. Fortunately, the larger effect of Coulter’s smears on Cleland is to prolong the attention finally being devoted to Bush’s patently embarrassing Vietnam history. So keep it up, intellectual giants of the right.

By: Vinteuil

Vinteuil — Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:17:39 +0000

Hmmm, Zizka, that’s one “neglected to mention” and three “suggested”’s. Even if I accept your assessment (which I guess I’d better do, lest you throw another hissy-fit) that’s pretty small beer. How eager you are to ban people! You obviously need a blog of your very own.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Thu, 26 Feb 2004 04:42:17 +0000

Coulter also neglected to mention that Cleland had won a Silver Star and a Bronze Star before his accident. Her manner of expression suggested that Cleland was at fault in the accident, which he was not. She suggested that he was in an entirely safe, non-combat area, which he was not. And she took a commendably modest and accurate statement by Cleland as a sort of confession of guilt. In earlier CT threads I have suggested that posters can be banned for other reasons than incivility. You might just decide that someone doesn’t contribute much, doesn’t stay on topic, is too verbose, or have any number of reasons. A left-liberal site like this one (American terminology) might well decide that it doesn’t want to host interminable conservative critiques of left-liberalism, for example, or the automatic contradiction of anything that any liberal ever says. The peculiar vehemence of my outburst came from the fact that I’d already been dealing with attacks on Kerry and Cleland for some time. (Context, vinteuil!) These attacks are purely political (getback for the Bush AWOL story) , and they’re on the gutter side of politics, and it’s a waste of time to try to have a civil debate about the merits of the cases. (I’m perfectly happy to get in the gutter, as I showed. As for mandarin and thorley, they were simply acting as the civil auxilary for the guttersnipes.) I think that when someone (Coulter) is operating at the level of smears and misrepresentation, the obligation of civility is made inoperative. And other, harsher responses are not only permitted, but highly advisable. Here in the U.S. we are entering into what I expect to be as dirty a political campaign as has ever been seen here, and my intention is to encourage the Democrats respond with adequate ferocity. I’m really not trying to convince thorley or mandarin, supposing such a thing to be possible, but to get them out of my face and whip their sorry asses. I use the sports metaphor far too often—ethnic American peculiarity—but when someone talks trash to you during a hard-fought game you don’t even pay attention to the truth-value of what they’re saying. (Cf. the example of my mother above). In certain contexts, fighting words are just fighting words. Since my last post here I have gathered the current and recent Kerry and Cleland smears. Their truth-value ranges from moderate to none, but functionally they’re just trash-talk and should be treated as such. Probably I will keep adding to the collection throughout the campaign. CASE IN POINT: What’s the truth about Kerry? 1. He didn’t especially want to go to Vietnam and tried for a deferment. 2. When he went into the military and to to Vietnam, he didn’t especially want to go into combat. 3. When he did go into combat, he was brave to the point of recklessness and received a Silver Star and a Bronze Star; his men seemed to have admired him. 4. Of his three Purple Hearts, two wounds were not very serious wounds and one was moderately serious. 5. He asked to be sent from Vietnam when he was able to do so. This adds up to honorable and superior service by someone who almost certainly had doubts about the war before he went there. But it’s something which can be written up by a political hack with a certain slant and a few misrepresentations to be suspect. I do not think that a civil response if appropriate.

By: john c. halasz

john c. halasz — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:18:38 +0000

Before drifting off into sleep yesterday morning, I thought of posting in response to Zizka:” Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you no decency?” I’ve never understood why Ann Coulter gets published and afforded forums in which to spout off. (I’m just naive, I guess.) I guess, the commodification of malignant idiocy knows no bounds. Ann Coulter is the Jerry Springer of the New Right. Moral pornography.

By: Vinteuil

Vinteuil — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:56:19 +0000

Marky: yeah, whatever. I guess I thought we were talking about other things. My mistake. Nite nite.

By: marky

marky — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:35:48 +0000

And yes, I’m smearing Coulter (Gasp!). However, almost everyone I know who does drugs thinks she is on something. My non-expert opinion is the same. The strange affect and disjointed speaking style are evidence of something being wrong.

By: marky

marky — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:29:14 +0000

You need more, vint? Slow learner. Coulter: Bush’s National Guard service is the most thoroughly investigated event since the Kennedy assassination there’s one Coulter: Thirty years ago, Bush was granted an honorable discharge from the National Guard, which would seem to put the matter to rest. That’s misleading at best. No need to go into detail here, as others have done such a fine job, but A) honorable discharges don’t mean squat. The DC sniper got one; B)The records we have of Bush’s service leave numerous serious unanswered questions. Now, you may dismiss these lies as also trivial, but you are missing the role they play in creating the desired perlocutionary effect. Face it, Le Skank couldn’t write a truthful column if her next hit of cocaine depended on it.

By: Vinteuil

Vinteuil — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:22:02 +0000

Well, Marky, I guess it would annoy you too much. I count one, and only one, “correction.” Cleland did not “drop” the grenade. I don’t see anyone refusing to accept that correction. Relatively trivial as it is. Am I missing something?

By: marky

marky — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:00:17 +0000

And finally, I’m more concerned with the effect TW et. al. have on the quality of the thread (they always drag the discussion down). CT has some of the best comment threads around, and I would much rather they prune some low quality comments (including mine if they like) to give the readers a better experience.

By: marky

marky — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:55:22 +0000

Well, i went to your link, Vint. I can’t say it any better than one of the letter-writers did: ” Mr Steyn, Max Cleland is allowed to say he’s no hero. But do you have any idea what a cad you make of yourself when you say it?” Exactly.

By: marky

marky — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:46:55 +0000

Vint, Apparently you haven’t read the thread. There are several corrections listed in there, including one post by me.

By: Vinteuil

Vinteuil — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:19:36 +0000

O.K., I give up. Cut and paste. http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=66

By: Vinteuil

Vinteuil — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:17:18 +0000

Hmmm…the mysteries of HTML. Let’s try that again: Steyn on Cleland