Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Contrary To Moron Opinion…

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/10/19

… Conservative blog-owners do like Liberal commenters on their blogs. In fact, Patterico’s Pontifications, a definitely Conservative blog (although it is California Conservative, a weaker version of Conservative than fly-over Conservative), has granted a known Liberal permission to post articles of his own choosing and making on its “The Jury Talks Back” side. Conservatives know the best way to sharpen steel is with more steel.

That is also why, if you read my “about” and my “comment policy” pages (found in tabs at the top, and strongly advised), you will not see “no Liberals allowed” in any form. I welcome Liberal comment. In fact, I used to have a Liberal “Matt” who commented here rather regularly prior to TBD’s dormant stage, and I wish he would return. But there’s something Conservatives do not like. And that malignant something oft-times confronts Conservatives where it matters most: How to keep a free and open debate alive (which is what Constitutional Conservatives want) without absolutely poisoning the site and destroying its outreach.

Dana Pico is far more “generous-naive” than I am in that matter, as he has not banned a single live person from his Common Sense Political Thought site as far as I know, while I have already banned at least one Leftist blow-hard (and have another targeted for certain banning if he ever shows up (unless I’ve already banned him)). And Dana Pico’s site has suffered the consequences, losing authors and readers alike. At least two of Dana’s lost readers have found their way here, with one becoming an author here (hooray for me), but the point is there is a form of Liberal that is respect-worthy and a form of Liberal that is disdain-worthy. And Phoenician in a Time of Romans, banned by multiple Conservative sites and disdained by multiple other sites, is definitely disdain-worthy. Perry Hood, disdained by multiple sites, Conservative and Libertarian, and even smacked down by Liberals, is another disdain-worthy Liberal. (I’ve written more than one article here discussing Perry Hood’s moronacity.)

The point is, Liberals who have integrity are welcome on most Conservative sites. Liberals with integrity and who are not seeking to troll are welcome on TBD (not to be confused with the site run by the Leftist Identity Thief and Character defamer who created a false TBD for such purposes). Liberals without integrity or who solely seek to troll or push their ID-theft defamatory sites can rot in Sheol for all I care.

What brought this out? I’ll quote my comment on CSPT (where I’m one of Dana’s authors, like he’s one of my authors here) and you can goto the thread or examine further details as you desire.

You see, New Zealand Socialist book putter backer, there’s a reason I respect Jeff. He disagrees with me 80 to 95 percent of the time, oft-times vehemently. If you check out his blog, which I visited sporadically when he was more active with it (before he got his “piled higher and deeper” degree), he is nearly completely in line with the Liberal agenda on fiscal and social matters (I have a dearth of information in my mind on his Defense positions). And most of his articles are written in a flame-worthy attitude, when considering the thoughts of Conservatives such as me. For example, he is very much down with homosexuals and their cause (while not being one himself) and I believe the Bible when it says homosexuality is an abomination and when it says homosexuality is unnatural and a sin and when it says people are in bondage to their sin. So, his positions are nearly all polar opposites of mine. Note: aphrael, who used to comment here weekly or more (to my mind’s remembrance), is most definitely a Liberal. He’s also most definitely homosexual and has a “husband” (that he doesn’t use scare quotes for). I disagree with him on nearly everything as well, but I also respect him as a foil.

So, Jeff and I are almost completely polar opposites. Jeff and Conservatives are almost completely polar opposites. Yet the long-term Conservatives and Libertarians here who have experienced the more blog-active Jeff will tell you they all respect Jeff, despite his being wrong on nearly everything. And there’s a reason for that. Unlike you, New Zealand Socialist book putter backer, and unlike the race-baiter, memory-loss champion of CSPT Perry, Jeff actually takes the time to try to understand the Conservative position and to research what Conservatives say. While Jeff disagrees with nearly everything Conservative, he does so honestly and with the intent of debating honestly and with understanding. Which is more than I can say for “The Two Ps in a Pod” (a phrase Dana coined).

A couple of examples of Jeff being honest and/or working to understand positions contrary to his own: I believe it was John Adams, however it may have been a different Founder/Framer, but Jeff thought he was a Theocracy advocate. I said he was absolutely not. Jeff researched and found out I was right and retracted his position regarding the Founder/Framer. But the bigger example is an article from his own decidedly and absolutely Liberal site, an article he wrote in January, 2010. It is that article where Jeff, being Jewish, states with clarity he understands millenarian Christian theology which in itself enrages a great many in the Jewish community. The fact Jeff is not Christian (and I have no idea whether he is a religiously practicing Jew or merely an ethnic Jew, nor is it all that important) would strongly suggest he disagrees with millenarian Christian theology. But he took the time to understand it, and understand the mentality of those who believe it.

Aphrael (who is blame fool enough to not capitalize his moniker) is much the same, but in a different vein. Both aphrael and Jeff are dead wrong on just about everything. But both aphrael and Jeff take the time to actually understand the Conservative position — while vehemently disagreeing with it — and debate honestly with that understanding they have acquired. That is why I have much respect for both aphrael and Jeff when it comes down to debating. That is also why I have absolutely zero tolerance or respect for Perry, mike g, Jeromy, that csbc or whatever it is clown, or the absolute worst of them: the downright liar and most blog-destroying of radical Leftist trolls: the New Zealand Socialist book putter backer.

Jeff and aphrael will likely never (short of a Saul of Tarsus miracle) come around to the Conservative position. But unlike those Leftists I mentioned above, Jeff and aphrael debate with integrity. And that is why Conservatives like me wish for more Jeffs and aphraels on Conservative sites and less trolls like “The Two Ps in a Pod”.

9 Responses to “Contrary To Moron Opinion…”

  1. Hube said

    Perfectly stated, Hitch!


  2. Thanks, Hube. Sometimes it just has to be said.


  3. AOTC said

    well… in my view….

    (sorry, i couldn’t resist. heh)



  4. AOTC, you little devil!


  5. DNW said

    Dana, has an interesting and well crafted site, and he has himself a comprehensive and pretty much up to date grounding in the subjects he discusses.

    Art Downs was right about the site when he invited me to visit it.

    Recently, I have again begun the habit of looking in, and even made a comment or two.

    The problem which Dana confronts as does any conservative or classically liberal blogger, is in how to accommodate left-wing comments for the sake of keeping things lively and stimulating, while simultaneously dealing with the progressive’s radically different intellectual and moral sensibilities and communication style.

    There are a couple of substantive things to bear in mind when dealing with the manner in which modern liberals or progressives interact with political opponents.

    First of all, as we all realize, their view of “truth” is radically different from the traditional western viewpoint of what constitutes a true statement and what metaphysical meaning the term truth has. This incontestable relativism of theirs has several implications: one of which is that for the progressive, rhetoric becomes the means by which truth is shaped and brought into existence, rather than truth being a propositional description of the world or some portion of it, as it really is, and which is then rhetorically presented.

    This relativism then, tends to devalue logical analysis and careful exposition as tools of debate in favor of other kinds of verbal acts intended to influence social relations. Chief among these replacements for truth are the tools of ridicule and disruption. Talk, is conceived of as warfare – not figurative, but literal – by means other than overt physical violence. As such, all of the techniques and deceptions employed in all-out war are considered by leftists and progressives as properly pertaining to political argument.

    For the political progressive, silencing you through disruptive or annoying tactics, or discomfiting you emotionally, is just as good if not better than winning an argument on facts: since facts are always conceived as mere data points forensically ready to be deployed in the service of the world as they will dream it.

    The goal of the socialist or progressive is after all, not to arrive at the point of truth – which they think is impossible in life and meaningless in an ultimate sense – but, at solidarity, which they think is attainable with the proper methods of social pruning and affect management.

    I dropped off of Dana’s site because I was being dragged into interminable squabbles with persons whose hash I had already settled logically or historically time and time again. It was like playing whack-a-mole long after that game has lost its novelty. Their notion of victory, lies in congratulating themselves on summoning the energy to pop up again as a fresh annoyance no matter how humiliating of discrediting their performance would have been for a person of normal sensibilities.

    In dropping off, I thought that it might also as a side effect, help change the tone and tenor of the conversations taking place there, and that Dana would finally realize his goal of keeping discussions focused and civil.

    I left, ropelight left, and AOTC left.

    Oddly enough so did most, it appears, of the “progressives” who had been visiting there and making regular deposits of bile.

    Perhaps, in accordance with my point above, that is all they were interested in doing in the first place …


  6. AOTC said

    as i came to understand, a blog maintained by an individual is really an extension of the owner or author, dynamically. cspt is a great resource. in retrospect i understand now that my participation there was out of place. i am not good with policy points, day to day specifics regarding policy and for sure i have a tendency to strike with sarcasm and satire. i stirred up trouble, basically.

    i had some great fun sparring with liberals. maybe too much fun, lol, but ultimately its not about me. cspt is danas blog and i fell outside the dynamic he stated he wanted for his blog. and really, the amount of harsh sarcasm i was guilty of became too ridiculous even for me. it was time to leave.

    i came to TBD with a determined attitude that I would tone it down. admittedly, i don’t have the puchback from a gaggle of liberal dudes that hate me, so ive behaved… i like it here, i like the information, i like the follow up posts. blogs have diverse purposes and ends. for me this blog has actually helped me see the diversity in the conservative worldview. johns blog is a great resource for conservatives. i plan to behave here, even though i occasionally get in a good dig… heh

    strength of conviction can be built by sparring up against the opposition and defending truth to them, but also via the fellowship of like (yet diverse) minds of the same worldview. there is plenty of room on the internet for many types of blogs.

    like john said “you sharpen steel with steel.” ill go one further and say sometimes you have to sharpen steel with a valuable diamond wheel. i see my fellow conservatives as diamond wheels.


  7. Dustin said

    “Conservatives know the best way to sharpen steel is with more steel.”

    That’s a great way to put it.

    Conservatives arguing with eachother is good fun, but it’s also avoiding a lot of the best arguments conservatives need to be familiar with (and they should be able to win, because we are right).

    Often, certainly often at Patterico’s site, but at many places, the liberals we deal with have zero interest in debate. They will drop some hatred and trolling, and enjoy the storm of anger, stoking it with stupid comments. The Aphraels out there, who are willing to intelligently and honestly discuss their views with people who disagree, are rare.

    Maybe part of that is because liberalism is a complete failure defining many of our problems.


  8. That’s just it. Today’s Liberals, as a whole, depend on the postmodern rejection of anything called Truth or Context. They also reject logic and critical thinking while depending on wholly emotional pleas and outrageous rhetoric fallacies to sway the people. Today’s Liberals, as a whole, absolutely need a dumbed-down and unthinking populace to advance their agenda. Which is why they have to troll and divert and derail and falsify and use all manner of logic fallacies.

    It’s also why there are so few aphraels and Jeffs and so many Perry Hoods and Phoenicians.


  9. Dustin said

    Yeah, that’s right. A ton of them are nihilists. Which is boring.


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: