The Mirrored Hall of Empty Values

I've often argued that there's a big problem when "civility" is considered a higher value than "the truth." But sometimes it's just funny. For complete info see the links; the fun comes in upon the discovery that Roger Ailes is apparently a big meanie, as is Steve Gilliard:

Lots of bloggers are peeved about my Times article. I wanted to make sure their voices are heard here, too, so here are the links: Eschaton, MyDD and Pandagon.

Others don't deserve to be heard because they don't know how to debate an issue with civility and dignity. But for the sake of being complete, I'll link to them as well: Roger Ailes and The News Blog.

They "don't deserve to be heard"? Says who, Fauntleroy? Are they wrong? The word "douchebag" means you're incorrect on the facts?

The business about "debating an issue" is a nice touch, since this is not really an issue. It's just something Glover made up.

I frankly find the tone of Glover's article smarmy in the extreme. There's no ethical problem with anything any of the bloggers he discusses have done for any candidate. But he pretends there's a problem:

I do think it's interesting that some bloggers made a name for themselves by fighting the establishment and billing themselves as revolutionaries but at the same time are willing to work for campaigns. That, to me, is part of the establishment -- at least in a broad sense. And that is the point of my article.

That's the point of his article? "That band, like, totally sold out, dude, their first record was OK but then they went like all commercial"? That's the point? Oh brother.

UPDATE: I see that I, too, have been classified by the National Journal as one who does "not deserve to be heard." Huzzah!

Comments

[Auguste]

"Also, they called me names."

[Steve]

I can't help feeling something's missing from this post. Perhaps,

P.S. Ballfuck!

[Phoenix Woman]

The English translation of Danny Glover's whiny-ass response:

"Gilliard and Ailes just took the facts of the situation and used them to beat my ass like a gong! My only recourse is to play the Civility Card, since I have no way in hell of winning on the facts."

[idlemind]

For the record, Gilliard called them "assclowns" and "cretins." Not "douchebags." I think he showed considerable restraint.

[plunge]

I dunno, Gilliard IS an excitable douchebag, IMHO. He's the nutjob who decided that a good way to criticize black Republicans was to paint them up in Sambo makeup... and then throw a hissyfit when Democratic politicians didn't think that was such a respectable thing that they'd want to be associated with. Then, suddenly, for objecting to that, they became cowards and appeasers... you know, for daring to think something coming out of Gilliard's great workshop of inspiration was maybe stupid and out of line.

[defenestrati]

"billing themselves as revolutionaries but at the same time are willing to work for campaigns."
-------
Work on a campaign? Heaven forfend! Were they supposed to storm the US Capitol with light sabres and piss balloons?

[SFAW]

Splunge -
Not quite how it occurred, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good bashing.

And, of course, if Steve was uncivil (or incivil) regarding one issue, that TOTALLY invalidates his point(s) on every other issue from now until the world ends.

On the other hand, if you're a Rethuglican, you can be wrong on EVERY issue to date, and still be given credence by the MSM and the rest of the "let's be civil" crowd.

[Ripley]

Others don't deserve to be heard because they don't know how to debate an issue with civility and dignity.

That's the issue, right there. Notice he doesn't say, "because they're wrong"? A well-reasoned, 'civil' post draws less attention than a balls-to-the-wall donkey-punching of The Man and the knee-biters who support Him. If the Lefty bloggers would just tone it down a bit, no one would pay attention to them/us and people would go back to reading the truly valid opinions of the 'God's own' boys and girls in DC.

Think about Madonna - people weren't complaining about her music as much as they complained about her hitting the stage in her underwear. It's the same with bloggers - people are ignoring the message because of the scary packaging. Is that a reason to tone it down? I don't think so.

[Mnemosyne]

Gilliard is good at invective, but he doesn't know shit about elections. Unless Freddy Ferrer, "the next mayor of New York," was secretly sworn in but is letting Michael Bloomberg act as a front for him?

[roger]

congrats on your own wonderful "classification."

[Sceptic]

As far as I am concerned your NR label as "unworthy" is an endorsement to put your site in my favorites box.

NR is outdated and compromised their opinion means squat.

[Mark Gisleson]

For someone as prolific as Gilliard, I think his track record is pretty spot on. For one thing, you NEVER see anyone take him on over Iraq-related issues, and I have yet to see anyone successfully critique him on race relations, although many have sputtered on about his offenses despite America's time-honored custom of letting "ethnic" groups rip on their own, which is pretty much all Steve's doing in that department.

[spencer]

Steve Gilliard's electoral predictions pretty much suck. On that, we can all agree.

Now, can somebody please remind me how that relates to anything in this thread?

[flory]

*sigh*

I love blogwars. It's been at least a week since we had a good, rip-roaring blogwar.

And, of course, since Steve Gilliard called a local election wrong, there's no reason to ever listen to him again -- on anything!!!

I do hope Prof Altmouse will be chiming in on this issue.....

[Thers]

I admit that I've not really followed all of these dark scandals in Steve Gilliard's past, but as fascinating as they seem, no, they're not really relevant.

Flory, has indeed weighed in, fairly incisively.

[snuh]

the national review and the national journal are different publications.

[Thers]

snuh, whoops, was updating in a hurry... fixed.

[flory]

Flory, has indeed weighed in, fairly incisively.

My day is complete.

I do find it fascinating that she has the same confusion regarding National Journal/National Review as you.....

[Max Renn]

Gilliard is good at invective, but he doesn't know shit about elections. Unless Freddy Ferrer, "the next mayor of New York," was secretly sworn in but is letting Michael Bloomberg act as a front for him?

Posted by: Mnemosyne | December 04, 2006 at 10:47 AM

Well, he did predict that Ferrer's alienation of the black community in NY would lead to Ferrer being beaten like a rented mule. So what's your point?