Little Green Footballs

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

LGF: No depth, just vitriol

One of the most striking things about LGF (and we speak with years of experience) is the almost total lack of argument in Charles Johnson's posts.

Unlike other political blogs, which tend to at least attempt to propose a thesis, present different sides of the argument and then reach some sort of conclusion, LGF consists largely of Charles Johnson picking half a fact, framing it according to his slanted views, and then being outraged.

It's true. Take the latest ten posts on LGF, exclude the tech and music-related ones, and you'll probably find just one of them contains the sembles of an argument. The rest is just wild-eyed racist ranting.

In fact, to anyone who hasn't been following LGF, it's fairly unintelligible racist ranting, because there is almost no context in the posts, and CJ virtually presumes that you already hate Muslims/Arabs to begin.

All of this may be of some comfort to those of us who prefer intelligent political debate and believe a good argument will always win the day. But experience has shown time and again that the moronic ravings of a middle-aged Californian ex-guitarist are just what certain sections of America desperately want.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Awwww, you're jealous 'cause he didn't send you a Valentine!

Anonymous said...

Reasons for the success of LGF:

1. It's a place for people to get their hate on. CJ trawls the media for stories that will provoke outrage against (a) Muslims, (b) those who dare question the Israeli administration, (c) those who dare question the U.S. administration, (d) the mainstream media (a funny one, this, as it's the source of most of the site's fodder). He presents just enough of the story to provoke a reaction, then lets the rabid hordes wail and gnash and rent their shirts in the comments section.
2. CJ is noncommittal on issues that could be divisive among his core supporters (though this has led to splits in the past).
3. LGF got to the game quite early - in terms of blogs, it was one of the first, and among whatever category it can be placed (post-9/11 fear-and-warmongering?), it's one of the innovators. LGF has spawned many "me too" sites, some of which outdo it in their outrageousness and vitriol.

What amazes me is that CJ desperately wants to be taken seriously. "Why won't Google News include my recycling of proper news agencies feeds?" and all that.

Shak Fu said...

LGF worldview: if a crime is committed by a Muslim anywhere in the world, it is, prima facie, an act of terrorism. The word terrorism has no meaning for that group anymore.

Anonymous said...

What amazes me is that CJ desperately wants to be taken seriously. "Why won't Google News include my recycling of proper news agencies feeds?" and all that.

And here you post on a site that does nothing more than complain about, and watch Charles Johnson.

Go find a big boy board, play nice and maybe someone will take you seriously.

V said...

But you see, anonymous @ 1:42, we here at LGF Watch aren't pretending to be something we're not.

However, Charles Johnson can't decide whether LGF is a Republic Party mouthpiece (which it is, though he denies it), or a mindless regurgitator of conservative propaganda (which he is, though he denies it), or an anti-Muslim hate site (which it is), or the vanguard of the new New Media Revolution of Newness which will totally transform the way the American People are informed about current events (which it isn't, though he thinks it is).

But when you get right down to it, it's basically Daily Kos Watch, with an extra dollop of raging paranoia and fearmongering.

Anonymous said...

But when you get right down to it, it's basically Daily Kos Watch, with an extra dollop of raging paranoia and fearmongering.

I just tuned into the ol' LGF. Out of I don't know how many posts on the entire page, there is only one that refers directly to a Daily Kos piece. ONE. There is a second post that makes reference to DK.

Two posts on an entire page??? That constitutes a "Daily Kos Watch" in your opinion?

Anonymous said...

And here you post on a site that does nothing more than complain about, and watch Charles Johnson.

So I was an entomologist in a previous life.

Go find a big boy board, play nice and maybe someone will take you seriously.

Project much? Being taken seriously is not my concern.

yodaking said...

LGF worldview: if a crime is committed by a Muslim anywhere in the world, it is, prima facie, an act of terrorism. The word terrorism has no meaning for that group anymore.

let me know when LGF posts shoplifting for Allah....

yodaking said...

It's funny how you folks say LGF is not a major site, and a 'joke' when it's the number 2 political blog in the world...

http://truthlaidbear.com/ecotraffic.php

What place is this site?

yodaking said...

"...or a mindless regurgitator of conservative propaganda "

posted by somebody that calls themselves "V"

the irony.

Anonymous said...

Thats interesting that page doesnt even come up. As far as political blogs.

Well, granted that LGF does rank high, but it doesnt really rank as a political blog. Really just mindless racism. It is indicative of what kind of people there are out there though.

People like Yodaking who mindlessly follows along and thinks that CJ is saying something 'important'.

This site only follows what he does, it doesnt attempt to be anything more then a 'watch' site. Charles pretends to be doing something important, but the only people who even bother listening to his mindless racism are those with like views, and that is rapidly becoming a minority.

Neo conservatism failed.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

Daily Kos Watch

Either you must have blinked, or Johnson was out shopping for cheetos the day you visited.

So anyway, ....you were sayin?

Bill O'Reilly said...

I remember when LGF was just the blog of a web developer. The blog had photos of places the guy visited and lots and lots stuff on the Tour de France and Lance Armstrong.

Since France is a nation of terrorist appeasing bed-wetters, LGF is not allowed to even talk about bike racing or any events related to bike racing. If he does, he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

LGF is a haven for racists now. While others have dealt with the events of 9/11 in constructive ways, LGF and its idiot followers decided to be craven in their response to 9/11, like blaming everyone non-white and non-Christian as well as celebrating their wins on the Xbox 360.

Pathetic shit stains. I piss, shit and fart on all of them.

yodaking said...

Thats interesting that page doesnt even come up. As far as political blogs.

Those are the top ranked blogs. (not just political)

http://truthlaidbear.com/ecotraffic.php

Just checked the link, and it works fine.

Well, granted that LGF does rank high, but it doesnt really rank as a political blog.

Your certainly entitled to your opinion that it is not 'political' though I've seen on this very site LGF labeled as a GOP mouthpeice numerous times. So I would say most of your colleguges would disagree.

Really just mindless racism. It is indicative of what kind of people there are out there though.

Again, your certainly entitled to your opinion. I would certainly agree it's anti-radical Islam. However racist against what race? If it *is* a racist site, it definitely is equal oppertunity since LGF attacks all races that people that support radical Islam.

People like Yodaking who mindlessly follows along and thinks that CJ is saying something 'important'.

You're right about one thing, I do believe confronting radical Islam is important. As for being mindless....I find it odd this "mindless' user is able to be the debate civiliy on multiple threads here.

Neo conservatism failed.

As opposed to what? Socialism?

Steven said...

LGF should rename itself BWA (Big White Arseholes). I have never come across a political website with so little to offer in the way of political insight. It is designed for deranged xenophobic flag-wavers whose idea of debate is high-fiving one another with unfunny quips about Arab scum.

But LGF (sorry BWA) does serve a purpose. It exposes the mindset of the majority who support our neanderthal prez. Just look at who praises it. The Weekly Standard, Fox News etc.

Moreover, where are the great works of the supreme "anti-idiotarian"? And will he ever have the guts to challenge the famous "idiotarian" and veteran Middle Easter war correspondent Robert Fisk to a real debate? Just read "The Great War for Civilisation". It won't take you long to realise who would win that confrontation.

Anonymous said...

Again, your certainly entitled to your opinion. I would certainly agree it's anti-radical Islam. However racist against what race? If it *is* a racist site, it definitely is equal oppertunity since LGF attacks all races that people that support radical Islam.

Amusingly your just being evasive about it. Rather then ask then defend the site with something substantial you claim its equal opportunity hatred. Which isnt really the point, and kind of comical in the extreme. The racism seems to be directed at people with a middle eastern descent or even just color1. Whether they are muslim or not doesnt really seem to matter. Just take a look at the slander against Obama by calling him the oh so clever name of Osama. Kenyan, not a muslim, but a general lumping of someone with color. Or the dislike levied at Hispanics, or almost anyone else who may be muslim by nature of their color. This further extends as he cherry picks out little bits of pieces of news.

You're right about one thing, I do believe confronting radical Islam is important. As for being mindless....I find it odd this "mindless' user is able to be the debate civiliy on multiple threads here.

Again, you fail to address nearly anything, you dont really debate as much as you try to argue semantics. Its not Racism (though it clearly is) its 'confronting Radical Islam'. Which is a fine objective if thats what LGF does, instead it is just a propagator of hatred. Which doesnt really help one way or another.

Whats amusing is that you think you are scoring some points or something while failing to realize that no one really cares what you say. That you can post in multiple threads is hardly a testament to your power of debate, it is instead just a meter of how well you can troll threads. But it does bring up an interesting point. If you take a look at this place and say the so called registration requirements of LGF, you come to something interesting. Since comments are moderated here, they allow for multiple viewpoints such as your own to be posted.

On LGF such debate isnt even allowed, instead the only comments that are allowed are ones that agree with CJ and tout his special line of hatred.


Neo conservatism failed.

As opposed to what? Socialism?


As opposed to, progressive liberalism or normal conservativism. There is a reason that long time conservatives have been abandoning the party in droves. Why people who for all their lives have voted Republican suddenly took a turn to the left this time and abandoned what they saw as a failed presidency, and failed policies. It has little to do with the percieved traitorousness of others, and a lot more to do with the failues of the neo-cons in congress to actually confront the world in a positive manner.

Pim's Ghost said...

Reasons for success of LGF:

1.) People, many of whom do not hate Muslims, but jihadis, want to read the latest stories about them in one place for quick news.

2.) People who want to defend Western Civilization want to read stories about those determined to keep bashing it.

3.) Many readers are liberals and Democrats who don't like some of the partisanship, but still despise the infiltration by WAHABIST Islam (Saudi) into the West (aided no less by Bush) as this threatens our freedoms, unless you are a theocrat.

What amazes me is that this site actually exists. I beg your pardon, but it seems to be "just vitriol".

yodaking said...

Amusingly your just being evasive about it. Rather then ask then defend the site with something substantial you claim its equal opportunity hatred.

No, you missed the point entirely. If LGF is "racist" why would they attack people of ALL RACES that supports Radical Islam? They have attacked Jews that went to the holocaust denial conference, they have attacked whites that associate with Radical Islam, they have criticized Chinese for being supportive of Iran, they have criticized blacks (i.e. JJ) that have associated with terror groups etc. They have attacked Hispanics for associating with terror groups as well.

If LGF is racist, what exact race do they feel is a superior/inferior race since they criticize all races that support radical Islam?

Which isnt really the point, and kind of comical in the extreme. The racism seems to be directed at people with a middle eastern descent or even just color1.

A large portion of the terror attacks happening in Asia, Europe, Africa and of course the Middle East is perpertrated by Arabs or Asian muslims. This is fact, LGF does not post stories that deride Arabs or Muslims if they are doing things peaceful, is it LGF fault that so many Arabs find it a necessity to bomb their fellow Arabs?

If you can't acknowledge that there is a problem brewing in Islam, and that the Arab world at large requires reform - then you are in denial.

Whether they are muslim or not doesnt really seem to matter. Just take a look at the slander against Obama by calling him the oh so clever name of Osama.

uh...his middle name IS Osama.

Kenyan, not a muslim, but a general lumping of someone with color.

When did Charles say Obama was NOT Kenyan or that he was a Muslim?

Or the dislike levied at Hispanics,

When has Charles said he dislikes Hispanics?

or almost anyone else who may be muslim by nature of their color. This further extends as he cherry picks out little bits of pieces of news.

Again, when did Charles post a story where the race of the person was the only point...and posts negative comments simply based on one's race and no other factor?

There is a reason that long time conservatives have been abandoning the party in droves. Why people who for all their lives have voted Republican suddenly took a turn to the left this time and abandoned what they saw as a failed presidency, and failed policies. It has little to do with the percieved traitorousness of others, and a lot more to do with the failues of the neo-cons in congress to actually confront the world in a positive manner.

A 51-49 Senate and 233-201 House is not exactly what I would call a "decisive" majority nor a sign that conservatism is dead.

Anonymous said...

A 51-49 Senate and 233-201 House is not exactly what I would call a "decisive" majority nor a sign that conservatism is dead.

I never claimed conservatism is dead. I said neo-conservatism is a failure. In what should've been very easy victories, neo-cons were ousted from the senate. One of the most telling defeats was of Santorum in PA. A neo-con nutcase in the extreme, he was ousted quite handily, and shown the door by an overwhelming of Pennsylvanians.

Abandoned by many long time conservatives, who remain faithful to Reagan to old school conservatives, the Republican party has a choice, it can become centric, to regain conservatives, or it can its descent to irrelevance and embrace the Neo-Con right and lose more votes.

And one final point here to basically disprove almost anything you said.

Obama's middle name is NOT Osama.

Perhaps you should educate yourself a little instead of reading the vitriol at LGF and taking it as fact.

yodaking said...

I said neo-conservatism is a failure. In what should've been very easy victories, neo-cons were ousted from the senate. One of the most telling defeats was of Santorum in PA. A neo-con nutcase in the extreme, he was ousted quite handily, and shown the door by an overwhelming of Pennsylvanians.

Abandoned by many long time conservatives, who remain faithful to Reagan to old school conservatives, the Republican party has a choice, it can become centric, to regain conservatives, or it can its descent to irrelevance and embrace the Neo-Con right and lose more votes.


You're right, conservatives are put off my big government spending and the ethical and financial scandals. However, big spending, and shady lobbyists, and pedophilia is not what Neo-Conservatism is based on agreed?

And one final point here to basically disprove almost anything you said..

Way to stifle debate, I will address this below.


Obama's middle name is NOT Osama.


you're right, I apologize, I recalled incorrectly - I remember his middle name being similar to another terrorist. In this case Hussein.

Perhaps you should educate yourself a little instead of reading the vitriol at LGF and taking it as fact.

As for his middle name, I didn't read it on LGF, again - it was based on my own (admitedly incorrect recollection of Osama vs Hussein)

however, I would agree it is inapproriate for Charles to call Obama "Osama" so I looked for the original entry...I could not find it. (even using the search tool on LGF) Could you post a link for me?

Thank you

Anonymous said...

Way to stifle debate, I will address this below.

Once your credibility is rather destroyed there isnt much point in debating you.

Your now proven attack on Obama came from a neo-con news source. References to him as Osama / Obama are sprinkled through the comment sections of LGF (for which he claims no responsiblity which is also circumspect) however the coining of the phrase I believe came from Malkin.

To be fair I no long view LGF, as I find his unceasing vitriol and hatred to be quite tiring. Perhaps you could explain to me how you came to the conclusion with such certainty that Obama's middle name was Osama? Since you seem to be an intelligent sort of person, how did it come to be that you could say something like that with such assuredness? Perhaps you believed the slander without questioning it?

While you try to paint a rosy picture of the Neo-Con rout this past year, it is interesting to note that for all those things that wasnt entirely the reason that long time conservatives abandoned their party.

Santorum wasnt outed by an 18% margin because of government spending, he was outed because of his support for an unpopular war, his numerous socially conservative stances.

I can tell you the reason my father a life time republican voted against him, against Swann and against Sherwood had very little to do with percieved big government spending at a lot more to do with their stance on social issues, their support for a war and in general the neo-con wing of the republican party having abandoned him rather then him abandoning them.

Though to be fair not voting for Lynn Swann was more of a "Just how stupid does the GOP thing we are here?"