Quoth Charles, in response to this piece in the Grauniad in which he is quoted extensively:
Do you notice anything missing from this limp-wristed [wink, nudge - Ed.] attack? For example, a counter-argument? People like Glaister think it’s sufficient to simply quote statements and point disapprovingly. Why strain his logical faculties? All decent people will automatically agree with him, after all.This from someone who has turned the argument-free quote-and-point into an art form. And if you want to see "people automatically agreeing" with one another -- while constantly congratulating one another on their "decency", of course -- there's no better example than the LGF comment section.
(source: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24478 )
7 comments:
Do they even get the irony, do you think? Looking at the comments, its pretty clear they don't. I don't think those fuckers will be happy untill there is a anti muslim pogrom of some sort.
The comments on LGF to the piece are as expected, with a bunch of comments on the Guardian jurno's looks. Bit rich considering the 'physique' of the cheif lizard himself?
hahaha nice find lobbey_dosser, that truly is comedy gold.
You may find my recent post on LGF amusing:
http://murderinging.com/2007/02/22/little-green-stupidity/
At first glance, this post accusing Charles seems to have merit...until I read the whole thing (Both the Guardian article, and what Charle's posts)
There is one glaring error.
Charles is NOT saying one cannot post a counter-opinion using just quotes (as you correctly identified he often does)
Charles' point was the criticism levied at LGF and Charles DID NOT address any of the points Charles has made.
If you read the Guardian op-ed, it simply derided LGF as a racist site, but did not address any of the assertions.
A rational debate or counter argument to a viewpoint/post needs to at the first first level address the points that the original argument makes.
in this case, that this shooter was a Muslim, that he as recently as December was attending a Mosque that already had a previous memeber defect from America, that the shooter's own father stated he feels some outside force influenced his son.
Hurling insults and blanket racist labels is the easy thing to do....intellectually addressing points is a lot harder, and something this Guardian article did not do.
"Hurling insults and blanket racist labels is the easy thing to do"
Replace the word "racist" with the word "liberal" (or "Muslim" or "leftist" or "Democrat" [sic] or "European") in the above quote, and we have yet another 100% accurate synopsis of Charles' MO.
Well done!
...right, and there is a post on LGF that has no other content other then to hurl insults.
If the post points out a issue and then garnishes it with supporting disparaging remarks, that makes a whole lot more sense then just insults by themselves with no supporting issue.
I think the real irony here is "v"'s reply to yodaking's comment. (yodaking: It's harder to intellectually make a point than to make accusations. V: LGF throws blanket liberal labels around!! [No attempt at addressing yodaking's point made. And throwing blanket liberal labels around? Since when is that a sin when the liberals embrace the title?]) As far as irony on the blog as a whole, today's pick is the entry right above this one: "Free Kareem."
http://lgfwatch.blogspot.com/2007/02/free-kareem.html
A comment from that entry (again from yodaking; kudos to you) :
"you do know that this guy is in jail because he criticizes the "Religion of Peace"
Don't you find it ironic that you celebrate a guy that basically does the same thing as Charles?"
Post a Comment