Thursday, March 11, 2010

How the "Progressive" Left Handles Dissent

Readers of the Nexus must certainly recall a post from yesterday taking Chickenwanker CK to task for her approach to the recent Eileen Olexiuk revelations -- very directly suggesting that the CBC ought to have suppressed the story.

CK gamely attempted to rebut with this little nugget of brilliance:
"Perhaps it's also time for you to be truthful, like your other neo-con friends. Just admit that Muslims don't count and that the torture must go on...we all know that's what you're thinking."
Leave it up to one of the Chickenwankers to retaliate with one of the most inflammatory -- and baseless -- accusations imaginable.

For her follow-up act, CK managed to muster this:
Which is kind of hilarious when one thinks about it. After all, in contrast to her own site, the comment policy at the Nexus is remarkably open -- only one intellectually-useless tool has ever been banned at the Nexus, and that was merely because he never has anything to contribute.

As opposed to the Chickenwanker way, which is to ban anyone who dares stand up to you and win.

Whereas when one's dealing with the Chickenwankers, they'll do you one better when banning you from their comment sections doesn't silence dissent sufficiently -- they'll deny you the "privilege" of reading at all!

Which leads one to beg the obvious question:

What's the problem with that, again?


  1. I admire you effort to deprogramme the left. I wish you well. The number of progressive who tolerate free speech on their blogs rarely last. In most cases the clown car brigade arrives to land insults and personal attacks.

  2. That's kind of the crux of the matter, isn't it?

    They'll whine and cry to high heaven -- they'll wail and gnash their teeth -- and insist that conservatives aren't welcome in their circles because all we allegedly do is insult them.

    And yet it seems like every other time one tries to engage with them constructively, their designated trolls will show up and fling insults at you, and when you retaliate, they treat you like the bad guys.

    It's like a grade school teacher who doesn't want to be caught picking on a student they don't like, so they let their classmates do it. Then, when that student stands up for themselves, they get sent to the principal's office.

    It seems like some of these people have grown up to realize that there isn't a principal's office they can send someone to anymore, so they invented one and called it the Human Rights Commission. But when it comes down to the mundane, day-to-day stuff, they'll just organize a pile-on, then excuse themselves for it.

    I'd still like to hear CK's explanation for her stance on the Olexiuk story itself. One almost wants to think that she doesn't think that these stories should simply be suppressed. But she won't defend her comments reasonably, so what is one to think?

    I'd sure like to hear it from CK herself. Or perhaps any other Chickenwanker who's ready to break their silence.


Post your comments, and join the discussion!

Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.

All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.