Thursday, October 25, 2007

Polling Question

The latest discussion at Wigderson's site has brought an issue that I have been mulling over for a few weeks to a head. I wasn't going to put up this post for a few more weeks, but well, might as well strike while the iron is hot.

Whallah! was created and is devoted to point out and rebut the poorly though out statements and the wrong-headed positions that is offered by McBride. Some people categorize Whallah! as a sexist site, as that McBride is a woman. Whallah! doesn't care about her gender, as it is her ideology that is so offensive and needs to be addressed. (I wonder what their position would be if McBride was a man. By throwing her gender into the issue is sexist in itself. Much like they decry someone on the left for playing the race card.)

While Whallah! is not sexist, per se, it has been neglectful. There has been only the occasional foray into covering the person who helped bring McBride to the forefront, Charlie Sykes. There has been little, if any coverage of the new McSykes, the McBride replacement, Charlie Lite, or Mark Bellowing. All of these people are able to be just as egregiously disingenuous as McBride, and do not allow the same type of access that most blogsites allow. A voice is needed to counter these people. Should Whallah! become an aggregate of counterpoints to these people?

My question to you, gentle reader, and Team Whallah (unless the only readers are the same as those on Team Whallah!, which would make it redundant) is whether Whallah! should continue its sole devotion to correcting McBride, or should it expand to cover all of the right wing public media: Sykes, Belling, Harris, PaddyMac et al? Please note that it would only be to these public media figures, and not to the entire right side of the blogosphere. There are other venues for those people.

17 comments:

  1. By all means; and let's have sites devoted to monitoring the deep thoughts and legal stylings of Mike Plaisted; the identity of "illusory tenant", and "capper"... the conflicts of "father of the year" Bill Christofferson...

    We should start writing about the use of the "CD" word to refer tio women. How long before we see the "N" word?

    I think it's time that the anonymous lefties get some of their own medicine. Who wants to start? Let's start with a title....

    ReplyDelete
  2. So illusory is a lawyer. I like the idea of a site devoted to monitoring his legal work, and his constant use of obscenities and slurs.

    How about a logic check for Plaisted?

    How about a truth check for McGuigan?

    ReplyDelete
  3. As a woman, I am deeply offended by the use of the C-word to describe a woman, any woman... even someone I disagree with on a daily basis. Is this what we've come to? This is an embarassment. capper? other side? bullock? Please tell me you don't condone this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Meanwhile, we at Whallah continue to allow anyone to make stupid comments, and allow them to do so anonymously.

    Anony 9:20 Go for it.

    Anony 10:03 Go for it.

    Anony 10:06 IT's comment was in a side comment to a friend. It was not in the body of the post, which would have wrong. I'm betting what you say amongst friends isn't always complimentary.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I also disagree with her on a daily basis -- but I find even more disagreeable, at the least, the use of the "c" word. And Illusory Tenant's excuses are not even worth disagreing with, as they are illogical and border on the ridiculous.

    First, get a different dictionary, IT. Here's what Merriam Webster says, for example, about the word:
    "1 usually obscene : the female genital organs; 2 usually disparaging & obscene."

    As if anyone of any intelligence and education or even street smarts -- all of which IT has exhibited in other instances -- wouldn't know that the word has many meanings, almost all of them offensive.

    Going to defend the "n" word next, based on some carefully selected sole definition among many? Or give it the Hill-Thomas test: How would you feel if someone said it to your sister or mother?

    As for the ridiculous excuse that the comment was made in the comments and not the post, that is counter to posts on this blog made about McBride's comments. It is a desperate ploy to provide yourself cover, IT.

    So it was a stupid slip, IT, and actually has some of us on McBride's side. Admit it, apologize, and move on -- to a discussion, for example, of whether she really is a feminist, by the term's denotative definition and its connotative meanings.

    That could be fun.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. To answer your QUESTION...Yes, PLEASE go after the rest of the racist, sexist,ignorant jerks who populate the am side of the dial.

    I for one will be reading!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Illusory Tenant made a bad decision when he used the language that he did. He made the situation worse with his attempt to rationalize it. To his credit, he has offered an apology for the offense verbage.

    I have removed two posts in this comment thread due to their egregious and unnecessary continuation of what shouldn't have happened in the first place.

    The first comment removed has been edited at my discretion and what remains is:

    Wrong. Illusory tenant is defending the C-word:

    http://illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2007/10/buy-fucking-dictionary.html


    The second anonymous comment was removed due to an unnecessary and inappropriate personal attack on Ms. McBride.

    All readers are welcome to comment on Whallah!, but please keep your comments appropriate, and withhold from the personal attacks. Ms. McBride's personal history is common knowledge, but it is petty and off the point to be egregious about using it against her. Please try to keep your comments based on the argument, not the person making it.

    Thank you. And a special thank you for anonymous 6:36 pm for at least answering the question I had asked in the post.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "C-word", bad, "going after" those who need going after, good. Any-hoo, I've enjoyed your blog, multiple targets should make it even more enjoyable. FIRE FIRE FIRE!

    ReplyDelete
  11. By all means, continue to slime, rant, and smear. Go after the black guy, the Jewish guy, make fun of their names, their families, their children. Go for it. Spend all of your time on it, if you like. And, anyway, that will be alot more productive than coming with ideas, making arguments or that other dumb stuff.

    And remember, IT, capper, other side, you will ALWAYS be the guys who thought it was OK to call a woman a C---. (The only reason you cowards backed off was because you got called on it.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. You guys have done to discredit the the rest of us progressives in the last 12 hours than the winguts like McBride and Sykes could do in a year. Nice work. What's the equivalent of the C--- word for guys?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I just stumbled across the hullaballoo in Folkbum...

    Wow!

    What ever happened to respectfully disagreeing with people? Having rational discourse? What's with the visceral hatred of individuals who happen to think differently than you?

    This internet blog thing is fabulous for getting information that one wouldn't normally see, but the personal attacks are making all of this nothing more than dreck.

    Neither side of the blogosphere has the monopoly on moral virtue, but most of the completely personal crap comes from the lefties. And for the record, the "C" word is as atomic as the "N" word is.

    Clean it up guys or you look like but idiots. Hard to try to get your point across that way.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Give it a rest. My name, btw, can be found by going to my site.

    You know what, the thing about IT is he had the integrity to admit he made a mistake and apologize.

    When was the last time, EVER, that a conservative apologized for anything?

    ReplyDelete
  15. What in the world is your obsession with this woman? Seriously ... What is it about her that threatens you so much that you devote an entire blog to nothing but trying to discredit her? Weird! ... really really weird!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kind of similar to the conservative obsession with Hillary Clinton. Weird. Really weird.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Kind of similar to the conservative obsession with Hillary Clinton.
    Tim, I think you mean "the Hildebeast Hitlary KKKlinton," don't you?

    ReplyDelete