What If You Gave a Flame War and No One Came

 

And here we see Donald calling John Cole of Balloon Juice an idiot. Maybe Don noticed that Cole’s post drew nearly 200 comments and he thought he could repeat the success of his Boing Boing baiting. But alas, his post stands at zero comments.

Don’t worry Donald we’ll keep visiting. We think you’re the most unintentionally humorous fuck-up on the internet. And you can still snatch a few crumbs from RS McCain’s table.

TRUTH 101 IS NOW A PROUD SHAREHOLDER OF AMERICAN POWER

An important lesson I've learned since taking over my own investments was some of the nuances that lead to a stock rising in price.

Good news about earnings or being acquired by a larger firm usually raise a company's stock price. A dividend hike or new patent always help.



One thing that is forgotten by most investors is what I call the "asshole factor."

The stock market is for the most part run by republicans and republicans love assholes. They rejoice and drive up a stock price when a company announces a massive layoff or plant closing. Any time a company announces massive cost cutting and outsourcing to Asia or South America it's stock price goes through the roof.


I'm always on the look out for companies like this for to turn a quick profit. Usually in a few days the shareholders realize the assholes in charge have no clue how to increase sales or demand for products and the company's value is going to tank. I don't go apeshit on these things but a hundred or so shares can make me a quick 2 or $300 in a few days. It's just a matter of putting a stop limit and a sell price on the stock after you've bought it.



I just came across a company that is shouting at me to buy it. I'm buying 100 shares of American Power Corp. AMPW. It's only $1.12 a share. Once the public makes the connection to the well known asshole Professor Douglas I have no doubt this stock will triple. Maybe even more based on Donald's reputation for assholeness.




Thank you Donald. I shall donate part of my profit to the Reelect Governor Jerry Brown campaign in your name.

Merry Christmas, Happy Winter Holiday

All my best to all who pass this way, and all who love them... May Christmas be as sacred as your faith and reason allow. Whether you find yourselves at midnight mass or going out for Chinese, may you celebrate with friends, family, food, and fun.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm letting those I disagree with be just as wrong as they want to be for the next 24 hours or so... Life's too short, and my faith calls for peace, love, and joy 'round now... May everyone reading these words get all of 'em, to overflowing...

Merry Christmas, and God bless...

(Is that denying the nihilist, or what?)

Happy “Holidays” From Nihilist Icon Mr. Grinch

 

I’m only kidding, of course. He’s still too lovable to be one of us.

Obama Raises the Price of Don’s Laptop

 

After buying a new laptop for each of the past three years, they seem even more expensive. I blame Obama.

First, if you need to replace your laptop every year you’re probably downloading way too much porn from unsafe sites.

Second, there’s such a thing as inflation which in moderation is much, much better than deflation. Of course, if you have a safe job tucked away in a government funded sinecure why worry about prices careening downward.

Third, Don then pastes a long bit that actually explains why the prices of laptops have risen. Turns out it is not Lord Obama’s fault.

Fourth, I have to go to work because Obama has not lowered the prices on my food and rent enough so that I can afford not to.

Fifth, I realize he was likely just being sarcastic but we’ve ignored him for a week.

DONALD DOUGLAS HATES ENGLISH CHALK CARVINGS BECAUSE THEY LOOK NIHILIST

What can we say? We believe in anatomical correctness.

How to get conservative professors to blog about Cthulhu's gigantic horror cock - Boing Boing

Another of those posts I wish we'd written/posted first.

How to get conservative professors to blog about Cthulhu's gigantic horror cock - Boing Boing

Oh yeah... Honorary nihilists, one and all...
---

ADDED: Donald made the mistake of allowing comments again (all in the name of martyrdom, y'understand--"See how they mock me for serving my Lord by reposting dildo ads, and a periodic dose of t'n'a for the enjoyment of the boys in the flock." Well, Rule 5 does kinda give short shrift to the Con gals in the readership. Perhaps this was Don's way of making amends?), and the Boing Boing readership didn't disappoint.: American Power: Why Progressives Read Boing Boing

ADDED, Back again (because I don't want to take any chances that it'll up and disappear) Best. Comment. Ever. (leastways, *I* thought so):

"Wow, Cthulhu dildos *and* George Bush books?! This is one-stop Christmas shopping at its finest!

I'll take 3 demon dildos and one witless self-exculpating memoir please." - Anonymous, December 13, 2010 9:20 AM

---

Related: Nihilist Dildo of the Week: Obama Dildo

Man Charged With Incest After Three-Year Relationship With Daughter is Political Science Professor

Hey... Isn't Donald Douglas a political science professor, as well? And wouldn't you know it, they both blog about their political views, and are very close to the same age, too. In some ways, Professor Epstein and Professor Douglas could be twins, and we all know what THAT means... (well, if you're foolish enough to play the "guilt by association similarity" game, anyway...)

Treat folks like individuals, people. The fact that two people share the same politics, or profession, or even facial features, does not mean if one of 'em is a rapist, or commits incest, (or is, for that matter, a model citizen), that the person with the same kinda job, politics, or physical features will be in any other way like the person they resemble in that one way, no matter the memes some bloggers seem to be pushing, of late.

Please... Think before hitting that "post" button... We beg you.

Don, This is What Threats Sound Like

 

 

So just chill out Don. I’ll give you that Mel is a good Christian, though. Just like you!

Death Threats from Folks Decrying Death Threats

No excess words. Just the facts:

"I love Ann Althouse. She is my friend and I look up to her in many ways. I am thus horrified to see calls for her death at a leftist message board discussing recent responses to the death of Elizabeth Edwards:

I can't fucking wait for Ann Althouse to die. The only thing that would make that perfect would be if her husband cheats on her beforehand.

While I've already posted on all of this at length, I'm still shocked at how brazen are some of the leftist death chants, for Althouse — and for me too, from the genuinely demonic Tintin at Sadly No!, as just one more example:" - Donald Douglas, American Power: Leftists Chant for the Death of Ann Althouse — UPDATED!!

Same guy:

"And God forgive me, but somehow I don't think I'd be bothered to see leftists in these videos. Perhaps they'd take this stuff more seriously if they took the place of folks like Daniel Pearl:" - American Power: Leftist Blogger Equates Christine O'Donnell to Taliban Murderers

And just so there's no confusion:

Can we get a close-up?

Link to Donald Douglas' "If only it wuz liberals leftists" video, for any who wish to see more of the gore Donald is wishing on Americans to his political left. WARNING: It's pretty SICK, and not in a good way. (I posted the actual video once at this blog. Once was more than enough.)

Donald's friend doesn't even bother putting any space between decrying death threats, on one hand, and making one, on the other:
@Serr8d sez: Death wishes for Ann Althouse from @tintin_sadlyno @repsac3 ««Now there's a couple 'tards who'd look good wearing coiled hemp. @AmPowerBlog

Clearly, the hypocrisy is strong, in some.

If anyone who supports these clowns wants to cite and link to any death threat I've made to/about anyone, we'll at least have something concrete to talk about. Perhaps there was some time when, in the heat of ideological battle, I was as much of an ass as these folks. Chances are slim, however, because I think that all such threats are morally repugnant. Those made over the internet, just because someone expresses a different sociopolitical point of view than you do, are also pretty stupid, too, and say far more about the person making the threat, than they do about the person they're targeting.

EVERYONE who makes death threats to/about anyone else, no matter the reason, is wrong. As I recently said in a comment at another post: "That said, Donald is right about one thing... I hereby denounce, renounce, and generally condemn the words of anyone calling for Donald Douglas, Ann Althouse (or for that matter, anyone else, right, left or otherwise) to get sick, die, or suffer physical pain. (I know Donald would prefer I denounce, renounce, and generally condemn the people, as opposed to their words, but I believe to do so would take things too far... ...at least until I believe that they've made a continuous habit of uttering such intemperate remarks, in which case I'll revisit the issue of denouncing/renouncing/condemning the people, in addition to their words.)"

I continue to stand by that. The threats folks opposed to Donald Douglas' words and deeds are making to/about him (and/or about Ann Althouse) are just as despicable as the threats Donald and his friend Serr8d are making about folks opposed to the words and deeds of Donald Douglas and others of their ilk. Threats of death on the internet are always wrong; and not wrong only when done by the people who disagree with you. Rather than the moral wishy-washyness of Donald Douglas and serr8d, one set of standards, by which we judge friend and foe alike. So you tell me which of us is closer to honest to God nihilism (as opposed to Mr Douglas' "all those who disagree with me" variant of the term)...

Well whatta ya know...I guess Donald got his wish for "a "big deal" entirely fresh, full-on new entry denouncing all of those calling for my death and Althouse's," after all... I hope he approves... ...though as I predicted in that earlier comment, I'm betting he won't.

Donald Douglas' New Low in Guilt by Association: You Resemble a Known Bad Man, Therefore, You're Bad.

American Power: Guilty Verdict in Elizabeth Smart Case: "And I noticed that Ms. Smart's rapist, Brian David Mitchell, bears a strong resemblance to my dangerous stalker, James Casper. Seriously. Grow the beard and hair at Reppy's pic and it's a spitting image."

Is Donald really so hard up for things to hit me with that he's sunk so low as to saying I resemble someone recently convicted of rape? What does that even mean, other than Donald has allowed his fucked up guilt by association beliefs to fall to a new low. When "you're bad because you have facial features alot like a guy who was convicted of a crime" is the whole of you're argument--nevermind the fact that he's way off in my opinion; he's got quite the imagination to believe I even slightly resemble the guy, let alone am the "spitting image" of him--you best just stop speaking, before you embarrass yourself still further.

In the spirit of fair play, however, I'll help ol' Don out. You picked the wrong person from your seemingly neverending list of "enemies," Donald.

Me (being tailed by the FBI... or perhaps, a Freemason)

My Evil Twin, Skippy

Am I a Godless nihilist evildoer?
Clearly, I am... I mean, those images say all that needs to be said...

Borrowing another of Donald's bullshit memes, he might just as well stop taking swings at me... These pictures "prove" that everything he ever said about me was correct. There is nothing more to be done. He might as well give up blogging and run for office, because he'll never have a more complete victory over the forces of nihilism (defined, as is his wont, as everything and all that isn't just like him) than he achieved today.

Physical resemblance as a weapon. Another step down the ladder of logic and reason for Professor Douglas.

And by the by... Isn't Donald's blog starting to look more and more like a venue with which to personally attack the people who he disagrees with, rather than a blog of breaking news and neoconservative opinion? I mean, aside from the guilt by association angle I already noted, tossing an "enemy" willy nilly into an otherwise serious news story is just not good blogging. He can't post his daily dose of tits and ass without lashing out at someone. It's just sad, because I think he used to be a far better blogger (and human being). Anyone who doesn't believe me ought to check his archives from the early days of American Power. It used to be a very different blog.

That's not to say that he won't continue to get those hitz by which he and some of his buddies measure and compare the length and girth of their blogging penes in the ConBlog shower room... People love lowbrow, lowest common denominator entertainment, more than that intellectual stuff he used to post, probably. American Idol or the WWF will always get more viewers than a Puccini opera or a Shakespeare play on public television--or for that matter, a good book... Hell, ANY book--but that doesn't mean Idol and WWF: RAW are delivering more quality or cultural literacy than the play, the opera or the book... It just means folks enjoy 'em more. There's a whole lotta theories as to why, but whatever the reason, and whatever you think about it, a fact's a fact. Hitz is nice, I'm sure--and important, if the goal is to earn money--but (as should be obvious) the more "lowbrow" you go in search of the hitz, the less "highbrow" you become, and the less worthwhile your blog becomes. Donald is very proud of being a political science professor, but he doesn't post nearly as many political science pieces as he used to. ANYONE can post tits and ass or knock-down, drag-out fights between bloggers, and yes, tits and ass and the knock-downs will prolly earn more hitz. But political science, they aint.

Whatever... That's just what I think... And I look like Skippy there, so clearly, I'm eeeeevil.

American Power: Elizabeth Edwards: Nihilist

Or "Donald Douglas Omits Human Decency in Post About Dying Woman"

More of that famous Donald Douglas class:
American Power: Elizabeth Edwards' Parting Statement Omits Mention of Faith in God:

The story's trending at Memeorandum. And at ABC News, "Elizabeth Edwards Won't Receive Anymore Cancer Treatment: John Edwards' Joins Family at His Wife's Side." But I notice at her farewell statement an odd aspect to her "three saving graces": She doesn't list faith in God as one of them:

STATEMENT FROM THE EDWARDS FAMILY

Elizabeth has been advised by her doctors that further treatment of her cancer would be unproductive. She is resting at home with family and friends and has posted this message to friends on her Facebook page.

You all know that I have been sustained throughout my life by three saving graces—my family, my friends, and a faith in the power of resilience and hope. These graces have carried me through difficult times and they have brought more joy to the good times than I ever could have imagined. The days of our lives, for all of us, are numbered. We know that. And, yes, there are certainly times when we aren’t able to muster as much strength and patience as we would like. It’s called being human. But I have found that in the simple act of living with hope, and in the daily effort to have a positive impact in the world, the days I do have are made all the more meaningful and precious. And for that I am grateful. It isn’t possible to put into words the love and gratitude I feel to everyone who has and continues to support and inspire me every day. To you I simply say: you know.

With love,

Elizabeth

***

Clearly Elizabeth Edwards wants to put her faith in something, be it hope or strength or anything. But not God. I wonder if it's just bitterness, that's she's been forsaken by more than just her estranged husband --- that's she's been forsaken by Him. And imagine if she'd have become First Lady. Americans generally expect outward expressions of faith in our presidents, Christian faith especially, and thus in our First Ladies as well. The Democratic base obviously doesn't care, as we can see in the "wow factor" expressed by the author at the American Prospect. Being anti-religion is cool, so Edwards' non-theological theology gets props from the neo-communists. Still, at her death bed and giving what most folks are calling a final goodbye, Elizabeth Edwards couldn't find it somewhere down deep to ask for His blessings as she prepares for the hereafter? I guess that nihilism I've been discussing reaches up higher into the hard-left precincts than I thought.

Isn't that lovely? What better way to show God's love and mercy than to attack a dying woman for not being sufficiently Christian? One would think the term "holier-than-thou," and the connotative meaning attached to it, would've prevented a real Christian (or for that matter, a human being laying the slightest claim to decency) from saying such things. Donald though, is a very special kinda guy. Attacking the recently deceased and soon-to-be-dying for not living up to his political, social, or religious standards is just one of the many fucked up creepy services he offers.

The God I worship doesn't want any part of those who berate the dying for not being sufficiently humble before Him in the days and hours before or after their deaths, in the name of petty political points. Speaking for myself, I can only say that if this is the kind of message Donald is receiving from his place of worship, I think it's time for a new place of worship, one that has the slightest concern for human dignity and worth.

From the comments (one can only imagine the ones he moderated out of existence, if these are the ones he allowed to appear):

mantis said...
What would Jesus do?

Attack a dying woman, that's what!

God has a nice warm spot in Hell reserved just for you. -- December 6, 5:10 PM

gail said...
I don't think this is an example of nihilism. It seems more like the Stoicism practiced by the ancient Romans, like Marcus Aurelius, an honorable, if grim, philosophy. --
December 6, 2010 7:44 PM

Anonymous said...
She is dying jackass. -- December 6, 2010 7:54 PM

Anonymous said...
You, Donald, are scum.

You have redefined the meaning of low blow. -- December 6, 2010 8:57 PM
---

UPDATE, 12/8/10, 4:15 PM: There are now 80 or so comments at Donald's original post, permitted through moderation because it allows him to fancy himself a victim and a martyr, as this subsequent post indicates: American Power: Opiate of the Masses

Also, two more from me, and others blogging (updated as necessary):
Donald Dick | TBogg

Dying woman forgets to mention God

Elizabeth Edwards Is Dying, Hates the Baby (Baby Jesus)

A House With No Frame | The Moderate Voice

Elizabeth Edwards Dies | Politics | Christianity Today

bjkeefe: Wingnut Taste

Compassion and Love Are Not Partisan, or Exclusive to Any One Religious View | The Moderate Voice

Fading Elizabeth Edwards Draws Media Sympathy, Support, and Controversy | The Atlantic Wire

This “it” may be the “that” that’s so far up with which it can’t be put. : Lawyers, Guns & Money
This “it” may be the “that” that’s so far up with which it can’t be put. - Acephalous (Same post, but the comments at each make it worth visiting both.)

Rising Hegemon: You stay classy

What'd I Say?: In Reply: Elizabeth Edwards: "this was a time for prayer, good wishes, and Christian mercy"

What'd I Say?: In reply: Elizabeth Edwards: "How about we just let God sort it all out instead of judging Mrs Edwards or her imperfect faith?"

Righties Dance on Elizabeth Edwards' Grave -- And Use My Reporting to Do It | AlterNet

Don Vader Finds Your Lack of Faith…Disturbing � Heavy Metal Librarian

Why Elizabeth Edwards Left God out of Her Last Goodbye

Elizabeth Edwards and God - ReligiousLeftLaw.com

Cram & Ballwell !: Elizabeth Edwards Deserves To Rest In Peace

Faith and Politics in America - Boing Boing

Doubt – apple juice

In Death Elizabeth Edwards Inspires Talk of God - 1 A Woman's Point of View News Analysis - AnneofCarversville.com

Find and Ye Shall Seek: A mature faith and an immature faith

Hackman's Musings: Beyond Exclusivism

Wingnuts Prematurely Criticize Elizabeth Edwards : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

catsittingstill: Late off the mark

Donald Douglas Receives Hatred For His Compasssion Towards … | HappyTipsDaily

Feel-the-love department | Civil Commotion

Asshole of the Year | Bors Blog

New rules: there are some things you are not allowed not to say anymore : Pharyngula

The Self Taught Atheist: Unabashed Christian Arrogance

Navigating Past Specious Allegations of Racism

Dr. Don's recent post on nihilism (make that posts on nihilism)--where, as he has done so many times before, he once again defines the term, but fails to support his belief that "the Left" espouses and promotes nihilism in all (or for that matter, anything) they do--deserves some attention, which I will at some point no doubt offer. First though--because it's far easier--a quick word or two about the "RAAAAACISM!!" charge Donald shoehorns into the debate and once again flings in the general direction of American Nihilist.

In discussing societal norms, Dr. Douglas says:

"And one of those agreed commitments is that we treat those of different races with respect --- that is, we don't abuse them with racist attacks and, even worse, defend those attacks with the most reprehensible evasions and distortions of truth imaginable. But unfortunately, that's the going program at RepRacist3's dungeon of nihilist hatred, where folks there think of me as the opposite of albino Edgar Winter. Nope, no colorblindness at RepRacist3's stalking nihilist asshat central:

These are bad people, well outside the accepted normative commitments of decency and right in society."

As you can no doubt see, on this occasion Donald is yelling RAAAAACISM!! because a guy who has commented at American Nihilist 3-4 times in total once said that "Donald is the anti-Johnny Winters."

Now, there are two issues with this. (Donald likes to intertwine and confuse them in his occasional responses, so I'm going to do all I can to present them as separate from one another as possible.) The first is, whether or not what thepalescot said is actually racially offensive. The second is, why--even if someone believes it is racially offensive (and to be clear, I do not believe it is racially offensive)--anyone other than thepalescot ought to be held responsible for thepalescot's words and intended meaning.

First, is it racially offensive? Well, PScot is saying something intended to offend Donald. In context from other comments, thepalescot holds Johnny Winters in high regard; he does not hold Donald in that same high regard, to be sure.

Whether it's racist though, is a whole other kettle of fish. Donald immediately latches on to the fact that Johnny Winter is an albino, though PScot makes no direct mention of either Johnny's or Donald's skin color until a day later, AFTER Donald brings it up. (Donald says "Edgar Winter" in his post, which I hope is just a brain fart, and not some kinda indication that white (or albino) folks all look the same to him. We can be relatively certain how he'd spin it, were it me making such an error, say, talking about Wendell Holmes' (of The Holmes Brothers) bout with cancer, but calling him Sherman. Still, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt.) There's a whole lotta ways in which Donald is dissimilar to Johnny Winter; why Donald chooses to focus on the race of each of them to the exclusion of any/all other factors that make these two men different isn't clear... ...unless he's manufacturing an "outrage, OUTRAGE!! RAAAAACISM!!!" that just wouldn't exist save for Donald's creating it, of course.

Of course, maybe PScot was referring to the fact that Johnny Winter is a very white man playing a very stereotypically black music, and was thus saying that Donald is a black man with what are still considered stereotypically white political views, which is what PScot says in his subsequent comment the next day. I'll grant you that judging the individual based on the stereotypical facts about the group is foolish--it's essentially judging the book based on the cover, or engaging in sweeping generalization, both of which lead to some really faulty conclusions--but even still, I see it as more of a racial comment than a racist one.

Contrary to what Donald appears to believe, it's not bigoted to discuss demographics. Black people (or Jewish people, or female people, or conservative people, or gay people, or people born with a particular physical abnormality, or ...), as a group, do share a collection of sociopolitical attitudes and beliefs (as well as physical attributes, of course.) None of these attitudes, beliefs, or attributes are universal throughout a given group--which is why one cannot cavalierly apply the attitudes or attributes of the group onto any individual member, any more than one can apply the attributes or attitudes of one member onto the whole group--but they do nevertheless exist, and it isn't morally wrong--that is, RAAAAACIST or BIIIIIGOTED--to talk about them.

In the realm of music, guitar blues was born of and even today continues to be largely populated by black people. Johnny Winter is an exception to that stereotype. The demographics of "blues musicians" are changing, and as time goes on, those demographics will likely keep changing. It is in no way racist to make any of those statements.

In the realm of politics, conservatism was born of and even today continues to be largely populated by white people. Donald Douglas is an exception to that stereotype. The demographics of "conservatives" are changing, and as time goes on, they will likely keep changing. It is in no way racist to make any of those statements, either.

There's definitely something to be said for a society where we're all just "people," and no one pays any attention to the demographics. Donald believes no one should pay any attention to the color of his skin, and that any mention of it is RAAAAACISM!!. I understand the appeal, but then, I also wish he would apply those same standards to gay people, to liberal people, to those people who don't fit into his notions about JudeoChristian religious belief, to people who are not Americans. If racially, people are people, then why are people with a sexual orientation other than his own also not "just people?" Why is it he believes that those who don't share his politics can be grouped together as though they are "all the same," and stigmatized by him? Why are they not just people?

Like I said, I get the appeal of a world where we're all just people, but I don't really want to live there, as lovely as it likely would be. To me, there's something to be said for having and embracing all those demographics that make you you. I don't believe people should deny or discount their ethnic or racial heritage. Whether one is Polish or black or a Scot or Israeli (or even white, even), I believe one should be proud of it and incorporate it into who they are as a person and how that heritage fits into their beliefs about being an American, too. The same goes for one's religion, their gender, their chosen political beliefs, their sexual orientation, and any/all the other "demographic" groups to which they belong. (Well, perhaps not "all." If one is in the demo "pedophile" or "murderer," it'd probably be best not to celebrate ones inclusion in those groups.)

Yes, recognition and celebration of these demographic groups do allow for racism and bigotry, often when members of one group get it into their heads that their group is superior, and one or more of those "other" groups are inferior to them --protestants v. catholics, "the right" v. "the left," straight v. gay-- but they also allow for cultural exchange and tolerance of those not like oneself. And, I believe there is an inherent good in knowing where you came from and who you are, besides.

I don't believe it's raaaaacist (or biiiiigoted)for someone to notice the color of Donald's or my skin, or to evaluate what one or the other of us has to say based on whether we self identify politically left or right; religiously Jewish, Atheist, Muslim, or Unitarian; gay or straight, married or unmarried, Ph.D, high school dropout, or somewhere in between, fully able-bodied or physically challenged, etc. Sometimes one or more of these factors will make a difference or provide a little insight into why we think as we do, and sometimes they won't, but I don't believe we should pretend that such differences between us all don't exist, in pursuit of some vague notion about equality or fairness. Yes, we're all just people, but we're also each individually a whole lot of demographic "ingredients," and yes, I do believe they matter, as well.

Obviously, I do not fully subscribe to either the belief that America is a "melting pot" or that it is a "salad bowl." The best approach is somewhere between the two, in my view. To be an American does mean one has definite characteristics, shared ideals and beliefs, but as I said above, I don't believe you have to completely renounce the rest of your "demographics" to be an American.

The bottom line is, thepalescot said Johnny Winter is white, that Donald Douglas is black, and that he prefers the work of one man over the work of the other. He did not say his preference for one over the other was based on either man's race; just that he preferred one man's work over that of the other. If you believe, as Donald seems to, that that is RAAAAACISM!!, you'll have to explain how and why, because I don't see it...

The second issue Donald's post brings up is why in God's name he believes that EVERYONE at American Nihilist is a RAAAAACIST, just because he perceives thepalescot's comment as RAAAAACIST. Now, for the rest of this post, let's all assume that Donald's perception is correct; for the sake of argument, let's all pretend that what thepalescot said was racist. (Do you understand, Donald? This is NOT what I believe, but for the sake of the argument, we're all going to pretend that we all agree with you, here. I want no misunderstanding, like last time when I said "...people don't need you, or me, or Brendan to protect them from unpleasant words or ideas." [for the benefit of those joining late, Brendan is another blogger, and Donald wanted him to delete a comment thepalescot wrote at one of Brendan's blog posts, because Donald believed the comment to be offensive], and you latched onto "unpleasant words or ideas," and convinced yourself that I was thereby saying the comment in question--thepalescot said Donald was mighty swarthy for a guy with such a Scottish name--was objectively offensive, or that I actually agreed with you, when it was clear as day from the full context, that that was not the case. Got it? OK...)

So some guy named thepalescot came to American Nihilist and made a racist comment. Now what? Am I obligated to remove the comment from view, and pretend it never happened? Must I denounce thepalescot (either together with or instead of removing his comment)? Is ignoring his bigotry not an option open to me, believing that to engage him would only encourage him to post more bigoted crap?

And if I do not denounce him, and/or delete his comment, am I really therefore a racist myself? Are the other American Nihilist authors--either those who took part in the blog comments, or those who did not--really also racists, because they didn't act as Donald seems to believe they should (deleting comments and denouncing folks)? What about the other readers? Are they too racists, according to Donald?

WHY?!?

Does Donald really not believe that the only person responsible for a racist comment is the person who actually made it? Does he really go in for this collectivist guilt thing, where every person here at American Nihilist is responsible for every word or idea uttered by any person at American Nihilist, including any random commenter who steps in off the information superhighway? Really?!?

I think Donald is wrong to generalize about folks like that. thepalescot is an individual, and not representative of the demos "the left," or "American Nihilist writers or readers." If one is offended by a blog post or comment, one should hold the person who wrote it accountable and liable, but not pretend that that one writer speaks for every person who ever wrote at or read the blog in question. Donald has a bad habit of this kinda generalizing; one post or comment at Kos "proves" all liberals are anti-semites or communists (rather than simply holding the writer accountable). "I" (or "we") engaged in workplace intimidation because a guy who last blogged here over a year ago posted information he found at Donald's college website, and suggested that folks write the president of the college and the head of Donald's department over something Donald had posted. The fact that I objected from the get go is beside the point. By not stopping the guy and deleting his post, Donald pronounces me (or all of us) "guilty," rather than focusing on the blogger who actually made the post. Brendan is a racist for not deleting thepalescot's "swarthy" comment, even though he neither wrote it or agreed with it.

Not even Donald believes his own rhetoric, or he would've acted when this white "racist" posted the following at American Power: "Daley's political instincts are impeccable and his knows this swarthy avatar is just a tenderfoot who's another Jimmy Carter, a one-term wonder who's hemorrhaging political capital faster than GWB." Maybe it's only raaaaacist to refer to conservative biracial men as "swarthy," eh?

Donald is just plain wrong, on both counts. What thepalescot said wasn't racist, and no one except thepalescot deserves credit or blame for his words, whether racist or not.

As I've said many times before, Donald started these allegations of RAAAAACISM!! against this blog and me personally after I called him out for what I believed to be bigoted characterizations about black folks in his blogging. I believe his use of ebonics and racial stereotypes of black men (such as Obama) as fried chicken eating gangsta pimps is racially offensive (or should be, to anyone who cares about race relations in this country), and I won't stop saying so. His retaliatory responses--including these "swarthy" and "Johnny Winter" bits, as well as claiming that it's RAAAAACIST for me to call a person I disagree with a clown, provided that man is black. (One presumes it would not be racist for me to disagree with a white guy saying the same thing, and to suggest he is a clown for expressing the opinions with which I disagreed.)--just don't hold water, as far as I'm concerned...

I'd be most interested in what others have to say, whether or not you agree with me... As always, even Donald himself is welcome to reply.

Dr Douglas, you're clearly a selective-reading idiot...

American Power: "I'm equating Bloggingheads.tv and its visitors with liberalism" - Althouse

"Anyone with half a brain would have known, but not the despicable stalking asshat RepRacist3."

Right.

That's why nearly EVERYONE came down on Althouse in the comments at her original post, right there on her own site--which presumably, is largely populated by folks friendly to her points of view, as well as fans who're more likely to be familiar with her writing style and thus understand both the words she writes and the gist she tries to convey with them.

That's why she had to subsequently go to another site to defend her post with that explanation.

Dr Douglas, you're clearly a selective-reading idiot to come to the conclusion that my understanding of Ms Althouse was any different than those of most of her loyal readership, or the other blogs/bloggers who commented, after reading through the various posts/comment areas you referenced. No other conclusion is possible. The words at those posts make it abundantly clear what the general understanding of the original Althouse post was, and your conclusion to the contrary makes it awful clear that the only half-brained fellow hanging around in the area of these Althouse posts is you.

Look Donald... Pretty much everyone, from regular Althouse readers commenting at your first link (where she does not explain herself, at all), to those commenting at your second link (where just about everyone calls Bullshit! on her too-little-too-late attempt at a face-saving explanation after the fact) doesn't agree with you, or with Ms. Althouse. (Or do you think she'd prefer Dr. Althouse?) I'm not saying that that might not've been what she meant to say in her first post, but pretty much no one read it that way, so the fault lies with the lady for failing to more clearly convey her intended message.

Even at your own post, you say "leftists love this", and show the G.W.A.R. video, not bloggingheads.tv. So tell me Don... If your understanding was that Althouse was talking about the bloggingheads site, why didn't you include that site in any way in your post? (Nevermind... The answer is clear... You're a friggin' face-saving halfwit.)

"But Althouse explains"

Exactly Don, old man... The fact that she had to explain should tell you something (but maybe it was speaking to the missing half of your brain, eh?) If her point was anywhere near as clear as it was concise (read: short), she wouldn't've HAD to explain. NO ONE understood her, and even now, they still think she's off her rocker on this. The first answer still stands; It's G.W.A.R., for Christ's sake. They don't represent liberals, they represent post-adolescent bad metal-loving adolescents. (One of them spends a whole lotta time on FoxNews, in fact... If anything, that says more about that member's politics than any music performance video would or could.)

Bloggingheads isn't recognized as a liberal site by much of anyone, either. Althouse herself has appeared there pretty often, and almost all bloggingheads videos include both sides getting their fair say. It's a pretty desperate play to try to suggest bloggingheads.tv represents the liberal mindset. But whatever... The woman has her opinion...

"Besides, finding buttwipe bjkeefe in the comments at the Gwar Bloggingheads was a dead giveaway"

Now, a close reading of the bloggingheads site makes it pretty clear to anyone with maybe just a smidge more than half a brain that bjkeefe did not comment at the G.W.A.R. bloggingheads post, but instead had a comment included in their "Out of Context" sidebar, which seems to appear on every bloggingheads page, including the ones that include Ann Althouse herself. So no, Don, the fact that his comment is there no more implies fandom of this or anything G.W.A.R has ever done than it does fandom of this or anything Ann Althouse has ever done. So much for that "close reading" there, half-brain... That bus you thought you was drivin' just plum rolled over you.

"And of course I was extremely concise at my post on Gwar, not only indicating that we should be fair but adding a video of Gwar beheading Barack Obama. But despicable dumbshit RepRacist3 makes a lame gotcha attempt anyway, mumbling stupidly about "you're a fool if you in any way agree with her ...'"

Close reading would of course notice the "if" in the sentence, as in:
Donald, clearly Althouse can be a little over-sensitive, sometimes, if she thinks anything done by Gwar is anything to get excited over. And clearly, you're a fool if you in any way agree with her (which, given your recent suggestion that calling a black man a clown is RAAAAACIST!!* (*unless he's Barack Obama, or any other black man with whom you disagree politically or socially, in which case not even photoshops of them as fried chicken eating pimps is in any way offensive or bigoted), is likely.
I didn't say he did agree with her; I said IF he agreed with her, and that it WAS LIKELY he did, given his over-the-top sensitivity in the past.

Now yes, I do believe Donald was on board with Althouse's G.W.A.R. is anti-female (or anti-Con female, or pro-violence against women) thrust, as evidenced by his cut & paste of the G.W.A.R. video and the words "liberals love this," (not to mention charging--without a scintilla, as usual--that the folks at American Nihilist actually "get off" on stuff like this.)

Close reading would also note that even Donald admits his post was on G.W.A.R. (and liberals, of course), and not on bloggingheads.tv (and liberals).

That's everyone else's point, in a nutshell. The Althouse (and subsequent Douglas) post(s) were understood by everyone and their baby sister as talking about G.W.A.R., not bloggingheads.tv, or much of anything else... Hence, everyone's reaction, including my own. (I have no proof of course, but I don't even buy Donald's magical understanding of this "fact" that everyone else failed to get except him, and believe his hindsight post explanation to be FAR better than his actual sight at the time, if ya know what I mean... YMMV...) Hell, Donald even discusses G.W.A.R.'s political leanings in his post, saying "But to be fair, Gwar's bipartisan..." So who here really believes Don knew Althouse's point was not about G.W.A.R. at all, but about bloggingheads.tv, as he now claims?

No, me neither... Don will say or do anything to save face, and to attack others...

"So much for RepRacist3's close reading skills. Stupid asshole."

See above. Decide for yourself who's the "stupid asshole" as concerns "close reading skills". Rinse. Repeat as needed.

As always, folks can decide for themselves whether they agree that Donald (and Althouse) seem to be accusing liberals of being anti-feminist because G.W.A.R. (a band whose lead singer regularly appears on FoxNews, not MSNBC) at least one time disemboweled someone wearing a Sarah Palin mask onstage.... or something... And maybe my point about Donald and his "calling a black man I agree with a clown is RAAAAACIST!!, but photoshopping a black man I don't agree with as a fried chicken eating gangsta pimp, isn't" argument is in some way different than Althouse's "a video of G.W.A.R. disemboweling Sarah Palin on a liberal site (Bloggingheads.tv--where Althouse has appeared on several occasions--is a liberal site?!?) proves liberals hate women" argument, but seeing Donald comment on both in a very similar way sure suggested a connection to me... Again, the reader can decide for him/herself...

Everything we wrote or referenced is linked below, and I urge anyone who cares, to read what we (and others) wrote and decide for yourself where the truth lies.

I'm sure you already know what I think... Dr Don is getting desperate, and all this ad hom and spurious charge-throwing is just more evidence of it.

I'd be interested in whatever response one wishes to offer, either with my point of view or against... Even Dr Don himself is always welcome to speak up.

And Don... Your silly "racist" thing is getting mighty tired, bro... Either put up or shut up, nes pa? (Not that I expect you actually ever will come across with more than this yelling of "RAAAAACIST!!" at me, but it can't hurt to keep on askin' anyway...)
---
Bloggingheads.tv - more video on the web (THE video)

Althouse: Violence against women...

alicublog: A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. Ann Althouse equates liberalism with GWAR.
alicublog: A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. Ann Althouse equates liberalism with GWAR.: Comments on Echo, Pg 1

American Power: Disemboweling Sarah Palin

American Niiiiihilist: Disemvoweling Donald Douglas

American Power: "I'm equating Bloggingheads.tv and its visitors with liberalism"

Not part of the narrative, but included:
Bloggingheads Community - View Profile: bjkeefe

American Power: "There's nothing at Fox Nation about menthols, drugs, or mothafucka's. Just a headline about gangsta rap..."

American Power: Obama's Gangsta Grillz

American Power: You're Not Entitled to Your Own Facts

Not included, but should've been:
“That’s Specious Reasoning, Prof. Althouse.” “Thanks!” : Lawyers, Guns & Money

Disemvoweling Donald Douglas

mrcn Pwr: Dsmbwlng Srh Pln

t's Gwr.

lths sys lftsts lve ths, nd Rpsc3's htng bnd f nhlsts gts ff n stff lke ths, nd mr:

Bt t b fr, Gwr's bprtsn, s cmmntr ndcts:

Thanks again Ann for your one sided fanning of partisan hate. This crappy band according to Wikipedia has trashed on stage every president since Reagan, also John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. But don't let the facts get in the way of throwing more red meat to your Althouse Hillbillies. They might just buy a toaster on Amazon for you!

---

Donald, clearly Althouse can be a little over-sensitive, sometimes, if she thinks anything done by Gwar is anything to get excited over. And clearly, you're a fool if you in any way agree with her (which, given your recent suggestion that calling a black man a clown is RAAAAACIST!!* (*unless he's Barack Obama, or any other black man with whom you disagree politically or socially, in which case not even photoshops of them as fried chicken eating pimps is in any way offensive or bigoted), is likely.

The ridiculous of your post (and Ann Althouse's) is summed up in the first two words. "It's Gwar." And if those two words really aren't enough, the majority of the comments at Ann's blog (including the one you cite, ironically) should help explain why this is just another manufactured outrage. C'mon... It's GWAR, for Christ's sake.

As for me and the folks at American Niiiiihilist, well, it is possible that someone here (writer or reader) may be a G.W.A.R. fan, but if you had any real evidence that any one of us "gets off on stuff like this," you'd've whipped it out, big boy. (Actually, history shows you wouldn't've... You tend to just make shit up and say it, truth, reason, or even the slightest trickle of evidence be damned.) And your link back to the post where a blogger who hasn't written for AmNi in over a year once reposted your publicly available work info over my objections (an incident that first happened in February of 2009, and that you're STILL whining about) is pretty clear evidence that the blogger at The Mahablog was correct. You need to chill, take your lumps, and move on, already. Holding onto all these grudges and imagined slights just can't be healthy, Don.

"Who's that trip, trap, tripping over Don's bridge?"

American Power: Progressive Trolls

In which Dr. Douglas finds a conservative fellow traveller who, like him, chooses to redefine the term "troll" to mean "anyone from the left who disagrees with me, and dares to say so on my blog."

Of course, of the 42 comments currently appended to his new friend "Robin of Berkeley"'s American Thinker piece, about a third are calling her out for the hypocrisy--many seemingly from the right. And predictably I suppose, Robin or Berkeley's response is to call those commenters trolls too, and to ask the editor at American Thinker to remove any that violate AT comment standards--which in her mind, is likely all of 'em. A woman cut from Don's own heart, she is... If you can't beat 'em, the least you can do is delete their words and prevent them from appearing anywhere near your own, so as not to disturb the illusion that everyone agrees with you.

Yeesh.

And yeah, we got a mention from Donald, as well:

And that's to say nothing of the freaks at American Nihilist, for whom no undomesticated attack is out of bounds.

Buck up, Don. They're just words... and here at American Nihilist, (unlike at your blog), you're always free to drop on by and rebut them with words of your own. As long as you're more or less on topic and not selling something (commercially, I mean), your comments will appear as written.

It's one thing to say "Comment and debate are always welcome," but it's quite another to actually adhere to those standards on your blog. -- That said, American Nihilist applauds your finally removing all that dishonest bullshit from your profile... ...though liberal "trolls" throughout the blogosphere are no doubt mourning the death of that "tactical elan" for which you had been so famous (or notorious, anyway).

It seems the folks at wikipedia have met Donald and Robin (or others like them), as well.: "The term ["Troll"] is often used as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an opposing position by attacking its proponent."
In a nutshell, Wikipedia.

Well, come along! I've got two spears,
And I'll poke your eyeballs out at your ears;
I've got besides two curling-stones,
And I'll crush you to bits, body and bones.

Snip, snap, snout.
This tale's told out.

Added, 3:20 AM: American Power: Barbara O'Brien: Hate-Enabling Progressive

"The commenters there as as bad as anything on the web, further substantiated by the demonic racist Repsac3."

Jesus, dude... Man up, stop sniffling over spilt milk, and quitcherbitchin', already. This kinda repetition may work on some of your less intelligent readers, but the vast majority (yeah, even of your readers) prefer intelligent argument to all this whining and name-calling. What Barbara called you on, you were clearly guilty of, and changing the subject, declaring victory, or calling her names isn't going to change that. I mean, I know this is what you do, but really man... try manning up, admitting the fuck up, and moving on... These three posts about the maha blog ain't convincing anyone you're right except you.

And anytime you want to do more than yell RAAAAACIST!! at me (like perhaps, backing those bogus charges), I'm here for ya, buddy.