Thursday, February 07, 2008

Your chance to rant

I have to dig myself out of a ton of 'global warming' at the mouth of our driveway, so please free to use this as an open thread for your ranting pleasure. (That was a joke, Suzuki-worshippers.)

Unfortunately, I have to keep Comment Moderation on due to this post, but I'll check in from time to time.

I often wonder what would happen if I wrote a post with the title 'Abortion' and nothing else. Would the flaming comments still occur?


On another note, how many female bloggers out there have to deal with jerks (usually on the left) throwing the c-word at them? Just wondering.

Actually, I'll take it as a sign that I must be doing something right. ;)


* * * *
Update: Warren Kinsella must be having similar problems:

...If I wasn't having an impact, a friend said to me this morning, why would they bother?



55 comments:

Annie said...

Don't 'cha know Joanne, that if you are a lefty you disagree with someone, you have the God (or Allah, depending on your POV) given right to hurl nasty insults and obscenities?

Heaven forbid we have ANY discussion about anything without resorting to personal insults and putdowns. Thank God (as that IS my POV) that I'm not a lefty!

Alberta Girl said...

"On another note, how many female bloggers out there have to deal with jerks (usually on the left) throwing the c-word at them? Just wondering."

Me!

Happened over at Red Tory's before he decided to leave the blogesphere.

Not only that, but pornographic comments were made and my name put to them.

Nice folks those "progressives". Wonder If I could file a complaint with the HRC????

Billy Jack said...

I hear you, Annie and Joanne. I was on a Lib Blog yesterday politely pointing out that not all Liberals agree with Dion on his stance in Afghanistan. I even provided a link. Rather than any semblance of rational discussion, the usual expletives were sent a-flyin'.

That's one way to distinguish a right from a left blog. The left loves four-letter words. But I digress...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I would love to hear from female Progessive bloggers to see if they get any of this crap, and if so from whom?

Gabby in QC said...

"I would love to hear from female Progessive bloggers to see if they get any of this crap ..."

I don't know if she has a blog of her own, but I once had a few 'exchanges' with someone who comments here.
She was offended by the 'fact' I had called her a liberal! :-D
Which I had not, BTW.

On a talk show, I was branded by a lefty as a person suffering from "battered-wife syndrome, allowing herself to be slapped around and raped, going back for more punishment." (a caller's words verbatim)
What was my sin?
I had called in to defend the government policy on Afghanistan, also trying to clarify what US Sec. of Defence Gates had supposedly said about Canadian troops.
Some tolerance, huh?

On the other hand, I've also been castigated on a conservative blog where I no longer bother to comment for saying conservatives should not sink to the level of other parties’ dirty tactics ...

Life is SO unfair! ;-)

Michele said...

Yikes! I'm not a usual blogger, so can't say I've been called a name, but I find it sad that some people submit themselves to anger and call people demeaning names.

Anonymous said...

yep it's a sure sign that you're doing something right for sure Joanne. It's always fitting to note that it's usually always the vile and nauseating of the this world(sorry-usually male) who have no substance to their argument, so they use foul languaget to "impress" us.

Perhaps the constant use of foul language by the likes of the "cynics" in the crowd is simply an over-compensation in the other masculine traits associated with other actions of over-compensation like big cars? Maybe in their case size does matter?

Anonymous said...

I'm not someone who blogs regularly, but sneak in a peak once in a while. I consider myself a progressive and as a female - no one represents me....not even close. I've also grown to like Harper..go figure.

I didn't linger at Red Tory's blog because it's an insult quite honestly, followed closely by Can.Cynic who write as if they're still in high school - thinking that bad language makes them more cool.

I do believe I read somewhere where Dion was described by a journalist as a Ditherer today.

That pretty much seals Stefan's fate does it not?

blogging tories need to keep that ball in the air.

Rosie said...

I've had my fair share coming from "the right". one guy followed me from the SDA comments (showed up on my sitemeter) to my blog and commented on a post of my nephew having surgery to remove his cancer stating "hope the f*&^er dies". And I've been called various names. I think even the c-word. i forgot that its not really personal and I have my own favourite conservatives who fight fair that comment on my blog now. I can deal with different view points.

so before you go flinging mud about "lefties" and name-calling look who you are hanging around with. Some random profanity may make its way into our vocabulary from time to time, but at least we aren't making comments about black people's lower IQs, talking about introducing disease into the native community on purpose or saying our kids are pansy helmet-wearing allergics because we don't beat them enough. Oh and the muslim terrorist thing.....something I forgot to remind my muslim friend about today-he totally forgot about his bomb plots in an effort to help me with my study. What a guy!

Just sayin'

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Some random profanity may make its way into our vocabulary from time to time, but at least we aren't making comments about black people's lower IQs, talking about introducing disease into the native community on purpose or saying our kids are pansy helmet-wearing allergics because we don't beat them enough. Oh and the muslim terrorist thing...

Rosie, who said such things? Anyone I know?

As far as the C-word goes, I think we women bloggers should stick together on that one. I'm happy to hear that some conservatives come to your defense on that score on your blog. There is just no need for that kind of trash talk. It is demeaning to all women.

If a Conservative blogger ever calls you that, please let me know. Thanks.

Greg said...

First of all, do you realize that the storm that dumped all that snow was the same one that cause tornadoes all over the south (much earlier in the season than normal)?

Second, global warming will not mean no snow ever, but it will mean more powerful storms due to more energy being available.

Red Tory said...

AG — Sorry to interrupt your lies, but just for the record, the person who employed the "c-word" most frequently at my old place happened to be a so-called "conservative" named "HOVA" who attacked every other commenter (along with the unemployed, people from the maritimes, young folks, old people, the homeless, people who were black, brown, or whatever and who belonged to a union, etc., etc.) with this term day after day.

Oh, and not to overlook his buddy "Johnathon" who was another malicious right-wing hack who would cut/paste his comments hundreds of times over when not responded to.

Yes, a very civil, respectful lot, the right-wing. But then, how would any of you really know what transpired at my old place... seeing as the usual story is that you never visited because it was so vile and disgusting?

Chances are this will be deleted, but that's par for the course at this intellectual mini-put.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Chances are this will be deleted, but that's par for the course at this intellectual mini-put.

You have a right to defend yourself which is why I allowed this comment, but just using the c-word once is too much, and you used it plenty more times than that.

Red Tory said...

Joanne — Yes, I have used the “c-word” on occasion. More often than not, however I implored people not to use it and most especially not to deploy it in a completely gratuitously manner. When they continued to do so and I tried to shut them off, delete them or simply ignore them, they moaned about being censored and called me a Nazi or a Stalinist and struck back by flooding my site with hundreds of inane, repetitive posts. Understand that these are people on the “right” who claim to be “conservative” using that sort of language, voicing those opinions and utilizing those tactics… So, excuse me if I kind of roll my eyes with disbelief and express withering contempt whenever I hear the “civility” argument coming from your side of the fence, okay?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Don't talk to me about civility when you use the language you do. I can't speak for other people. I just know what's said about me and what's said on my blog. I have no control over what others on the so-called 'right' say.

I sympathize with Rosie and A.G.

Female bloggers are often treated badly, and that's a fact.

Security said...

Excuse me RT, I have a question for you. Why do you and the rest of the CC crew only pick on middle-aged women? I never see you kids commenting over at SDA, or Chuckercanuck, or Stephen Taylor's or really just about anyplace where there is someone who has, is or will soon hand you your ass. In fact, last night in your home crib I watched one guy play you clowns for two hours until he got tired and ta ta'd off to bed.

Picking on women is wrong RT. It's frowned upon by good men everywhere. Why don't you know that? Were you raised by wolves? Would you speak to Joanne or another woman who didn't agree with you in that degrading tone if they were standing in front of you? I'm tellin' ya man, in the real world, you get hurt for doing things like that.

Saw your picture on your blog RT....you are certainly old enough to know better. Ditch the hate and comport yourself like a man dude.....trust me, you are judged by the company you keep.

Rose Pink Photography said...

joanne, miz shaidle much? and there is a few SDA remarks as well that crossed the line-not to mention the commenters on the site. sheesh, wing nut moonbat, lefto-pinky girly man (my last name is pink btw, believe it or not so I guess pinky isn't much of an insult).

fun times ;)

Joanne (True Blue) said...

joanne, miz shaidle much? and there is a few SDA remarks as well that crossed the line-not to mention the commenters on the site.

Any male Blogging Tories using the c-word? If so, please let me know who. And BTW, I'll readily admit that they're not all angels.

Red Tory said...

Don't talk to me about civility when you use the language you do.

Well, we could certainly have a discussion about the lexicology and semantics of so-called “vulgar” language, bur I rather doubt you’re interested in such a conversation. It seems to me that you invoke the vaunted pretense of “civility” when it comes to the matter of language merely as a screen to filter out opinions that you find objectionable or otherwise threatening.

I just know what's said about me and what's said on my blog. I have no control over what others on the so-called 'right' say.

Of course you don’t, but that doesn’t seem to prevent you from casually generalizing about those on “the left” or from allowing people like “Alberta Girl” and “TangoJulliette” or others to gleefully spread outright lies and falsehoods along with their fact-free “liberal”-bashing screeds. I have said here and elsewhere that I believe you to be deeply dishonest (or “disingenuous” when being more polite) and hypocritical. I stand by those allegations and will happily back them up with examples if need be.

Female bloggers are often treated badly, and that's a fact.

As are male bloggers. Abuse seems to be fairly “equal opportunity” in this regard.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I have said here and elsewhere that I believe you to be deeply dishonest (or “disingenuous” when being more polite) and hypocritical.

I couldn't care less what you think.

I invited all female bloggers to tell their stories - from any political POV.

Jeff said...

RT,

Ti-guy likes to use the "C" word whenever someone calls him on his "Arguements". he also likes to call people names whenever they point out the flaws in his writing. I have had civil discussions with you on your blog but why do you tolerate the others? I do not go to your blog or CC's because debating is not possible. The minute some bloggers or commentors don't agree with what you are saying out come the personal insults. I have noticed this on some Con sites but I am very dissappointed with the decorum on a number of Lib sites. but those blogs don't belong to me so they can do as they please. But would be nice to have a civil debate with someone who disagrees with my view of things.

Gabby in QC said...

"Understand that these are people on the “right” who claim to be “conservative” using that sort of language, voicing those opinions and utilizing those tactics…"

OK, I think we all agree that some people are not interested in discussion; s/he is simply "An Internet troll ... someone who posts controversial messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response."

How do we know that those people posting vile comments about race, gender, etc. are really identifiable as conservative?

In the kind of highly charged partisan atmosphere we're living in, it is conceivable that some people may pose as a conservative or a liberal, for that matter, simply to make that particular party look bad.

And even if those very questionable comments were indeed made by a self-identified partisan of whatever party, it does not mean that s/he is representative of the entire party.

I've said before and I'll say it again, no group has a monopoly on vice or virtue, nor on good or bad Netiquette.

Möbius said...

Yes, a very civil, respectful lot, the right-wing. But then, how would any of you really know what transpired at my old place...

I don't know, I've never been as many names as I've been called on leftish sites when I comment, compared to the conservative sites.

Maybe it's because I tend to be only slightly centre-right, but not religious in either direction, who knows? I'm anti-John Tory and actually respect Dion in many ways (not as PM, thank God). Noone has never referred to me as a c**t or even an a-hole, unlike what I get at home.

It only proves that there are too many un-supervised 10-year olds blogging, who think shocking language takes the place of an interesting argument, on both sides.

Anonymous said...

On her own, because she is smart and capable and has a backbone Joanne has used assertiveness to her benefit, such as in this discussion.
And it's not because she had to 'take on' a man...she had to defend herself against ignorant insults...

without the help of HRC, SWC or any politically correct intervention, and without the victim card.
Keep up the good work Joanne.That is one of the reasons you placed well in the Blogging Awards.

bluetech

liberal supporter said...

Yes, a very civil, respectful lot, the right-wing. But then, how would any of you really know what transpired at my old place...

I do. I was there until RT went with Haloscan. Even though I trust RT completely, I have not researched Haloscan enough that I feel comfortable commenting on sites that use it. Many web services do not have the kind of security I am willing to potentially trust with my very life.

Bloggers can and do get murdered, simply for expressing opinions, just as journalists can. That is the extreme, but joanne as well as RT have each received death threats in the past.

I for one do not take this matter lightly at all. I will not comment on a blog where the operator gleefully comments on the small arms they possess and know how to use, and who also has the ability to track me without any oversight, such as requiring a court order (as I know blogger would require). I am naturally called paranoid for this. Simply for not walking around with a target on my back. So be it.

Due to RT trying to maintain some control over the incessant trolling, he required people to log in. I created a blogger account and minimal blog just for this purpose. One or two of his commenters decided to follow me back to my "blog" and today I have published those words of wisdom for you to see the kinds of abuse that was routine on an hourly basis at RT's then.

You can see them here.


I don't know, I've never been as many names as I've been called on leftish sites when I comment, compared to the conservative sites.

I agree. There are two reasons for this. And the theory that "leftism" is a mental disorder is not one of them.

It is indeed hilarious to watch all the shrieking about Ezra Levant being hauled up before the Politburo, or whatever euphemism is in vogue today, while right wing blogs tend to be more rigidly controlled, with comment moderation the rule (as we see here today). We even see Stephen Harper's unprecedented "message control" being extolled as a great virtue, especially when we actually see Liberal MPs expressing different opinions, such as the recent case of Keith Martin wanting to repeal parts of the human rights act. The MSM, supposedly left wing extremists, are quite happy to trumpet this as signs of "disarray", when it is simply normal discourse.

So, unlike the right wingers, who want hate laws repealed but often permit little dissent in their own backyards, the so-called left actually walk the talk.

That is reason number one. RT walks the talk about freedom of speech, the very thing you claim to be fighting for with the Ezra case. That means that yes, you will be more likely to be called names in a left wing blog, simply because there are more opportunities, due to the greater respect for freedom of speech seen in such places.

Reason number two follows from the greater respect for freedom of speech in places like RT's. There are concerted efforts made to discredit bloggers by forcing them to moderate or delete comments. These trolls believe they are "pwning" the blog operator by forcing them to do such things.

This is a weakness of the current "left" in my view. The manipulation attacks, whereby trollery is to be allowed much more than it should be, results in the proverbial "poisoned well of discourse". When you enter a thread that is already full of personal attacks, you either join in or call for civility. Join in, and you are attacked for attacking. Call for civility, and you will be called a child or sissy that can't take a little strong language. Sock puppets abound, so one will be civil and another then continues the attempts to derail the discussion and effectively change the channel.

It's all about stifling real discussion of the issues of the day. If you can silence the other views, or force them into a box where you can call them left wing dictators, then your mission is accomplished. You can then have a better chance of convincing people at election time that "everyone" supports the views you do.

You can see in the various discussion why joanne's place has reached a high standing among blogs. She was a lot more left wing at one time, and she still has that greater willingness to see other points of view. As her journey has taken her towards the "dark side", she will moderate and delete with little concern.

It takes a lot of work actually, and I certainly commend her for it. If you can run a place where lots of people vigorously disagree with you but will not simply give up in disgust, you've got something.

fh said...

Joanne

the language RED TORY used about you is unfogivable

keep him banned please

maryT said...

Caught some of the ethics farce today. One conservative member started by stating,
This is to let the committee know that all my questions were written by me, not the cbc.
Guess what, there was never a bank account in Switzerland or anywhere else in Brians name.
It did come out today, a little, that the money Brian got was in settlement for a libel suit. It took 7 drafts of the letter to the swiss banks, before one was sent that would cause action. Stevie Camerons name come up. The first leak re the letter etc was in a european paper. All 25 board members of the bank got copies of said letter.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

the language RED TORY used about you is unfogivable

keep him banned please


O.K. If I must. *sigh*

;)

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Mary, I just got a bit of it. Busy day. I did see the chef testifying though. Air Farce doesn't need a script this week.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

And even if those very questionable comments were indeed made by a self-identified partisan of whatever party, it does not mean that s/he is representative of the entire party.

Good point, Gabby.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Keep up the good work Joanne.That is one of the reasons you placed well in the Blogging Awards.

Thanks, Bluetech.


Liberal Supporter, that's quite a mouthful there. You've put a lot of thought into your analysis of blogging and trolling.

Thanks for the kind words and support. We don't always agree but I do very much respect your point of view and I appreciate your comments.

OMMAG said...

Ok I'll jump in way down here!

'C" word eh ...... CONSERVATIVE ??

Alberta Girl said...

"AG — Sorry to interrupt your lies, but just for the record, the person who employed the "c-word" most frequently at my old place happened to be a so-called "conservative" named "HOVA" "

Nice try RT but it wasn't Hova - I have been called that by some of your "regulars" - TG rings a bell.

Don't know who the idiot was who commented with the porn as they signed my name, but I will be willing to bet it was also one of your regulars.

Don't get so high and mighty RT, the regulars on your site might have called themselves "progressives" but they were as neanderthal as they come. .

Alberta GIrl said...

"“Alberta Girl” and “TangoJulliette” or others to gleefully spread outright lies and falsehoods along with their fact-free “liberal”-bashing screeds."

Oh RT - PULEEZE - grow up because it is obvious that you can't handle being criticized. Falsehoods - I want you to give me an example of one falsehood that I have written. Liberal bashing - I certainly admit to that but at least I have NEVER called anyone the c-word.

You allow commentors like Ti-Guy to make derogatory statements and to call people names and you take no action to censor him yet you have the audacity to say that I spread "falsehoods".

I await with bated breath for your examples.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

'C" word eh ...... CONSERVATIVE ??

lol!

Alberta Girl - Good comeback. I'm just worried about FH.

Alberta GIrl said...

"That means that yes, you will be more likely to be called names in a left wing blog, simply because there are more opportunities, due to the greater respect for freedom of speech seen in such places."

Bollocks - what a load of hooey.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Bollocks - what a load of hooey.

Yes, I had a problem with that one too, I must admit. Let's see here...

That means that yes, you will be more likely to be called names in a left wing blog, simply because there are more opportunities, due to the greater respect for freedom of speech seen in such places.

So this means that left-wing blogs have more of a tendency to call women sexist, demeaning names because they value freedom of speech which they regard as equal to the right to put down women.

Interesting. I wonder if the female members of the NDP would agree with that theory? I'm sure Irene Mathyssen would have something to say about women being 'objectified'. Or does that just relate to Conservative men looking at pictures of their girlfriends?

Alberta Girl said...

"So this means that left-wing blogs have more of a tendency to call women sexist, demeaning names because they value freedom of speech which they regard as equal to the right to put down women."

Joanne - I think you have figured out the secret to being a "progressive". Good work!!

It is my contention that while they harp about how "free" their speech is - try to debate their points or make a dissenting comment and you find out just how much they value "free speech".

Commenting at a Liberal Blog is like standing in the boxing ring with your hands tied behind your back while they all take their punches.

So grown up and mature, those progressives"!!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Commenting at a Liberal Blog is like standing in the boxing ring with your hands tied behind your back while they all take their punches.

And they wonder why we don't go there anymore? Who needs that garbage?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

BTW, where's Warren Kinsella when you really need him?

Chuckercanuck said...

Joanne,

they do it because they think they'll get a rise out of you.

These are a rather pathetic bunch of people who realize affirmation is much too much for them to expect so they settle for confirmation. Confirmation that they exist and matter. Saying "c#$@" to you and getting you to use comment moderation and launching posts on the subject confirms to them that they exist and can, in whatever contemptible way, shape the world.

To me, it reminds me of Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men - Curly I think the character was - basically, he was the mouse. Mice use the "c-word" and hurl it at women they think they can affect with it. Men don't.

As for progressive Annie, well, I agree with her 100%. Random profanity is not only harmless, its a lot of fun. So, let us Conservatives forget all the nasty talk and move on to more important subjects, like how stupid we think black people are and the dangerous psychopathies of all muslim people.

She forgot to mention it, so I will remind everyone: we also should talk about how much we hate homosexuals and our secret plans to persecute them as soon as we secure a majority in parliament.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

The inimitable ChuckerCanuk. Thanks for the levity. It came at a good time. Of Mice and Men, eh? I'll have to drag that one out again.

Alberta Girl said...

"She forgot to mention it, so I will remind everyone: we also should talk about how much we hate homosexuals and our secret plans to persecute them as soon as we secure a majority in parliament"

Oh cc, sweetie - you must be who RT was thinking of when he spoke of spreading falsehoods - glad to know that it's been cleared up!!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

lol! Alberta Girl, Chucker is the best. I just love that guy.

Alberta Girl said...

"I await with bated breath for your examples."

Geesh RT - are you EVER going to get back here with examples of my "falsehoods" that I have spread.

Or was that just you blowing smoke because you couldn't think of anything else intelligent to say and decided to smear someone on your way out?

I will assume the latter, but if you still want to provide me with some examples of "falsehoods" I have spread, I will be more than happy to debate you on them.

Alberta Girl said...

Well it seems that RT was just blowing smoke when he accused myself and TJ of "falsehoods".

Yep - those left-wingers are sure "progressive"!!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

A.G. - Let's just ignore him. He scares away too many of my readers anyway.

Alberta Girl said...

"A.G. - Let's just ignore him. He scares away too many of my readers anyway."

While I agree with you that we should ignore him, not only has he acknowledged that he allowed me to be called that c-word, but he inimated that I spread falsehoods. I have challenged him to give me examples.

Yes, I probably should just quit - and I intend to now - but I am getting so very tired of the left throwing out statements accusing me of lying with no backup and then when they are challenged to either debate or to provide examples - all of a sudden they disappear.

I am extremely frustrated that RT and his ilk feel they are better than others simply because they vote a certain way.

So I will now take your advice to heart and I will ignore him (well - for now anyway - ha ha)

Thanks for my giving me the chance to continue my rant!!

Möbius said...

That means that yes, you will be more likely to be called names in a left wing blog, simply because there are more opportunities, due to the greater respect for freedom of speech seen in such places.

I don't see it that way, more the opposite. Try using your freedom of speech on left-leaning sites, and see what it gets you. Condescension, at best. The con sites, with some exceptions, tend to be more accepting of alternative positions. Either that, they hate me, but won't say.

We even see Stephen Harper's unprecedented "message control" being extolled as a great virtue...

The Conservatives have finally learned that message control is important to political success, something the LPC never had any compunction about.

Gayle said...

Well, as a progressive female blogger (no gabby, I am not a liberal) here are my thoughts:

I do not recall anyone ever using the c-word on me.

What I find happens more from conservative blogers than liberal blogers are personal attacks.

Whether you start your post with "umm, Gayle, sweetie..." (condescension intended to insult) or use the term "typical LIEberal" or "socialist" or "looney leftie" or "man-hating feminist" makes no difference. When you decide to attack me rather than my message it is an attempt to derail the message. It is the kind of behaviour that makes some people angry, and they react with personal attacks of their own. Quite frankly if I started a personal attack and then had someone call me a name, I would not suddenly think that person has gone too far. You either behave like mature adults and have mature conversations or you turn it into personal attacks. It cannot be both.

I once had a disagreement with one of RT's regulars who thought it was important to point out a mistake I made in a historical reference as evidence I was ignorant and uneducated. After I pointed out he is an arrogant ass (he is - trust me :)), we resolved it by agreeing to never "speak" to each other again, and we haven't.

I have also had disagreements with RT, the most recent on Scott Tribe's blog, but we were able to keep it civil and agree to disagree.

And gabby, just to explain that whole "I am not a liberal thing", many people, like you, have made the mistake of assuming that just because I attack the conservatives I must be a liberal. I am not, though I do not conceal the fact I donate to that particular party at this time as I see them as being the only way to defeat Harper (and it is not secret I want him defeated).

AG - the incident where someone stole you ID happened one night on DBT (a place where I was often attacked personally for my views). I do not recall anything like that at RT.

liberal supporter said...

While I agree with you that we should ignore him, not only has he acknowledged that he allowed me to be called that c-word, but he inimated that I spread falsehoods. I have challenged him to give me examples.

The second comment in this thread is probably the one he is referring to. You stated you are a person who has had to deal with jerks (usually on the left) throwing the c-word at them.

He then pointed out that the biggest user of the c-word was a guy who presents himself as right wing (biff/hova/jonathan).

He did not claim you are "spreading falsehoods". He did refer to you lying, the lie being that the users of said word are "usually on the left". They are not, usually from what I saw there.

"Allowing" you to be called said word speaks volumes. That is the whole point, that freedom of speech is allowed. I think he is being manipulated into allowing it, just so people can moan about how terrible it is, when the biggest offender was in fact biff/hova/jonathan/admin/chester etc.

Just as I think you are manipulating the discussion. After I have described where you were called as lying, you will now say "oh those lefties, just like suzuki and dion, they all need others to explain what they really meant".

An interesting strategy you have, to be sure. Now its "we don't want no phd running the country" and "we can't understand what he am saying". The only trouble with the willful obtuseness strategy is sometimes it backfires and you are dismissed as being simply obtuse.




Yes, I probably should just quit - and I intend to now - but I am getting so very tired of the left throwing out statements
Spare me the "I'm just so weary" routine.

accusing me of lying with no backup and then when they are challenged to either debate or to provide examples - all of a sudden they disappear.
Backup is now provided. The example was right here in this thread, claiming "usually on the left", so it would seem moot to point it out again. Someone trying to follow the thread, instead of being willfully obtuse would see that. But that would not allow you to do your next comeback, would it?

I am extremely frustrated that RT and his ilk feel they are better than others simply because they vote a certain way.
I am not frustrated, just mildly amused, that you would resort to a passive aggressive attack such as "feel they are better than others". To "vote a certain way" is what it's all about isn't it? You try to make it sound like "simply voting a certain way" is about brand preference. You would like your party to be seen as just another brand, only a little better. We keep hearing "See, no soldiers in the streets, no hidden agenda, we're worthy of being in power". The laughable part is all of that is because you have a minority. Actually the laughable part is you expect people not to realize that.

So I will now take your advice to heart and I will ignore him (well - for now anyway - ha ha)
What leaves me mystified is this focus on the c-word. Obviously it is a sexist kind of word, though it is used to put down either gender. Meanwhile, you blithely call people "sweetie", in that condescending way. I am not your sweetie. Why do you hit on me with that word, you sexist pig?

I hope if you quote me saying "you sexist pig", you will also quote this sentence pointing out I am kidding, that I am pointing out why being called "sweetie" annoys me as much as trolls calling you the c-word. I suspect you would, since it fits today's meme "they need explainers to follow up and explain everything they say".

I don't see it that way, more the opposite. Try using your freedom of speech on left-leaning sites, and see what it gets you.
I gets you what it gets you, but my position is it doesn't get deleted as often.

Condescension, at best. The con sites, with some exceptions, tend to be more accepting of alternative positions.
I wouldn't use joanne's as an example. Here at least you don't get deleted if you follow the basic rules set out by the operator. I think condescension is alive and well everywhere. The con sites do better at the smirk and sneer putdowns, while the left sites do better at the road rage style swearing.

So this means that left-wing blogs have more of a tendency to call women sexist, demeaning names because they value freedom of speech which they regard as equal to the right to put down women.
That is a very interesting point of view, but of course it has no connection with what I said.

As I pointed out earlier, I think the "walking the talk" on freedom of speech does mean allowing name calling, but left wingers get manipulated into allowing way too much flame bait in the name of this freedom.

One problem I see is that removing swear words doesn't put a stop to people resorting to personal attacks and putdowns. We see it here at times, it comes close to being like the little kid that says "kiss my donkey", since he's not allowed to use certain words.

For example, we see in the first comment here, the first paragraph using two standard memes. First that a "lefty" believes they have God given rights. Then the second meme is alluding to the evil multicult. Kind of reminds me of the old backhander where any mention of "men" is followed by a pause, then "... or women".

Then the second paragraph bemoans that we can't have discussions without insults and putdowns, when the first paragraph did just that.

Alberta Girl said...

"Whether you start your post with "umm, Gayle, sweetie..." (condescension intended to insult)"

Gayle - that comment is directed at me - I acknowledge that I do use that phrase and yes, I will admit that it is condescension that is intended to insult. I do however take to heart your comments about how the phrase is perceived by those on the receiving end. I have been using that phrase ever since Paula Simons used it in an article in the Edmonton Journal where she was making derogatory statements about Steven Harper - the statement was Steven, Sweetie -- or something to that effect. It was derogatory and it was used against the Prime Minister of this country by a person who so obviously thought he was not worthy of the respect the office deserves. It was condescending and it was meant to insult.

"You either behave like mature adults and have mature conversations or you turn it into personal attacks"

Valid Point.

"AG - the incident where someone stole you ID happened one night on DBT (a place where I was often attacked personally for my views). I do not recall anything like that at RT."

I don't know if I agree with you on that, I do know it was a blog where I was being attacked on all sides for my views and when I went back to the blog in the morning, the comment was there - which I found particularily mortifying and insulting. I do know that happened to me often at RT's so I still hold that it was at his blog.


Now to L.S.

"The second comment in this thread is probably the one he is referring to. You stated you are a person who has had to deal with jerks (usually on the left) throwing the c-word at them."

For the record, I believe that statement is not mine but our hostess' Joannes - I put it in quotations as a means of reference to my following comment. So While I don't disagree with the statement and I do not think it is false, it is not mine.

He then pointed out that the biggest user of the c-word was a guy who presents himself as right wing (biff/hova/jonathan).

"He did not claim you are "spreading falsehoods".

Here is what he said

""Of course you don’t, but that doesn’t seem to prevent you from casually generalizing about those on “the left” or from allowing people like “Alberta Girl” and “TangoJulliette” or others to gleefully spread outright lies and falsehoods along with their fact-free “liberal”-bashing screeds.""

"He did refer to you lying, the lie being that the users of said word are "usually on the left". They are not, usually from what I saw there."

Once again - not my words.


" when the biggest offender was in fact biff/hova/jonathan/admin/chester etc."

Well, I would disagree as he has some others on his site (these same commentors often comment on other Left-wing sites) who are extremely degrading in their language, especially if they are challenged.

"Just as I think you are manipulating the discussion. After I have described where you were called as lying, "

Once again - not my comment.

"you will now say "oh those lefties, just like suzuki and dion, they all need others to explain what they really meant".

I resent having words put in my mouth (or my mind, I guess)

"An interesting strategy you have, to be sure. Now its "we don't want no phd running the country" and "we can't understand what he am saying". The only trouble with the willful obtuseness strategy is sometimes it backfires and you are dismissed as being simply obtuse."

Once again - you are making assumptions based on putting words into my mouth.



"Backup is now provided. The example was right here in this thread, claiming "usually on the left", so it would seem moot to point it out again."

It may be moot to point out once again - Not my comment.

"Someone trying to follow the thread, instead of being willfully obtuse would see that. But that would not allow you to do your next comeback, would it?"

I am really having difficulty following your logic here?

"I am not frustrated, just mildly amused, that you would resort to a passive aggressive attack such as "feel they are better than others". To "vote a certain way" is what it's all about isn't it? You try to make it sound like "simply voting a certain way" is about brand preference."

LS - it has nothing to do with Brand Preference. I passionately believe that the Conservatives are the best party to govern this country. I acknowledge that you and many, many others do not - that is called a democracy. However, when Conservatives are likened to neanderthals, knuckledraggers, neo-cons, racists, homo-phobes etc. etc etc, all those "condescending" terms that the left used to insinuate that somehow right-thinking individuals are not equal to those who vote for parties on the left. For example, the left refer to themselves as "progressives" a term which implies they are forward thinking, open to new ideas, welcoming to all. Yet, what we see in practice often belies that - for example, many on the left refuse to believe that their may be other explanations than "global warming" for the weather we happen to be experiencing at the moment. Yet when those alternate explanations are expressed, there is no debate, there is only screams of "denier". So I find that it is often people on the right side of the political spectrum that are willing to be open minded enough to consider that there could be other factors to what appears to be happening.

I find that it is often those on the left side of the political spectrum who want to maintain the status quo - there can be no discussion about private health care although our Health Care System badly needs changing. - There can be no discussion about changing the HRC even though it is being abused by many who use it.

"The laughable part is all of that is because you have a minority"

It has nothing to do with having a minority, LS - it is the fact that the right in this country has to work harder to be accepted by the average Canadian. The Liberals invented branding in 2004 when they branded Stephen Harper as scary, they did it when Preston Manning was leader and they did it with Stockwell Day.

"You would like your party to be seen as just another brand, only a little better."

I would just like my party to get a fair shake from the media in this country.


"What leaves me mystified is this focus on the c-word."

Once again - not my comment, the question was asked if any other female commentors had been called that name.

"Obviously it is a sexist kind of word, though it is used to put down either gender. Meanwhile, you blithely call people "sweetie", in that condescending way. I am not your sweetie. Why do you hit on me with that word, you sexist pig?"

I would direct you to the beginning of my comment where I agreed with Gayle that I was being condescending. I do take exception that calling someone "sweetie" is not quite the same as calling them a "c...",

"I don't see it that way, more the opposite. Try using your freedom of speech on left-leaning sites, and see what it gets you.
I gets you what it gets you, but my position is it doesn't get deleted as often."

I respectfully disagree with you on that one. The reason comments get deleted is usually because it is one of the usual crowd who has gone on a derogatory, swearing rant.

"Condescension, at best. The con sites, with some exceptions, tend to be more accepting of alternative positions. "

I agree with this statement - as I have explained somewhere above.


"I wouldn't use joanne's as an example. Here at least you don't get deleted if you follow the basic rules set out by the operator. I think condescension is alive and well everywhere. The con sites do better at the smirk and sneer putdowns, while the left sites do better at the road rage style swearing."

I agree

"So this means that left-wing blogs have more of a tendency to call women sexist, demeaning names because they value freedom of speech which they regard as equal to the right to put down women."

Well that certainly is an interesting theory - I am not sure that having the freedom to put down women means that you should put down women. I think that goes to the point that Left wing sites are not as welcoming to dissenting opinions as right-wing sites.

"As I pointed out earlier, I think the "walking the talk" on freedom of speech does mean allowing name calling, but left wingers get manipulated into allowing way too much flame bait in the name of this freedom."

Allowing Freedom of Speech doesn't mean allowing disgraceful behaviour. If you were sitting in your living room having a conversation with someone and someone else jumped in and started swearing and calling that guest degrading names, would you sit idly by and let it go on because you believe that everyone should be able to say whatever they want. There is something called manners and appropriateness and being respectful of what the other person has to say.


"Then the second paragraph bemoans that we can't have discussions without insults and putdowns, when the first paragraph did just that."

I believe that Annie was stating what many of us on the right "feel" - yes there is that word again - that we cannot express our opinions in an attempt to have an honest debate without being insulted and sworn at - and as has been alluded to here many times, it happens more often either when we happen to visit a left wing blog or a left winger jogs on over because some topic caught his eye.

I do appreciate your comments, though LS, I do find that you and Gayle tend not to resort to the gutter with your comments. I did want to address some of the things you did say in an attempt to perhaps give you a view from the other side of the street.
Whew - Rant over!!

liberal supporter said...

There is something called manners and appropriateness and being respectful of what the other person has to say.
My last dig will be to claim that "manners" and "politeness" was renamed "political correctness" by nefarious people. If you read something mentioning "political correctness" and substitute "politeness", you can quickly see which things are simply being nice and which things are being foolish.

Not publishing cartoons of Mohammed (unless you are a fringe paper publisher) would be "polite". Paying welfare to extended family harems (outside of what goes on as if they were single) would be foolish.

did want to address some of the things you did say in an attempt to perhaps give you a view from the other side of the street.
I have noticed in this thread and others of a similar vein that it is actually hard to see the other's point of view.

I'm not referring to political point of view, that's easy to see. Like I will find a comment constantly saying "Lieberal" to be insulting, while someone referring to "Herr Harper" will make me laugh. This is probably why I find people like RT so hilarious to read.

The biggest problem with this kind of stuff is it makes it harder to look at anything objectively.

Look at two typical smears:
1) the clip of Dion saying "this is unfair!". We hear trolls spouting this over and over, yet I see the context, in which he was fighting for leadership at a convention, where his main rival was a rookie MP who had never been in Cabinet. So I am pretty forgiving of his exasperation at that time. But this is used for snickering claims he's "not a leader, not worth the risk".

2) the fundraising letter from Harper talking about the evils of Kyoto. I just cited this in another thread to claim the Liberals, even in majority, would not like to have a major battle over a treaty that was not yet in force. This letter and others are used to hang the denier label on Harper, and darkly hint his is a cat's paw of the evil oil companies. I suspect the lefty trolls would shriek this sort of thing at every opportunity.

Trying to see the other side's view is difficult, but I will try, just for you!

I am not much of one to believe the right wing somehow wants to destroy the world, but they took exception to the carbon trading system that would provide an easy (and expensive) way out. If we simply buy hot air from the Russians, we're copping out. The right wing would believe a Liberal government would do just that, and I believe one climate change proposal or budget was going to include buying credits, so that confirms their concerns to some extent. As for the "so-called" climate change, I think the right wing finds it harder to be seen as changing their minds. This is because they like to paint the left as weathervanes, changing views with the wind (or polls). Just as one can (in my view) get away with more trollery in left wing places, due to their fear of being called "against free speech", you can get away with more trumpeting past right wing views to force them to stick by them, even as they become harder to support.

If you want to get all pollyanna about it, you would see the right wingers are now increasingly agreeing that climate change is happening, and that human activity has something to do with it. It's now a question of what to do about it. Meanwhile on the left wing side, you will see no willingness to shut down the economy (there never was in my view), but you will now see no willingness to simply buy credits and send money elsewhere. Their position would be edging towards spending what the credits would cost, but spend it here. The international credits can simply be a way of keeping score, and not be redeemable as cash in the near future. You even hear the CPC occasionally talking about credits, but on a more local level. That would be the conventional "cap and trade" mechanism for a region that lets businesses invest in technologies, and get a faster payback since they can sell credits to other businesses that haven't made the investment.

Think we can get a majority that just wants the MPs to work together and resolve differences in a civil manner?

Alberta Girl said...

Well LS - you and I seem to be the only ones left here so other than Joanne who will most likely read this - no one else will probably be around to see that

I actually agree with you!! ha ha

Well on most things anyway - At the risk of being labelled a "true denier", I have lived long enough to see lots of different "climate change". I believe that there are many other factors that affect our climate and I believe it is cyclical. There is already evidence that the "warming" we have experienced is going back to a "cooling" much like we experienced in the 60's and 70's.
So I will disagree with the whole buying carbon credits as I really don't think it will mean a hill of beans.

Now that does not mean that I don't think we should be taking better care of our earth. We are polluting our waters, farmers are clearing vast tracts of land to squeeze out extra production or just so they can get their huge machinery around the fields. They allow their cattle to wade around in our water supplies. Farmers in Alberta in the 80's drained sloughs on their properties - all to gain extra production - Changing the eco-system changes climate. I do not agree with smoke belching factories, however I do know that most companies in this country have attempted to become eco-friendly and I do know that the oil companies especially have developed many "green" initiatives that have caused them to produce far less pollution. Yet they still get the rap from the "global warming" crowd.

So, hopefully left and right can put aside their differences and work together. I am not sure it will happen as there is that little thing called "power" that changes people.

But it has to start somewhere, right.

Möbius said...

However, when Conservatives are likened to neanderthals, knuckledraggers, neo-cons, racists, homo-phobes etc. etc etc, all those "condescending" terms that the left used to insinuate that somehow right-thinking individuals are not equal to those who vote for parties on the left.

They do this to stifle debate, and demonize their opponents.

To a Liberal, winning is the only thing, which is why they're so out of sorts these days. The true Lefties, the NDP and Greens, are used to losing, but at least can take satisfaction in influencing the debate.