Saturday, April 10, 2010

Let's Discuss "Conclusive Evidence", Shall We?

This author actually intends to let Enormous Thriving Plants proprietor Audrey II's decision to flee debate go with a minimum of further commentary.

But if there's one thing this author is not prepared to do, it's allow Audrey to reinvent old arguments she lost to pretend that she won.

First, one should peruse this particular thread wherein Audrey can pick out nothing in this video that demonstrates that a Tea Party protester intentionally spit on congressman Emanuel Cleaver.

It allegedly takes place at 0:13 of the video.

-Here's a video still from the video in question:
The accused can clearly be seen, hands cupped over his mouth, shouting vociferously at Cleaver as he passes by. From Cleaver's reaction it's clear that something has happened -- as Andy Ostray points out -- from Cleaver's word, he has been spit upon, or as Cleaver subsequently phrased it, the protester in question allowed his saliva to hit Cleaver's face.

The saliva on Cleaver's face should not be in question. Andrew Breitbart offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who could produce not video evidence of this spit, as Crooks and Liars and the Huffington Post have claimed, but for hard video evidence that the protesters hurled racial epithets at the congressmen:
"I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point."
Not only have they failed to produce hard video evidence of this -- the actual subject of the offer -- but they've also failed to produce conclusive evidence that a tea party protester intentionally spit on Cleaver.

Yet Audrey continues to pretend that the evidence conclusively shows intent -- despite that she can't point to a single instant from that video that would support this claim.

So perhaps Audrey simply doesn't know what conclusive evidence is. So, one supposes, she'll simply have to be shown some.

Consider a more recent episode in which supporters of Senator Harry Reid (he of the "negro dialect" remark) were videotaped throwing eggs at a bus carrying protesters to a Tea Party protest against Reid. Another counter-protester also threatened Breitbart.

The video clearly shows eggs striking the bus, coming from the direction of the pro-Reid counter-protesters.

While that's far from 100% conclusive, they did manage to produce a photo of one of the egg-throwers midway through his throwing motion:
(It's pretty clear the counter-protester in question throws like a girl.)

So, let's compare:

We have a video of a tea party protester shouting at Congressman Emanuel Cleaver through cupped hands -- shouting before, during, and after the actual spittle even by Cleaver's own account.

On the other hand, we have video of pro-Harry Reid counter-protesters throwing eggs at a bus carring Tea Party protesters, and a photograph of one of them with an egg in the palm of his hand.

One of these things is not like the other. One of these examples is clearly conclusive, and the other is not.

It would be amusing to hear Audrey insist that the counter-protesters in question were "accidentally" throwing the eggs. Unlike Audrey's Ostroy-esque insistence that the notion that Cleaver was sprayed with saliva mid-bellow is ridiculous (an argument that relies on viewing the events in question through a conspiratorial mental lens), that actually would be ridiculous.

It's become clear that it's Audrey, not Andrew Breitbart, who is constructing an alternate reality. It's clear that Audrey subscribes to a "truthi-alty" -- an intellectually selfish conception of the world in which she's not only entitled to her own opinion, but entitled to her own reality.

No one should expect Audrey to acknowledge any of this. After all, she made the decision to run away from debate for a reason.


  1. If I might intrude...

    The problem with your blogging strategy is one familiar to every epidemiologist.

    Essentially you like baiting other bloggers to elicit the most furious response possible, with language or behaviour tailored to push the particular button of a particular blogger (the "I WON, you LOSE" maneuver, for example, seems to drive Audrey right up a tree). To counterbalance that, you remain theatrically civil in certain venues to illustrate that you can, and to keep the "It's not reasonable li'l me, it's THEM!" line of defense open. It's always seemed a little pointless to me, but entertaining.

    It requires certain environmental conditions to succeed, however.

    You have to remain a presence on a certain number of blogs - no host, no opportunity to annoy.

    You also have to sustain the pretense of interest in discussion with the folks willing to engage you reasonably, while there were still a few around; otherwise the game breaks down, and you confirm that your real interest is just in trolling.

    And finally, you have to maintain a site that's a bit more than interminable recapitulations of your - ahem - "interactions" on other sites. Especially when you return again and again to obsessive trashings of long-dead threads and non-issues.

    You've now gotten yourself banned at pretty much every site where real discussion happens on the left (yeah, yeah, cue knee-jerk scorn about "discussion" and "left".) Since you can't post there, you'll no longer be a topic of discussion.

    You've alienated any blogger who'd try to disagree with you, and you're left pretty much with Mahmood, Maria, and Canadian Sense (whose usual contribution to the discussion seems to be "Great Post!")

    What an epidemiologist would have told you is pretty basic. Successful parasites or infectious agent leave enough of the host population alive to sustain themselves. Your whole blogging raison d'etre depended on infection and inflammation, but not complete isolation - and that's what you've achieved.

    I found the cycle fascinating, and I'll continue to lurk. Can't wait to see where this goes next - a most interesting case study in blog dynamics. Carry on.

  2. You're wrong Balbull. The sites that have banned Nexus read like a who's who from the cast of Cuckoo's Nest. Sites that Nex engages, "remain theatrically civil in certain venues" are sites with some quality and depth.

    The CuckooNester's are nothing more than regurgitating sycophants of the ConsLuvHarperitesWhiteHatemongeringChristiansthatHateBrownPeopleBrownShirtRacistBigotedRedneckScumKKKer's party.

    NexDude has the ability to either elevate his game or get in the Cesspool with the CuckooNester's and call them on their bullshit...and they don't like being called out on their bullshit(hypocrisy), do they?

  3. Bingo. I'm not sure if Balbulican could even possibly have that more wrong.

    I'm not sure which Balbulican posted this particular comment: the reasonable and intelligent Balbulican, or Balbulican the shameless left-wing-polemicist-at-all-costs.

    I'm not sure if that's the Balbulican of the courage to stand up to Robert Peter John Day and set his own commenting policy, or the Balbulican of the "I'll treat anti-abortion thinking as a sexual fetish, actual psychologoy be damned" fame.

    The point being that there seems to me to be two Balbulicans, and one of them is totally out to lunch.

    First off, Balbulican would be confused about a few things. If he had read the "Primer on the Lies" post, he would realize two things:

    First off, it isn't me who's doing the baiting -- it's been Audrey.

    Secondly, Balbulican has clearly missed what I consider to be a policy of allowing debating partners to set the tone, then indulging them in that tone.

    I suppose Balbulican has missed out on a key detail:

    -Those who have been eager to join the Chickenwankers have been a veritable "worst of the worst" of the Canadian blogosphere. More interestingly, of those 9 bloggers, five of them were blogs at which I had rarely commented.

    -Four of them were blogs at which I had never commented before they made the decision to ban.

    Moreover, if I were the only one who had encountered a hostile reception at ETP while intially being tremendously civil, Balbulican would have a point.

    But then how would he explain the reception that the Public Eye received at ETP?

    He was implicitly civil with them, and Audrey feigned civility in return. She also allowed the rest of her comments to savagely insult him.

    Which brings one to a key question for Balbulican: who needs to savagely insult dissenting voices when they have a lot of other people who have (temporarily) inhabited your comment section so they'll do it for you?

    I guess it's unsurprising to me that Balbulican is so eager to write Audrey a free pass for that kind of conduct.

    Just like he's writing Audrey a free pass for losing and, let's face it, unless Balbulican himself would like to try and point out a point in the alleged smoking gun video that demonstrates that the protester in question intentionally spit on Emanuel Cleaver, he's just going to have to accept that Audrey lost that argument -- in turn ultimately precipitating her cowardly decision to flee further debate -- and accept that the evidence for the dastardly deeds of various left-wing interests is far more conclusive.

    At the end of the day, however, we're going to find out that the joke is on Audrey. She seems to think that her decision to join the Chickenwankers is going to be a gateway to blogging success, and that she's going to be awash in readers and commenters.

    It's pretty clear that hasn't been the case. And while Robbie Day may toss her a few links in attempt to try to contradict this particular statement, he'll forget about her in a hurry, leaving her lingering in the kind of obscurity that's reserved for bloggers who have never been any damn good.

    Whereas my blogging name is made: banned by the worst of the worst left-wing hate blogs since 2010.

    And banned why?

    Because I had the temerity to take on their leader and beat him.

  4. Smiles.

    Which Balbulican?

    A basically friendly guy who:
    - understands your game
    - is telling it's self defeating and may in fact be at an end
    - knows that you can't and will never acknowledge that, and doesn't expect you to.

    I wish you luck, my son - you have successfully purified your audience to the point that there's no-one left. Bad tactical error. Enjoy.

  5. Well, we have our answer.

    Which Balbulican?

    The one who:

    -Ignores evidence.
    -Twists the very concepts he envokes.
    -Perpetually writes left-wingers a free pass so long as they're left-wingers.

  6. Zooooom! goes Balbull...typical Balbull drive-by...meh, he is what he is and that's that.

  7. "It is what I say it is because I say it is" seems to have become the modus operandi of the left right now.

    That this particular post proved necessary in the first place was more than evidence enough of that.


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.