KeVron gets a much-deserved spanking
The vaccilations of various left-wing commentators over the tasering of Andrew Meyer has apparently continued and unsurprisingly (considering the source) intersects with us here at the Nexus.
In a recent post at Canadian Cynic's blog, Pretty Shaved Ape (reportedly, also known as Lindsay Stewart, a Waterloo-area actor/waiter -- read: failed actor) has chosen to address a disagreement between Dr. Dawg and the ever-petulant and mindless KevRon.
To put it shortly, KevRon -- and if anyone doubts his overall objectability, he recently suggested we "tase Wanda Watkins and her grief" -- accuses Dawg of being a "phrawd". (Apparently, he isn't literate enough to know what letter "fraud" starts with.)
In a number of complaints lodged, predictably, at his hero's lair, KeVron complains about the larger implications of the Meyer incident for "liberals/progressives/Democrats":
"...Phrawd's confabulation puts progressives/liberals/democrats in the indefensible position of having to insist that sparky and his kind should be "tasered for running over his time at a campus meeting", to which, of course, none would ever agree..."Naturally, there are a few problems with this statement. First off, KeVron is legitimately neither a liberal nor a progressive, although he may claim to be a Democrat so long as that remains merely an indicator of how one votes.
Secondly, while there are a few individuals who have used the Meyer tasering as a rhetorical weapon against the Democrats, it's also rather unfortunate that this isn't entirely unfair.
Simply put: what was John Kerry's reaction to the tasering? "Hey! Stop that!" would have been both simple, and reasonable. Instead, Kerry can audibly be heard in the background of the video continuing to speak to the audience as if Andrew Meyer wasn't being tased right before his eyes.
That's not the reaction one should expect from a man who could (many would probably agree should) have been president of the United States.
In all fairness, however, president George Bush remained quiet about the largely politically-motivated crucifixion of the Dixie Chicks, despite the fact that it happened over a longer period of time. Republicans are clearly no better in regards to defending people's freedom of speech.
Finally, one considers that KeVron himself has taken almost precisely the same stance that he decries in this particular statement, and one would wonder what to think, if they weren't aware of the fact that KeVron rarely thinks at all.
In the end, it's very unfortunate: Dr. Dawg, a legitimate progressive, has managed to make himself into an ideological enemy of the Hateful Left, as led (at least on this side of the 49th parallel) by Canadian Cynic, but definitely embodied in KeVron (who resides south of it).
What was his crime? Questioning the so-called "infinite wisdom" of Cynic and Martin Rayner.
And while Lindsay Stewart may be far from being the belle of the ball in regards to reasonable political discourse (consider the recent ambivalence over "weepy", "unimportant" Peter MacKay's recent Afghan ordeal, or that he (she?) shares a blog with a spectacularly psychologically unbalanced individual who recently, in print, wished death on another individual), one at least has to respect his (her?) ability to make a sound ethical judgement pertaining to the use of tasers.
That's a bit of wisdom he (she?) could stand to share with his (her?) blogging mate. Probably right in the midst of planning his (her?) next performance of Hamlet, which will probably be held in the walk-in freezer of the Wendy's he (she?) probably works at.
As for KeVron, one shouldn't worry much about him: the spanking will build some desperately-needed character.
You know, I know a woman who has been in hiding from an abusive ex-spouse for years now. She's terrified her name, location and friends will get out into the wrong hands, lest she and her new family be hunted down.
ReplyDeleteWhich is to say, some people have very good reason for keeping their names off the net, even those who disagree with you politically. Get some perspective, Patrick. There are consequences to your words beyond the sheltered confines of your shabby little blog-wars.
To pre-empt the obvious retorts (if you post this at all); no, I am not saying that PSA is necessarily at risk of violence and no, I'm not endorsing any position taken by any other blog, and yes, I fully expect a reply smugly dismissing my point on the basis of either my blog or my own anonymity. Nonetheless, posting names in this context is not unlike a mafia goon saying "I know where you live," with all the intimidation implied therein. If you've another reason for doing this, beyond the ammunition it gave you for some cheap shots, I'd love to hear it.
(By the way - you know what would make that failed actor crack really hit home? If you called him/her ugly as well, and maybe added a "nanananana booboo.")
Matty, Matty.
ReplyDeleteI'm willing to bet that anyone who has good reasons to want to remain anonymous would probably avoid attacking people.
If people such as Canadian Cynic, Martin Rayner, or Lindsay Stewart want to attack me from behind a veil of anonymity, I don't feel obligated to allow them the advantage of anonymity.
These people feel pretty advantaged when attacking others because they believe their own identities will never be drug into it. In the case of at least two such individuals now, they're very wrong.
And you're precisely right, Matt! I am going to dismiss your complaint due to the anonymity you yourself cower behind.
In a sense, it's a very miserly practice. Those of us who blog under our real names share a good deal more of ourselves that our anonymous counterparts do.
It's really just a shame that, at the end of the day, when these people can't find a way to attack my ideas, they settle for attacking me.
On that note, I've put up with worse. I can take it. But I'm also very eager to find out of they can.
Poor you, having your feelings hurt, and now must expose bloggers everywhere for the meanies they are!!
ReplyDelete*rolls eyes*
I suppose this counts as an "attack"
*yawn*
I make no excuses for either defending myself or exposing cowards for the same kind of ridicule they would fling at others.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like it, cry harder. That'll totally help.
Who said I was crying?
ReplyDeleteClearly your ego is getting the better of you.
Publishing PSA's name was such a childish thing to do, Patrick.
ReplyDeleteWho the hell are you stating that you're better than anonymous bloggers just because you use your real name.
Again, I don't care *who* said something--I care that what they said is truth.
And you're so far from it--that's why you're mentioned by CC and others.
Putting PSA's name out there was petty and vindictive and didn't accomplish anythign besides inflating your already oversized ego.
Get off that high horse, jackass.
"I'm willing to bet that anyone who has good reasons to want to remain anonymous would probably avoid attacking people."
ReplyDeleteAnd what causes you to act like a jackass and attack back?
Heh.
ReplyDeleteSpare me the theory of "Canadian Cynic's just rage". We've seen him direct it at at targets such as Wanda Watkins, whose only crime was asking people to support the war in Afghansitan, and having a son killed in that war.
It amuses me the extent to which you people want to defend that piece of slime, then attack anyone who comes after him if they step outside the rules you people set in order to try and give yourselves and advantage.
There's a reason why most of you people have so very little credibility to anyone whose head isn't lodged firmly up their asses.
For example, Saskboy: if you want to come in here and complain about the fact that I would return CC and Ms Stewart's attacks, then why don't you go and address the source of the attacks to begin with?
That would seem reasonable to most people. Trust me when I tell you that you just aren't as comfortable on that high horse as you'd like to think you are.
An actor? That explains the instability...
ReplyDelete