https://winteryknight.com/2020/12/10/why-should-a-conservative-christian-have-an-alias-when-posting-online/
I've been mildly critical, at times, of people who hide behind a pen name when they blog or comment. I've always thought that it showed a certain cowardice and unwillingness to take risks for the positions they espoused. After reading the above, I'm thinking that hiding one's identity might not be as bad an idea as I originally thought.
22 comments:
So... if you're living in fear that the bad guys will come to put you in jail for "being a Christian," it's okay to hide your name, is that your point?
Does it matter if the fear is a rational one?
No, not living in fear. Mostly re thinking my mocking of others and their choice to remain anonymous. As far as me personally, I'd think that the possibility of the state failing to renew or pulling my license is more possible than jail.
But, living in fear, no, The question is, "Is it rational for a government to deprive a citizen of their license and their ability to practice their profession based on their speech?"
Who's going to pull your license? For what "crime..."?
As to the concerns of the Australian doctor who alleges he lost his license for allegedly talking about abortion and LGBTQ matters, I can find no independent verification of the story or the details.
Here's a situation I find regularly at your blog and many other Christian blogs, where you cite some vague reference to some vague misdeed, with no links or independent reference to check out the facts. This isn't to say that Dr Kok is lying, just that I have NO objective details on which to base a conclusion.
It may well be that Australia has more restrictive rules on free speech than we enjoy here, I don't know. But this "story" doesn't build the case one way or the other and it's something that I think negatively impacts the Christian witness of people like these. The link to this story is hearsay and gossip, not a news story.
And look at WK's response to a comment... "People should say okay based on these stories people on the left are actual Nazis and we shouldn’t be friends with them or elect them."
It's one thing to say that we, in a free republic, disagree on where to draw lines on free speech. It's another (more Trump-ian and false) thing to say, "They disagree with where I think the line is, therefore, they are Nazis and we shouldn't be friends or elect them!
I was able to find this story for my lgbtq group speaking about dr. Kok...
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2020/04/doctor-stripped-license-pandemic-sexist-anti-lgbtq-social-media-posts/
The story, like the one WK cited, doesn't provide any corroborating links so it needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but here we find that perhaps what the doctor said included suggestion that some racial and religious groups should be killed or oppressed. So the details really matter.
It's one thing if the doctor is saying I love God and God is good. It's another thing to be saying that Muslims or black people should be killed... freedom of speech has its limits, especially for medical organizations and other groups that are not required to keep someone hired who's making outrageous claims or suggestions
Anything the state gives, the state can take. Not saying, it's going to happen, but it's thought provoking.
I have to ask if you actually read my post and thought about what I said before you made up an entire narrative in your mind?
My post was quite clear, that I was not literally acknowledging that the people who I've criticized for hiding their identity online, "might" (do you understand what "might" means?) not be as wrong as I'd originally thought.
The fact that you've gone off on some imaginary tangent.
I have to note the irony of your complaining about sources not offering enough detail, when your link (from a partisan source) that allegedly proved Nugent's many sins didn't contain one single direct quote from Nugent.
But, please maintain the double standard. I seems to be the only standard you consistently meet.
I did some research about Dr Kok and his license and I saw absolutely zero actual quotes of his that allegedly support genocide, racism, or anything else. Even the articles from obviously pro gay websites couldn't produce these damning quotes. Further, these seems to be no dispute that he, in his practice, engaged in any behavior that was in any way discriminatory. That they had to comb through, 10 years of his online postings to scrape up some things that even the most pro gay publications acknowledge aren't definitive. Then the fact that he was denied the due process that Australian law provides, doesn't seem like a particularly "fair" scenario.
FYI, I saw at least 1600 results, when I searched. I'm not sure it's rational to say you couldn't find anything.
None of this is germane to the point of the post, but I thought I'd check it out.
Craig... "I have to note the irony of your complaining about sources not offering enough detail, when your link (from a partisan source) that allegedly proved Nugent's many sins didn't contain one single direct quote from Nugent."
Not that it matters, but that wasn't the point. While I'm not a Nugent fan or one who follows entertainment matters, I thought it was pretty much a Known Thing that Nugent is a legendarily conservative entertainer who has made pretty vile sexist and racist comments over the years. Like that's actually a cultural phenomena that's existed for decades, I believe, as opposed to your 20 year old relative of Miley Cyrus example.
You're truly not aware of Nugent's infamy?
From his Wikipedia page...
"In an interview in 1990, a few months after the release of Nelson Mandela during the negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa, Nugent stated: "apartheid isn't that cut-and-dry. All men are not created equal." He described black South Africans as "a different breed of man" who "still put bones in their noses, they still walk around naked, they wipe their butts with their hands"
and...
"Nugent is an outspoken critic of Islam, which he describes as a "voodoo religion" which "believes in world domination"
and...
“anybody that doesn’t think it is better to blow someone’s brains out than to be raped, deserves to be raped! If you don’t think your life is worth it then please go out there, don’t wear any underpants and get raped!! Cuz you deserve it.”
...In a YouTube video posted on August 23, 2007, Nugent said, “Then, I was in New York. I said, I said, Hillary you might want to ride one of these into the sunset you worthless bitch. And since I’m in California, how about Barbara Boxer, she might want to suck on my machine gun. Hey Diane Feinstein, ride one of these you worthless whore. Any questions? Freedom!”
This has been a known thing since at least 1990. Not sure how someone our age would not be aware of his long and troubled history.
Really, you're not aware of this?
Dan proves his dishonesty once again. Even in this country we've seen examples of this kind of thing for the "crime" of speaking one's mind and expressing one's opinion. Just the simple act of wearing a "MAGA" hat has brought about actual physical attacks by lefties. Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure because of his position on Intelligent Design. Frank Turek lost a contract due to his unrelated social media discussions on the abomination of same-sex marriage. Brendan Eich resigned due to backlash over his donation made in support of California's Prop 8 against that same abomination. Actors have lost jobs over their conservative positions. Hate-mongering lefties (is there really any other kind?) have "doxed" people all the time for holding any number of conservative positions. It's worse in other countries, but it's been ramping up in this country for some time (see "No Safe Spaces" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTOQGvXbZY8).
Dan's an unmitigated liar. There's no way he's unaware of this travesty.
"While I'm not a Nugent fan or one who follows entertainment matters, I thought it was pretty much a Known Thing that Nugent is a legendarily conservative entertainer who has made pretty vile sexist and racist comments over the years."
So, when it's pointed out that the link you provided as "proof" actually contained no proof, instead of proving your point, you go to your assumptions about rumors you think you've heard. after acknowledging that you don;t actually pay attention to either Nugent or popular culture/entertainment. One of your better fails.
"You're truly not aware of Nugent's infamy?"
It doesn't matter. You made the claim, you need to prove the claim you made.
So you've posted some out of context and unsourced "quotes" that you find offensive. Still doesn't really prove your point.
Put another way, you couldn't find anything current so you had to dig back decades.
Yes those appear to be offensive, I'm not sure they qualify as "racist", but sure they're offensive. The "quote" about Pelosi isn't really any more offensive that what Kathy Griffin did, though.
But sure, those "quotes" are offensive, deplorable, vile, and I strongly condemn them.
Oh, there's no doubt that the Motor City Madman speaks in a manner meant to shock and alarm. He chooses his words to grab attention to his point in a way that is hard ignore. However, Dan shows how easy it is for those like him to walk around the message in order to exploit the words used to convey it to attack the speaker. It's very similar to the Trump situation. The Nuge does himself no favors by choosing words the way he does, but the reality is that the message would be ignored regardless of the words he chose. That's far more problematic for me. Here's another example:
Biden is on tape saying the Dems have the best election fraud organization. Republicans look at this as an unintentional admission of their guilt in corrupting the election process. While I don't at all disagree that Dems have been working hard for generations to pervert the process to their advantage...it's how they roll...I also have no problem acknowledging that what Biden said is not what he meant to convey. I believe he truly meant to convey Dems are organized against election fraud...which instead makes him a liar.
Getting back to Teddy, he's well aware that the left will pretend to believe the worst about conservatives regardless of what he says and how he says it. So, he refuses to pretend he gives a flying rat's ass about how he's perceived by the party of liars. He has great contempt for the left and with really, really good reason...they're contemptible. They don't want "common ground", they want folks to think they do while they continue to push their agenda of America-hating evil. The Mr. Nice Guy concept is wasted on these vile people to our own detriment.
I guess the fact that Kok is a POC doesn't help him at all.
I think that both Nugent and Rush have a schtick that they use to garner attention. Rush tends to use his schtick to make points that he believes are serious and to try to provoke thought. Nugent, uses his schtick to draw attention to himself because his days of fame and popularity are far behind him. He's, at best, a b level heritage act who can fill small venues or a slot on a package tour because of his die hard fan base. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that if he's able to make a living doing that, and not break any laws while he does it.
The point of this is that both of them, to some degree, play a character and it's tempting to conflate the character with the real person.
I heard a discussion the other day about the lines in Money For Nothing that start with, "the little faggot with the earring and the make up...". No serious, rational, reasonable person would accuse Knopfler of being "homophobic" because he's singing as a character. In the same way, it's to simplistic to pull out of context things from Nugent or Rush and apply them without acknowledging the character aspect. But, easy and simplistic (with no supporting evidence) is par for the course for some.
I agree that Nugent doesn't care, and probably says things designed to provoke those who already despise him.
Nugent is an outspoken critic of Islam, which he describes as a "voodoo religion" which "believes in world domination"
I don't understand why Trabue included this in his list of vile things by Nugent. Nugent is 100% accurate with this one. All one has to do is read the Qur'an and study the history of Islam to know the truth about its beliefs.
Nugent's always spoken in a crude and shocking manner...long before he commented on politics. He certainly was more conservative than the typical rocker...never a druggie and always into hunting, which drew him into politics because of 2nd Amendment concerns.
But it's not an act. It's who he is. My point concerns ignoring what he says because of how he says it. Doing such is, in my opinion, lazy for some, dishonest for most and dangerous for all. The same is true about Rush, and most certainly applies to Trump. The result is the looming Harris/Biden debacle about to be fraudulently perpetrated on this nation.
As I type this, I'm watching the Fri. Dec. 11 installment of Tucker Carlson, wherein he goes over the many horrors (my word, not his) Harris/Biden has in store for us. Even if we manage to maintain Senate control, we're in for a constant flow of shit.
But hey...just so long as we don't have to see those horrible tweets, right?
Glenn, I agree that the inclusion of the comments about Islam don't see to make sense in this context.
Art, I'm not sure I completely agree that Nugent's persona is "who he is", I'd agree that he's definitely been a right wing/libertarian type for a while, but I also think that his public persona is designed to provoke and to offend certain people (like Dan). The left has a history of people who are provocative for the sake of being provocative or offensive just to offend, I think that Nugent is a little more calculated and is trying/hoping to make a larger point.
Hey, if it wasn't for the childish, immature, lack of self control, bad PR that years of Twitter idiocy have brought us, maybe Trump wins by not pissing off swing voters.
Yes, Biden is going to try to pass all sorts of crap, and he's likely to take the imperial presidency crap started by P-BO, and continued by Trump, to new heights. But control of the senate should stem the tide, and the likely trend on off year elections should keep things to two years.
Anyone who rejected Trump because he tweets should be prohibited from voting. They've proven themselves far too superficial and ignorant of the serious realities in allowing a Biden win. The potential for harm in refusing to support a proven commodity for good is screamingly obvious to any serious observer. The type of swing voter who thinks tweets matter is a contemptible kind.
I also don't see how "imperial presidency" is in any way an appropriate description of the last four years.
As to Teddy, I've been following the guy since his Amboy Dukes days. Never known him to be any different than he is now in how he expresses himself. He's always been a passionate guy, and his only calculation is to promote his beliefs. He's a straight talker, unfiltered, and it still comes down to what he says over how he says it.
Do you realize how absurd that sounds and how much like leftist?
No. Please explain.
My initial response was frustrated rhetoric. Rather than deny any legal American citizen of adult age from voting, I'd much rather those who vote on such superficial crap get their heads out of their asses and step back until they've better educated themselves on that which is far more important than Trump's tweets. It's freakin' shameful. There's nothing....NOTHING...about Trump's tweets that could ever inflict the level of harm a Biden presidency will. It's absurd to reject the one guy who stood in Biden's way over tweets. How is this opinion in any way leftist?
Art,
This argument sounds very much like Dan's argument regarding Clinton's lying under oath. In essence, because he lied about a blowjob, it's not a big deal. It ignores that reality that POTUS lying under oath is a huge deal. This notion that Trump's childish outbursts should be ignored or minimized because they were on Twitter, ignores the point. My problem with Trump's tweets (and his similar outbursts on camera), is what it says about his ability to govern. I know it's difficult for you (or Dan) to understand that it's possible to evaluate the actions of a president, and to balance the totality of those actions to determine the degree of support one gives them, based on all of the things they've done.
The problem is that denying legal voters their franchise because you don't like the criteria they use to decide who to vote for is simply nuts.
Chill the hell out. Like it or not, it's a done deal. Even if there was massive voter fraud, it's not going to be revealed until long after Biden is inaugurated. This doesn't mean that there shouldn't be investigations, just that beating the dead horse isn't going to help.
The left is so obsessed with removing Trump that they are clearly willing to look the other way regarding election security as long as their guy won. They'll ignore the years of investigation of the Russia crap which produced zero evidence of election fraud, and simply pretend that it didn't happen. It's their nature.
Stop fighting the last battle, and gear up for the next. I'm confident enough in our system of government to believe that one man can screw thing up irredeemably in two years.
I didn't say you were leftist, just that you sound like them.
"Hot take: President trump WITHOUT twitter-and Facebook etc- would have enjoyed "Regan" or "Eisenhower" levels of popularity. The one counter here would be: "But, then, we would have only seen the MSM's perspective on him!". Ok: Trump with a twitter account where a competent, aggro staffer MANAGED what he said- and consistently amicable relations with RIGHT-wing media- would have hit those levels. Looking at some polling today, the extent to which Trump was disliked almost wholly because of things he SAID is pretty remarkeble. "Strong dislikers" almost always gite things like "very fine people": actual policies are popular.
Wilfred Reilly
BVMLTT
This is exactly my point. Trump had the opportunity to be better. He had the opportunity to easily have won a second term. Yet he chose to piss it away because he was incapable of showing self control and of not having a tantrum every time anyone disagreed with him. Trump could have been a president that people voted for, not simply the beneficiary of opponents worse than he was. What you don't seem to understand (nor does Trump, nor do many on the left) is that people tend to not support you when you attack them for disagreeing with you.
I'm serious, this conversation is old, pointless, and a waste of time. Taking shots at people who see things differently, but fundamentally agree with you isn't generally a good strategy.
"This argument sounds very much like Dan's argument regarding Clinton's lying under oath. In essence, because he lied about a blowjob, it's not a big deal."
Then you're missing the point. The argument I've been trying to make...actually have been making quite clearly...regards those who voted against Trump because of this irrelevant tweets and unfortunate manner over the fact that he's been an incredibly effective and beneficial president on behalf of all Americans, including the buffoons that think his tweets are a big deal. Trump is Trump. He's the old dog who's beyond learning new tricks. But the tricks he does well have greatly benefited the nation in ways unprecedented for a four year term with opposition coming from all angles. Whine about his manner all you like. My concern is with those who think his manner is so bad that a Biden presidency is an improvement. What kind of moron does one have to be to believe such a thing who isn't a Democrat for whom being a moron is a requirement?
Given the potential for harm from a Harris/Biden administration, versus the benefits to all from a second Trump term, you're damned straight that I've got a huge problem with those who are fine with allowing the harm. Anyone who chooses to take offense over my position can kiss my ass because their sensitivities aren't as important to me as is the future in which my grandchildren will have to live. It seems that somehow I'm supposed to just accept that there was some great risk in four more years of tweets that surpasses the harm promised us by the policy proposals of the corrupt Democrat Party. "At least we won't have to see those damned tweets anymore. Now eat your stale bread, child."
So you go ahead and blame Trump. I'll continue to place blame where it really belongs: in those who stupidly believe that his manner is somehow more harmful than what Harris/Biden has in store. In that way, this isn't at all "fighting the last battle". It's the ongoing battle as there will be another election and we need people to concentrate on what really matters and not on the superficial. THAT is what cost us the election if it is truly over...NOT Trump's tweets.
To whatever degree we suffer...and we will suffer to one degree or another...those who voted based on tweets are culpable.
Post a Comment