Thursday, March 27, 2008

Burnt Umbrage

I am tired of the internet. So very very tired.

Well, not the internet itself, per se. Just the political end of it.

Well, not so much the political blogs, per se. It's really just the human detritus that inhabit the comment threads.

I have mentioned before, that there is no such thing as intelligent discussion on the internet. And don't even bother looking for debate. There is none. At lest none that could be considered of any value. No, what you do get in spades is a whole bunch of self righteous assnozzles that would prefer to lecture, hector or harass you to fill whatever self esteem deficit they happen to suffer from at the time. While it can be, and has been, entertaining, it's grown tiresome reading the mini manifestos of fools and social retards who vastly overestimate their intellectual game while underestimating the amount of shit people with actual lives give about their ill-considered and usually irrelevant opinions.

Yeah, yeah I know: NEWSFLASH -- Poop blogger discovers that there are assholes on the internet. In other news, Pope to announce he's still Catholic. Well, yesterday, Flash posted a blurb that, as usual, brimmed with the intellectual honesty he's become known for lately. It led to an exchange that was pretty much the last straw for me and internet discussions:

A Right Wing plant (OK, I don't know that for sure) tried to stump the former first daughter by playing the Monica Lewinsky card:

[Blockquote]Campaigning at Butler College in Indianapolis, an audience member asked the 28 year-old whether the Monica Lewinsky scandal had damaged her mother's reputation."Wow, you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question in the, I don't know maybe, 70 college campuses I've now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business," Clinton responded, appearing a bit surprised by the question. The crowd immediately cheered loudly at the response.[End Blockquote]

I'm really curious who asked that question. If I find out I'll update this post. If you find out, that's what the comments are for.,

Having just read the same story from a different source (a local CBS affiliate), I pasted the relevant section into the comment thread with the link and - this is important - without any further comment:

"'I'm a supporter of Hillary. I love Hillary," Strange [the guy who asked the question] said Wednesday on CBS' "The Early Show." He said he asked the question because his friends "always bring up that scandal. It's not something I asked to cause trouble but to show those people what makes Hillary so strong. It was basically a chance for Chelsea to show all the doubters how strong Hillary is."

That was it. Other than the explanatory parenthetical, I typed nothing. Here was what one of Flash's more diseased commenters (and that is saying something) replied to my comment:

My take on Chelsea and the media was that they were showing HER at least as being pretty quick on her feet, and having the aplomb to deal with impertinent folks tactfully and gracefully, but firmly. I didn't see this as any sort of 'embarassing' moment for her - not at all.

That said, I think, without question, there are FAR larger issues. It's too bad folks like Foot (for example) found focusing on Lewisnski to be of such worth and merit for several years while much larger problems loomed, and equally curious that whilst Clinton was President, and we were in Bosnia, that he (among others) was entirely willing to endeavor to seditiously strip Clinton of the ability to effectively govern. Which, ironically, was the ultimate goal of the right, not any worry about sexual impropriety - I mean, if it were, they'd have been all over Gingrich, or Guiliani, or a host of others - then and since. No instead, in the guise of manifest 'integrity' expectations, they assailed Clinton, saying 'not my President not my war' about Bosnia, but any questions of the same nature of Bush, now that we're in Iraq, are not just seditious, but treasonous, and of course the questions are of a far more serious level (i.e. the cronyism and corrosive politicization of policy and public service organs).

So Foot, how do you feel about the duplicity of getting after Clinton on Lewinski, while condemning the Democrats for asking questions of the President around the veracity of intelligence, around the coverup of the BS cherry-picking of intelligence? I mean, in the end, which exactly is the more meaningful pursuit? Which represents a reasonable question of a President during wartime, who his bedfellow is, or whether he's decieving the entire nation into a war that is unneeded? Which is a more reasonable approach, throwing your hands up in the air and abandoning support of say, Bosnia, because you don't like the particular reason (stopping genocide) and don't see a strategic (aka OIL) interest, or throwing your hands up that we stuck our nose into a Civil War for no good reason, other than for Oil?

Just askin


You can't even exchange just bare data - information, fact - with some of these people without drawing from them an extended lecture based on assumptions and stereotypes that they and all their like-minded friends spend what seems to be every waking hour grinding into their own heads.

After explaining to this jerk that he needed help, he treated me to this nuanced and deeply intellectual response, which sums up very nicely why political discussion on the internet is a barren wasteland populated mostly with pseudo-intellectual losers who should at best be avoided, and at worst mocked mercilessly (emphasis mine):

Foot, you're yet another right-wing blogging toady.. sorry I didn't care to follow your link to whatever it said. So often what you, and those like you, post is such garbage, I didn't see mcuh point.

I linked to a news story on the website of a local CBS affiliate. Something I take to mean that this person and - to use his inept logical devices - EVERY SINGLE OTHER DROOLING DOUCHEBAG LEFTIST COCKSUCKER TO THE LEFT OF NEWT GINGRICH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT FACTS EITHER.

Whew. That felt nice. Vacant, but nice.

Frankly, other than past conduct by people like you, I guess there's absolutely nothing out there to point to regarding the continuation of this BS issue. Oh, and things like planting Jeff Guckert in press conferences.. and..on and on.

Yes, people like me. People who posted a link to a story that didn't fit his template. People like me, whom he doesn't know from Adam, and who never will since he refuses to read my "garbage." At this point, you really have to begin to wonder how - or if - this guy AND ALL LEFTY TOADIES JUST LIKE HIM are able to function in society.

The world is filled with approximately 6 billion people who all think that they are objective and have a corner on the truth, while The Others are drooling troglodytes unable to overcome their own biases. Those of us who possess sufficient intellectual firepower realize this and take it into account; though admittedly we do fail from time to time. And those who don't...

Well, your comments are always welcome in the hive.

What should be clear from this story that I impart to you today is that people like "leftout" want only to lecture, harangue or harass. They do not want debate, for real debate should end in illumination, if not persuasion. And illumination is like kryptonite to these people.

I, for one give up. From now on, on the rare occasion I do venture into some discussion thread (WARNING: FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY) and encounter some assnozzle like "leftout" here, I will no longer engage them. Instead, in response to their loaded, goading self-righteous interrogations I shall merely respond by:

a) Calling them a racist, misogynist, homophobe etc.

b) Rickrolling them; or

c) In extreme cases, maybe a link to some scat porn.

Get a life, losers.

No comments: