Friday, January 12, 2007


The greatest put-down on the 'net that I've been a personal witness to.
  1. “So a pathetic fucked-up black stripper with a couple of kids gets hired by some all american white boys-all I have no doubt from “good families” - and somehow your gloating over whatever went down gets tied up by by you and your peanut gallery of whiteboy dimwits with Glenn Greenwald?”

    The use of the racist term “White boy” twice in one paragraph? In a post accusing the proprietor of the site of racism?!? Wow. Got Irony? Don’t worry, though - what you lack in a sense of the absurd, you more than make up for in your lack of coherence.

    Let’s look past your virulent racism to the predicate conditions in your …um … statement. Parsing your words, you seem to think that all this case revolves around is a mercantile exchange between individuals of different races. Why their race would matter to you I’ve no idea. Oh wait, I do: it’s because you’re a racist.

    Moving on from that unhappy fact (I recommend Samuel Clemens to combat your peculiar instit- er, malady), and looking deeper at the case we find that it’s not *at all* about mercantilism – it’s about a rape charge that, according to the evidence in the public domain, is fraudulent - or, as you so pithily put it - “…whatever went down…”

    Seeing how rape is a charge that, should it be well-founded, is fraught not only with steep criminal, but also steep social and moral penalties, it is only proper that the false accuser be subject to those same social and moral (and legal – but let’s not hold our breaths) penalties. If it comes out, as I believe it will, that she has played fast and loose with – among other things – the truth, then it will be only just that she be mocked and publicly scorned for her actions. And the truth is leaking out; hence the scorning is commencing.

    Greenwald gets dragged into this because:

    a. He’s guilty of multiple counts of public douchebaggery, and as such should be mocked whenever possible.

    b. He’s the most perfect example of “un-credible-ness” in the known blogosphere, therefore he’s used as a superlative to compare to something so completely unbelievable you’d have to be a leftist to even *begin* to think it was true.

    As an aside – it’s perfectly delicious how you drag in “…with a couple of kids…” as though this is some sort of marker in her favor.

    Now, I’m all for reproductive freedom – everyone should be able to have kids. But the fact that she’s a prostitute and a drug addict who choose to have children at a young age should not ennoble her in anyone’s mind.

    While we’re on the topic, the notion that many of her supporters have that this woman is somehow not responsible for her situation in life, or it’s the fault of some ephemeral force of society, is absurd (see: 88, Statement of the). She made the choices that led her to the failure to live a good and decent life. She keeps making the same choices and they (surprise!) keep leading her to the same failures. That’s not the “White Boys” fault.

    ”The boorishness, vulgarity and racism gets to be a bit much.”

    Stop engaging in it, then.

    ”And then you still waste time with Jamil Hussein.”

    Create your own blog, and then you can write about whatever you want, and you can even dictate the content. Meanwhile, if it’s such a “waste [of] time” to deal with the Jamil/AP story, why do you bother to read and/or comment on it? Why not simply read the headlines of the posts and say to yourself, “My goodness, that silly Patterico is yapping about that story again, I think I’ll go down to the corner store and pickup a case of 40’s with my welfare check.”

    “I wish you had something more than your ego in mind when you posted here. You’re an expert, why not behave like one?”

    Ah yes – you knew P’s state of mind when he posted did you? Can you also read my mind; can you tell what I’m thinking of you right this very moment?

    ”Why make the choice for narcissism.”

    Because narcissism is the new black this year?

    “You’re a big fish in your own pond.”

    Patterico is the *only* fish in this pond. He pays the bills, he decides the topics of discussion. Here’s an idea: you could start your own blog and you could title it “Crackheads for Defending Spurious Rape Charges Against White Boys.” That’s just a suggestion, of course – I’m sure you could come up with something more elegant.

    “This site could have been more.”

    Yes, it could have: it could have had trolls that make at least a modicum of sense. Thanks for queering *that*.

    ”ban me if you want. It’s a serious question”

    When will you learn that off-point, imbecilic postings do not an argument make?

    It’s a serious question.

    Comment by Abraxas — 1/12/2007 @ 1:50 pm

Since Patterico needs readers (give him some slack, he's new) [heh], I'll post just the response, you'll have to jump over and read the comments (at least) to see what this response was too (although Abraxas did quote most of them). [link] While you are there, if you havn't read any of Patterico's items before (tell me you have??) then please, look around, it's a very good site that usually is busy fisking the LA Times.
Reason to hide in shame

No comments:


 Recently played a few games on Caldera (warzone) and then... Lots of luck in this one, but satisfying