You know, I'm flabbergasted. Truly bowled over. Over the last day or two I've posted a number of pieces, but based on recent experience there were two in particular which I'd assumed would create some controversy and some debate: one saying GE is great, and one saying George Bush was right.
The post on GE and its subsequent follow-ups here and here have generated twenty-two comments to date - for the most part all reasonably argued, even if in my estimation often greatly misguided; the post arguing that George Bush was right to invade Irag has generated just one comment - and that from a nutbar. Even publishing the latter post in my weekly column on Scoop has failed to generate any outrage.
That's NO outrage. None. For a post on Scoop. Arguing that George Bush was right to invade Iraq. None so far, at least. :^)
What that suggests to me - so far at least - is that many people have now accepted however reluctantly that Bush was right to invade Iraq, and the "long-frozen political order ... cracking all over the Middle East" is due to GWB's own foreign policy; and also that despite my own observations on the matter, feelings on the GE issue still run high, and are highest among those I would least expect.
So as I said, I'm flabbergasted. Fortunately my brain-cells were sufficiently regenerated last night that I'm able to think about this phenomenon properly this morning. You'll be the first to know when I've got an answer.
13 comments:
If they disagree with you they are nutbars. If they don't post at all it proves they know you are right. Sure PC, sure. Fantasyland isn't just a part of Disneyland anymore. And ACT did well in Epsom because everyone thought that Perigo person was the ACT candidate and you brought down the Greens in Coromandel. Rod Sterling didn't die he changed his name and moved to New Zealand. We're in the Twilight Zone.
You do meet the nicest people on the internet, don't you. Anonymously.
PC,
I repeat my comment from the GE thread. At least one of the reasons you didn't generate any comments with that post is because many people know from experience that the most sure-fire way to get comprehensively abused by the far-right on a blog is to make comments criticising George Bush. So why waste your time? Go and read some of the far-right US blogs and you'll see what I mean. I think it would be very precipitous to assume that the deafening silence meant that you were dead right, because you weren't. You madesome accurate and interesting points, but then you weakened it by imputing things to GWB's influence which had nothing to do with him, or could only be credited to him with an enormous leap of faith.
Also, calling people who disagree with you nutbars and moonbats and arsehats (as above) rather than arguing the point, doesn't really encourage those who disagree with you to comment, I would have thought.
And you can get comprehensively abused from the far left when talking about any aspect of Iraq. It's very dangerous to even look for a way forward unless every second line pays dues to the evils of the Shrub.
RE: Calling people nutbars. I do enjoy lobbing the odd "moonbat" and "looney left" phrase around and probably get more back than dished out.
A bit of colourful language is definitely required when describing our Politicans, Parties and key figures. I think people need to lighten up a little.
However, I do find it better to keep the name calling aimed away from the particular person at hand, because the points are what we are trying to debate. Having said that, I did call some-one a twit recently. Sorry. It's more than likely you were not a pregnant goldfish.
Both sides can be abusive so be fair about that. But some in the Libz take abuse to a higher level so best not get in their sights.
Zen, yes, you are right, it comes from both sides and it is decidedly unhelpful. And this is a suitably distant and neutral forum for me to apologise for and distance myself from the crap treatment you received at a certain blog earlier today.
"Also, calling people who disagree with you nutbars and moonbats and arsehats (as above) rather than arguing the point, doesn't really encourage those who disagree with you to comment, I would have thought."
That is just too funny. Maybe you haven't been around the 'sphere for very long BB ;-) All blogs are just some blowhard's rusty 2c worth. The sooner those in the political blogosphere realise that the sooner they will get over themselves and stop acting like demented monkeys on crack.
BB, you're being joshed - at least just a little. I was amused at the absence of intelligent responses as I'd made a mental bet with myself that the comments would be many and apoplectic. I thought one or two of those might even be from you. :-)
I'd like to think that for the most part I won't be calling people names when they're arguing reasonably and politely themselves (and please feel free to call me on that should you have call to in future), but I won't sit still while anonymites hurl nonsense and abuse. I'll call a anonymous nutbar a nutbar if they are one, but I'd prefer not to have to.
I'm still amused that there's been more discussion here on me calling a nutbar a nutbar than there has been on the substative issue of whether Bush was right. Perhaps it's just my sense of humour? :^)
OK PC, I'll keep my eyes peeled (sp?) for random abuse. ;-)
And Ruth, you know very well that I haven't been around for long and am just learning the ropes. Perhaps that was what prompted the wink? What I would like to see is discussion in blogs and comments of the type that people would be prepared to say to each other's face if there weren't two computer screens in the way. Perhaps that is hopelessly utopian. If so, a Libertarian blog seems like the right place to express such a sentiment. (Sorry, PC, couldn't resist.)
Well, utopian maybe, but I trust not hopelessly so. ;^)
PC implies he only calls people names due to a lack of intelligent response. But then he seems to think any disagreement with the Libz implies a lack of intelligence thus justifying call most of the world and many other libertarians names. One begins to suspect that the Libz (some more than others) just enjoy being unpleasant.
Anon: You read too much into this.
BB: I appreciate the comment.
Ruth: Fairly true. We are not all expert communicators, but most of us are blogging because we are passionate about something. That puts a bit of shine to the rusty 2 cents. And I think, with inflation, we could value the gold nuggets that can be unearthed amid the rants and the raves. How about 10 cents?
PC: Since you asked, I don't know if it a case of Bush being right about invading Iraq, but more of that some good can come of it all. Now that its happened, the challenge is to make it worth while.
I think the issues have been over simplified, which helps justification of a position. Hindsight always shows decisions could have been better, but I bet a lot of the people running the show are constantly surprised at how things turn out in reality. That surprise easily translates to conspiracy.
To all: Blogging does seem to be a strange hybrid between public diary, passionate ideas, therapeutic venting , polluted thinking and ideological battle. Lucky its only a game.
Bush wasn't right to invade Iraq, just lucky that "some good can come of it all".
When your TV goes on the blink, an unthinking response is to give it a hefty whack on the side. If you're lucky, that fixes it. If you're not unlucky, your TV is no worse off than before.
This is an apt analogy to Bush's invasion of Iraq. Bush has not been unlucky. But there's no evidence that he had any real idea of what he was doing, or justification for doing it.
Post a Comment