Kicking the Liberals' Teeth In


Recommended Posts

I've long advocated using the liberal media's "comments and responses" space to puncture their lies, bad reasoning, and hypocrisy.

In today's online New York Times there is an article about a man named Adelson who just donated $5 million to Gingrich's struggling campaign for President. This is a front page article attempting to slime the guy and making the usual liberal point about campaign finance laws: "The last-minute injection underscores how last year’s landmark Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance has made it possible for a wealthy individual to influence an election."

Here is a comment I posted which took me less than a minute to write:

"Do you see anything wrong with a wealthy candidate influencing an election?

What about a wealthy union - spending dues from union members of both parties who are compelled to join? Have you or your newspaper written any front page articles on that?

What about spotlighting deep pockets among liberals and the left?

Have you written any articles putting George Soros's contributions under a similarly harsh light?"

This is shorter than many considerably more 'wordy' comments posted on the Times website. It also jumps quickly from point to point. Why? Will it be effective? Are comments sections read by anyone? Any reason why I didn't also comment on some of the unfair 'sliming' they did on Newt's donor and his business connections? That was in fact the bulk of the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil:

Here are some semantic suggestions.

I would not use the word liberal which has a positive connotation as being open and understanding in many of the times readers minds. In fact, I suggest you co-opt the word liberal, e.g., "As a liberal, I question whether your paper presents all the financial forces that attempt to influence an election. For example, Union Pacs and various Pacs that have agendas from the left and right."

Secondly, and again, this is a fine semantic point, but the word "influencing" has a peculiar connotation. I would suggest using:

"Do you see anything wrong with a wealthy candidate
influencing
effectively using their first amendment rights to win an election?
"

Finally, although the Soros statement is accurate, it tends to "pigeonhole" your commentary into a pre set "intellectual box" which allows the reader to subconsciously disregard it as a typical agenda driven statement.

Just some ideas for you to consider.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil wrote:

I've long advocated using the liberal media's "comments and responses" space to puncture their lies, bad reasoning, and hypocrisy.

end quote

I was watching MSNBC after one of the Republican debates and there were 8 commentators. One of them said, you can’t trust the bias of the New York Times. Six of the eight commontors jumped all over him and a couple of them literally booed! A chorus of “That’s just not true,” “It’s the best and most honest paper in the world” rang out, while one poor conservative lady was agreeing with him but was drowned out.

So my question is, are Liberals simply deluded, imcompetent, or evil? Probalby a mixed bag, but I think an “evil advocacy” is at work. They know truth from falsehood but prefer the falsehood.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> If you provide links to the places where you're commenting, others can quickly and easily join you in kicking the same liberals in the teeth. [Jonathan]

Good point. Here is the original article and comments are at the bottom--->

http://www.nytimes.c...ig-lift.html?hp

Warning: If you don't read the NYT each morning, after a hundred or two comments** on an article they often close the comments. So second or third day sometimes it doesn't work. Recommendation: If you regularly read any newspaper (your hometown?) or magazine or tv website online, that might be the best place to post in a comment section.

**The NYT attracts the most activity and comments of any paper. I have posted three or four in the past week and it usually takes them half a day to screen comments for profanity, personal attacks, etc....and then I get an email with a link to my latest comment. This week I've had to wait overnight for some of my comments to appear. The comments are not censored politically and -always- appear, though. [My comment just went up.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Brainwashing and Lack of Systematic Alternatives

> are Liberals simply deluded, incompetent, or evil? Probably a mixed bag, but I think an “evil advocacy” is at work. They know truth from falsehood but prefer the falsehood.

Peter, liberals in heavily liberal environments generally don't know the true viewpoints: they are neither evading not lying. I've spent much of my life surrounded by those environments - Ivy League - Boston - NYC - San Francisco -Times readers.

They simply have never been exposed to cogent, thorough, and ongoing responses to the intellectual and political views that surround them**. They read only the left in school, not the best of the alternative. I didn't in college and in the liberal cities where I lived. And in the NYT comments sections where I'm active, you're often lucky to find one well-reasoned dissent from the liberal orthodoxy out of a hundred comments or two out of two hundred. And that can only give you a paragraph of a hint at a thoroughly worked out alternative view.

Sometimes I even get a personal response in the comments from the NYT writer I'm criticizing since I'm the only commenter who 'stings'. Andrew Revkin did so a few weeks back.

**One way I see this time after time is you present a simple counter-argument and time after time you see the most sophisticated, intelligent liberal-on-the-street caught flat-footed. It's obvious from the look of surprise or shock that he *has never heard any argument like that*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> This is shorter than many considerably more 'wordy' comments posted on the Times website. It also jumps quickly from point to point. Why? Will it be effective? Are comments sections read by anyone? Any reason why I didn't also comment on some of the unfair 'sliming' they did on Newt's donor and his business connections? That was in fact the bulk of the article. [post 1]

I'll try to answer these four questions later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> If you provide links to the places where you're commenting, others can quickly and easily join you in kicking the same liberals in the teeth. [Jonathan]

Good point. Here is the original article and comments are at the bottom--->

http://www.nytimes.c...ig-lift.html?hp

Thanks.

Warning: If you don't read the NYT each morning, after a hundred or two comments** on an article they often close the comments. So second or third day sometimes it doesn't work. Recommendation: If you regularly read any newspaper (your hometown?) or magazine or tv website online, that might be the best place to post in a comment section.

Also, depending on which site one is posting at, the oldest comments often appear first (sometimes with no option for the reader to make the newest appear first), so it can be good to get in early with one's comments. I think that the later that one posts, the less likely one's comments will be read by a large audience -- people tend to stop reading after 10 or 20 comments, and after the same points are being addressed over and over by people who didn't read the first 10 or 20 comments before commenting themselves.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to read this topic, so I had to let Phil out of my ignore box. A pretty good topic it promised to be:

Kicking Liberal's Teeth In

This is just great. The author surely knows his audience, and its interest in kickboxing. A well-placed kick to the face can indeed kick teeth into a mouth, and repeated kicks to the face can smash up a lot of teeth. Of course, in kick-boxing, champions do not really get a chance to kick every last tooth out, with things like rules and referees ...

Which leads to the promise of a no-rules kind of kicking. Which is also great. In this kind of contest, the face to be kicked belongs to Them (Liberals), the acknowledged enemy of every right-thinking person here. The face to be kicked, the teeth to be kicked in, they are Liberal teeth. This promises a lot of action, and conjures up images of excellent mayhem: if the Liberal was on the ground, then the kicking is even more thrilling.**

But, the article that follows this enticing headline is, alas, not about kicking any teeth in. It is about political reporting and Philip Coates's efforts to counter liberal claptrap and double-standards (he delivers his thrilling-but-metophorical shit-kicking in comment threads on online versions of New York Times stories, and also at NYT blogs such as Andy Revkin's). We don't know how many stub-toothed journalists with aching jaws exist among Phil's targets, though he belatedly realizes upon prodding that he could add thrilling detail to the kicking by providing a URL. But, we certainly now can examine, along with Phil, the opponents' behaviour before the metaphorical foot was thwacked into their faces. The Liberals are actually named at the link, and the vile, irresponsible, evul, disempathetic and all-round deserving of a kick to the mouth provocation is exposed to view.

Look at this bullshit. This is what provoked Phil into balletic violence, into a well-aimed boot at evul's leering grin, into unleashing The Full Power Of Phil. Presumably the first paragraphs alone can plunge the reader into the same fury.

If a piece of New York Times political reporting can be said to have a set of teeth (evul's leering grin), then certainly one can feel satisfaction, great personal satisfaction, at pushing through cowardly spectators of the evul, pushing evul to the ground, and kicking in evul's teeth. One can also empathize with Phil's feelings of exultant victory. When one of our team vanquishes the enemy, can we not feel the same surge of emotion?

A Big Check, and Gingrich Gets a Big Lift

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and ERIC LIPTON

Published: January 9, 2012

MANCHESTER, N.H. — For weeks this winter, as Newt Gingrich’s presidential hopes faltered under the weight of millions of dollars in attack ads paid for by backers of Mitt Romney, a small group of Gingrich supporters quietly lobbied for help from one of the richest men in America: Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino owner and Mr. Gingrich’s longtime friend and patron.

Mr. Romney’s supporters were also calling, imploring Mr. Adelson to stay out of the race.

By the time Mr. Gingrich limped into New Hampshire, some of his top backers had given up on Mr. Adelson and begun prospecting elsewhere, including among erstwhile supporters of Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, to finance a counterattack.

But on Friday, the cavalry arrived: a $5 million check from Mr. Adelson to Winning Our Future, a “super PAC” that supports Mr. Gingrich. By Monday morning, the group had reserved more than $3.4 million in advertising time in South Carolina, a huge sum in a state where the airwaves come cheap and the primary is 11 days away. The group is planning to air portions of a movie critical of Mr. Romney’s time at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he helped found.

The last-minute injection underscores how the 2010 landmark Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance has made it possible for a wealthy individual to influence an election. Mr. Adelson’s contribution to the super PAC is 1,000 times the $5,000 he could legally give directly to Mr. Gingrich’s campaign this year.

Several people with knowledge of Mr. Adelson’s decision to donate to Winning Our Future said that it was born out of a two-decade friendship with Mr. Gingrich, his advocacy on behalf of Israel and his turbulent months as a presidential candidate.

“His friend needed his help,” said a close associate of both men, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid drawing Mr. Adelson’s ire. “It’s more than anything else a loyalty thing. And he believes strongly in his platform and in Newt’s candidacy.”

Ron Reese, a spokesman for Mr. Adelson, declined to comment for this article.

At a stop in New Hampshire on Monday, Mr. Gingrich, who complained bitterly about the wealthy Romney supporters who helped send him to a fifth-place finish in Iowa, said Mr. Adelson was operating on his own.

“If he wants to counterbalance Romney’s millionaires,” Mr. Gingrich said, “I have no objection to him counterbalancing Romney’s millionaires.”

But for Mr. Gingrich, the donation could be both boon and burden: Mr. Adelson comes with potential liabilities. His main source of income, casinos, could upset some social conservatives. That he operates in China could rankle isolationist voters, while some of his views on Israel are hawkish by mainstream Republican standards.

Mr. Adelson’s company, Las Vegas Sands, also faces a federal investigation for possible violations of a federal antibribery law, relating to operations in the Chinese gambling district of Macau, the company acknowledged last year. The company has said the investigation stems from the allegations of a disgruntled former employee.

The aid is also likely to intensify public scrutiny of Mr. Adelson, 78, who has invested millions of dollars in conservative causes over the years but prefers to keep his political activities private.

Full text at A Big Check, and Gingrich Gets a Big Lift

______________

** in another thread an entirely Bizarro Superman version of the Kick To Face theme is in play. Opposite to this thread about Kicking Teeth In, it is about When Not To Kick A Dead Man In The Face -- with interesting digressions into thermonuclear war and other pressing issues.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all very well, but like resetting the zero on a weight scale while a midget stands on it so subsequent readings are biased, the label conservative no longer means much, at least not if it applies to Newt Gingrich.

Relatively speaking Gingrich may look like a (shabby excuse for an old time) conservative if you set him up against the likes of Obama, but in absolute terms he’s a Marxist. Look at what he does, not what he says.

Defending him against even worse Marxists is not only not worth the effort, it obscures the debate between Capitalism and Marxism. You have to question the motive of the moron who gave Gringrich, this "soft Marxist," five million dollars when he could have given the money to an authentic defender of Capitalism like Ron Paul.

I know, the point of this post is beside the main point, but it’s still worth making. The "legitimate rich" should be able to fund any candidate but let’s not confuse Sheldon Adelson with a defender of liberty.

Also note that Mr. Adelson, who operates Las Vegas casinos, had no qualms about opening a casino in China. He makes a rather poor poster boy for Capitalism.

By the way the title of this thread is disgusting. (At first I thought it was Kolker’s.) Speaking of a propaganda gaff this is one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark wrote about Crocodile Gingrich:

Defending him against even worse Marxists is not only not worth the effort . . .

end quote

I have not heard any Marxist rhetoric from Speaker Gingrich but he is a big government, crony capitalist. Another name for crony capitalist is influence peddler or non-ideological fascist. He would “rule” by edict just like Obama, the guy he wants to unseat. Like John McCain, Newt is very hard headed and if he decides he is right on an issue, it must be because it is the only reasonable solution, and then he will implement it, even something as onerous as cap and trade. Yet he was one of the first to champion the slogan “Drill now, drill here.”

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newt Gingrich should have been a name of a Rand character in AS, sort of like a politician's Orren Boyle.

If ever there were a name that fits a face, it is the name "Newt Gingrich."

On balance, I would rather have 4 more years of Obama than 4 years of Gingrich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> We don't know how many stub-toothed journalists with aching jaws exist among Phil's targets [WSS]

17.

> Mr. Adelson, who operates Las Vegas casinos, had no qualms about opening a casino in China. [Mark]

> Gingrich..is a big government, crony capitalist [Peter]

Neither his supporter nor Mr. Gingrich were at all relevant to the point of my comment -- to point out the double standard, the bias, the hypocrisy of the liberal press or to the point of the thread -- a good and easy way to fight the liberal press thru the public comments sections. Those would be good topics for a thread on politics.

This is a thread on tactics and communication and strategies to counter the dominant bad ideas (and bias) in our culture. If you mix all sorts of side topics into a thread, it loses its force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way the title of this thread is disgusting. (At first I thought it was Kolker’s.) Speaking of a propaganda gaff this is one.

Mark, you have been informed that this is a thread on tactics and communication and strategies to counter the dominant bad ideas and bias in our culture. This is subject enough for The Headmaster. If you mix all sorts of side topics into a thread, it loses its force. So, try to keep to the topic, which is Kicking Liberal Teeth In.

Oh, maybe you are saying that the topic, Kicking In Liberal Teeth, is urepresentative of the argument put forward. That may be correct, but such corrections of Phil go into his enormous Ignore Box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at this bullshit. This is what provoked Phil into balletic violence, into a well-aimed boot at evul's leering grin, into unleashing The Full Power Of Phil. Presumably the first paragraphs alone can plunge the reader into the same fury.

After reading the original article, my reaction actually was: aren’t there bigger fish to fry, and more fearsome teeth to kick?

Here's an idea: a Slate columnist recently offered an utterly inaccurate explanation of what Austrian Economics is. For example, he claims the fact that the economy languished in the Great Depression disproves Austrian theory. Go get 'em!

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/01/what_is_austrian_economics_and_why_is_ron_paul_keep_obsessed_with_it_.html

Here's a reply from the Mises Institute.

http://blog.mises.org/20327/what-austrian-economics-is-not/

I think there was a piece on Reason.com too, but I can't seem to locate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> After reading the original article, my reaction actually was: aren’t there bigger fish to fry, and more fearsome teeth to kick?

Actually, the maggot's unadmitted psychology was this:

"This is something said by Phil whom I detest. It wouldn't sit well with me if allow it to stand uncriticized, even if his points are valid. Ah, I've got it - it may be true but there are ~more important~ true things to say."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> After reading the original article, my reaction actually was: aren’t there bigger fish to fry, and more fearsome teeth to kick?

Actually, the maggot's unadmitted psychology was this:

"This is something said by Phil whom I detest. It wouldn't sit well with me if allow it to stand uncriticized, even if his points are valid. Ah, I've got it - it may be true but there are ~more important~ true things to say."

Phil, seriously, you come across as an ax-grinding Gingrich (and/or right wing) fanatic in your comment, this is primarily because the article does not portray Gingrich in an unusually bad light in the area that you criticize. The finance/influence aspect is really just a jumping off point for reporting on Gingrich’s view of Palestinians, and that’s when the eyebrows start to migrate north.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND, seriously, you come across as a stalker who has nothing better to do than to criticize every post I make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I object to "liberal" as a pejorative. Hayek and Friedman both identified with it.

In addition, money is speech. A modern Federal Reserve Note has about 20 different statements, symbols, semata. Moreover, writing was invented as a consequence of tallying debts. In short, without money, written record of speech would not have been invented. See "Debt: the Seed of Civilization" and "The Technology of Ritual Exchange" here and Money here. Without money, there would be no recorded speech.

That said, I must object to the kicking in of peoples' teeth, liberals like Hayek and Friedman most especially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil wrote:

ND, seriously, you come across as a stalker who has nothing better to do than to criticize every post I make.

end quote

Fair Phil, you may be too fair. Anyone who is a psychological bother should be zeroed out. It’s like NOT looking at a bloody accident. You will be glad you didn’t.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh, so Sheldon Adelson (casino billionaire and Prez of Las Vegas Sands; owners of Venetian, Palazzo, Venetian/Sands/etc. Macau, and Marina Bay Sands in Singapore) endorsed Gingrich?

Yet another reason to never ever patronize any of Shelly's casinos ever ever ever.

They have average-at-best rules and stingy comps anyway so screw 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FROM POST 1: "Do you see anything wrong with a wealthy candidate influencing an election? What about a wealthy union - spending dues from union members of both parties who are compelled to join? Have you or your newspaper written any front page articles on that? What about spotlighting deep pockets among liberals and the left? Have you written any articles putting George Soros's contributions under a similarly harsh light?"

This is shorter than many considerably more 'wordy' comments posted on the Times website. It also jumps quickly from point to point.

(1) Why?

(2) Will it be effective?

(3) Are comments sections read by anyone?

(4) Any reason why I didn't also comment on some of the unfair 'sliming' they did on Newt's donor and his business connections? That was in fact the bulk of the article.

ANSWERING THOSE FOUR QUESTIONS:

(2 & 3: effectiveness/impact) --- Online comments are read for the same reason letters to the editor are read. People are interested in human reactions. Most people like to see a bit of debate and controversy. And the editor and -certainly- the journalist who wrote the story read them. In the case of my comment above, I've gotten seven "thumbs up" from readers so far. You would expect liberal comments on a liberal paper to get the most. Most comments don't get any "likes".

(1 & 2: style and effectiveness) --- I can be long-winded in an informal post on OL, but I was deliberately terse here. I don't go into great depth. And I covered most points in one-sentence paragraphs. Several reasons:

a) If it took longer than a minute or two to do each, I couldn't write and post many comments. As it is, I frequently make comments in the NYT and I probably spend less than fifteen minutes a week to make three or more comments.

b) The points above [in my short comment] are stark, obvious, common-sensical and don't require a lot of 'heavy' explanation or defense. They are questions - which are best posed simply.

c) If it's short and "punchy" it is more likely to be read. There are millions of readers of the print NYT and online. Not one of them reads it cover to cover and very few read entire articles. They skim. And the same goes for the comments and letters to the editor. Once someone sees my first 'stark' or challenging question, there's a good chance he may invest time to read four more very short sentences. Especially if he sees he's not going to be wading through dense or academic or latinate paragraphs. People who read newspapers aren't usually looking for heavy scholarship.

d) The style of my comment is to raise specific "contrasts" -> if you think this conservative spending is bad, let's see if you're a hypocrite - what about four different examples of liberal spending. Pointing out a contradictory example or reductio ad absurdum or asking challenging questions about the extension of a false principle that is problematic -- these are easy and highly effective ways of puncturing a false position.

(4- omitting other issues) --- In a short, punchy comment you want to cause honest adversaries to have to think about, you often have to state something in more than one way. Which means you only have space to effectively drive home ONE point. Thus, I couldn't address in addition the pros and cons of Gingrich; I couldn't also talk about the injustice or sliminess of character-assassinating a man's supporters.

I had to -as thoroughly as possible (in five very short challenges) - "kick the liberals in the teeth" on the issue of hypocrisy about campaign finance laws.

Bottom line: I'm sure some people on our side of the issue of political freedom will read a pithy challenge like this with a sense of relief that it is possible to punch at least one hole in the conventional liberal view so easily. It doesn't require a Ph.D. or tons of research. And this may motivate some readers to do the same thing in conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Brainwashing and Lack of Systematic Alternatives

> are Liberals simply deluded, incompetent, or evil? Probably a mixed bag, but I think an “evil advocacy” is at work. They know truth from falsehood but prefer the falsehood.

Peter, liberals in heavily liberal environments generally don't know the true viewpoints: they are neither evading not lying. I've spent much of my life surrounded by those environments - Ivy League - Boston - NYC - San Francisco -Times readers.

They simply have never been exposed to cogent, thorough, and ongoing responses to the intellectual and political views that surround them**. They read only the left in school, not the best of the alternative. I didn't in college and in the liberal cities where I lived. And in the NYT comments sections where I'm active, you're often lucky to find one well-reasoned dissent from the liberal orthodoxy out of a hundred comments or two out of two hundred. And that can only give you a paragraph of a hint at a thoroughly worked out alternative view.

Sometimes I even get a personal response in the comments from the NYT writer I'm criticizing since I'm the only commenter who 'stings'. Andrew Revkin did so a few weeks back.

**One way I see this time after time is you present a simple counter-argument and time after time you see the most sophisticated, intelligent liberal-on-the-street caught flat-footed. It's obvious from the look of surprise or shock that he *has never heard any argument like that*.

Subject: Brainwashing and Lack of Systematic Alternatives

> are Liberals simply deluded, incompetent, or evil? Probably a mixed bag, but I think an “evil advocacy” is at work. They know truth from falsehood but prefer the falsehood.

Peter, liberals in heavily liberal environments generally don't know the true viewpoints: they are neither evading not lying. I've spent much of my life surrounded by those environments - Ivy League - Boston - NYC - San Francisco -Times readers.

They simply have never been exposed to cogent, thorough, and ongoing responses to the intellectual and political views that surround them**. They read only the left in school, not the best of the alternative. I didn't in college and in the liberal cities where I lived. And in the NYT comments sections where I'm active, you're often lucky to find one well-reasoned dissent from the liberal orthodoxy out of a hundred comments or two out of two hundred. And that can only give you a paragraph of a hint at a thoroughly worked out alternative view.

Sometimes I even get a personal response in the comments from the NYT writer I'm criticizing since I'm the only commenter who 'stings'. Andrew Revkin did so a few weeks back.

**One way I see this time after time is you present a simple counter-argument and time after time you see the most sophisticated, intelligent liberal-on-the-street caught flat-footed. It's obvious from the look of surprise or shock that he *has never heard any argument like that*.

Adam, as one of "them" I take exception to your optimistic but simplistic view of the leftish attitude. I can't believe Canada is so different from the US, so immune to historical trends and intellectual history, that our experiences have been so different. Few people think much about philosophy, it is true, or learn logic in any depth. But argument and counter-argument seldom move an adult from his own worldview to that of another. Most people, on the left and right, know that there is more to life than logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now