Friday, October 9, 2009

Living illustration of the death of conservative intellectualism...


...is "unconcerned" about the death of conservative intellectualism.

Goldberg seems blissfully unaware of the history of the machiavellian employment of populism to "smash through the gates". How ironic, given the subject matter of his last populist-oriented work.

It was nice, however, of Jonah to admit that the rejection of integrity and intellectual appeal in favour of an ends-justify-the-means pursuit of populism has been a deliberate and conscious choice amongst some on the U.S. political right.

...Gotta love the conservative penchant for self-infliction of wounds. Not to fret. conservative "intellectuals": there's always Jonah, Meghan McCain, and Sarah Palin to save the future of the ideology!

EDIT: "Conservative Intellectualism" in action (h/t Patti)



No word yet on whether, like, Goldberg, like ya know, is like totally so obsessed with Britt Eckland.


59 comments:

Patrick Ross said...

Hmmmmm. So.

Adam Daifallah.
Tom Flanagan.
Tasha Kheirridin.
Barry Cooper.
David Frum.
Ezra Levant.
Preston Manning.
Brian Lee Crowley.
Hugh Segal.
William Easterly.
Jack Granatastein.

I suppose these folks, by virtue of your ad hominem attack on Jonah Goldberg, no longer exist.

Malcolm+ said...

Let's consider some of the names on your list.


Adam Daifallah - No particular accomplishments except being the head of the Alliance youth wing.

David Frum - Nowhere near as smart as his mother, and got his initial career breaks based on her talent, not his. His main accomplishment was to claim authorship of a line in a speech - something good speech writers know to be discrete about.

Ezra Levant - Serial liar and smear artist.

Hugh Segal - Yes, a conservative intellectual. Which is why he is quite consistent in opposing the depradations of the wingnut fringe on the far right. Good to see him on CNN explaining how the Republican attacks on Canadian health care were b***$**t.

Jack Granatastein - Simply believing in a stronger military does not make one a conservative.

Audrey II said...

"I suppose these folks, by virtue of your ad hominem attack on Jonah Goldberg, no longer exist."

Yes, Patti. That's a reasonable reductio conclusion to draw from what I've put forward. My argument is not only rooted in ad hominem, but also denies the existence of David Frum et al.. Thanks for yet another illustration of conservative intellectualism, alive and kicking.

Malcolm: Thanks for the reply! I'd love to comment, but seeing as how it's apparently reasonable to conclude that I deny the very existence of people like Frum, the only appropriate response would be "Who are these non-existent people that you're talking about?" ;)

Patrick Ross said...

"No particular accomplishments except being the head of the Alliance youth wing."

In the world of political intelligensia, this would depend upon what, precisely you define as an "accomplishment".

As a fairly young individual, I'd say his numerous published works make him rather accomplished for his age.

"Nowhere near as smart as his mother, and got his initial career breaks based on her talent, not his. His main accomplishment was to claim authorship of a line in a speech - something good speech writers know to be discrete about."

Once again, the quality of Frum's published work is much higher than -- and less extreme than -- what his ideologically-motivated critics (including, evidently, yourself) like yourself would insist.

"Serial liar and smear artist."

I suppose we're supposed to take this on your own say-so.

Should it surprise me, Malcom, that the best response you can seem to offer are yet further ad hominem attacks on these particular individuals?

You're really just making an important part of my -- and Goldberg's -- point for me.

The other part brings us back to the base silliness of Audrey's argument that conservative intellectualism is "dead". That's a list I came up with in merely a few short seconds, off the top of my head.

Only one of them -- Easterly -- is not a Canadian (well, unless you count Flanagan, who's an immigrant to Canada).

If one were to start tossing out further names from the United States and Europe this list would grow significantly.

So wherein, Audrey, do we see the death of conservative intellectualism other than in your own ideologically-motivated say-so?

Audrey II said...

Malcolm, you just don't get it. Regardless of anti-intellectualism being a purposefully adopted position of people like Goldberg and despite the ideology's self-admitted embrace of populism and rhetoric over intellectual appeal and substantive debate, conservative intellectualism is actually alive and thriving.

See, there's this list of a handful of people with dubious intellectual heft, and if you draw attention to the fact that some of those people don't really have much in the way of works with intellectual appeal or that they have very little influence in the movement at large, you're arguing "ad hominem".

There's also no irony to be found at all in holding up Goldberg as an example of conservative intellectualism or in an appeal to the repetition of his argument. As any "intellectual" knows, merely repeating the very thing that's being criticized makes it more true.

;)

As is regularly the case here at ETP, we'd like to thank those that inadvertently continue to provide illustrations of the very points that are being made. That kind of impulsive, shoot-from-the-hip/deny-the-egg-on-face lack of self-awareness is hard to find, and we certainly appreciate the comedic value it brings to the comments sections.

Patrick Ross said...

Right. Jonah Goldberg, who has evidently assiduously researched not only the left's fascism-related slurs against conservatives, but the left's own uncomfortable links with and endorsements of fascism, is an anti-intellectual.

That makes a certain amount of sense -- that is if you refuse to listen to his arguments and respond in kind. Particularly if you respond (once again) with ad hominem attacks.

Which, in and of itself, is actually extremely anti-intellectual. (Considering your own spectacular lack of self-knowledge I don't expect you to figure that one out for yourself.)

That being said, if you want to claim that the individuals I've noted here are of "dubious intellectual heft" and lack influence within conservative circles, that's your claim, and the burden of proof for that is on you.

But the truth is that I already have an expectation regarding how you're going to respond to this, and I doubt you'll disappoint me.

Audrey II said...

I couldn’t have asked for a more apt illustration of my point than holding up Goldberg’s foray into Godwin’s Law as proof of conservative “intellectualism”. What’s next? Meghan McCain’s tweets? Sarah Palin’s facebook updates?

It isn’t “ad hominem” to point out the lack of intellectual heft and influence that exists amongst conservative “intellectuals”, particularly in contrast to the movement’s overwhelming adoption of populism and rhetoric. Your entire argument here was an appeal to a very short list. Crying “ad hominem” when that list and your own appeal is addressed is about as disingenuous as it gets, and yet another illustration of how intellectualism is dying within the conservative movement and being replaced with rhetoric, bombast, disingenuity, and cries for ideological affirmative action. I’ve little doubt that some amongst the next generation of conservatives desperately want those kinds of things to be considered “intellectual”, but (despite the ideology’s descent into post-modern Straussian narrative cultivation)conservative wants != reality. The issue isn’t whether or not people exist that conservatives find to be intellectual. I freely concede that to be the case. The more relevant matter is whether or not the movement is increasingly rejecting intellectualism in favour of something else and whether or not the examples that conservatives dearly would wish others to consider to be intellectually appealing actually are. Many of the examples you’re hanging your hat on illustrate the very opposite of what you intended them to.

Please do continue touting things like Goldberg’s book and the sheer stupidity behind the “with us or against us” routine as examples of Conservative intellectualism. Not unlike lionizing Meghan McCain as the great future of conservatism, that kind of thing truly is a gift that keeps on giving.

Patrick Ross said...

Once again, Audrey, you're willfully omitting an extremely important part of Goldberg's argument -- the various fascism slurs used against conservatives on an ongoing basis.

This being the case, the political left has been surrendering the political debate based on the envokation of Nazism and fascism for decades. Funny how you only want to complain now.

Once again, Audrey, if you want to insist that there's a lack of intellectual heft amongst these well-published and accomplished individuals, then the burden of proof is on yourself.

To date, Audrey, the best response I've been offered is a counter-factual "well, these people have never accomplished anything". You're categorically refusing to address the ideas of these people, and instead attacking them personally based on an alleged "lack of accomplishment".

Once again, each individual on this list is a published author numerous times over. Many of these individuals have held public office. Many of them have enjoyed distinguished academic careers.

So what is it precisely, Audrey, is it about this list that is "disingenuous"? Anything in particular?

Or is it just that you're very deeply invested, on an ideological basis, in refusing to acknowledge the accomplishments and intellectual acumen of the individuals on the list?

Don't answer. It's a rhetorical question. We both know that this is the case.

If you want to try to make the argument that conservatives as a whole are rejecting intellectualism, you'll have a much tougher sell still. Certainly, you'll find your conservapedias and tea party crazies to try to flaunt as evidence, but this is an age-old and long-discredited tactic: the tactic of distorting the fringes of a movement as representative as the whole. When called on to defend those arguments, you'll simply resort to ad hominem attacks against the speaker and think that you've proven something.

Which really just demonstrates that you have no idea what intellectualism is about. Intellectualism isn't about ad hominem attacks. It isn't about calling names or calling people stupid.

It's about formulating an argument, responding to an argument, critiquing an argument based on its supporting facts and logical cogency -- something that you and your cohorts have systematically rejected.

That is anti-intellectualism.

When you figure that out feel free to tune in to to the real world of intellectualism. Until that time we all know you're going to feel plenty comfortable living in a fantasy world.

Malcolm+ said...

I don't think that being president of the Alliance youth and writing a handful of articles of dubious political analysis (frequently only as co-author) published what was at the time the most ideologically driven major daily in the country constitutes much in the way of accomplishment. That's not an ad hominem attack. (Do you actually know what "ad hominem" means?)

David Frum is no fool, and his recent work in which he is very critical of the current directions in conservative discourse show no mean insight. It doesn't change the fact that his initial entry to more rarified circles had more to do with his mother's accomplishments than his own. Like his sister, he was born on third but thinks he hit a triple.

Personally, I don't think I've ever read or seen anything from Ezra Levant which was not based on a foundation of ad hominem and slander. Perhaps that's not always his style, but I have read quite a bit of his stuff and I can't recall a single case where that wasn't his MO. My particular favourite was his appearance on a Duffy panel in the last election when they were discussing the NP's dismissal of an Ontario candidate over inappropriate emails to his former girlfriend. When the NDP rep on the panel simply remarked that the former girlfriend had objected to the way the Conservative Party had dealt with the issue, Ezra started claiming that the NDP rep was "blaming the victim." That was the point I lost any respect for EL.

Now, all that said, I do think there are intellectual conservatives who deserve to be taken seriously. Andrew Sullivan is one good example. And, given his recent work, David Frum may also be on his way to the same credibility.

Goldberg? Nope. Daifallah? Certainly not yet. Levant? In your dreams.

Patrick Ross said...

Hmmmm. Interesting reasoning, Malcom.

Let's take a look at some of the people who have been employed by, or written for, Canada's "most ideologically driven major daily in the country":

Warren Kinsella
Dan Arnold
Jeff Jedras
Stephen LeDrew

So, yeah. I'm totally taking you seriously on that one, Mal.

Not to mention that you clearly have no idea what, precisely, Daifallah has done. He's also authored two books, Rescuing Canada's Right and Gritlocked.

All this, plus his numerous published works in the National Post and elsewhere, while maintaining his own legal practice. That's much more of an accomplishment than you give him credit for.

To suggest that someone isn't worthy being noted as a conservative intellectual because he "hasn't accomplished anything" is a personal attack against that individual, and a deliberate attempt to avoid addressing that individual's ideas -- the very definition of an ad hominem attack.

So yes, I do know what an ad hominem attack is. The better question is: do you?

If Frum's work justifies respecting him as a conservative intellectual then there really isn't much point to be found in claiming that he's riding his mother's coat tails.

As a matter of fact, a lot of people who argue that his accomplishments have eclipsed his mother's.

A great number of people greatly admire the work that Ezra Levant has been doing in highlighting the skull duggery of some of Canada's Human Rights Commissions. Perhaps people like yourself don't appreciate that. It doesn't change the fact that he's done excellent work.

But beyond that, Malcom, the example you're trying to use here doesn't seem to demonstrate a slanderous or ad hominem argument. If the dismissed candidate did in fact send inappropriate emails to his ex-girlfriend (admittedly, I never heard about this story until now), then Levant speaking about the topic couldn't be slanderous. Unless Levant himself raised the issue, he can't be accused of an ad hominem attack just for speaking about something he was asked to speak about on TV.

Which, of course, brings us around to Bernard Goldberg. Simply stating that Bernard Goldberg doesn't have any credibility as an intellectual doesn't make it so. You still have to defend that argument, and aside from the Godwin's law objection -- one easily disposed of -- I haven't heard a single objection to a specific argument that Goldberg raises.

Should I be surprised?

Malcolm+ said...

Ah, Patrick.

A few articles in the NatPost and a couple of books that have garnered no following outwith an ideological core. I'm sure Adam is a nice chap, but he's no giant despite your desperation. And while the NatPost in its far right days would hire token moderates, neither Kinsella nor LeDrew nor the rest of the Liberal Party apparatchiks constitute a substantively contrary point of view.

Finally, you clearly didn't get the point. Let me type slowly in hopes you might wrap your tiny far right brain around it.

NDP rep on panel says "Victim didn't like the way Conservative Party tried to exploit what happened to her."

Ezra the Slanderer replies "You're blaming the victim" and keeps shouting it for the rest of the program.

Ezra is an odious waste of skin, frankly. David is beginning to look like an actual intellectual, capable of thinking critically. Adam, maybe some day. Seen nothing yet.

I've conceded that David Frum is beginning to show some potential. It doesn't change the fact that if he'd been David Furst he'd never have been handed half the silver platters he's gotten.

Patrick Ross said...

Who ever described Daifallah as a "giant"?

I believe Audrey would denounce that as a "strawman argument" -- she spent her childhood having nightmares about The Wizard of Oz, so she sees them everywhere, although this is one case in which it would actually fit.

I haven't described Daifallah as a giant of anything -- merely as a conservative intellectual. Frum, Manning, Flanagan, Cooper, Crowley, Segal and Easterly -- those are the giants on that list.

The National Post has given voice to many, many people outside of its alleged far-right paradigm (to people far enough left to appreciate ETP, any conservatism at all must surely seem like the "far right").

Now, Malcom, I'm sure you think that typing real slow will somehow make your poor argument better. Let me assure you that it doesn't.

You insist that everything Levant produces is based on slander and ad hominem attacks. Yet the example you produced unequivocally did not demonstrate this.

Instead, you produced an example of Levant using a silly argument. That's fair enough. If we were to start reading into the silly arguments raised by many of whom the left passes off as intellectuals and discarded them on account of a silly argument or two there wouldn't be very many left by the end of the day.

But Levant's silly argument certainly does not support the argument that you used to attempt to discredit him -- the slander and ad hominem complaint. If you want to discredit Levant based on this, you'd better be able to produce a few.

Oddly enough, it seems that you're only willing to admit that David Frum is "showing potential" now that he's doing things that you agree with.

Have you ever considered that your opinions on the matter don't represent the be-all and end-all of intellectualism?

It's a thought you may want to consider.

Malcolm+ said...

My, Patrick, you seem to be quite obsessed with the opinions of a couple of online nobody in particulars who don't share your devotion to those who you consider towering intellects.

At the end of the day, this really does come down to opinion. You are welcome to believe that Ezra Levant is an intellectual. Seems to me he's less an intellectual than a controversialist who regularly engages in misrepresentation, slander and character assassiniation. And I have every right to belive that, since everything I've ever read from the little shite seems to support my contention. But that doesn't at all interfere with your right to believe he's some sort of neo-Buckley.

But if you want us to take you seriously, perhaps a little less hysteria is in order.

After all, in gvstibvs, non est dispvtandem, wot?

Sparky said...

Patrick says, "Once again, Audrey, you're willfully omitting an extremely important part of Goldberg's argument -- the various fascism slurs used against conservatives on an ongoing basis"
And what was the title of the book Goldberg recently wrote?
Right.
If Goldberg's "extremely important" point (at least according to Patrick "Mr. Intellectual Hefty" Ross) is "fascism slurs used against conservatives", it's rather hypocritical to publish a book called "Liberal Fascism".
But then again, Patrick "Intellectual Hefty" Ross has always been drawn to hypocrisy so that's no surprise.

Patrick Ross said...

Malcom,

Your argument that you're entitled to believe anything that you wish is nothing more than a cop-out.

We seem to have demonstrated at this point that you can't defend your claim that everything Ezra Levant has done is based on slander and character assassination.

Certainly, no one can prevent you from believing this. But that doesn't lionize that belief by any means, nor is your sense of entitlement to that belief a defense for it.

Sorry to break it to you.

And speaking of people who lionize their distinct non-contribution to intellectual discourse, is anyone else shocked that Sparkles is in a rush to overlook the other part of Goldberg's argument -- that the political left's ties to Nazism and fascism can be identified at simple and fundamental levels, starting with the S-word?

Also, another question for Audrey -- would you care to task Sparkles for the logical fallacy he's peddling here? I believe it's called "poisoning the well", and -- like so many of the times you disingenuously complain about logical fallacies -- this is one time in which it actually applies.

Yes? No?

Don't worry. I'll stay tuned.

We all know Sparkles will. He's still desperate to avenge his last two defeats.

Audrey II said...

Malcolm, you "ain't seen nothin yet". Pat can go on for 50+ replies, repeating the same thing sprinkled with various versions of "I win", all while never ever addressing the point that you've made. Given the topic at hand, there's something rather amusing about the lack of self-awareness involved in employing primary-schoolyard rhetoric and then whining about the "biased" criticism that that approach inevitably garners in response.

I think there's something revealing about what some consider to be intellectually appealing, which is why Pat's holding up Goldberg and Levant as examples of "conservative intellectualism" serves as a great illustration of my original point. Both rely heavily on populist rhetoric in their arguments (cheers to Goldberg for at least recognizing this) and their followers lap it up as some kind of "intellectualism" that's free from all that liberal, elitist, academic, logically valid influence. It's ideological affirmative action detached from merit at its worst. Goldberg justifies this disingenuity as a "smashing the gate" means to an end, suggesting that he at least knows what he's doing and the tastes of his audience. Consider what happened to Frum the moment he shifted away from peddling "axis of evil" rhetoric to criticizing the conservative trend of lashing itself to the albatross of populism: Frum became essentially a persona non grata amongst the larger ideological movement, cast aside in favour of "intellectual greats" like Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin who take his "axis of evil" opus to new heights of simplistic absurdity. The self-introspection that Frum's currently (and ironically) advocating just doesn't fly with a crowd that considers opposition to the the invasion of Iraq as "besmirching the honour of the troops" / "being with the terrorists" and which considers contemporary representative democracy to be "fascist" when they aren't in power.

You're right that opinions will inevitably vary as to what people find intellectually appealing. The issue with contemporary western conservatism isn't that there aren't individuals that the movement considers to be be "intellectuals". That's never been in question. The intellectual appeal of the arguments made by those people does, however, reveal much about the state of objective intellectualism within the movement. The inability to discern between well-poisoning and being hoisted by one by one's own petard is just another comical illustration of phenomenon in question. ;)

Next up, how dare y'all overlook and willfully ignore that the Nazi's wore pants! Post hoc, ergo propter hoc! Respect mah and Goldberg's intellectualism!

Malcolm+ said...

Might I suggest two fairly simple tests to distinguish an intellectual from a mere controversialist hack.

1. The writer garnes a degreee of respect from intellectuals on the other side.

2. The writer invests at least some energy in challenging the assumptions and prejudices of their own side.

By these reasonable measures, conservatives like Buckley, Will, Flanagan or the latest iteration of Frum would pass.

But for Patrick, it seems, "intellectual" is defined as "rigidly right wing."

Patrick, you are welcome to believe that Ezra Levant is an intellectual. In reality, he is nothing more than a controversialist hack, given to slander, misrepresentation and false reductionism.

If you'd like to change my opinion, produce anything Levant has written that is the least self-critical (or even self-aware) about the hard right. Or anything in which opinions of the left (or even centre) are not reduced to caricature.

I won't hold my breath.

Patrick Ross said...

See, kids, this has all been terribly amusing. But at a certain point you have to be able to defend your arguments on something other than your own say-so.

Audrey can ramble incoherently to her heart's content. Malcom can erect strawman arguments to his.

But what you need to understand is that no one is obligated to respect beliefs you can't support or defend.

If Audrey wants to insist that conservative intellectualism is dead but can't defend her argument when presented with a short list of conservative intellectuals, no one is obligated to respect that belief.

When Malcom wants to insist that everything Ezra Levant does is based on slander and character assassination but can't defend that argument by providing even a single example of Levant slandering or assassinating character, no one is obligated to respect that belief.

As for Bernard Goldberg's thesis in Liberal Fascism, here's one example that Goldberg doesn't write about, but should be much nearer and dearer to Audrey's heart:

During the 1930s, Tommy Douglas had to fight with the CCF to convince them to oppose Hitler and Mussolini. Douglas was even in favour of going to war to stop Hitler and Mussolini. Many of the CCF's leaders of the day were known to express sympathies for those two leaders.

Meanwhile, John Diefenbaker was accused of being a Nazi sympathizer because his name was too German-sounding.

Any comment, Audrey?

(And, by the way, I love how you can't criticize your friends for dabbling -- actually dabbling -- in the kind of rhetorical excesses you love to accuse others of. Hey, Sparkles, any kind of comment on that hypocrisy?)

Don't worry. I'll stay tuned.

Malcolm+ said...

Well, Patrick. You do make one valid point.

"But what you need to understand is that no one is obligated to respect beliefs you can't support or defend."

Quite true. But you are pointing out specks in the eyes of others while ignoring the log in your own.

As to your historical revisionism wrt the CCF and European facsism. what you have written is a flat out lie.

No CF figure "expressed sympathy" for Hitler or Mussolini. But like your slanderhack hero Levant, you are engaging is reductionism. Because many CCF leaders were pacifists, you therefore claim that they supported fascism.

You have exposed yourself as a liar and a fraud artist.

Sparky said...

Patrick's still licking his wounds from his last loss so he's trying to make this into a conversation he can win by redefining everything so only he can win.
Is his MO.
C'mon Patrick--logical fallacy? I was quoting your words. You didn't show your work last time when you said I lied about what a blogger said, and had to eat those words when that was pointed out. You jumped to conclusions and didn't read what was actually written. Kinda like the triangles and the non-deficit.
But again, is your MO.
So go ahead, show how there's this logical fallacy. Show your work.
Try not to, y'know, be you--try to actually reason it out logically and use proofs.
Irony--Patrick using ideas like "But at a certain point you have to be able to defend your arguments on something other than your own say-so." when most of his arguments are based on his say-so. And most usually are proven wrong over time... but then again, that's been proven over and over again.
And trust me Patrick--I'm not hitting the refresh button over and over again to see if you replied. I have a life outside the 'blogosphere' and I won't be disappointed if you don't get back to me within a few days... That should give you some time to look up some big words to make you sound all 'intellectually hefty'

Malcolm+ said...

The other irony here is athat I actually agree with the point Patrick is trying to make - that there are living, breathing conservative intellectuals. But by including Ezra Levant in his list, Patrick makes it clear he wouldn't recognize intellect if it walked up and bit him.

Patrick Ross said...

Well, Malcom, history would disagree wtih you. Particularly numerous historians who wrote about the CCF and about Tommy Douglas in particular.

Pacifism is one thing. Expressing public sympathy with Hitler and Mussolini is entirely another.

I believe that people like yourself also accuse people who talk about Douglas' brief flirtation with eugenics as "liars and fraud artists" as well.

Once again, that happens to be entirely true.

But it's nice to see that you've found another excuse not to address Jonah Goldberg's points -- even if it's ill-fitting outrage.

Malcom, it's become perfectly evident that I have a more solid definition of what is and is not intellectual than you do. After all, I'm not the one trying to pretend that intellectualism is defined by an individual who makes arguments I agree with.

By the incredibly weak argument you've levied here, Malcom -- in particular, the imperative to criticize one's own movement -- do you realize how many left wing intellectuals would no longer qualify as such?

I sincerely doubt you do.


As it regards Sparkles, he still hasn't figured out that I don't have any wounds to lick. I suppose he figures that if he preens loudly enough to likeminded dimwits he'll eventually convince himself that he's ever won anything.

Just like he evidently can't figure out that calling someone a hypocrite for their argument doesn't actually address that argument.

Sparky said...

As Patrick shows over and over again, he loves to dish it out, but can never take it--
"But at a certain point you have to be able to defend your arguments on something other than your own say-so"
But we're suppose to take everything Patrick says on his say-so 'cause he never backs anything up or shows his work.
That's how Patrick 'wins', you see...
If Patrick works off erronous data (triangles), well, it's the blurry photo that's at fault so Patrick wins
If Patrick bases his argument on a flawed google search (august 25), he wins 'cause the numbers are skewed to his point.
If Patrick has irrelevant data (videos instead of blogs) in his search, he wins 'cause he says so.
If others have irrelevant data in their search, well, Patrick wins 'cause they had irrelevant data in their search.
If others resort to ad hominems, Patrick wins, cause those others were meanies for calling him names
If Patrick makes fun of people's blog handles and calls them 'retards', well, Patrick wins 'cause that's the way it is.(note I've always referred to Patrick using 'Patrick' when commenting--it's the least I can do to show that it's the discussion that's important, and not make fun of blog handles--"Sparkles the magic retard"? What's that accomplish, Patrick?)
If someone shows via links and carefully constructed logical frameworks why a post Patrick made was invalid, well, Patrick wins because they went on so much that the comment wasn't worth reading...
If Patrick bloviates ad nauseum and posts already disproven ideas, well, Patrick wins 'cause my god--look at all those words! He must've won in there somewhere...
If anyone else takes evidence at hand and makes a logical conclusion about the future state based on those facts (probably there'll be a deficit), well, they're idiots 'cause there's no deficit now!! What the hell are those morons talking about!!! Patrick wins!!
If the hypothesized deficit shows up, well, Patrick wins 'cause, well, that was a 'hollow victory for those guys'.
(con't)

Sparky said...

If Patrick misreads someone's comment and accuses that guy of lying about what was said, Patrick wins! Of course he does--why wouldn't he?
If it's demonstrated finally beyond even Patricks limited comprehension that his accusation of lying was baseless, well, he wins because he didn't want to read.
If Patrick doesn't get a response over the weekend to one of his comments, he wins 'cause he didn't get a response in his timeframe.
If Patrick doesn't respond to comments at all, well, he wins 'cause responding is beneath him or something...
If Patrick 'moves the goalposts', well, he wins 'cause his latest and greatest argument was not addressed!!
If others reiterate the same argument, but using much simpler wording giving Patrick an easier way of understanding what's actually being said, well they're just shifing goalposts and Patrick doens't like that at all!! He wins!!
If someone points out that some guy whining about being called a fascist probably shouldn't publish a book calling other people fascists, Patrick wins 'cause there's a logical fallacy in there somewheres...
If someone points out that it's hypocritical for some guy to whine about being called a fascist when he publishes a book calling others fascists, Patrick wins because that didn't address Patricks argument.
If Patrick starts the game of 'hogging the last post', he wins 'cause he always gets 'the last post' (is his game and all)
If Patrick actually stops posting and didn't get the last word (his game) because his ass was so thoroughly handed to him and anything else he says will make him look even more ridiculous than he already does, well, Patrick wins because he just walked away.
All these are the games that Patrick plays to win. See, it's not about the discourse or the debate or the learning or the coming to an understanding... no, to Patrick--it's all about "HTE WIN".
Patrich uses such phrases as "But at a certain point you have to be able to defend your arguments on something other than your own say-so.
...
But what you need to understand is that no one is obligated to respect beliefs you can't support or defend
"
This being uttered by the most disingenuous and hypocritical debater I've ever come across in this here blogosphere.
Irony, thy name is Patrick.

Patrick Ross said...

Yawn.

And here Sparkles goes again, set to -- what's that word again? -- bloviate.

You know, sometimes I can't help but wonder who it is Sparky's really trying to convince -- other people, or himself.

He's lost every time he's tried to tangle with me -- which is why he so often has to envoke the hollow "triumphs" of other people. At a certain point you'd imagine he'd just quit.

But he can't. He's fixated on me. Sadly, he's a very ill individual.

Malcolm+ said...

Well, Patrick, I suppose one way to prove your intellectual superiority would be to present some actual evidence to support your outrageous charges. But since your accusation was a lie, I guess you won't be able to do that.

(I've never denied that Douglas and some other CCFers of the day thought eugenics might offer some promise in improving society. Within a very few years, eugenics was discredited and they had all abandoned the idea. The only party that supported eugenics post 1939, of course, was the Social Credit Party of Alberta, where eugenical principles - specifically, the forced sterilization of certain undesirable - were applied as government policy by the government of Ernest Manning. I don't think any fan of Preston really has much room to get haughty on that score.)

Turns out you aren't an intellectual at all, Patrick. Just another liar like your friend Ezra.

Patrick Ross said...

Considering that Preston Manning actually had nothing at all to do with Social Credit's eugenics program, you're drawing a pretty spurious conclusion in regards to that.

Unless you're trying to pretend that he did have something to do with it -- but you'd be lying.

As it regards sympathies for Hitler and Mussolini within the CCF, I encourage you read up on the subject on your own. Either you will or you won't. But the particular crowd who dwells around this cesspool have demonstrated a pretty uncomfortable relationship with supportive evidence provided for them in the past, so I won't bother wasting my time on this particular occasion.

The interesting thing, Malcom, is that I'm entirely comfortable criticizing Albertan Social Credit -- a movement I've never been particularly inspired by -- and its eugenics policies. Eugenics was a reprehensible practice regardless of whoever was practicing it or supporting it.

Your friend Audrey is doing precisely as I predicted -- wailing at the injustice of any mention of Douglas' belief in eugenics -- in another thread here at this very cesspool.

So, by your own standard Mal, we can safely conclude that Audrey doesn't qualify as an intellectual -- or is it only conservatives who don't become intellectuals until they criticize the excesses of their own movement?

Whether you like it or not no one is obligated to seek the Malcom seal of approval before being considered an intellectual.

And, once again, as you can't really define the concept, you're impossible to take seriously.

Malcolm+ said...

Since you complained when someone else got your name wrong, you could at least have the courtesy not to screw around with mine.

And I notice that you refuse, yet again, to provide anything vaguely resembling evidence.

Audrey may or may not qualify as an intellectual - and I have never claimed to be an intellectual.

But you, Patrick, are still a liar.

Patrick Ross said...

Yawn.

I've seen the "uncomfortable truths denounced as lies" act replayed so many times it's actually become extremely boring, Mal.

See what's happened here? I'm bored with you.

Malcolm+ said...

I'm quite comfortable to admit uncomfortable truths, Patrick.

I'm not prepared to let uncomfortable lies pass unchallenged.

If there were any truth to your claim, you'd be able to present credible evidence. Your refusal to present credible evidence (or, indeed, any less than credible evidence) would tend to support my contention that you are a liar.

For the sake of your immortal soul, Paddy, repent.

Patrick Ross said...

Apparently, Mal, you really aren't.

I'm not about to waste me time digging back through my studies on the matter just to present findings to someone whom I fully expect will refuse to acknowledge them.

There's that. Then there's also the boredom induced by dealing with you. Mostly the boredom.

Malcolm+ said...

Right. No evidence then. Just as I thought.

Turns out you're not just a liar, but a coward as well. Declare victory and run away as soon as you're challenged on your bullshit. Typical far right coward.

Patrick Ross said...

Nope. Plenty of evidence.

Just a lack of will to waste time on someone who'll intentfully ignore it.

You may want to discern the difference.

Malcolm+ said...

You've produced no evidence because you have no evidence. You have no evidence because what you have said is a lie.

Discerning the difference between lying and laziness isn't that difficult.

Your technique, of course, is copied from that intellectual giant Glenn Beck. Make an outrageous claim and then say that the onus is on the victom to prove it false.

Glenn, of course, has recently demonstrated how stupid he actually is by giving free media attention to the satirical website http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/ by using international agencies to try and shut the wensite down.

So, if you want to play the Glenn Beck game, Patrick, why won't you come clean about the rumour that you routinely sodomize barnyard animals? You've never denied it. Why not?

(Of course, I could produce evidence to support the accusation, but I just choose not to because you'd just "intentfully ignore it.")

(BTW, when did all you far right "intellectuals" decide that "intentfully" was a real word? "Wilfully" not good enough for you?)

Sparky said...

Malcolm+, apparently Patrick subscribes to "The Tao of SUZANNE"

I don't have anything offhand, but I don't really care if you believe it or not.

Apparently it's all the rage from the 'intellectual hefties' on the right--state outrageous claims and act all 'why you asking me to back 'em up?!?!?!? That's for chumps!'

Again, disingenuous doesn't begin to cover the wonder that is Patrick.

Patrick Ross said...

Sparkles is:

The Bloviator.

Malcom, I simply have better things to do than waste my time referencing my research from someone who's just going to disingenuously disregard it.

(It's a little stunt that Sparky seems to think he's perfected, and it would be amusing if it wasn't so utterly tiresome.)

I'm not about to waste that time on someone who attempts to tailor the definition of intellectualism so that it includes only people he approves of.

Basically, Malcom, I'm not going to bring you up to my level. I'm going to treat you contemtuously from my level, as the denizens of ETP have very much shown that they aren't capable of coming up to my level.

You've done nothing to suggest that you deserve an opportunity any more than Audrey or Sparky have.

Sparky said...

Shorter Patrick--"I've always argued in bad faith so I expect it from all of you--even if you never did..."

Patrick Ross said...

ROTFL

Shorter Sparkles -- "So what if I'm a stark, raving hypocrite? Really. What about it?"

Sparky said...

And of course Patrick won't back that up--he never does because, well, he can't.
When dealing with Patrick on any sort of basis, I'm reminded again of that wonderful little quote that 'My Blahg' has every once in a while... I'll paraphrase it here--
Patrick has mastered an error condition in the blogging comment process, an infinite loop of abstraction that drains all meaning from the discussion. He doesn't have to focus on meaning, really, at all, he just turn up the burbling nonsense until we all descend past the noise machine event horizon into infinitely unproductive debate, never to re-emerge. This is how we progressives (rationalists?) keep ending up on the sucker side of the comment war with Patrick: we're still using the old paradigm of meaning and he's busily deploying the equivalent of malware and DOS attacks.--The Poor Man Institute (paraphrased by me)

Patrick Ross said...

Good god, Spanky.

That should be like staring directly into a mirror for you.

Malcolm+ said...

Well, Patrick. I'm honoured.

It wasn't enough for you to lie about J.S. Woodsworth. Now you have to lie about me. I'm truly honoured to be on your slander list.

You claim that I would "disingenuously disregard" any evidence you brought forward.

Now, I'm curious. On what basis do you make this accusation. To date, the only "uncomfortable truth" you've mentioned was that Douglas and other CCF worthies had expressed support for eugenics. And how did I respond? I immediately conceded that this was true.

The reason you refuse to bring forward any evidence to support your other charge has nothing to do with me. It has to do with the fact that you were lying through your teeth and you know it.

Man up, little boy. For the good of your soul, just man up and admit you got carried away in partisan bluster and told a lie.

Or (like the coward you demonstrably are) you could just keep lying.

You make the average Liberal look principled by comparison.

(And btw, learn to spell, Patrik.)

Patrick Ross said...

Heh.

Who said anything about JS Woodsworth, Malcom?

I mean, besides you. Just now.

I haven't so much as breathed his name in the course of this thread. It would be kind of tough for me to lie about him.

I think that says enough about the way you've conducted yourself here, and it says more than enough about why I won't bother trying to bring you up to my level.

Patrick Ross said...

And yes, Malcom, I do remember how you responded to mention of Douglas' advocacy of eugenics -- by trying to smear Preston Manning.

And you wonder why I mock you.

Malcolm+ said...

Then what CCF figures were you lying about Patrick?

Or will you continue in your usual cowardice?

It really is amazing how pathetic you far right wingnuts are when you get challenged on your lies.

And you still can't spell.

(Oh, and BTW, the very first thing I said about the Douglas - eugenics issue was that, indeed, it was true. The fact of the matter is, though, that the only Canadian government ever to implement aspects of eugenics policy was the government of Ernest Manning. Sorry to bother you with facts.)

Patrick Ross said...

Ooooh, I can't spell! Oh noes!

Yup. There's a high-minded response. You really are just a glutton for mockery.

Sparky said...

"Who said anything about JS Woodsworth, Malcom?

I mean, besides you. Just now.

I haven't so much as breathed his name in the course of this thread. It would be kind of tough for me to lie about him.
"

Sayeth the idiot that will bring up Richard Evans whenever he wants to take the conversation on yet another idiotic tangent.

God you're pathetic, Patrick

Up to your level?? Again--as always--only in your own little world.

And to sum it up (again and again and again), Patrick projects--"You really are a glutton for mockery"

Yes Patrick, you really are.

Patrick Ross said...

Really, Sparkles? Really?

You're really just saying that because Robert Peter John Day told you to.

It isn't as if you have a mind of your own.

You've been projecting your own psychological malaise onto other people for as long as I've been aware of you, and likely very long before that.

For example, Sparkles, I gave you an opportunity to come up to my level once before, and you declined.

(I know it must still be stewing away in that diseased little brain of yours that you lost l'affaire Kennedy so badly.)

Sparky said...

Wow. Delusions of grandeur is so becoming of you, Patrick.
You were so wrong and disingenuous through that whole affair (as you continue to be in this one). You never backed any of your fallacious statements there, either. Nor did you retract any of your blatant lies. And looky here--it continues again.
Moreover, Malcolm mentioned that it would be nice of you to spell his name correctly. When you didn't and he pointed it out, it wasn't your overall spelling he was attacking, it was your apparently deliberate mis-spelling of his name.
But you, being you, deliberately misinterpreted that point to score yet another one of your very own 'hollow victories'.
Oh noes!!
Every comment you make reinforces all those points I made above. You're a hack. A wilfully disingenuous hack who has to lie, obfuscate, and misconstrue every honest point in order to 'win'.
Stew away, Patrick. You've only ever won in your own little world. That's just gotta suck.
You truly are the gift that keeps on giving.

Patrick Ross said...

Really, Sparkles? Really?

As anyone who paid attention to that sad little affair -- in which you were so thoroughly trounced you had to resort to some rather pathetically dogged and underhanded last-post whoring -- that you had no clue what qualifies as impartial evidence, and that you went to great lengths to not only intentionally produce evidence as skewed as you possibly could.

Unless you're the typical denizen of ETP (in other words, a moron).

See, Sparkles, those of us who actually examined the evidence for ourselves remember the score in that particular affair quite well.

285 to 15. I won. You lost.

No matter how much you lie about it, Spanky, you can never change that.

Sparky said...

And with that, Patrick proves once again that he's a disingenuous hack--appealling to already disproven stats to attain a 'victory'. It must grate on you so much to resort to lies to score points, Patrick.
Keep on flogging.
I, however, don't think it necessary for this to degenerate into another 100+ comment thread in which you act as obtuse as you do here and play the 'last post' game (your game, mind you, which you also consistently lost at)
I'll leave the last word to the gentleman who can't even show the minimum of respect by spelling 'the other guy's name properly.
The floor is all yours, Patrick--You've already proven all my points made previously. I think it's the safest bet in the world that you will continue to do so right around now--

Patrick Ross said...

Sparky, Sparky, Sparky.

You wouldn't be capable of telling the truth if it were right in front of you waving a neon placard.

You already proved that during L'Affaire Kennedy.

One also has to snicker at the hilarity of Sparkles trying to label anyone as a hack. After all, this is a guy for whom every little thought bouncing around in his empty head was implanted there by Canada's fascist extraordinaire, Robert Peter John Day.

Spanky still can't seem to figure this out: I don't owe any respect to liars (like Sparkles) or mindless would-be demagogues (like Malcom).

Let me reassure the both of you that I think less of each of you than something I scrape off the bottom of my boot.

Malcolm+ said...

It really is quite amusing to watch Patrick pretend he's won something when he's actually been caught dead to rights in a lie.

Check out this video of Patrick's encounter with Graham Chapman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

Patrick Ross said...

Oooh! A Monty Python video!

How original of you.

Patrick Ross said...

By the way, Malcom.

You're it.

Malcolm+ said...

Of course, I never claimed to be either an intellectual nor a superior human being. I am merely a simple massing priests who finds liars and cowards like you to be contemptible.

I've offered you the opportunity of repentence quite enough times. You choose to leave your soul at risk. That's your choice.

The post has passed off the front page, and I have better things to do that try to engage an "intellectual" whose discourse is nowt but an amalgam of lies leavened with a load of "I know you are but what am I."

Thank you, though, for so conclusively proving that the Conservative Party of Canada is a welcome home for the dishonest and the infantile.

Patrick Ross said...

Hmmmm. Interesting. Are you really assuming that I have a Conservative Party membership, Malcom? You've been assuming that all this time?

That's hilarious. Alnost as hilarious as the fact that you can't seem to figure out that mockery is all you're worthy of at this point.

Call me back when you sproud an original thought in your head.

Sparky said...

sproud?
Call me back when you stop being a pretentious bloviating disingenuous hack, Patrick.
You stating that mockery is all that othes are worth? That's rich. You really should try to stop being the perfect parody of yourself.

Patrick Ross said...

And The Bloviator strikes again.

I'd keep pointing out the hilarity of Sparkles accusing anyone of being disingenuous or bloviating, but he'll just never, ever get it.

Sparky said...

Patrick, your lack of self awareness is truly astounding--
See, kids, this has all been terribly amusing. But at a certain point you have to be able to defend your arguments on something other than your own say-so.
. . .
But what you need to understand is that no one is obligated to respect beliefs you can't support or defend.

Points that are demonstrated every time Patrick posts.
And when anyone else backs stuff up--y'know, with links, rational arguments 'n stuff, Patrick is loathe to read 'em--he'd rather throw out a few ad hominems, call it a day and go home and crack a cold one--mission accomplished.
Keep living in your own little world, Patrick. At least they respect you there.

Post a Comment