There’s even more in the growing exchange between the gaggle at Brotha Wolf’s blog and the newcomer on the scene, SnowMan (here). Even I weighed in! Yep. Little ol’ me! The banned xPraetorius.
In the beginning of the set-to, SnowMan challenged Brotha Wolf and, by definition, his followers to backup BW’s claim that Bill O’Reilly is embroiled in a scandal similar to that which sank Brian Williams — the revelation that Williams lied about being in a helicopter that was forced down by rocket fire in Afghanistan.
O’Reilly, the allegation goes, didn’t actually get close to combat during the Falklands War (all the way back in 1982 — nearly 33 years ago!) as he says he did. Nor did he, the story continues, rescue his own cameraman from rioting Argentines during that same conflict.
Well, as it turns out, O’Reilly was right and those who are accusing him are wrong. SnowMan very bluntly gave BW that message, then proved it with chapter and verse. The exchange is instructive because, other than the passion exhibited by SnowMan, it is a typical argument between the right and the left. The guy on the right trots out chapter and verse, and the guy on the left interrupts, and evades, and insults, and talks over him, and jeers, and interrupts some more, and evades some more, before storming out saying that the guy on the right just isn’t worth his time.
The argument follows exactly the template of so many left-right arguments. The left always does this, especially when they’re way overmatched, as they were in this exchange. However, the left can never be wrong. Their entire intellectual edifice is based on a massive collection of lies, fraudulent “facts,” (77 cents on a dollar; one in five women sexually assaulted, racism, etc.), inventions and other smoke and mirrors.
If the left were to lose one argument, then they know full well that their entire rickety, contradiction-riddled, people-squashing house of cards risks falling down around them. It’s this house of dirty, slime-dripping cards that gives them their power. It’s how Obama was elected — twice! — and how they hope to elect a Democrat to the White House in 2016. It’s why the left shout down opponents, block them from speaking at universities, talk over them, make ludicrous accusations, exclude them from the media, censor them and more.
SnowMan smashed through all that and pulverized the arguments thrown at him. In the beginning, I was enjoying the argument, and the rather obvious fact that Brotha Wolf and his flock were completely unarmed before The Man of Snow.
However, as brilliant as SnowMan was, he was equally obnoxious, with his insults and his name-calling. It diminished, I thought, the impact of his obviously superior argumentation. I think this little exchange can serve as an example of close to how we should conduct ourselves with (in this case) the Race Grievance Industry, and the left in general.
It’s certain that we can dominate these exchanges, but that we must not start the gutter behavior. We can engage in it, if the left goes there, as they almost always do, but we should never start it. Furthermore, we should start off by admonishing them preemptively not to start the gutter behavior; then call them out — immediately — when they do, and only then engage in it only if they ignore our polite warning not to do it. Then, we should have at it with gusto, because we can beat them in that as well. Never forget: there’s a simple reason we beat them every time if a debate stays on topic: they’re not too bright.
There. That was SnowMan’s infraction. He started the sniping. He beat the living snorg out of Brotha Wolf and his followers’ arguments, but he, SnowMan, started the name-calling, and nullified his victory by engaging in the disreputable tactics of the left first.
I think we should always start out on the high road, for a lot of reasons, the most important of which is: we have the facts and the best arguments. We’re poorly served when there are useless, or irrelevant, or subject-changing distractions. That’s exactly why the left do it!
Otherwise stated: the left is in big trouble when debates stay on-topic, and focused, and deal with the facts instead of irrelevancies. That’s why they immediately go for the accusation of racism. Or of lying, or a thousand other slanders. They’re laying the groundwork for when the debate starts to go sour for them, as it inevitably does. At that point they can dismiss you as a racist, lying scoundrel, so your point of view is wrong too.
You see, the left has a track record! This country has been moving steadily leftward since its founding, but much more rapidly so in the past seventy or eighty years. The left understands that, and read this well, every major initiative they have launched, ostensibly to resolve a stated problem — poverty, hunger, drugs, unemployment, corruption, crime — has failed miserably.
The measure of success for these things is simple: what is the extent to which the initial effort has shrunk or grown since its inception. If the effort, and its accompanying departments and bureaus and Agencies have shrunk, it can be only from success in its endeavors. If it, and its hangers-on, have grown, it can be only because it has all failed. How are the various wars — on poverty, on crime, on hunger, on drugs — going? Yuh. Not so well.
I then joined in! To admonish SnowMan to moderate his tone. SnowMan’s points were right on the nose, and he demolished Brotha Wolf and the couple of others of his acolytes, who, true to form, joined in with only the accusations of racism, and the usual evasions and deflections.
However, SnowMan broke my cardinal rule: don’t be the one to start the name-calling.
I don’t much blame him… it’s pretty much inevitable when you engage the Race Grievance Industry or other bastions of the left. They don’t have the arguments, so they jump immediately into irrelevancies and name-calling.(1) SnowMan might have been acting preemptively. That’s fine for war, but this is not war, but debate.
We don’t have to be on the defensive even if the left are going to call us names. We can respond with withering replies, if we’re on our toes.
If someone calls you a racist, you could say something like “Only a moron would make that accusation. Are you a moron?” Or, “I won’t even dignify that steaming pile of demented tommyrot with a response,” and go right on with your point. Or: “Okay, let’s pretend I’m a racist. Why not? After all, I’m pretending you’re not a half-wit by being here. However my qualities as a human being have no bearing whatsoever on the correctness of my arguments. What’s your excuse for your jaw-droppingly stupid arguments?” Then smile politely. Or, (the daring, give-’em-a-taste-of-their-own-medicine) “Everyone knows that the Race Grievance Industry, of which you’re a proud member, is full of frothing, unbalanced racists — needless to say, a true racist would accuse others of racism; it’s just projection.” And go on with your next point.
Never let the scurrilous accusation go unanswered except with something that pounds it into the dust.
I’ll repeat it: We don’t ever have to be on the defensive even if the left are going to call us names. We can perform debate jiu-jitsu. Their thoughts and ideas are old, faded, fat, flabby, feeble, flaccid failures… if some blubbery thing like that comes waddling at you wheezing, “Racist!” Just step aside, let the old gasbag lumber chuffing by, and respond as mentioned above. Take the air out of these garbage accusations!
SnowMan did exactly that. If only he hadn’t started the name-calling!
Now, this SnowMan chap is an excellent writer, and I wish he were in our stable of writers. Though, I wonder whether I’d have to edit his output so much that it wouldn’t be worth it. I can’t know that because I know him only through this one, ultimately very entertaining, exchange, which I’ve reproduced in its entirety, below.
My post is the last one, in which I excoriated SnowMan for his approach.
— BEGINNING OF THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN SNOWMAN AND BROTHA WOLF —
This Bill O’Reilly scandal, and that’s what it is naysayers, has gotten worse and worse for the conservative commentator. In fact, you know it’s gotten bad when even your fellow conservatives call you out on your lies. After Brian Williams got caught in a fib, O’Reilly saw fit to scold him. And then, you know what happened after that. It was all downhill for the man who loved pointing fingers at the world, but too full of himself, along with something else, to admit his own flaws, one of them being that he’s apparently a pathological liar.
Now, it seems that conservatives, for the most part, are trying to distance themselves from the mess that is Bill O’Reilly, especially when he’s going around threatening those who had the balls to call him out. MSN reports:
The editors in chief at Mother Jones this morning sent this email/letter to Fox News Channel’s primetime star Bill O’Reilly and one of the network’s communications execs, saying it is concerned for its Washington bureau chief’s safety after O’Reilly called for him to be “in the kill zone.”
“Mother Jones writer David Corn yesterday responded to Bill O’Reilly’s comments on the magazine’s piece about O’Reilly’s claims regarding his work for CBS News covering the Falklands war, saying “A discerning reader of Deadline can easily see that Bill O’Reilly is hiding behind name-calling, rather than dealing with the substance of the matter,” and that Mother Jones sent O’Reilly a long list of detailed questions about his comments regarding his experience as a war reporter. ” He and Fox News declined to respond. Instead, O’Reilly hurls invective, seemingly to distract,” Corn told Deadline.
“It’s a total hit piece,” Bill O’Reilly told Deadline about the report Corn wrote in Mother Jones about O’Reilly’s claims in re his coverage of Falklands war. In the post, Corn said some of O’Reilly’s stories “don’t withstand scrutiny — even claiming he acted heroically in a war zone that he apparently never set foot in.”
O’Reilly blasted the piece to other news outlets as well, and is continuing to do so today — during which he has been quoted by at least one outlet, TV Newser, as saying he expected those reporters with whom he spoke to “verify what I’m saying, because it’s easily verifiable, then I expect David Corn to be in the kill zone.”
Wow! And the scariest part is that O’Reilly’s supporters and Fox News disciples will be angry enough not only to agree, but will find ways to carry it out. So yes, I too would be worried for David Corn.
The bottom line is that those who worship the insidiousness and caveman-like mentalities of modern-day conservatism who believe in personal responsibility need to practice what they preach and take accountability for one of their own who’s going off the deep end with lies and anger management problems and not blame everyone else for their fuck ups. Rather, O’Reilly needs to man up and own his mistakes. His reputation has always been shady, but now there is proof. It is not a liberal plot to undermine the “purity” of America and go after a proud American. This is what real journalism is about, going after corruption. And Bill O’Reilly, through the years has proven just how corrupt he is.
— END OF THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN SNOWMAN AND BROTHA WOLF —
(1) – We did an extensive analysis of leftist debate evasions here. Search for “Compendium of reasons for editing content from the RGI.” In the rather long post, it’s about three-quarters of the way down. That compendium lists all the ways the RGI, and the left in general, duck and avoid actually talking about an issue. It’s a list of things they do in writing, but they do the same things is speaking as well.