https://x.com/jasonjournodc/status/1967535685847384440?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Of course the right is more willing to talk. Look at the microcosm right here. I allow Dan virtually unlimited opportunities to say whatever he wants. Dan regularly deletes comments he disagrees with, and misrepresents the contents afterward. I've even given the troll multiple opportunities to comment, and he's made the choice that he would rather pontificate than communicate. Dan also tends to pontificate rather than communicate.
back when I listened to political talk radio, hosts like Rush prioritized and spent extra time with callers who disagreed with him, the various left wingers simply mocked those who disagreed.
It's not that hard.
https://x.com/truthjasonlee/status/1967275617549963491?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Of course she's happier. Hating everyone else is tough work and takes a toll on your soul.
11 comments:
Craig falsely stated...
"Dan regularly deletes comments he disagrees with, and misrepresents the contents afterward..."
Of course, the reality is I never delete comments I disagree with. Any rational person can look at my blog and see the literally thousands of comments from conservatives. I DO rarely delete, but NOT because I disagree with the content. On those .1% of comments I delete, it is nearly always because...
1. They are using vulgar, racist, misogynistic or otherwise hateful and obscene words. Especially when they are vulgar, obscene words that have historically been used to demonize and attack women, LGBTQ citizens, or people of color.
That's not disagreeing with political opinions, it's refusing to allow abusive vulgarities, and that would apply to liberals or conservatives (although, as far as I can recall, there has never been a liberal to engage in vulgar hate speech on my blog.)
2. I've asked them to answer a specific question and when they don't, I'll stop allowing their comments on that thread until they answer. That's not deleting comments I disagree with. Indeed, it's just the opposite: I'm begging them to answer a reasonable question, even if they disagree.
And
3. More rarely, when they make claims of objective fact (when they're clearly offering a subjective, unproven opinion.
In those cases, they'll typically make their claim, which I allow, but ask for proof OR that they admit it's an unproven opinion.
There again, I'm not deleting a comment because I disagree, I'm just holding them accountable to PROVE their claim. That's exactly the opposite of deleting comments because I disagree with them.
If facts matter to you.
Michael Medved was another one. He pretty much wouldn't take right-wing callers to his radio show when discussing politics and ideologies. And he covered those topics more than the more casual alternatives. And he'd give lefty callers lots of time to make their cases.
Dennis Prager, while not limiting himself to lefty callers, also chooses to spend a lot of time with them, operating under his personally preferred mode of valuing clarity more than agreement.
I think most right-wing hosts have a varying degree of the same attitude as these guys and Charlie Kirk, because there can be no mutual understanding without it, and getting to solutions or resolutions requires at least that.
I think there was a time when you'd see some lefty talk show hosts give a forum to those of opposing perspectives. Phil Donahue comes to mind. He hosted people like Milton Friedman, and economically, they were pretty much polar opposites.
Craig, failing to understand the irony of his overtly stupidly false claim, said:
Dan regularly deletes comments he disagrees with, and misrepresents the contents afterward.
1. As a point of fact, I do NOT "regularly delete comments I disagree with."
2. As a point of fact, I have NEVER - not one time - deleted a comment because I disagreed with it. THOSE are the facts. THAT is the reality.
What I HAVE done is this:
A. Deleted comments that contained vulgar, hateful comments about historically oppressed people, or using vulgar, obscene language that has been historically used to oppress people. That is, when Marshall calls people "c**ts" and "b***hes" and "f*gs" - hateful, vulgar, obscene words used to attack women and gay people - THAT vulgar language will not stand at my blog. I'm just a decent human that way.
It's funny that you all SHIT yourselves when I call you "brother" or "Fellow Christians" or even "gentlemen.." but you're fine with C**T B***H and F*G.
I'm disgusted just writing the words that some of you all use and had to go back and * out some of the letters because they're so vile and vulgar. SHAME ON you all who use such abusive, violent, vulgar language.
B. Asked people, respectfully and reasonably, to answer questions and, when they refuse to answer reasonable questions, told them I wouldn't post any more of their comments UNTIL they answered those reasonable questions. That is literally the OPPOSITE of deleting comments I disagree with. It's asking them/YOU, to support your position, even if I disagree with it.
C. Akin to that, I've asked people to support with objective proof any claims they make as if they were objective facts and, failing that, to admit it's an unproven opinion. And, after they continue to opt to NOT support their stupidly subjective claims and admit that they ARE subjective, I've started deleting comments after that. But there again, I'm literally ASKING THEM to support their opinions. That is NOT the same as deleting comments I disagree with.
You're literally lying/making a stupidly false claim. ANY rational person can look at my 20 years of blogging and see that I've posted, no doubt, thousands of comments with opinions I disagree with.
Do better, Craig. Admit your mistake and move on.
And while you're at it, condemn Marshall (and your) vulgar and abusive language ("B**t buddies," on your part... something historically used to abuse gay men.).
Shame on you.
The reality is that I have multiple posts of comments I posted at your blog, which you deleted. None of which have your alleged vulgar, racist, misogynistic, language you claim. You've openly lied about the content of posts you've deleted as well. But you keep living in your fantasy world.
You claim you "never delete comments you disagree with", them provide a list of bullet points describing comments you disagree with and delete.
It's hilarious that you claim that failing to "prove claims of fact" is one reason why you delete. Yet you regularly refuse to prove your own "claims of fact", and Art and I don't delete you. Of maybe you disagree with the facts presented, and pretend otherwise. Again, I've suffered your bullshit and have posted the receipts.
Personally, I think that having respectful disagreement even to the point that leftists get angry is better entertainment (and let's not pretend that Kirk, Rush, Medved, and Prager are not trying to be entertaining/engaging), than people simply agreeing with the host. I watched a Kirk video from A&M where he spent an inordinate amount of time with two young black men who simply could not get past the concept that their feelings weren't reality. One kept acting as if "strange looks" in a grocery store was objective evidence of racism.
Obviously, there is an element of persuasion involved and respectful conversation and presenting facts is the best way to accomplish that.
Donahue was a raging leftist, but his wasn't a political talk show like the others you mention.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Two idiotic comments on this instead of one on any actual topic of the last few days.
Dan also feigns outrage at word choices to justify his deleting of comments, rather than focusing on the point made. He often then deletes because some word used appropriately is in his lying mind is inappropriate due to some alleged offense to some entire group not addressed by the words used. This ever changing list of words one can't use at his blog is a preemptive deletion, stifling one's ability to express one's self accurately.
Keep in mind here, I'm not referring to my choosing to use profanity for effect, but words which in their actual definition are accurate and appropriate for the purpose of clarity.
If Dan had consistent standards and treated everyone the same, there might be a shred of validity to his BS, but the reality is that his butt buddy gets away with things that I'd get deleted for. So screw that.
I'm well aware of Dan's excuses for deleting comments.
1. Yes you do, Dan. You do it while hiding behind these BS reasons why you deny the posting of comments with which you disagree.
2. This isn't a fact at all. It's just you saying it is.
A. Here you admit you delete due to word choices. To back it up, you intentionally choose a few words I've used quite sparingly, often because you've already deleted me several times for other BS reasons, so it doesn't matter anyway by the time I use harsher words. The worst part is how you pretend you speak for entire populations, some of which use the words you claim are so awful regularly. It's a cheap ploy by which you wish to posture as "more Christian", when anyone who's read your comments over the last couple of decades knows you're just bullshitting.
As if that isn't enough, you take it upon yourself to decide, in the moment, that a words expressed are "vulgar", which is subjective and perfectly within the rights of a blog host, though in your case it's just for show. Yet, you dare criticize what other bloghosts decide is inappropriate and mock them for doing so, which is a c**t move on your part and everybody knows it. And how often you've dropped F-bombs at the blogs of others over the years just exposes you for the lying hypocrite you.
Of course the best example I've highlighted many times is your feigned outrage over my accurate and appropriate use of the words "whore" and "slut" to describe the character of two woman among the ever changing amount of accusers of Donald Trump, who you continue to label "pervert". Being the lying pervert YOU are, you find this acceptable because YOU have decided that Trump is a pervert based on info you have NEVER confirmed, but accept as fact because of you vulgar hatred of the man. But it is absolutely confirmed that Stormy Daniels is both a whore AND a slut, given what those words means. She has sex for money, so she's a whore. Pick any other alternative word or phrase which is defined as one who exchanges sex for cash, and the alternative is just as condemning. In my mind, there's no "good" word for to describe homosexuals which isn't as crude and indicative of an actual pervert than "homosexual". "Gay" is a perversion of a word in order to apply it to perverts. The same is true of "queer", "fairy" and many others. But they are accurately used to describe the same people. "Pervert" doesn't accurately describe Trump's desire for babes or his adulteries. It does describe you to a T.
B. You don't ask reasonable questions. You ask loaded or leading questions, or questions wholly unrelated and thus irrelevant to the discussion....much like your responses to Craig's posts. Even so, most, if not all, are answered to meet every perverted alteration of the original question (off the point as it may be) until you're satisfied a question can't be answered. When they are without providing you the answer you demand, you delete until you get that answer. That's still deleting, and given your intentions, it's for the same reason...to deny a presentation of the truth and facts you cannot overcome.
C. This is you pretending you're the final arbiter of what constitutes proofs and evidence. And part of debate is to present your own proofs and evidence which renders the opposing position defeated. You don't do that. You simply reject that which you demanded be provided and say the challenge wasn't met. You're a liar. When you reject what demanded, then refuse to allow comments until you get what truth cannot provide, you're deleting and canceling.
While we can all "do better", we're already doing far better than you've ever exhibited. Your condescension and arrogance is unjustified, because you're so clearly a fake Christian who lies and defends the indefensible. For Craig to apologize for calling your butt buddy "your butt buddy", won't result in feo not being your butt buddy. But it is a grave insult to butt buddies worldwide.
In the meantime, it's funny that you think it's abusive to refer to "gay" men as "butt buddies" when that's what they are to their boy friends.
Dan is excellent at crafting questions which are designed to lead to the only answer he deems acceptable, and gets pissed when we don't answer the way he demands we answer. He somehow thinks that his ability to make up questions, is actually some sort of proof that his hunches are correct. That his standards for answering his questions, and his performance in answering ours are vastly different is a given.
In Dan's world of hubirs and narcissism, of course he grounds every hunch in his subjective, imperfect, flawed, fallible, and personal hunches and Reason instead of evidence grounded beyond himself. That he believes that he is the final arbiter of "reality" is glaringly obvious.
Again with the demands that we do what Dan won't. I think that butt buddies is an excellent description of the relationship between Dan and his troll.
Post a Comment