#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
Hitler will be disappointed.
A day after he engaged in multiple Twitter arguments and called Penn State students “pitiful,” ESPN suspended Keith Olbermann for a week. The global sports network released a statement Tuesday announcing the news, saying Olbermann’s actions were “completely inappropriate and [do] not reflect the views of ESPN.”
So much for saving the news media from the Brian Williams crisis.
Steve Sailer observes an almost inexplicable slam on a great American comedian:
Hope is of real value as a chronicle of a career. For even though Bob Hope’s work is no longer capable of holding the attention of modern audiences, it is still interesting to learn the details of how he turned himself into a star and then managed to stay on top of the mass-culture heap long after most of his less-driven contemporaries had vanished from sight. But Zoglin, for all his admirable thoroughness, inexplicably fails to emphasize the central fact about Hope and his career—one that not only goes a long way toward explaining why he was so successful, but also why we no longer find him funny.
Simply: He wasn’t Jewish.
What was missing from his style? Even though Hope was a first-generation
European immigrant, there was nothing remotely ethnic about his stage
manner. He was among the few successful WASP comics of his generation,
and despite the fact that he hired such Jewish writers as Larry Gelbart
and Mel Shavelson, the jokes they penned for him lacked the sharp ironic
tang of Jewish humor that is to this day one of the essential
ingredients in American comedy.During World War II, when Americans shared both a common culture and an
iron determination to prevail over their common enemy, such a comedian
could speak for millions of listeners from coast to coast. But that
America no longer exists, and the Americans of the 21st century demand
more from comedy than mere reassurance. That is why Bob Hope is
forgotten today, and will remain so. All he had to offer were punchlines
that no longer have punch.
As one commenter mentioned, this appears to be an attempt by the Dutch Teachout to curry favor with the inward-focused aging Jews who read Commentary and think Woody Allen and Lenny Bruce are the epitome of humor. Hope held up a hell of a lot better than either Allen or Bruce have, and Allen isn’t even dead yet. Let’s face it, the funniest thing Allen ever produced was his self-parodying, quasi-incestuous marriage.
I’ve never been able to stand what is described as “Jewish humor” myself; I disliked it long before I had any idea that the stupid sort of sex-and-toilet “humor” produced by the likes of Mel Brooks and the whiny tedium of Woody Allen had anything in common, let alone were claimed by a particular ethnic heritage. Later, I tried watching “Seinfeld” and completely failed to see what was supposed to be funny about Jerry Seinfeld whining all the time.
Joan Rivers could be amusing in small doses, but one of the main things I’ve noticed about “Jewish humor” is that it seems to have a strong tendency to beat a joke to death. “Hey, did you think that was mildly amusing? Let me repeat it three more times and that will make it HILARIOUS, right?” Well, no. That’s actually one thing I wish non-comedians would understand. If you told a little story and you found the reaction to be underwhelming, don’t repeat it. It’s not going to be any more amusing the second time.
Now, I’ve always assumed there was a great divide between those who found Monty Python amusing and those who thought Benny Hill was a riot. “Jewish humor” strikes me as being more akin to an American form of Benny Hill, as it tends to involve a lot of mugging and sexual themes.
Then again, the second-funniest comic in the world, Frankie Boyle (Simon Evans, two of whose clips are below, is the funniest in my opinion), utilizes a lot of sexual themes, although usually in a very dark way. “Watching gymnastics is just pedophilia for cowards.” But there is an enormous gap between that sort of black humor and Woody Allen whining to his therapist or Mel Brooks’s masturbating cavemen. I remember people talking about how funny Brooks’s History of the World: Part I was so I rented it one night; I don’t think I made it more than 15 minutes before ejecting the tape from the VCR in disgust. Keep in mind that this scene is supposed to be THE most HILARIOUS one from the movie. Notice, in particular, the repetition I mentioned; The very lame joke on French pronunciations is hammered home no less than TWELVE times at the very start. Yeah, that’s just fucking brilliant. Then contrast that sort of production, complete with writers, sets, and actors, with the following examples of Simon Evans utilizing nothing more than a microphone.
Of course, it’s pretty much pointless to view comedy as anything but subjective, something that is much more apparent when you live in continental Europe. German humor is freaking ghastly, it’s like black comedy without the comedy. Italian humor is bawdy and straightforward; they simply don’t recognize sarcasm at all. French humor is similar to Italian humor, although a bit more relaxed and less silly, and I haven’t figured out Spanish humor yet. It’s no surprise that English humor has such an impact on American humor; it’s not because they speak the same language, but because it’s broad-spectrum humor that is often appreciated by non-English speakers.
“I’m just a comedian goes first!” I would have loved to see Evans skewer the Jon Stewart Show, as Stewart, unlike Mel Brooks and Woody Allen, can be funny, but like Russell Brand, hides behind his comedian’s mask whenever his serious arguments fall short.
UPDATE: I found this pair of Twitter exchanges to be more personally amusing than the entire oeuvre of either comedian mentioned:
Vox Day @voxday
I’m curious how anyone could have ever thought Woody Allen was amusing. The only funny thing he ever did was bang his ugly stepdaughter.
Jackie DeLister @JackieDeeNJ
Yes, Annie Hall won the Oscar for no reason -_-
Vox Day @voxday
So did Titanic. And it had more genuine laughs.
——–
Vox Day @voxday
And who finds Mel Brooks funny? This is said to be
the funniest scene of his funniest movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db3e8Qw9hhs … It’s BRUTALLY stupid.
Jackie DeLister @JackieDeeNJ
@voxday Are you anti-Semitic?
No wonder the mainstream media fears comments. This may also explain why so many trolls consider themselves to be self-appointed blog police. Although I doubt they have much effect here:
Ionnis Kareklas, Darrel D. Muehling, and TJ Weber, all of Washington State University, found that the comments on a public-service announcement about vaccination affected readers’ attitudes as strongly as the P.S.A. itself did. When commenters were identified by their level of expertise with the subject (i.e. as doctors), their comments were more influential than the P.S.A.s.
Online readers may put a lot of stock in comments because they view commenters “as kind of similar to themselves,” said Mr. Weber — “they’re reading the same thing, commenting on the same thing.” And, he added, many readers, especially those who are less Internet-savvy, assume commenters “know something about the subject, because otherwise they wouldn’t be commenting on it.” The mere act of commenting, then, can confer an unearned aura of credibility.
That news may be especially disturbing to those already skeptical of comments’ overall quality. Dr. Kareklas and his team were inspired by Popular Science’s decision to get rid of the comments sections on its website; other publications, like Pacific Standard, have done the same. And Tauriq Moosa memorably wrote at The Guardian that the comments section “sits there like an ugly growth beneath articles, bloated and throbbing with vitriol.”
If only those nasty online peasants would shut up, stop interfering with the flow of propaganda, and recognize that communication is supposed to go one way!
The article appears to ignore the obvious fact that most sites permitting comments are communities of a sort, and commenters, being members of that community, are often familiar with the other commenters and therefore know how much stock to put in the credibility of another commenter. I put stock in a commenter for the same reason I put stock in a media site, which is to say, his past performance. Why wouldn’t one trust a known expert, with whom one is familiar, more than a public service announcement from an institution known to be corrupt?
Seriously, it just doesn’t. Hitler finds out about Brian Williams’s proclivity to, shall we say, exaggerate his experiences:
While the best line concerns Sofia Vergara and Kate Upton, I genuinely cracked up at the last one. Watch the whole thing. Williams is done after this. There is no way he can possibly come back from it; literally everything he says is going to be immediately transformed into parody.
It would have been vastly more entertaining had Thor come out of the closet. The Fabulous Thor! His outfit was always a little camp anyhow. Turning him into a grim transgendered feminist fighting to impose equalitarian thought control is as boring as it is offensive:
Thor a woman? It’s hard to believe the most macho, overtly masculine character in the comic canon could possibly be reimagined as a broad. But that’s almost certainly precisely the reason Thor was chosen: as a fuck-you to so-called nerdbros from the achingly progressive staff of today’s comic book establishment.
This has led to some questions from comic book fans. Questions such as: will Wonder Woman turn out to be a tranny? Is the Incredible Hulk only incredible because he endured cruel fat-shaming as a teen but didn’t let his size define him? And shouldn’t Spider-Man be a gay latino?
That last one’s not a joke, by the way: in 2011, Marvel unveiled a bisexual Spider-Man that was half-black and half-latino, called Miles Morales, to the consternation and confusion of ordinary comic book fans, as part of its Ultimate series of character reboots. We’re told “erasure,” whereby people’s pasts are scrubbed out by those in authority, is a social justice issue. Well, right now there’s erasure going in the basic, canonical biographies of some of Marvel’s most cherished superheroes.
Captain America, too, is changing: he’s becoming black. Changes like this are designed to provoke readers, and they do–not because readers are racist or sexist, but because they understand that certain characteristics are intrinsic to certain characters. James Bond and Captain America are obviously white. It is a part of their personalities. Thor is obviously a man; to suggest otherwise is daft.
What sticks in the craw of the fans I’ve spoken to about female Thor is how utterly transparent the political posturing is behind the change. There is no good literary justification for making Thor a woman, they say–and the results have been execrable. You can write intelligent satire about masculinity without making a classic masculine icon into a girl, an observation that seems to have escaped Marvel’s writers.
Of course, what all of these transformations most strongly indicate is the fact that Marvel believes women and minorities to be totally uninteresting. Not only does it highlight the fact that women and minorities can’t create their own characters, but even pro-intersectional white men can’t manage to create them in a manner that interests anyone, least of all women and minorities.
It’s exactly the same thing as a communist government taking over a capitalist society. They don’t understand how it works or why it works, they can’t create it or maintain it, but they can certainly manage to run it into the ground.
This comment from the SJWs at IGN is hilariously inapt:
“Not only do these scenes subtly acknowledge and render inert the
concerns voiced by real life detractors, but they also paint the
character in a stronger, more resilient light.”
— IGN
Subtle? The only way Marvel could have handled it any less subtly was if Thor spent the entire issue reading The Vagina Monologues with Gloria Steinhem at Wellesley.
To say nothing of the psychopathic nature of trolls. I cannot imagine this policy of charging for comments will work very well.
As a number of news sites eliminate their comments sections altogether, Tablet, a daily online magazine of Jewish news and culture, is introducing a new policy charging its readers to comment on articles.
As of today, a reader visiting the nonprofit site that is otherwise paywall-free will have to pay at least $2 to leave a comment at the foot of any story. The move is not part of a plan to generate any significant revenue, but rather to try and change the tone of its comments section.
Tablet has set up commenting charges of $2 a day, $18 a month and $180 a year, because “the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse),” editor in chief Alana Newhouse wrote in a post published today.
Charging for comments might work at a truly elite site like the New York Times. The level of exposure and the ability to associate one’s opinion right underneath a Paul Krugman column would be valuable to certain parties; I would have paid for such a comment-ad back when RGD came out myself.
But even at a site of modest popularity such as this one, the proposal would make no sense except as a roundabout way of banning comments without being seen to do so. This is one of the more prolifically commented sites in the blogosphere, but how many people here would pay $180 per year to comment here? I’d guess around ten or 20 people; Nate might pay that just to eliminate all the commenters from AG.
The problem is that the discourse would then be strictly limited to the same small group of people, it would become an insulated and repetitious conversation with an audience; it would become a form of conspicuous performance art. And does anyone doubt that trolls like Andrew Marston would even hesitate to cough up whatever it cost in order to buy a captive audience for his delusional meanderings?
As is the case with writers who calculate their lost sales by counting pirated copies, Tablet clearly fails to realize that someone who is willing to comment for free is not synonymous with someone who is willing to pay to comment. The latter tend to be a very small subset of the former.
They have really dragged out this Sarkeesian thing considerably further than I ever would have imagined. It’s beyond parody at this point.
It’s a long-established tradition for TV shows to draw inspiration from real-life events. NBC’s “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” is no different, and Wednesday, February 11, sees the crime drama series tackle Gamergate in an episode entitled “Intimidation Game.” The plot centers on the online harassment and kidnapping of a game developer, Raina Punjabi, modelled on controversial feminist game critic Anita Sarkeesian.
NBC’s trailer opens with Punjabi discussing the threats she’s received with police. She is set to attend an important game launch but has become the victim of an online harassment campaign. Punjabi insists that she will attend the launch, however, because not only is it a massive international event but also she refuses to give in to online hordes of anonymous, misogynistic trolls. During the conversation, terms like “swatting,” “doxxing,” and “dark net” are referenced, with one detective pointing out that online threats are “not covered by free speech.” The dialogue is embarrassingly clumsy, written for an audience not familiar with Gamergate or the more complex workings of the internet.
This is so ludicrously absurd. What is next, NCIS featuring a three-part episode that involves the murder of a neurotic transvestite who calls himself Brianna Who? An epic fantasy HBO series entitled “The Saga of Yamanamama”?
Anyhow, I hope the bad guys are a team that involves a guy in a wheelchair, a television actor, and a handsome, athletic, forty-something game developer and novelist. That would be amusing.
Sure, Brian Williams may not have been shot at, or seen any dead bodies, but when he tells you that vaccines are perfectly safe, the economy is growing, and Vladimir Putin is about to invade France, you can have absolute confidence that what he is saying is true:
On Wednesday night, the world we live in became a confusing and unfamiliar place and most of us wandered the land not knowing what to believe when Brian Williams admitted that he was never in a chopper that was hit by RPG fire in Iraq in 2003. Brian was actually safely traveling in a different chopper. How can we believe anything now that Brian Williams has dribbled out lies to us? When Brian Williams says, “Good evening, I’m Brian Williams and this is the Nighty News,” do we know for sure it’s the evening and that it’s a good evening and that his name really is Brian Williams? Is that picture of Brian Williams’ supposed bulge a picture of his actual bulge or did he just stuff his khakis with the sack he keeps his lies in? Everything is squint-worthy now!!!
After getting called out on the lie he told, Brian said in Wednesday night’s broadcast of the NBC Nightly News that he “misremembered” the whole thing. Here’s Brian Williams’ apology in case you missed it:
Since Brian Williams admitted to “misremembering” the events of that day in Iraq, the media has been digging up and looking for other possible lies told by Brian Will-lie. The New Orleans Advocate says that while reporting in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, Brian claimed to have seen a dead body floating in the French Quarter. But apparently, the French Quarter did not flood during Hurricane Katrina and remained pretty dry. Brian also claimed he got sick with dysentery after accidentally drinking floodwater, but a local health expert doesn’t remember anyone coming down with that shit. Basically, everything is a lie. Was Brian Williams even in New Orleans and Iraq? He was probably just reporting in front of a green screen. Has he even been in a helicopter? Riding in a helicopter while playing Call of Duty doesn’t count. Is Brian Williams real? Are we sure he’s not just a hologram made by NBC?
An NBC News source tells Page Six that he’s not going to be suspended or punished in any way.
Williams can’t even tell the truth about things that he experienced directly. So why would you believe anything that he, or any other talking head, reads to you off a teleprompter?
One of Wikipedia’s worst SJWs, the anti-GamerGate Ryulong, has been banned indefinitely for his all-too-typical thought-policing:
Ryulong banned
5.3) (Was 4.5) Ryulong (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log)
is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may
request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of
this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Support:
- (first choice) As always, banning someone is not something we should want
to do, but sometimes it is the best thing for the project. Ryulong has
acted very poorly in this topic area, and it is clear that previous
sanctions and blocks have failed to have the desired effect of ending
disruptive behavior. A revolving door of speedy topic bans, chasing the
problem from area to another, is not the answer. This is. I sincerely
hope that at some point in the future he will be able to return and be a
productive member of this community again, but for now he needs to go. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)- Will prioritise later if need be, Roger Davies talk 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Equal first choice, Roger Davies talk 11:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)- First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Last Choice I would love to not do this but I don’t think anything else has a snowball’s chance of passing —In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 01:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- First choice. Salvio Let’s talk about it! 10:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Last choice of presented options (Right now). I think if we’re
dealing with this on a purely pragmatic level this might be best for the
project, but I do think that it would only be fair to attempt to apply
some of the alternatives first, although I’m a bit concerned as to their
potential efficacy, given the history. NativeForeigner Talk 07:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Nonetheless, support. NativeForeigner Talk 19:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)- T. Canens (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- If the 1RR does not pass, then first choice of what’s left. Still
oppose if the 1RR somehow moves back to passing. The more I look at the
history here, the more I am sure the problems are far wider than just
this single topic, as I see it, Ryulong doesn’t seem able to “hold his
fire”, and not get into edit wars. This also, per his block log, is
independent of topic areas. Without very, very strong measures to stop
them from continuing to edit war throughout the encyclopedia, I don’t
think we have any other choice. Also, even to this morning, I still see
evidence of ongoing battleground mentality. I really, really don’t like
this, but I can’t support their staying on the project without a strict
1RR and a topic ban at this point. And only one of those is going to
pass. Courcelles 22:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Oppose:
- My mind is open on the other proposed remedies, but I will certainly not be supporting this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Neither will I. Need to contemplate the rest of it, but this is not the solution. Courcelles 03:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Excessive in the circumstances. I’m open to some alternative. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)- I would like to try something else. —Guerillero | My Talk 07:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- I’ve decided to oppose this, albeit weakly. I’m hoping that the
other remedies regarding Ryulong will end this situation, but I don’t
quite think a siteban is the best course forward here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)- — Euryalus (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Given the circumstances here, I don’t think this is called for. For
clarity’s sake, though, this is very likely the absolute last chance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)- LFaraone 18:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Abstain:
- I find my view on this changing from day to day, so it would be fairer if I abstained. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments:
Noting that I skipped this intentionally—still thinking on it and will come back soon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- @NativeForeigner: I tried to fix the numbering, but clarification of your exact meaning would be useful here. Courcelles 20:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course, a perusal of the process tends to illustrate why Wikipedia is so hapless when it comes to policing outrageous behavior by its editors. Because it was started by an SJW-sympathetic individual and was rapidly taken over by SJWs of varying rabidity, the site remains hopelessly biased and largely worthless on anything of even moderate political contention.
That being said, it is good to see that Wikipedia is trying to clean up its act, even if it is going about it in a manner that makes Sisyphus look productive. But they simply refuse to see that the way they cherry-pick which sources are deemed reliable and which are not is what produces the intrinsic left-wing bias. The SJW editor who sits on the Wikipedia page about me and tries to publicize as much negative information as possible while minimizing any positive information shows how he evades the point on the Talk page there:
Many of the recent additions to this article seem to be the direct result of Mr. Beale’s recent blog post
in which he commented that Wikipedia is unfairly and dishonestly
excluding material on his views: “Does [the ‘Views section in the
Wikipedia article] describe my views at all? Are the totality of my
views really limited to little more than a feud with John Scalzi and my
expulsion from SFWA? Do I have no opinions on economics, politics,
philosophy, literature, and religion despite having written books on the
former and the latter? It’s telling, too, to observe that if the
so-called feud and the expulsion are the only significant aspects of my
views, there is no mention of the connection between the former and the
latter.”Mr. Beale then gave a brief description of his views on economics — he feels that the Austrian School
is currently the best explanation available, but is ultimately flawed
for various reasons — and stated that “(t)hose are my actual views on
the subject. That is the absolute truth. Post them on Wikipedia and
they’ll be suppressed within 24 hours.”This, I believe, is indicative of a general misunderstanding. Of
course Mr. Beale has a great many more views than are provided in this
article; for instance, he has expressed an appreciation for the writing
of Frank Herbert and a dislike for that of Patrick Rothfuss.
I’m certain he also has food preferences, and opinions on the best way
to teach mathematics to children. He may even have discussed these views
in posts to his blog. But the mere fact that Mr. Beale has a view on a
subject does not indisputably lead to the conclusion that the view
should be included in Wikipedia’s biography of him, not even if he has
made a blog post in which he explicitly states that view. Rather, the
views which are (or should be) included are those which have drawn significant independent external attention. I hope that this explanation will satisfy the readers of Mr. Beale’s blog, and possibly even Mr. Beale himself. DS (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2014
This is the height of absurdity. I misunderstand nothing. Nor do you, my readers. There is FAR MORE significant independent external attention that has been paid to my views on economics, religion, and the history of war than have ever been paid to my views on immigration or race, much less my “Feud with John Scalzi”. I have NEVER done an interview about the latter; Scalzi himself did only one. I did over thirty interviews, some on national radio, about economics subsequent to the release of THE RETURN OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION and more than twenty related to THE IRRATIONAL ATHEIST.
Transcripts and links to some of those interviews are available on my blog. My views are clearly expressed in them – again, on national radio shows, and even in one case, television – and yet every last trace of those views have been methodically scrubbed from Wikipedia by the likes of DragonFlySixtyseven.
Here is just one of many possible examples pulled from my email. There are over 75 similar emails from different media outlets ranging from Fox News to the Saturday Evening Post. But in the impartial eyes of the Wikipedia editors, the cumulative total of that independent external attention is less significant and notable than John Scalzi talking about himself on his blog that gets less than half the traffic of this one.
INTERVIEW CONFIRMATION
NAME: Vox Day
TOPIC: The Irrational Atheist
DATE: Tuesday, October 21, 2008
INTERVIEW TIME: 11:15 – 11:55 am ET
LENGTH OF INTERVIEW: 40 minutes
MEDIA: Christian Radio Network – over 200 stations in 34 states, 19 affiliates and in Canada
I can’t speak to the accuracy of the rest of Wikipedia, but my page is mostly nonsense from start to finish. I mean, it actually says that I was born in Minnesota.
It’s often enjoyable to see how little heat SJWs are comfortable taking. They can’t stand much in the way of criticism and they seem to spend a considerable amount of time monitoring what others think and say about them in order to quickly jump in and try to steer the narrative away from anything they think looks bad.
This Twitter exchange was particularly funny, given that Damien Walter is always quick to heap obloquy on Larry Correia, me, and other writers whose politics he dislikes:
D Franklin @D_Libris
Why is it that almost every Damien Walter article can just be replied to, justifiably, with “Oh shut up, Damo”?Damien Walter @damiengwalter
.@D_Libris Excuse me, I asked you to explain your claim that it was “justifiable” to tell me to “shut up Damo”. I’m going to keep asking.Novel deVice @noveldevice
@D_Libris you didn’t @ him so literally if he doesn’t want to see it he can just stop vanity searching. Boom.Damien Walter @damiengwalter
.@D_Libris If that’s your justification for your continued rude and aggressive behaviour, so be it. I’ve requested that you stop.D Franklin @D_Libris
.@damiengwalter saying that I’ve been rude and aggressive doesn’t make it so. Coming into my mentions and harassing me for a day, though…Damien Walter @damiengwalter
@D_Libris I’ve asked you to explain why you consider it ‘justifiable” to tell me to “shut up Damo” you still have not done so.D Franklin @D_Libris
.@damiengwalter bcs you won’t. Bcs I don’t have authority to make you. Bcs it’s a common, unthreatening phrase.D Franklin @D_Libris
Added to which, because you wouldn’t have seen it if you hadn’t gone looking… Nor would you see people saying itDamien Walter @damiengwalter
.@D_Libris Then I’m telling you it’s neither. Neither is your repeated rude and aggressive behaviour. I’m requesting, again, that you stop it.Damien Walter @damiengwalter
.@D_Libris I have a search open for articles I write for the Guardian, that’s standard practice so i can monitor the response.Damien Walter @damiengwalter
.@D_Libris If you search the URL, you’ll see yours stands out as personally abusive when no others are.Damien Walter @damiengwalter
.@D_Libris If you want to make criticisms, please do so constructively without personal insults.D Franklin @D_Libris Jan 20
@damiengwalter “shut up” is personally abusive? How about spending a day poking at someone, & trying to set your followers on them?Damien Walter @damiengwalter Jan 20
@D_Libris If you don’t believe it’s rude and aggressive, then I’m informing you it is and asking you not to repeat that behaviour.D Franklin @D_Libris
@damiengwalter I notice that Patrick Nielsen Hayden is not being called rude, & indeed you proudly retweeted his comment?D Franklin @D_Libris
@damiengwalter so it’s only people with platforms smaller than yours who you object to the perceived rudeness of?Damien Walter @damiengwalter
@D_Libris I’m telling you that I find your repeated personal attacks rude and offensive. Will you respect my request to stop them?D Franklin @D_Libris
@damiengwalter I can’t stop what I’ve never done: I have never made repeated personal attacks on you, DamienDamien Walter @damiengwalter
@D_Libris OK. I’ve made my request, your future actions are your own choice. I’m not continuing any further discussion with you now.Joseph Tomaras @epateur
In solidarity with @D_Libris, I ask that everyone who’s ever found a @damiengwalter article moronic, please tell DGW to shut up.
The reason, of course, is that Damien Walter hasn’t mastered his subject, doesn’t do his homework, often doesn’t know what he’s talking about, regularly fails to distinguish between opinion and fact, and shows no ability to defend his rhetorical positions. That is why “oh shut up, Damo” is all that is required to effectively rebut him.
I don’t read his columns, there is no reason to do so. He’s boring even when he’s trying to be offensive. At least with the likes of McRapey there is usually an entertainingly manic edge to the nastiness.