More on the Terms of Civil Discourse, or "Boo-Yah, In Your Face, Chimphitler Lover!"

Here is a set of comments from a reader in response to this earlier post on civil discourse:

1st comment: I don't know who this Crook guy is, but man, what a butthead. Maybe it's supposed to be parody. I could see that. Maybe he's pretending to channel Grover Norquist. I got taken in by Jesus' General at first myself, until I realized, after reading a little longer, that it was parody. Or satire. Maybe both. I get those two confused a lot. It wasn't sarcasm. I know what that it.

2nd comment: By the way, your descripotion of "the left" is totally bogus. If you like to argue with strawmen, that's your business, I guess, but I'm as liberal/progressive as they come and you aren't even remotely accurate.

Nice slander, though. I give you points for being good at slander. Given that Alabama is 44th in the country in education, I'm guessing you sent that posting to someone in Massachusetts to check the spelling. Given that Alabama gets $1.41 back for every dollar it sends to DC in taxes, I'm also guessing that your superior attitude comes from pride in being a bunch of deadbeats.

See, I can utter slander too. Hope you get your shit together some time and learn what the other side is really about. If you had a better education, instead of one of those Alabama educations, you'd probably be on the other side.

Instead of the wrong side.

Sorry, I just get pissed off when someone gets all snotty about progressives/liberals (as I took your referances to the "left" to be) and yet doesn't have the foggiest notion what he's talking about.

3rd comment: Oh geez, why did I bother? I should have read further into your blog before I commented earlier. You're clearly a bigot who needs to label people by some handy ethnic title in order to frame them with some slanderous remarks. So pathetic.

He started out okay, but I gather his emotions got the worst of him. I post this not in order to fisk it* (especially since I won't give the comments' author the chance to respond in this venue), but to point out a policy of this site:

Ad hominem attacks against any correspondent or commentor to this site (including your humble moderator) will get you banned from posting and commenting. Period. I made this policy clear before.

This is a blog about public life; its correspondents take postitions that will arouse people's emotions. I have posted some pretty ascerbic commentary, as have Chefjef, Hans, and others--I have no problem with that. (In my case, I admit many comments are "ascerbicized" more because of my enjoyment of rhetoric than out of conviction per se.) Mr Crook deliberately sought publicity--this whole thing may very well be a clever stunt to sell webhosting space--so he's fair game. But ad hominem remarks against individuals writing herein don't serve any rhetorical purpose--they are the written equivalent of pie throwing.

So..."libel" (not slander, by the way, which is spoken) against public figures and issues is permitted here, within the bounds of what's legal and decent, but libel against those writing for this blog is not. This may seem an arbitrary distinction (since the blog is public domain), but, hey, it's my blog and that's the way it will be.

And but, hey, again--I'm getting flamed by lefties, so I must be doing something right. (Lest any other heated leftists have any doubts as to my poltical sympathies, I refer you this elaboration of my personal profile.)
Let's see how long it takes for one of Chefjef's posts to get flamed by Skinheads. You're now playing catch-up, brother!

Monk
_________________________
* Besides, Chefjef has done it for me:

Several points. First, I don't fight for Mr. Crook's freedom; I fight for my kids, their future children, for Lanie and Emily, for pastor Randy.....you get the picture. Mr. Crook's freedom is an indirect benefit thereto (well, that's how I chose to think of it, anyway). Second, Mr. Crook and his pals are pieces of crap. I get the same nonsense at work from people who curse me, throw bottles at me, try to fight me, but when they get robbed, shot or otherwise mistreated, who do they call? Me. The Man.

Lastly, the Left's rhetoric has not been more virulent than the Right. That was a retarded thing to say. In my lifetime, there has been no more virulent and violent political language and posturing than that exercised by the Right from 1992 to 2000. Nevertheless, let me apologize for Mr. [name removed], particularly since his rant- the apology notwithstanding - tends to call my preceeding sentence into question. Still, after misspelling "referance" immediatley subsequent to questioning your spelling abilities, I can't imagine you stopped laughing soon enough for your feelings to be hurt.

Aim High,

Chefjef

Roger that (except for the "retarded" thing...watch it, buddy! I can't ban you (where would this blog be then?), but I know where you live and pies are cheap.) Perhaps my sense that the left is more unglued today is just a function of their "ungluing" being more recent. Certainly, the right helped create the context ("prep the battlespace") in its "ungluing" over Clinton, as you say. I had to stop reading The American Spectator in the late 90's. It was an outstanding poltical journal until about '95, but I gave it up when it started spectating about Clinton's penis and the like. (I honestly think R. Emmit Tyrrel lost his mind.) Still, I don't recall an RNC Chairman making remarks like Dean's, or right-wingers throwing pies in the faces of people who's opinion they didn't like.

Monk