Oh, troll-baiting has a long and honorable tradition online, but ONLY if he then goes meta and writes a The-Making-Of story discussing how he felt guilt pangs while baiting the trap, but mastered them "for the sake of the truth."
Or...is this just a Vancouver thing? Passive-aggressive is very Canadian. You could just as well have written this as an "Foreign National Employs Disinformation Campaign Against Patriots" or whatever.
PS: the Sun is not what you'd call left-wing, just so you know.
PPS: the new comment order positively encourages not reading the comments before commenting. Who am I to go against the flow?
I think the equivalency thing people are doing with the Palin / Letterman thing is fascinating. And dumb. Fascinatingly dumb. To point out the most obvious difference, the Letterman story was promoted and fueled by none other than Sarah Palin. But I guess this sort of false equivalency is what we're in for over the next 4 to 8 years. Any cover will do, right?
@Mediahohoho: Spot on. Barely half a year has passed in the Obama Presidency and this is the gauntlet that's been thrown down. The inability or obstinence to admit that an 11-year-old girl--who has never voiced any sort of political point of view--doesn't deserve this sort of racist hostility thinly veiled as "tit for tat" is willingly and pathologically ignorant. It paints a pathetic portrait of a group who don't possess an ideology--just a lot of projected anger.
the one good thing about all the extreme ugliness coming out of the mentally chanllenged haterz on the right is that it really does bring the spotlight on them and it makes clear that so much anti gov, anti social welfare spending, anti decent social safety net spending, anti civil society, anti tax, anti anything speech has, at its core, exactly this kind of hatred. as lee atwater said,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."[7]
Hypocrisy: Republicans get their panties in a knot about Letterman’s joke about Palin’s unwed teenage daughter getting knocked up while attacking the daughter of the president of the United States for the color of her skin.
@MaelstromInTheMiddle: Hypocrisy: Leftists not condemning a famous old man on national television for a joke about statuatory rape, then getting bent out of shape by commentors trying to out-jackass each other on their small corner of a vast internet. They have a right to say it just as Letterman did, but let's remember to condemn things equally. What they are saying is just as bad as what Letterman said, for all the same reasons. However, both have the right to say it. You will find that once this gets to conservative pundits such as O'Reilly and Beck, they too will condemn it, as it is abhorrent.
@topsy: I read what he said, watched what he said and know the whole story behind it. I even predicted that if the shoes were on different feet, like this event, it would just switch who was angry. But let's not forget that these are just jackass commentors and Free Republic has chosen to permit them to say what they want on their website by not deleting them. Their choice, and they chose to allow their commentors to exercise their freedom of speech. I guess you should sue them for it and force the government to moderate the internet, since free speach can make people angry.
@braak: His first apology was a half apology, which didn't condemn the joke itself, but said he meant someone else and just made an excuse. The second apology was much better saying the joke itself was wrong and in bad taste, which was the right thing to do, given his status. The commentors on that site are idiots, however that page needed to be heavily promoted in order for it to make a splash in even the blog-sphere news.
Like I said, both are wrong, but one was shouted nation-wide in an instant, where is this is being continually promoted to bring light to negativity on the other side. I'm sure you could find some eco-nazi website that discusses their hatred of anyone who drives a car and thinks they should be killed, just as you can easily find the main page for the KKK pretty easily.
@jodark: For the 4,000th time, the First Amendment guarantees the right to speech that is free from government interference. It does not guarantee you the right to say whatever you want on a privately owned web site. No one has advocated that "the government moderate the internet," but some have suggested -- entirely appropriately -- that Free Republic moderate its own website. That's the beauty of free speech: you have the right to say it, and I have the right to call you an asshole for saying it, and to throw you out of my house if you say it in my living room.
@jodark: If you can't see the difference between a comedian making fun of a 19-year-old who gets knocked up and then sets herself up as a poster child of abstinence thanks to her delusional mother's need for attention and a bunch of idiots on a website making racist comments about an 11 yr old wearing an age appropriate T-shirt ... then you have a serious problem of the stupids.
@topsy: When you reply to someone in steerage, you "promote" their comment so the great unwashed can read what you're replying to. Just drive on, pretend the little people don't exist. Or, that's what The Dark Lord wants you to do, anyway.
@Amdesi: I went looking for the like/hitchhiking thumb/thanks for stating succinctly what all of us were thinking button, but no could find it. So, I guess I'll just reply in archaic web 1.0 fashion.
First of all, there's nothing rebellious about a peace sign on a t-shirt...plenty of department stores and teen clothing stores put them on (girls', and seemingly girl's alone...irritating) t-shirts, pants, dresses, sweaters, etc. etc. Anyone who isn't 100, living under a rock or in Bumblefuck, Midddle of Nowhere would know that. That's not a political statement (what's WRONG with the peace sign, anyway? Is it just the universal sign for "dirty, anarchist hippies"?).
Second...that's some brave shit, going after an 11 year-old.
How much consideration do these people merit---they're grotesque, but they're laughable. How much of the voting population do they make up?
Who am I kidding...it's bad enough there's an audience for political herpes like the Palins; THESE people are just the sprinkles on their shit cake.
Free Republic actually called Chris Parry a loan-shark for providing microcredit loans through kiva.org. I suppose that makes me a loan-shark, too. So, let it be known that if that Ugandan farmer doesn't pay her loans back, I'll be flying over there and busting some knee-caps.
The irony of Freepers calling others "ghetto". I guess they don't realize what kind of intellectual ghetto they find themselves in.
These spineless cowards cannot be taken seriously. They may readily release such nasty racism online under the guise of anonymity but in real life they would never dream of openly exposing their vile innards. So their words are pretty much worthless as they have no integrity. I feel sorry for them for they will never understand or treasure the scale of human diversity.
@Conchie Birdie: I was going to make the same point. No call for politeness here. It would embarrass morons the world over to be lumped in with these people.
@Foster Kamer: I had to cut and paste the link to Mozilla that was a part of your original post in order to access the website. I am unable to click on the web address and reach it directly.
@Pope John Peeps II: Do you mean when you paste a link into comments the link appears in the posted comment as a text URL? That definitely doesn't work like before. You have to manually insert the link using <a href="URL">. I think momof3 and jasonelias are describing a different issue, though. All of the links included in Foster's post and in his comments seem to work fine in Firefox 3.5. Apparently, the links don't work for them, however.
@atlasfugged: OH. Yeah, I was talking about the fact that before, when you posted a link address, it just automatically created the link. Now you have to Href it which is boring. I didn't realize other people were just not seeing links. I'm with Firefox 3.0.11 and my links show up great.
What's this muffling all the sanctimonious "journalism should be objective" howling in the far-left echo chamber? Why... why it's giant wads of sound-absorbent cash!
Congratulations, shills. You are now merely less successful at huckstering for bucks than Fox News.
@Perhaps Not: I think it's acceptable for journalism not to be objective (in fact, throughout American history we've seen that times when the press was most ideological was also when people were the most politically active and informed). I think it's even acceptable to promote fundraising for a political candidate or an interest group. The problem comes when you are tying your coverage of a candidate or an interest group with that candidate or interest group paying you, instead of your actual feelings toward a candidate or interest group. That's completely intellectually dishonest.
I've never really liked any of these bloggers (except Crooks & Liars, damn), but the hypocrisy and corruptness on display is incredibly surprising.
@Perhaps Not: These guys are not journalists nor do I think they really hold themselves out as such. They're advocates, pure and simple, for a particular political view, and that's what they do and they do it well. They are partly responsible for the success the Dems have had and there's no reason why they should continue upaid. Limbaugh and O'Reilly get paid, why shouldn't these guys?
@formerly it takes a lot to laugh: That's not a bad point (although Limbaugh and O'Reilly do claim to be - and O'Reilly is sort of right - journalists), but I'd argue that these guys are representing IDEAS, not individuals. Liberalism is a great idea; Ted Kennedy is an idiot. If Ted Kennedy pays you to report on how great he is because he's liberal and then kills somebody with his car, you're suddenly in a pickle, whether you agree with his professed philosophy or not.
@Perhaps Not: Yeah, but they're asking for ads from think tanks and advocacy groups, not individuals.
Fox' advertisers (corporations) have agendas but for some reason when Fox advocates lower corporate taxes or less regulation, no one complains about how their agenda matches up nicely with their advertisers'.
So what we're saying is that lobbying groups should advertise political messages to their most dogged, frothing advocates on platforms who don't even claim objectivity. Come on blogs, at least the New York Times does the whole fig leaf thing with guys like Kristol. And Rupert Murdok occassionally apologizes for when his mouthpieces are racist or reactionary. That's the trouble with blogs - they're too good at finding an audience; one specific audience of like-minded groupthinkers.
I think you've got this wrong. I don't know if it's a useless idea for these organizations to advertise on liberal blogs. Sites like Daily Kos actually have a proven fundraising capacity -- remember the Michelle Bachman backlash? Never underestimate the power of angry people with money.
You're right that people who read liberal blogs already have a propensity to give money to PACs and campaigns. Additionally, people who read Cat Fancy magazine have a propensity to buy twinkling balls, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad place for twinkling ball manufacturers to advertise (quite the opposite).
And yes, the comparison of Daily Kos readers to kittens chasing after shiny toys with bells on them was entirely intentional.
@eatsshootsleaves: it's not wrong for these organizations to advertise on blogs -- it's basically wrong for these blogs to shake them down and treat these organizations as if they are their only possible advertiser. that's the issue here.
@allyzay: Yeah, I know (see another comment I made for this post). But the post also says that there's no valuable reason these organizations should advertise with these blogs -- which I don't think is true.
07/13/09
Or...is this just a Vancouver thing? Passive-aggressive is very Canadian. You could just as well have written this as an "Foreign National Employs Disinformation Campaign Against Patriots" or whatever.
PS: the Sun is not what you'd call left-wing, just so you know.
PPS: the new comment order positively encourages not reading the comments before commenting. Who am I to go against the flow?
07/12/09
07/13/09
07/12/09
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."[7]
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/12/09
Edited to add: For some reason, it says I approve and promote your comment. Not even close.
07/12/09
I mean, not the second apology which happened a week later, but the first apology. What's that about, do you think?
07/12/09
07/12/09
Like I said, both are wrong, but one was shouted nation-wide in an instant, where is this is being continually promoted to bring light to negativity on the other side. I'm sure you could find some eco-nazi website that discusses their hatred of anyone who drives a car and thinks they should be killed, just as you can easily find the main page for the KKK pretty easily.
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/13/09
07/13/09
07/14/09
07/12/09
Second...that's some brave shit, going after an 11 year-old.
How much consideration do these people merit---they're grotesque, but they're laughable. How much of the voting population do they make up?
Who am I kidding...it's bad enough there's an audience for political herpes like the Palins; THESE people are just the sprinkles on their shit cake.
07/12/09
[www.democraticunderground.com]
[www.freerepublic.com]
(Disclaimer: Click on the last link at your own peril. Reading that site may cause you to lose faith in humanity).
07/12/09
These spineless cowards cannot be taken seriously. They may readily release such nasty racism online under the guise of anonymity but in real life they would never dream of openly exposing their vile innards. So their words are pretty much worthless as they have no integrity. I feel sorry for them for they will never understand or treasure the scale of human diversity.
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/12/09
Down the rabbit hole we go...
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/12/09
I think momof3 and jasonelias are describing a different issue, though. All of the links included in Foster's post and in his comments seem to work fine in Firefox 3.5. Apparently, the links don't work for them, however.
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/12/09
07/13/09
04/09/09
you can pay your bills without shaking down non-profit organizations, assholes. get one (1) business manager over there.
04/09/09
04/09/09
04/09/09
Congratulations, shills. You are now merely less successful at huckstering for bucks than Fox News.
04/09/09
I've never really liked any of these bloggers (except Crooks & Liars, damn), but the hypocrisy and corruptness on display is incredibly surprising.
04/09/09
04/09/09
04/09/09
04/09/09
Fox' advertisers (corporations) have agendas but for some reason when Fox advocates lower corporate taxes or less regulation, no one complains about how their agenda matches up nicely with their advertisers'.
04/09/09
04/09/09
04/09/09
You're right that people who read liberal blogs already have a propensity to give money to PACs and campaigns. Additionally, people who read Cat Fancy magazine have a propensity to buy twinkling balls, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad place for twinkling ball manufacturers to advertise (quite the opposite).
And yes, the comparison of Daily Kos readers to kittens chasing after shiny toys with bells on them was entirely intentional.
04/09/09
04/09/09