« He's dead Jim! | Main | Leonard Nimoy, Spock, and fandom »

March 03, 2015

Comments

I'm pretty darn sure that I wouldn't get as much tolerance for murderous diatribes as he gets.

Depends on how you define 'tolerance'. Count has been asked to turn it down on several occasions. We generally don't ask you because you don't read to the end of sentences before deciding what they say, so it would be a waste of time to ask.

I just see the Count getting somewhat special treatment here, because his politics aren't an outlier

Could be.

Could also be because he's been here for, like, ever, and mixes his murderous diatribes with very large helpings of humor. Also, humanity and candor and an unflagging love for the Beatles.

It's a take the good with the bad kind of thing, for me.

Plus, folks who spend any time at all engaging in online political conversation are generally inured to murderous diatribes. They just usually don't come from the Count's side of the political spectrum.

I just think of the Count as a fun house mirror, held up to the ranting fever swamps of the American right wing.

Don't like what you see? Don't look in the mirror.

That's my take, I'm sure we all see something different in the Count's kaleidoscope.

I'm pretty darn sure that I wouldn't get as much tolerance for murderous diatribes as he gets.

Could be.

That, in turn, could be related to:

my politics and past associations.

The correlation, if we want to talk about correlations, between your politics and past associations, and people actually getting shot, is much stronger than in the Count's case.

Context is actually significant.

It's true that the Count gets away with stuff other folks couldn't. It's also true that you, Brett Bellmore, do as well.

If the Count bugs you, ask him to chill, or talk to the kitty and kitty will see what can be done.

Using a phrase like "murderous savages" to describe Israel's neighbors is very 19th century American frontier in its tone, as I said earlier, and implies that whatever Israel chooses to do to them would be justified. So yeah, Brett, I think you're worse than the Count, because he's just engaged in performance art (which I often just skim over), and you calmly state views that are murderous in their implications.

Daffy Duck says, "Of course you realize, this means war." Of course, somehow, everyone manages to realize that it doesn't.

I, too, on ocassion, skim the Count's posts when I'm in a dry, get-to-the-point kind of mood. It's almost as though my eyes refuse to see the words, and I'm reading, "Yada, yada, yada."

Other times, I find them wonderfully creative, zany, incisive and insightful. (Other times, still, and more rarely, he's sober, earnest and directly informative.)

What would be funny about a conservative suggesting that conservatives arm themselves for whatever upcoming showdown might be suggested at the time?

Bugs Bunny's funny because he's the prey, outwitting the predator. Beaky Buzzard is funny because he's the predator, but can't hunt to save his life. (Then it's funny that, once it's established that he can't hunt, he somehow manages to bring home a ver large dragon for dinner.)

See how that works?

Since the question was asked, I will de-lurk for one second to comment on the Count's postings. First of all, I really enjoy reading the measured, and for the most part non-vitriolic, conversations that take place in the comments at ObWi. The reason I don't comment so very much is that by the time I am done with work here on the Left Coast and tuning in over dinner, Russell has usually weighed in with something similar to what I would have said, although stated much better.

Personally speaking, I don't really have positive inclinations towards the 'subhuman vermin pig filth' sorts of phraseology that the Count often employs. But then again, I was (thankfully) taught by my dad to not ascribe hateful traits to entire groups of people, even if some of those people might themselves be hateful. Fortunately, the Count's 'performance art' writing style* is generally a tell that I can pick up on within a sentence or two and like Donald above, I just generally skim over his comments.

*is it permissible to admire his compositional flights of fancy from a purely linguistic standpoint while not so much some of the more pointed 's.v.p.f.' content?

I say the above not as some sort of indictment of the Count, for I do actually have an intuition he's a decent fellow in real life, as I do Brett as well (though I almost always substantively disagree with the latter of the two).

My two cents, worth about half of that...

Daffy Duck says, "Of course you realize, this means war." Of course, somehow, everyone manages to realize that it doesn't.

That would be Bugs (quoting Groucho) not Daffy (who would just find you desphicable).
;-)

What I find murderous in it's implications is the selective refusal to pass judgment. We're talking about societies that will execute a woman for being raped, and Israel gets raked over the coals for firing back when attacked.

Daffy says it a couple of times, too.

Israel gets raked over the coals for firing back when attacked.

Israel has - some would say rightfully - earned a great deal of ill will from the whole settlement issue, and the blockade issue, and the way it treats its own non-Jewish citizens. so some people are less inclined to give Israel a pass when it defends itself by blowing up the homes of innocent Palestinians.

it's not like Israel is just sitting there minding its own business.

We're talking about societies that will execute a woman for being raped...

Yes, it's pretty obvious that everyone commenting on this blog, except for Brett, turn a blind eye to the executions of women for being raped. (Conservatives are so much more sensitive to misogyny, right?)

BUT! Societies don't execute people. Governments or individuals or groups of individuals might, but not entire societies. After all, those very women might be members of the society. Are they executing themselves?

You construct is the problem, Brett, because it's far too broad. It's not your objection to murder or muderousness.

Why don't you see me engaging in murderous diatribes? Partly because I'd have to have a death wish to engage in one where the NSA could read it, given my politics and past associations.

I realize the level of paranoia on the right has reached heights I haven't seen since the far left in the late 1960s. But do you actually have any evidence of conservatives being killed by the Federal government due to their politics? (Or was that "death wish" just hyperbole for something less extreme?)

I realize the level of paranoia on the right has reached heights I haven't seen since the far left in the late 1960s.

As an aside, I'm consistently struck by the number of similarities between the current-day right is to the left of the late 60's.

Including, in a surprising number of cases, the same people. They still hate the government; just their rationale for it has changed.

Also, too, we might be having a different conversation if Palestine were an actual state and their war-mongering chief executive was giving speeches to the US congress just ahead of an ucoming Palestinian election and that official US policy was to support Palestine despite its unjust treatment of Iraelis.

Imagine the Hatfields and McCoys are going at it, and the patriarch of the (hypothetical) well-off Smith family decides to give the Hatfields a bunch of shotguns. Imaging that one of the Smiths asks, "Why are we giving all those shotguns to the Hatfields? They're a bunch of knuckleheads."

Would that question's mention of the knuckleheadedness of the Hatfields be because old man Smith gave them a bunch of guns, or would it be because the asking Smith thought really highly of everything about the McCoys?

Groucho, Bugs, and Daffy Duck, my past associations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjIZwv5aENQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv24TJ8iXcs

The NSA is rounding them up as we speak.

All of this skimming and glazing-over of the eyes has done violence to my fragile ego. ;)

As you must know, however, this does not mean war.

Read Hilary Mantel's short story "The Assassination of Margaret Thatcher" and tell me if you think Mantel should be censured and/or monitored by domestic British Intelligence.

And then, read this profile about Mantel. Scroll down to the bottom of the article for her personal opinion of Thatcher and you'll get a taste (much more sophisticated and eyeball grabbing than anything I do here) of how I think about conservative politics and act on this site.

http://www.elle.com/culture/books/reviews/a14865/hilary-mantel-the-assassination-of-margaret-thatcher/

Lurking while packing is difficult.

Carry on.

I read you many of your posts Count and you are funny--hilariously so. But sometimes you go over the top (well, a lot) and so I tend to skim over that.

And Brett, there is obviously some sort of psychology at work with you, where you can can only see the crimes of the Other.

I think we should also acknowledge that occasionally we hit a topic where the Count gets completely serious. Not super frequently, but it does happen. (And when it does, it tells me we have hit a topic that is truly important.)

Donald:

No sweat.

I can hardly read my own stuff.

Conversation at the NSA:

"What's our friend Countme-In nattering on about today."

"Same old, same old. (rolls eyes) He does go on. His hobby horses may need reshoding at this rate. He's better if you skim."

"Yes, well, could you refocus the satellite cam on the Bundy Ranch? What do you see?

"Bundy and a couple of dozen heavily armed lawbreaking mercenaries are pointing their high-powered weaponry directly at the camera."

"Any Muslims in view?"

"Not that I can tell."

"O.K. Come with me. We're sorting through Hillary Clinton's emails for the good stuff."

Cartoon in this weeks' New Yorker.

Two little kids in a schoolroom. The truculent little boy is dressing down the little girl:

"I know it's only a knock-knock joke, but you wouldn't say it unless there was some truth in it."

Keep 'em guessing.

Donald,
we can only *imagine* what Count says when he's Shouting At Clouds, but I bet it's equally entertaining to the CIA drone operators with their lip-reading software.

"murderous vermin" is only a slight exaggeration.

Keep on truckin', Count. You have, in the words of that great presidential candidate, George McGovern, my "1000 per cent support".

:)

As an aside, I'm consistently struck by the number of similarities between the current-day right is to the left of the late 60's.

Well, some of us were pretty far down the rabbit hole in the day (1969 SDS convention which see), but there are some obvious differences:

The Left supported the Civil Rights struggle.
The Left had a pretty good handle on the criminal slaughter that was the Viet Nam war.
The Left fought against economic royalists and US foreign policy hegemony.
The Left brought you bra burning and the flaunting of homosexuality.

Some of them did drugs.

What's not to like?

Look back in despair at the intervening years and the Conservative Ascendancy.

Some rabbits. Some hole.

Some rabbits. Some hole.

I hear you.

The substance of what the left of the late 60's, and the right of today, were and are on about is dramatically different, on almost all points.

What I see in common is the tendency to see "BURN THE MF'R DOWN" as the best, or only, way forward.

I'd even say the jury is out on whether burning the mf'er is, in fact, the best, or only way forward.

But the folks who are advocating that now are mostly on the right, then they were mostly on the left.

The substance of what they want is dramatically different. Diametrically opposite, actually.

But their paranoia about the government is almost identical. (And their general detatchment from reality is also reminiscent.) Not to mention their conviction that those opposed to their positions are not just wrong but deliberately devoted to pure evil.

All you skimmers out there must be more sensitive than I am. And anybody who sees a threat in The Count's gonzo fulminations is just paranoid.

"It's the earnest, the serious, and the self-important you have to watch out for", he said earnestly.

--TP

The worst I can imagine the Count doing is breaking someone's nose for him - someone who was really asking for it, at that. There will be no shoot-'em-up. That notion is just plain silly.

Maybe he'd hole himself up in a clock tower with a good supply of water balloons. That I could see.

I'd even say the jury is out on whether burning the mf'er is, in fact, the best, or only way forward.

Guess that depends on the identity of the phoenix.

All you skimmers out there must be more sensitive than I am. And anybody who sees a threat in The Count's gonzo fulminations is just paranoid.

Or than I am.

"It's the earnest, the serious, and the self-important you have to watch out for", he said earnestly.

Who are you calling Ernest?

If you haven't read the link about Hilary Mantel that the Count recommends, I urge you to do so.

http://www.elle.com/culture/books/reviews/a14865/hilary-mantel-the-assassination-of-margaret-thatcher/

From that

Yet despite its sometimes luxuriant trappings, its lavish appeal to the senses, Mantel's fictional world is not a comfortable place to inhabit. Whatever era she's working in, her dominant tone is bleakly comic, and her primary subject the oppression of the weak by the strong, the claustrophobia with which circumstance can close around a person. "There's a pull to the darkness, it's true," she says. "You choose to laugh in the face of it, I think. Your best weapon against the devil is ridicule. That's in many ways the weapon of the powerless, but it's a case of using what you have."

All you skimmers out there must be more sensitive than I am. And anybody who sees a threat in The Count's gonzo fulminations is just paranoid.

I wouldn't conflate the skimmers with the threat seers. From my reading of the comments, the latter set includes exactly one member.

Other times, I find them wonderfully creative, zany, incisive and insightful.

Notwithstanding my hastily composed words this morning, I completely agree with this take, HSH.

But their paranoia about the government is almost identical.

Like Chou En-lai said, "It's too early to tell." What does the right bring? Snipers bringing down one woman in Idaho? The death of a child molester and a bunch of his acolytes at Waco? Let us grant that feds were totally in the wrong in both cases. Let us condemn Janet Reno to hell. Let us grant that a thieving Nevada cattle rancher just might have a case. Just of laughs. Now, stack that up against the historical pattern of bringing the National Guard out to break strikes, the Red Scare of the 20's, McCarthyism, the Chicago 8, the murder of Fred Thompson. Given that, who should be more paranoid, wingnuts or left wing zealots?

The paranoids on the left just might have a case.

(And their general detatchment from reality is also reminiscent.)

Ah, reality. There are a multitude of ways to be detached from reality. The detachment amongst the New Lefties was indeed a lot of narcissistic revolutionary hokum. So how many of them were there? A couple thousand at most. Stack that up against a much bigger number (by many thousands) of privileged whites shouting racist BS because a black guy was elected president. And let us not forget the Trotskyites who undertook the journey from far left to far right, providing the foundation for the neocon agenda that gave us a war in Iraq.

Way to go oppressed wingnuts.

Not to mention their conviction that those opposed to their positions are not just wrong but deliberately devoted to pure evil.

Really? Tens of millions of Christians in this country believe the very same. I guess we can then just cavalierly write them off as well?

damned italics

Guess that depends on the identity of the phoenix.

Indeed.

If you haven't read the link about Hilary Mantel that the Count recommends, I urge you to do so.

Seconded. With emphasis.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/radio-host-black-lawmakers-should-be-hanging-from-a-noose-for-boycotting-netanyahus-speech/

"Way to go oppressed wingnuts."

Aw, I really *like* wingnuts. They're great. They give you these convenient places to grip, so that you can torque 'em good and hard.

The kind you buy at Home Depot are good too.

Nice.

“I think that anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands, is giving attack grounds to the radical Islam against the state of Israel,” he said

As opposed, say, to someone who announces that he will never allow a Palestinian state -- so giving grounds for attack, whether by radical Islam or others.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad