Commonwealth Conservative: Can we disagree without being disagreeable?

Out of retirement?

Probably not… but he had something important to say.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Commonwealth Conservative: Can we disagree without being disagreeable?

  1. Spank That Donkey says:

    I’m interested in what you have to say Shaun…

    You don’t have to hide behind Chad’s skirt…

  2. Spank That Donkey says:

    I linked into this post from another blog, and did not see Shaun’s previous post…

    obviously that conversation is over there 🙂

  3. Shaun Kenney says:

    Yeah — git on over there!!! Heh.

  4. Spank That Donkey says:

    Been There doing that! 🙂

  5. Charles says:

    I commented over there, but then Chad deleted my comment and turned off comments. Guess he didn’t want anybody to actually TALK about it, he just wanted to say what he had to say.

    Probably fitting though, a defunct blog for Waldo. Chad doesn’t have to worry about Waldo censoring any of his blog entries, since he’s not blogging anymore.

    Nobody wants to be “disagreeable”, but the disagreeable person here was Waldo, and yet Chad, while claiming to have some great message, endorses Waldo, the disagreeable one, while claiming that those who DISAGREE with what Waldo did are somehow “disagreeable”.

    But none of them censored anything Waldo said.

    In the end, it’s Waldo’s blog aggregator (and BTW, this is a great liberal lesson for all of you, applicable to both flaming lefties and government progrtams: When someone GIVES you something out of the “kindness of their hearts”, it almost always has strings attached, and in the end those strings are pulled by the giver in ways you will hate, and if you complain you will be called ungrateful).

    Liberals pass big government programs to take YOUR money and redistribute it to less “fortunate” people, who then are beholden to those liberals, and the government, which then imposes all sorts of restrictions and conditions on the “gifts”, forcing people to give up their rights.

    For example, you have to wear seat belts while driving. Why? Becuase the government provides health care to anybody who doesn’t have care, and free rescue services. And since government is paying for the health care and rescue services, they have a “right” to force you to wear a seat belt since otherwise you might have more gruesome injuries which would traumatise the government-supplied rescue workers, and which would cost the government more money in free health care services.

    Thus your liberties are taken away (like Dog), because the aggregator was not really a free service, but one provided with a great cost — the control by ONE MAN, who imposes arbitrary rules and gets mad when anybody questions his largesse.

  6. Spank That Donkey says:

    Charles:
    Sweet Job! What is it with these Kool-aid drinkers anyway?

    None of them address the principle of censoring Conservatives.. just like the MSM…

    Oh, its Waldo’s private property, well so is the freaking Washington Post, LA Times and NYT… it’s their papers…

    Can’t wait for this esteemed group to start their critique of them again…

    Oh, and Shaun is over at the other post talking about how Goode’s Macaca treatment was stopped by Christmas…

    Here’s a guy that believes in Santa Claus…

  7. Waldo Jaquith says:

    But none of them censored anything Waldo said.

    Charles, I wish you’d stop censoring me. It’s been many months now, and you persist in not listing me in your blogroll.

    That’s a joke, of course. You’re no more “censoring” me by not linking to my blog as I can “censor” anybody by not linking to their blog. Am I really so important in your world that my powers are on par with government’s?

    I’m really baffled by one particular element of your post, Charles. On the one hand, you decry “big government programs…which then imposes all sorts of restrictions and conditions on the ‘gifts’, forcing people to give up their rights.” On the other hand, you complain that “the aggregator was not really a free service, but one provided with a great cost — the control by ONE MAN.”

    Which do you want, Charles? Privately-run services and the freedoms inherent to private property? Or public programs that are accountable to the public? You can’t seem to make up your mind as to which is the greater evil, but you are convinced that both are inherently wrong. As a Republican, you should applaud me for doing whatever I want with my private property. Yet you lament it.

    How should this work, Charles? Should the state run aggregators? Should they function as socialist collectives? What is your ideal?

  8. Spank That Donkey says:

    Waldo:
    Heretofore, you have put out the impression that your aggregator was a bi-partisan platform for the advancement of the VA Blogosphere.

    Now, you have become an editor, and turned your aggregator in the direction of another ‘owned’ institution the WaPo…

    You protest our right to ‘amplify’ that change so everyone in the VA Blogosphere can hear it?

    No you’d rather a comment of protest, so you can get John Q Public in there thinking it is a bi-partisan plaform.

    Something that is lost on the host of this blog…

    Your aggregator is a trojan horse, and we should be wary of the gift… and you can poo-poo my above statement about the WaPo every journey requires that first step.

    Don’t confuse the argument Waldo, This isn’t about private property rights, this is about making sure all the playing fields are level…

    especially when they are claimed to be so…

  9. Charles says:

    Waldo, those weren’t two opposing views. I’m not decrying your action, I’m just saying it was inconsistant with your previously stated principles.

    I was actually admonishing those who were attacking you for taking away their free-for-all aggregator, by noting that it was never free, and you had every right to do what you did.

    I am firmly on neither side on this issue. I don’t have the respect for you that some have (I don’t mean I disrespect you), and I’m not thinking of you as Dr. Evil like others are.

    My point was that your aggregator in the end was not a gift, but a trojan horse, and those who thought differently have nobody to blame but themselves.

    Just like those who were deceived by an anonymous blogger claiming to be a lawyer have nobody to blame but themselves for being stupidly naive.

    Those most hurt are probably people who most took you at your word and believed incorrectly that you refused to take ANY action against any content on the aggregator. They probably thought that because they knew your reputation and read the words you wrote. That’s what most confuses me about the reaction of people like Shaun, they don’t see how PRAISING you for your action against what some people thought was your altruistic principle of an “aggregator for everyone”.

    Funny thing is, I don’t read Dog, I find his brand of photoshopped blogging to be uninteresting, and I don’t like his attacks on people, because I’d rather discuss ideas than make fun of Howling Latina.

    But then, you booted him NOT for all of his personal attacks, but rather for the one real picture he’s posted about a real issue. So go figure.

  10. Waldo Jaquith says:

    I’m just saying it was inconsistant with your previously stated principles.

    Much as Alex’s behavior was inconsistent with the accepted principles of Virginia political bloggers, at least as I understood them. Everybody has a line at which they consider something offensive. That’s mine, and that’s where I stop subsidizing Alex’s expression. Anybody running such a service will encounter such a line at some point, and it’s at that point where they have to consider which principle is more important.

    My point was that your aggregator in the end was not a gift, but a trojan horse, and those who thought differently have nobody to blame but themselves.

    That’s hardly fair. “A trojan horse” implies a planned attack, an intend to deceive. I did nothing of the sort. One could just as easily argue that Alex’s blog was a trojan horse: a site that pretended to be about reasoned and humorous discourse, but turned out to be designed to shock and offend anybody of reasonable morals. That’s probably not true, either, but the logic is the same.

  11. Charles says:

    Waldo,

    Yes, the “trojan horse” analogy is not “fair”, it is an opinion that has no firm foundation in known facts.

    However, it is a rational opinion, and one that I can at least back up in an ex-post-facto manner by looking at the current situation, as I have described before.

    You are certainly a smart person, and a strong partisan for your political philosophy. Is it beyond imagining that you would have started the aggregator NOT simply to be nice to all of us, but instead as part of a plan to build up a following and then control the flow of information?

    You will no doubt disagree, and those who know you well will probably tell me that is inconsistant with who you are.

    On my side, I have the historical aggregator which had everybody on it, and an owner who wouldn’t delete patently offensive images used by the left to attack those on the right (I agreed with that principle).

    And now that same aggregator (at the same URL) is named Waldo’s aggregator, and a smaller number of blogs, with at least all the deletions I can see being from the conservative side of the fence.

    In other words, the observed facts fit with my conjecture, and in fact if you DID mean to do so this is precisely where we would be today.

    You could have proven this WASN’T a plan by NOT taking actions contrary to your previous princples. Or you could have taken more time than I remember you taking to clearly explain on your aggregator that you intended to boot bloggers who offended you.

    Or you could have deleted the offending post and then put a new list of rules on the blog. Or you could have explained (in a way I haven’t seen) why you found this one truthful, non-photoshopped picture more offensive than all the previous pictures that attacked conservatives and that people complained about.

    In some ways it’s a back-handed compliment I guess, crediting you for being both more nefarious and more politically clever than maybe you are or meant to be.

    But I’ve always felt like having an aggregator controlled by the left was a bad idea for those on the right, because we can’t control our own message if our opposition controls the media in which our message will be transmitted, and is willing and able to censor it at will.

    “and that’s where I stop subsidizing Alex’s expression. Anybody running such a service will encounter such a line at some point,”

    That is a clear statement of the reality of the “virginia blog aggregator”, in spite of the allusion of being a content-neutral retransmission of all comers. It was your blog, you ran it, you paid for it, you had the power and control, and your first application of that power was to block a blog from the right for the manner in which he chose to communicate a political message.

    Oddly, you have in some way proven his point. All he did was retransmit a PUBLIC PICTURE showing what our enemies, muslims from the middle east, are willing and desirous to do to every American who does not convert to their religion.

    And you found that so offensive you took the radical step of removing his blog from an aggregator that up to that time had never had ANY censorship, in opposition to your stated principles of the aggregator.

    THAT is the power of our enemy, to make us give up our own freedoms and rights because we can’t handle the offensiveness of their acts.

    I bet Virgil Goode did not shrink back from that image — as a public figure, I bet he suffered himself to watch the entire video, so he could truly understand the nature of our enemy in a way that those of us too chicken to do so will be able to (remember, i’m in that group).

    So when Virgil says he wants to stop letting people BORN in the middle east and raised in the culture, trained in the madroses, and adherents of the brand of that religion that gave us people willing to behead our fellow americans simply because we don’t worship their god, he is RIGHT, and he makes that determination based on things like the picture that you couldn’t bear to look at, that caused you to take the action that led to this entire event.

    In the end, therefore I blame you for this, and not GGD. GGD, whatever else he is or did, in this case simply took a picture and used it to defend Virgil Goode’s position that we should rethink our middle east immigration policy. He’s a single blogger who wanted to make his point in the strongest way possible.

    He CERTAINLY did not do so in order to offend you, Waldo. I think you know that — he probably didn’t even THINK about the aggregator when he made his post, as most of us forget about hte aggregator.

    You are the seasoned adult here, and you could have responded in an adult fashion, and you chose instead to respond in a different manner — which was your right, but your act WAS an act against GGD, while his initial act was NOT an attack on you.

    You were the first to attack, which again is why I don’t understand why so many have taken you as the aggrieved party. My goal is to convince them otherwise.

  12. Cory Chandler says:

    Charles,

    You wrote: “Yes, the “trojan horse” analogy is not “fair”, it is an opinion that has no firm foundation in known facts.

    However, it is a rational opinion, and one that I can at least back up in an ex-post-facto manner by looking at the current situation, as I have described before.”

    An opinion that has no firm foundation in known facts falls in the gray area between rational and irrational. It is possible to hold an opinion in the absence of both supporting and opposing facts without being irrational, but that doesn’t make the opinion rational. A rational opinion has to be based on something, after all.

    When you say “ex-post-facto,” I think you’re really saying “post hoc ergo propter hoc,” which is a textbook logical fallacy.

    Mr. Kenney,

    Thanks for not having that word verification thing, by the way. Blogger never displays the image for me so I can’t comment on any Blogger blogs that have it activated. (So you can activate it, if you’d like, and shut me up.)

  13. Charles says:

    Cory,
    you are right, I misused “ex post facto”, kind of. What I was trying to say was that I speculated before that the aggregator could be something like a trojan horse, but I had no real evidence, just a feeling.

    But now, after the fact of having that opinion based on feeling, I could apply new information to justify my opinion.

    Note that you can’t really justify HAVING an opinion in the past based on new information, my point was that I held the opinion for a while but now I had some circumstantial evidence that was consistant with my prior speculation.

    IT is of course true that the outcome does not prove the intent.

  14. Spank That Donkey says:

    OutCome, Intent?

    Millions of Muslim immigrants come to Europe.. “oh we just want jobs and more freedom”!

    Millions of Muslim immigrants in Europe…. Amongst Conservatives, I don’t even have to relate to you guys the outcome…

  15. Shaun Kenney says:

    Thanks for not having that word verification thing, by the way. Blogger never displays the image for me so I can’t comment on any Blogger blogs that have it activated. (So you can activate it, if you’d like, and shut me up.)

    The reason why word verification came into vouge was because of comment spammers and such.

    In this case, it seems as if banning anonymous commentary and hiding behind the loving embrace of Blogger’s servers and Google’s gaggle of attornies and tech support is sufficient enough to keep most of the loonies out.

    Most of ’em… 🙂

  16. Charles says:

    I allow anonymous comments but require the verification.

    It drives me nuts, sometimes I take 5 or 6 tries before I get one I can read and type correctly.

    I wish they would allow me to specify how many letters were needed, I’m thinking one letter should be enough. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *