Wednesday, September 20, 2006

The New Weenie Enema Mission.

About a year ago, Weenie Enema embarked on a largely successful sociological experiment involving adulterers. It was enormously popular, and though it's hard to deduce whether any legitimate conclusions were made based on our findings, a good time was had by all, except by the adulterer who Inna was assigned, who got scared when she started sending him emails about a rectal fetish. In the tradition of making Weenie Enema social experimentations an annual event, I am embarking on my most perilous mission to date - infiltrating the crazy liberal blogosphere.

As most loyalists are aware, I am a moderate Democrat with conservative sympathies. However, the only blogs I read are conservative because I can't stand how immature and vile most of the left-wing blogs are. Part of this, I suspect, is because liberals have had a reputation for decades of being more openminded than conservatives - history teaches us that Democratic administrations have orchestrated more changes involving free speech and minority rights. That's not necessarily inaccurate, but as a result, PC-eschewing conservatives have an automatic reputation for being, if not racists, at least people who aren't interested in helping the downtrodden. The world is free to disagree with my conclusion. At any rate, the majority of the conservative blogs that I have encountered (I'm not saying all of them abide by this unwritten rule) appear to make an extra effort at presenting civilized political discussions in an attempt to debunk those conceptions.

What I have observed is that if there is an issue of contention among either liberals or conservatives, the way it's presented in each respective blogosphere is very different. If Michelle Malkin devoted a post to, say, Hillary Clinton, a woman she clearly doesn't like in the least, she wouldn't ramble for paragraph after paragraph about what a giant cunt Hillary was - she would certainly make some negative comments about her, but would more than likely present, at the very least, a rational, coherent case that wasn't submerged with Emma-like vitriol. However, if someone at the Daily Kos wrote a post about a prominent Republican like Bill Frist, it would be an automatic excuse for a rampaging hoard of leftist commenters to start saying mouthdroppingly nasty things that would make me look downright respectful of other people.

Today's mission is simple. If I told an acquiantance that lefty commentators were much meaner and more disrespectful than conservative ones, no one would believe me. They would either automatically dismiss it, or would defend the attackers by saying that the Republican leadership is so horrible, it's warranted. This experiment is not about making a case for Bush being a noble leader of the free world, the next Hitler, or something in between. It's simply to show what happens when you make anti-Bush comments on a Website that not only doesn't agree with his policies, but thinks the man himself is pure evil. I have signed up for the discussion boards on the Democratic Underground blog with the screenname "hatenazibush," which was readily accepted as my handle, even though the terms and conditions upon signing up emphasized the kind of constructive, polite dialogue I'm talking about. But I guess calling Bush a Nazi is still within the limits of civilized debate.


At 11:39 AM, Blogger WardensWorld said...

yeah, michelle malkin is well known for her civility and rationality, just like ann coulter, who calls all progressives godless and treasonous in her cartoonish screeds. Or bill o'reilly and his enemies list. Sorry, but your point is delusional as usual. The right create this climate of hate, now you're just gonna have to live with it for a while. I guess the right set a shining example of bipartisanship during the Clinton years. Yeah, glad they got to the bottom of that whitewater episode and the vince foster lies. You've convinced me to vote republican from here on in.

At 2:24 PM, Blogger Ivan Lenin said...

Emma: great post, I was beginning to worry about you not posting, and thinking you're boycotting me for being a fake commie and coming out as right-wing ;)

wardensworld: I agree about Ann Coulter. I think she's a lefty spy, trying to make Repugs look bad. (Just like Michael Moore is a right-wing spy, making Libs look like idiots) Bill O'Reilly, however, is not a conservative. He's just a misogynist asshole.

"They would either automatically dismiss it" - your point is delusional as usual

"or would defend the attackers by saying that the Republican leadership is so horrible, it's warranted" - The right create this climate of hate, now you're just gonna have to live with it for a while

THIS is too funny to be true! Wardensworld, comrade, are you a right-wing spy, too?

At 11:30 AM, Blogger e.e.grimshaw said...

barry - note that i didn't include ann coulter in my discussion. i don't think you can find too many people who would be willing to call her civilized, though there are probably a few who at least agree with some of the points she's attempting to make. despite your oozing sarcasm, this is actually a much more polite post from you than usual. i thank you for your interest. if you could actually link to a post or article michelle malkin has written that you consider either irrational or uncivilized, i would be interested.

At 7:11 AM, Blogger WardensWorld said...

Okay, but you used to provide a link for Ann Coulter until very recently, did you not? In a cursory look at MM;s archives, I found a few that cross the line, but maybe you think calling the left moonbats is just so charmingly Ayn Rand like. Here's three columns in which she demonizes the left and all but rules out the legality of dissent during wartime. She is a repressed shrill reactionary, still firmly entrenched in the cult of Bush. Two legs bad, four legs good.

At 7:21 AM, Blogger WardensWorld said...

In case the links didn't work on my previous post, here are the dates of MM's columns in question:

I'd be interested in your comments.

At 11:30 AM, Blogger e.e.grimshaw said...

I reread two out of the three articles - the one from 2004 remains a mystery, but I think I get the basic gist of your argument. No, I don't object to the use of "moonbat," but I can understand why some people being labeled that would object to it. I would classify those articles as strongly worded, but not to the point where she advocates abolishing war protests and dissenters. To be honest, Michelle Malkin's stance on leftist protests was never a huge selling point for me - I was always more into her positions on immigration and things of that nature. And although I don't see Malkin's sweeping generalization of anti-war advocates as "pinkos," "moonbats," etc. as conducive to much - especially since I can't imagine any of those people reading those columns and thinking to themselves, "Wow! She's right, I've been so silly!" - I don't see her criticisms as unfounded, considering the emails she has posted on her blog from leftists disagreeing with her point of view. Compared to that profanity-laced garbage, moonbat seems pretty innocuous.
These are a few examples:
(if link doesn't work, it's from her blog archives on January 12, 2005)
(April 17, 2006)

As for Ann Coulter, I simply forgot to relink her after I changed my blog template last month. I was so intent on providing a link to my favorite cow eateries, she just got lost in the shuffle. Honestly, I don't enjoy her columns as much as I used to - before, she actually seemed to have some points (most of which I disagreed with but at least could understand) interlaced with some one-liners. Now it's just one-liner after one-liner, and I haven't seen a coherent point in her column for months.

But I DO love my Ayn Rand. Heh.

At 12:32 PM, Blogger WardensWorld said...

Fair enuf. I actually like your blog, except for your misguided politix. But you're young yet, plenty of time to see the error of your ways. You don't seem like much of a yuppie, unlike that alarming news wench. I will neither surrender nor retreat. Who said that? Besides me. I suggest you read some good labor histories, a good account of American intervention in the affairs of other sovereign nations (Nicaragua, Greece, El Salvador, Iran in the 1950s), CIA covert operations. Who knows, maybe you have already and still choose to be on the side of Jerry Falwell, Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, Ollie North, Joe McCarthy, Roy Cohn, Al Haig... And I wasn't calling Bush a Nazi, just pointing out the disconcerting parallels bw American Fascism and Germany circa, oh, 1935 or so.

At 11:41 AM, Blogger Karol said...

You don't seem like much of a yuppie, unlike that alarming news wench.

Heh. Trying to shame the wrong girl. I WISH I was a yuppie. Bring on the upwardly mobile part!

But I do understand Barry. Lots of people lose their shit when I don't give them attention.


Post a Comment

<< Home