Savour it deeply
As is so often the case with the terminally intellectually-cowardly Martin Rayner, one supposes that his most recent post -- a rebuttal to a previous post here -- will just need to be tucked away in the "truth hurts" files.
At the end of the day, regardless of whatever excuses he may offer, Mr Rayner settled for controversy mongering on a day when a discussion about how and why Canada's aboriginals continue to live in horrific poverty should have been welcome to anyone.
But it really just goes to reinforce the known truth of Mr Rayner's character: he prefers empty words, particularly at a time when ideas -- the very things he is so terrified of -- are what really matter.
So he can continue his ineffectual attempts at muck-raking and ridicule. Martin Rayner has had countless chances to step up to the plate and live up to his self-proclaimed billing.
Instead, he waved the white flag -- something those that are on to him are unlikely to ever forget, even if the group-thinking weasels he surrounds himself with will bend over backwards to pretend differently.
Showing posts with label Intellectual cowardice - Martin Rayner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intellectual cowardice - Martin Rayner. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
You Knew That It Was Bound to Happen...
Marty Rayner cries "no mas"!
When addressing Martin Rayner (aka the fallaciously-pseudonymed "Red Tory"), one has always had to appreciate his unique talent for living in a fantasy world.
He imagines himself to be an "intemperate" -- yet jumps on the back of every inflated pseudo-controversy he can find. He pretends to be an "original thinker" -- yet echoes the hateful bile offered by his lord and master at the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sychophantic Groupthink. He pretends to be an intellectual -- then stalwartly refuses to ever debate a real issue.
Writing from a personal note, I recieved a rather unique birthday present today -- a tacit admission from Martin Rayner that he simply isn't up to the task of actually debating an issue:
Apparently, debating real issues is "bullshit". So what if thousands upon thousands of aboriginal Canadians continue to live in desperate, griding poverty on reserves despite the billions of dollars the federal government spends per annum to try and alleviate it?
Better to call Pierre Poilievre a douchebag for even daring bring up the idea that maybe, just maybe, money isn't enough to solve that problem.
And if someone dares challenge you to discuss the real issue -- the poverty, and the people living in it -- well, fuck that. Fuck them. Better to turn your back on those thousands of people living in poverty than to ever dirty your hands ever talking about how to solve that problem.
Instead, Rayner tramples the very principles he claims to stand for, and does so while other people suffer under the blight of an issue that he insists we dare not even talk about.
It's really almost a shame. But if Martin Rayner wants to live as a chariacture of his own personal fantasies, no one's ever going to stop him from doing that.
What more do you expect of a guy who deleted the previous incarnation of his blog lock, stock and barrel?
You certainly don't expect a discussion of facts. We're reminded that this is an individual who thinks that facts are below him, and dispenses with them whenever at all possible.
Take, for example, the old topic of the Nexus' readership. Marty insists that nobody reads the Nexus. Yet the facts state otherwise.
That's an awful lot of "nobodies". But then again, who needs facts when you have ideology?
Who needs to actually adhere to the principles of the noble tradition of red toryism when you can simply trample it to death while insisting that you don't need to behave like a red tory if you can only claim you embody that tradition?
It's hard to feel bad about being banned from the website of an individual who has built up his blog and his reputation off hatemongering, intellectual dishonesty, intellectual laziness, and outright philosophical fraud.
If Marty thinks that banning me from his halsoscan will change anything he's dead wrong.
At the Nexus, I'll always be here. And I'll never stop pointing out every fallacy and dishonesty offered by Martin Rayner. If he wants to indulge his fantasies within the comfort of the Martin Rayner/Canadian Cynic echo chamber of politically-motivated hatred, he's certainly free to do that.
It's more than merely a personal hobby -- it's a public service.
When addressing Martin Rayner (aka the fallaciously-pseudonymed "Red Tory"), one has always had to appreciate his unique talent for living in a fantasy world.
He imagines himself to be an "intemperate" -- yet jumps on the back of every inflated pseudo-controversy he can find. He pretends to be an "original thinker" -- yet echoes the hateful bile offered by his lord and master at the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sychophantic Groupthink. He pretends to be an intellectual -- then stalwartly refuses to ever debate a real issue.
Writing from a personal note, I recieved a rather unique birthday present today -- a tacit admission from Martin Rayner that he simply isn't up to the task of actually debating an issue:
"So let me get this straight. You write long, pretentious articles and post them on a shitty, broke-ass little blog that precious few people read and nobody comments on, then you skitter over here and start name-calling.
I think you should seek some counseling. Or better yet, get a life? a girl/boyfriend, or whatever. Guess there's not much shakin' out there in Saskatchewan, huh?
Go pester someone who gives a shit.
p.s. You're banned. I don't have time for your bullshit."
Apparently, debating real issues is "bullshit". So what if thousands upon thousands of aboriginal Canadians continue to live in desperate, griding poverty on reserves despite the billions of dollars the federal government spends per annum to try and alleviate it?
Better to call Pierre Poilievre a douchebag for even daring bring up the idea that maybe, just maybe, money isn't enough to solve that problem.
And if someone dares challenge you to discuss the real issue -- the poverty, and the people living in it -- well, fuck that. Fuck them. Better to turn your back on those thousands of people living in poverty than to ever dirty your hands ever talking about how to solve that problem.
Instead, Rayner tramples the very principles he claims to stand for, and does so while other people suffer under the blight of an issue that he insists we dare not even talk about.
It's really almost a shame. But if Martin Rayner wants to live as a chariacture of his own personal fantasies, no one's ever going to stop him from doing that.
What more do you expect of a guy who deleted the previous incarnation of his blog lock, stock and barrel?
You certainly don't expect a discussion of facts. We're reminded that this is an individual who thinks that facts are below him, and dispenses with them whenever at all possible.
Take, for example, the old topic of the Nexus' readership. Marty insists that nobody reads the Nexus. Yet the facts state otherwise.
That's an awful lot of "nobodies". But then again, who needs facts when you have ideology?
Who needs to actually adhere to the principles of the noble tradition of red toryism when you can simply trample it to death while insisting that you don't need to behave like a red tory if you can only claim you embody that tradition?
It's hard to feel bad about being banned from the website of an individual who has built up his blog and his reputation off hatemongering, intellectual dishonesty, intellectual laziness, and outright philosophical fraud.
If Marty thinks that banning me from his halsoscan will change anything he's dead wrong.
At the Nexus, I'll always be here. And I'll never stop pointing out every fallacy and dishonesty offered by Martin Rayner. If he wants to indulge his fantasies within the comfort of the Martin Rayner/Canadian Cynic echo chamber of politically-motivated hatred, he's certainly free to do that.
It's more than merely a personal hobby -- it's a public service.
Friday, April 11, 2008
The Final Refuge of the Intellectual Coward
Apparently, some denizens of the left-wing blogosphere have no idea what "lies and fabrications" are
Readers of the Nexus may recall what the first refuge of the intellectual coward is.
And today Martin Rayner has reminded us what the last refuge of the intellectual coward is: dismissing inconveniently factual points as "lies".
After all, Marty, if "you can't define what a progressive is, so you can't tell us we aren't progressives" doesn't summarize your expressed beliefs, what else was the point of this particular spittle-feckled temper tantrum?
If you truly take exception to that interpretation of your impotent tirade, then feel free to elaborate on it.
We all know you have the attention span of an ADD-afflicted gnat, so we won't hold you to any serious debate on this matter. There's no reason to expect you to spontaneously conjure the cojones anyhow.
You've never had the guts before, and it's unlikely you ever will.
Readers of the Nexus may recall what the first refuge of the intellectual coward is.
And today Martin Rayner has reminded us what the last refuge of the intellectual coward is: dismissing inconveniently factual points as "lies".
After all, Marty, if "you can't define what a progressive is, so you can't tell us we aren't progressives" doesn't summarize your expressed beliefs, what else was the point of this particular spittle-feckled temper tantrum?
If you truly take exception to that interpretation of your impotent tirade, then feel free to elaborate on it.
We all know you have the attention span of an ADD-afflicted gnat, so we won't hold you to any serious debate on this matter. There's no reason to expect you to spontaneously conjure the cojones anyhow.
You've never had the guts before, and it's unlikely you ever will.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
And 'Lo and Behold: A Point Proven
Wow. They just. Don't. Get. It.
Some readers of the Nexus may recall yesterday's response to online hatemonger Canadian Cynic's "day of civility".
In the face of such a slap in the face to political discourse, it was necessary to point out that individuals like Canadian Cynic, who claim to be progressives, are not progressives.
Which, of course, drove good old Marty Rayner into a sputtering, incoherent rage. The truth really hurts, it would seem.
Considering the rebuking of his rage here at the Nexus, it's unsurprising that it would bubble over at his own blog, as henceforth:
Let's start with a "source" renouned for the content tampering that is known to occur.
This being noted, let's indulge Mr Rayner:
In other words, progressivism is meant to advance the interests of those who fall in between the economic elites and the revolutionary socialists and anarchists who insist on a complete overthrow of the system.
Sounds an awful lot like... what was that term, again? Oh, yeah. "Ordinary people".
Seems an awful lot like the very definition that I used. But in his simmering rage poor ol' Marty just isn't capable of reading between the lines.
Let's consider the comments of Eric Alterman, author of Why We're Liberals, who insisted "liberalism is the ideology, progressivism is the strategy."
Let's put Marty on a time out here for a couple of minutes so we can define "dynamic" for him:
Yes, that is much more descriptive than a politics that rejects elitism and acts in the interests of ordinary people. But the greatest hilarity is only yet to come:
But if Rayner wants to criticize people, then the onus is on him to be clear about what it is that he's actually criticizing. What he fails to understand is the greatest failures to this end vis a vis an ad hominem attack. Notably, that an "ad hominem attack is a fallacy:
In fact, in choosing to attack character instead of ideas, Rayner and Cynic actually offer a tacit admission that they can't. Ironically, the ideas they find so abhorrent come away from their criticisms stronger than before because of this, except in the minds of like-minded hatemongers.
So instead of debating ideas they settle for attacking character -- Rayner himself proves that in the course of his post. (One is also reminded about numerous challenges to debate the ideas instead of merely attacking the messenger, all of which went unanswered). In the process they clearly intend to exact such a personal toll on people whose ideas they abhor that these people will feel discouraged from expressing them.
In the end, Rayner just simply fails to comprehend the meaning of progress:
1. Whose goals should progressivism advance? Those of the largest number of people possible? Or merely his?
2. What kind of development or growth is fostered by a political discourse built upon the foundation of ad hominem attacks?
3. What kind of steady improvement of our society should we expect if entire groups of people are harassed out of participating in political discourse?
Well, there are some simple answers to be offered.
Certainly, progressivism could work toward only the goals of people like himself. Perhaps the development or growth would be something that he would be satisfied, but one has to consider the resentment that would bubble amongst the masses of people driven to the fringes and thus banished to permanent dissatisfaction with such development or growth. Could it really be considered a steady improvement if the society that Rayner envisions is built upon such a powderkeg?
One has to remember the thing about powderkegs: sparks tend to make them explode.
But then again, one also has to remember that the vicious and toxic discourse favoured by Marty and his compatriots would only lead our society to a place where only certain people -- the people with the so-called right ideas -- are allowed to participate in political debate.
This would not lead us toward a dynamic politics in which change is possible, but rather toward a stale politics in which change has been rendered impossible because the so-called wrong ideas have been forced out at the expense of intellectual pluralism.
This isn't progress. This is regression. Sadly, it's clearly the kind of politics that Martin Rayner envisions -- a world wherein political debate begins and ends with the word "retard" and there's little to no room for actual ideas.
But if Rayner wants to prove differently, the ball's in his court: start accepting the challenge to divest himself of ad hominem attacks and debate the ideas.
Unfortuantely, we know he won't. The ball may be in his court, but he's too scared to dribble it out.
He won't debate honestly. It's yet another reason why he isn't a progressive.
Some readers of the Nexus may recall yesterday's response to online hatemonger Canadian Cynic's "day of civility".
In the face of such a slap in the face to political discourse, it was necessary to point out that individuals like Canadian Cynic, who claim to be progressives, are not progressives.
Which, of course, drove good old Marty Rayner into a sputtering, incoherent rage. The truth really hurts, it would seem.
Considering the rebuking of his rage here at the Nexus, it's unsurprising that it would bubble over at his own blog, as henceforth:
"Doughy pantload and professional freeloader, oops, sorry… “sociology student”… Patrick Ross launches into yet another one of his painfully tiresome, windy and wholly ill-informed attacks on his nemesis and unrequited love-object, Canadian Cynic. This time he builds his ridiculous argument on the feeble contention that Cynic is not a “Progressive”…Oh, yes. Wikipedia. Sure, Marty. Let's start with a "source" that would net one a zero on any serious academic paper.
Oh dear, here we go again with semantic labels and ideological definitions. In this case, Patrick hangs his baseball cap on a short blurb from the obscure website of some undistinguished outfit called “The Progressive Living Foundation” that defines “progressivism” as follows:"…a political movement that represents the interests of ordinary people in their roles as taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents. To coin a phrase, progressivism champions government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people.’"Gee, could that be a little more vacuous or fluffy? One hardly thinks so. Let’s see if we can come up with something more edifying. Wikipedia is often a good place to start:"
Let's start with a "source" renouned for the content tampering that is known to occur.
This being noted, let's indulge Mr Rayner:
No duh, Marty, but let's not stop you from trying. After all, let's consider this further passage from the source originally cited:"…A general branch of political thought which arose as a response to the vast changes brought by industrialization, and as an alternative both to the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more or less radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Progressivism historically advocates the advancement of workers’ rights and social justice. The progressives were early proponents of anti-trust laws, regulation of large corporations and monopolies, as well as government-funded environmentalism and the creation of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges."Of course “Progressivism” is a colossally broad, nebulous sort of term and therefore difficult to define with any precision."
"Economic elites emerge in every society and invariably seek to promote their own interests, all too often against those of taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents. By definition, economic elites enjoy greater wealth, and therefore influence, than the ordinary citizen, and they typically attempt to exploit these advantages politically, using them as leverage to obtain still greater wealth and influence."Hmmmm. So let's see, economic elites -- who also tend to be political and cultural elites -- impede progressive politics, which "represents the interests of ordinary people in their roles as taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents."
In other words, progressivism is meant to advance the interests of those who fall in between the economic elites and the revolutionary socialists and anarchists who insist on a complete overthrow of the system.
Sounds an awful lot like... what was that term, again? Oh, yeah. "Ordinary people".
Seems an awful lot like the very definition that I used. But in his simmering rage poor ol' Marty just isn't capable of reading between the lines.
"It’s interesting to note the vast array of disparate individuals deemed to be “progressives” in the Wikipedia entry; from Upton Sinclair to Thorstein Veblen, and Dennis Kucinich to Woodrow Wilson. But to put a somewhat finer point on matters, John Halpin, senior advisor at the Center for American Progress offers up this insight:Really, Marty? Do you really think so?“Progressivism is an orientation towards politics, It’s not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic.”Unfortunately, this sort of delicate attitudinal nuance is apparently incapable of penetrating Patrick’s fantastically dense mullet, resulting in him just moronically squawking the dimestore mantra that “Progressivism represents the interests of ordinary people.” Well, duh. What political movement doesn’t make similar claims?"
Let's consider the comments of Eric Alterman, author of Why We're Liberals, who insisted "liberalism is the ideology, progressivism is the strategy."
Let's put Marty on a time out here for a couple of minutes so we can define "dynamic" for him:
1. pertaining to or characterized by energy or effective action; vigorously active or forceful; energetic: the dynamic president of the firm.According to this definition, which Rayner seems to favour, progressive politics "pertains to effective action" and "affects development or stability".
2. Physics.
a. of or pertaining to force or power.
b. of or pertaining to force related to motion.
3. pertaining to the science of dynamics.
4. of or pertaining to the range of volume of musical sound.
5. Computers. (of data storage, processing, or programming) affected by the passage of time or the presence or absence of power: Dynamic memory must be constantly refreshed to avoid losing data.
6. Grammar. nonstative.
–noun
7. a basic or dynamic force, esp. one that motivates, affects development or stability, etc.
Yes, that is much more descriptive than a politics that rejects elitism and acts in the interests of ordinary people. But the greatest hilarity is only yet to come:
"Following on from this stupendously dim revelation is a lot of cheap, utterly meaningless blather (over 800 words, all signifying nothing whatsoever) about “Cynic and his coterie of vicious hooligans” that don’t bear repeating or even skimming really, but behold this brilliant gem:The larger point that Marty seems to be missing is that no one is suggesting that he and his compatriots shouldn't be allowed to criticize individuals like Hilliard, McMillan, myself, or anyone else with whom they disagree."What either fail to recognize, or fail to admit, is that the freedom for those who disagree with them to express their views without fear of attack or harassment is part and parcel of a progressive social contract in which people -- each presumably as equal as the next -- are permitted to hold to hold their own opinions, recognize their own interests, organize in order to pursue their interests, and express their opinions in that regard."Yeah, well I’ll certainly keep that in mind when Frank Hilliard launches into his next spirited defense of the individual rights of people who choose to “pursue their interests” by driving whilst intoxicated or when he starts hysterically shrieking that Halal certification on certain lamb products is a sure sign that the imposition of Sharia Law by the treacherous Islamofascists in our midst is close at hand. Likewise, I’ll try to remind myself to be a little more sensitive to Kate McMillan the next time she endorses the “free speech” of a self-confessed “full time Nazi” who advocates the wholesale murder of homosexuals based on a commandment from Scripture."
But if Rayner wants to criticize people, then the onus is on him to be clear about what it is that he's actually criticizing. What he fails to understand is the greatest failures to this end vis a vis an ad hominem attack. Notably, that an "ad hominem attack is a fallacy:
"The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made)."If Martin Rayner and Canadian Cynic really find the ideas of Hilliard, MacMillan or myself so atrocious, then perhaps they could find it in themselves to dispute the ideas.
In fact, in choosing to attack character instead of ideas, Rayner and Cynic actually offer a tacit admission that they can't. Ironically, the ideas they find so abhorrent come away from their criticisms stronger than before because of this, except in the minds of like-minded hatemongers.
So instead of debating ideas they settle for attacking character -- Rayner himself proves that in the course of his post. (One is also reminded about numerous challenges to debate the ideas instead of merely attacking the messenger, all of which went unanswered). In the process they clearly intend to exact such a personal toll on people whose ideas they abhor that these people will feel discouraged from expressing them.
"Perhaps others can back me up on this, but the last time I glanced at my “Progressive” membership card, I don’t recall there being any requirement that I check my brains at the door and automatically subscribe to the ludicrous notion that all ideas and opinions are of equal merit."Certainly not. But one has to start with Martin Rayner and his "progressive membership card" -- he doesn't have one. He isn't a progressive.
"I forget the exact wording, but it may in fact even have suggested something to the contrary — that some ideas are catastrophically dumb and therefore quite deserving of being figuratively pilloried and mocked to death. Like say… much of the flatulent nonsense of Patrick Ross."Unsurprisingly, Rayner just doesn't get it. This shoudn't surprise anyone by now.
In the end, Rayner just simply fails to comprehend the meaning of progress:
1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.It raises a number of questions vis a vis Martin Rayner:
2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress. See synonyms at development.
4. A ceremonial journey made by a sovereign through his or her realm.
1. Whose goals should progressivism advance? Those of the largest number of people possible? Or merely his?
2. What kind of development or growth is fostered by a political discourse built upon the foundation of ad hominem attacks?
3. What kind of steady improvement of our society should we expect if entire groups of people are harassed out of participating in political discourse?
Well, there are some simple answers to be offered.
Certainly, progressivism could work toward only the goals of people like himself. Perhaps the development or growth would be something that he would be satisfied, but one has to consider the resentment that would bubble amongst the masses of people driven to the fringes and thus banished to permanent dissatisfaction with such development or growth. Could it really be considered a steady improvement if the society that Rayner envisions is built upon such a powderkeg?
One has to remember the thing about powderkegs: sparks tend to make them explode.
But then again, one also has to remember that the vicious and toxic discourse favoured by Marty and his compatriots would only lead our society to a place where only certain people -- the people with the so-called right ideas -- are allowed to participate in political debate.
This would not lead us toward a dynamic politics in which change is possible, but rather toward a stale politics in which change has been rendered impossible because the so-called wrong ideas have been forced out at the expense of intellectual pluralism.
This isn't progress. This is regression. Sadly, it's clearly the kind of politics that Martin Rayner envisions -- a world wherein political debate begins and ends with the word "retard" and there's little to no room for actual ideas.
But if Rayner wants to prove differently, the ball's in his court: start accepting the challenge to divest himself of ad hominem attacks and debate the ideas.
Unfortuantely, we know he won't. The ball may be in his court, but he's too scared to dribble it out.
He won't debate honestly. It's yet another reason why he isn't a progressive.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
A Quick Sociology Lesson For Those Whom it May Concern
Pay attention, Marty -- this one's for you
One of the interesting subthemes to emerge out of the recent Mike Brock/Don Beemer chronicles is the revelation of creeping homophobia within the Manitoba wing of the Liberal party of Canada.
After all, when a party's vice president feels comfortable going online and making homophobic comments on a political opponent's blog, it suggests that maybe the party that as recently as two years ago was promoting itself on a gay rights agenda vis a vis same sex marriage isn't as much about equality as it would like us to believe.
Of course, Martin Rayner doesn't seem to understand how the comment "One wonders how Brock can bear to seperate Harper's dick from his mouth long enough to eat" could be construed as homophobic.
Apparently, Mr Rayner needs to have it spelled out for him.
So I'm going to share with my reading public -- however broad or narrow that may be -- an exercise shared with me by Byrad Yyelland, who currently serves as the chair of sociology at Lloydminster's Lakeland College. (In 1996/97 Yyelland won an Experience in Excellence award from the University of Saskatchewan Students' Union. Needless to say, he knows his shit, so to speak.)
Think about this for a few moments: write down a list of all the swearwords you can think of. Focus, in particular, on insults -- both in terms of shallow name-calling, and general insulting comments.
...
Done yet? Good.
Here's just a brief list of the numerous words you've probably just gone ahead and listed.
Looking down the list, an observant pupil may notice a few things -- namely that most of the insults on the list largely have to do with bodily functions. In particular, excrement (numbers one and two), sexual functions (of wide variety), body parts and various conditions of birth account for nearly all of these insults. An expanded list would also include various racial slurs.
To the uninitiated, one supposes that perhaps, sometimes, a word is just a word, and don't carry meanings any deeper than the idea they signify.
In this particular case, they would be wrong.
As Sally Raskoff shares with us, swear words and insults carry meanings much deeper than their semiotic meanings. They carry deeper social meanings. In particular, swear words and insults tend to convey the preferred societal hierarchy of their utterer.
Racial slurs are an obvious case. But consider the numerous swear words that deal with body parts. Then consider how many of them deal specifically with female bodyparts.
Many people will find that a majority of body part-related insults deal with parts of the female anatomy -- particularly vaginas.
There is deeper meaning in this. Let's let Raskoff explain.
By this particular line of thinking, the curse words and insults we use often denote a particularly misogynistic undertone of our society that has crept into one of our most basic -- even if into one of our most uncouth -- pervasities of language.
But there's more.
Of course, as Raskoff explains, perhaps sometimes we don't really mean them as insults at all.
And even if they are used teasingly, or as a form of protest, they still reflect cognizance of society's hierarchical structures. Even if they aren't necessarily meant to demonstrate approval of it (such is surely not the case for those "taking a word back" in protest) it still implies a tacit acceptance of it.
As such, not only does Don Beemer's man-on-man-fellatio-related epithet suggest that homosexuals rank lower on his internalized sense of the social hierarchy, but women do, as well.
Words such as "bitch", "pussy", "cunt", and (the word that served as the genesis for this particular discussion) "cocksucker" certainly do help serve this function, regardless of whether or not those who speak such words intend to, or even bother to stop and think about it.
Curse words and insults that refer back to excrement also tend to take on deeper meanings, particularly when dealing with racial minorities (just consider typical skin colour of said minorities, refer it back to the colour of the aforementioned excrement, and this one becomes crystal clear).
So Martin Rayner may think that "dirty cocksucker" is just a word that he can carelessly fling at another person. He may think that it doesn't carry any deeper meanings that he should stop to think about it before he utters it.
But sociologists such as Byrad Yyelland, Sally Raskoff (and myself) know better. And it actually says a lot about Mr Rayner -- things he may not be entirely comfortable with admitting.
One of the interesting subthemes to emerge out of the recent Mike Brock/Don Beemer chronicles is the revelation of creeping homophobia within the Manitoba wing of the Liberal party of Canada.
After all, when a party's vice president feels comfortable going online and making homophobic comments on a political opponent's blog, it suggests that maybe the party that as recently as two years ago was promoting itself on a gay rights agenda vis a vis same sex marriage isn't as much about equality as it would like us to believe.
Of course, Martin Rayner doesn't seem to understand how the comment "One wonders how Brock can bear to seperate Harper's dick from his mouth long enough to eat" could be construed as homophobic.
Apparently, Mr Rayner needs to have it spelled out for him.
So I'm going to share with my reading public -- however broad or narrow that may be -- an exercise shared with me by Byrad Yyelland, who currently serves as the chair of sociology at Lloydminster's Lakeland College. (In 1996/97 Yyelland won an Experience in Excellence award from the University of Saskatchewan Students' Union. Needless to say, he knows his shit, so to speak.)
Think about this for a few moments: write down a list of all the swearwords you can think of. Focus, in particular, on insults -- both in terms of shallow name-calling, and general insulting comments.
...
Done yet? Good.
Here's just a brief list of the numerous words you've probably just gone ahead and listed.
Looking down the list, an observant pupil may notice a few things -- namely that most of the insults on the list largely have to do with bodily functions. In particular, excrement (numbers one and two), sexual functions (of wide variety), body parts and various conditions of birth account for nearly all of these insults. An expanded list would also include various racial slurs.
To the uninitiated, one supposes that perhaps, sometimes, a word is just a word, and don't carry meanings any deeper than the idea they signify.
In this particular case, they would be wrong.
As Sally Raskoff shares with us, swear words and insults carry meanings much deeper than their semiotic meanings. They carry deeper social meanings. In particular, swear words and insults tend to convey the preferred societal hierarchy of their utterer.
Racial slurs are an obvious case. But consider the numerous swear words that deal with body parts. Then consider how many of them deal specifically with female bodyparts.
Many people will find that a majority of body part-related insults deal with parts of the female anatomy -- particularly vaginas.
There is deeper meaning in this. Let's let Raskoff explain.
"let’s consider curse words. Some are gender neutral, such as referring to one’s posterior. Some are specifically reserved for women, such as the short b-word indicating a crabby female (as opposed to a female dog) and the c-word or the p-word, which are references to women’s genitals. Even if the words are aimed at men or women, these terms often refer to women negatively.
Perhaps one’s mother is the target of the insult, whether through having a child outside marriage, another b-word, or as a willing or unwilling intercourse participant, as in “mother” f-word as an active verb. Or, as the f-word itself does, the word invokes the act of intercourse and ties the act of penetration as a potentially violent action."
By this particular line of thinking, the curse words and insults we use often denote a particularly misogynistic undertone of our society that has crept into one of our most basic -- even if into one of our most uncouth -- pervasities of language.
But there's more.
"The f-word in particular has many uses—both as a noun and a verb—however it does connects sex and violence, not just as a threat against women but also against gay men. Gay men have other words directed at them, many of which refer to them as feminine (or even female) or suggest violence.
Sociology helps explain these word choices. Rather than anomalies or coincidences, they reflect our society’s power structure."
Of course, as Raskoff explains, perhaps sometimes we don't really mean them as insults at all.
"Of course, curse words aren’t always intended as insults, since many people use them for fun or for teasing their friends. Some women use some of them as a term of empowerment (the c-word or the first b-word mentioned above).
But this only applies if they utter them, not if they are labeled with them by others (especially men). This is similar to the n-word and our current social debate over who (and if anyone) can use it; most recognize that when African Americans say it, it means something wholly different than when others, especially whites say it."
And even if they are used teasingly, or as a form of protest, they still reflect cognizance of society's hierarchical structures. Even if they aren't necessarily meant to demonstrate approval of it (such is surely not the case for those "taking a word back" in protest) it still implies a tacit acceptance of it.
"Why do curse words refer to body parts and pejorative references to women? Because in a society characterized by male power, one doesn’t insult a male directly, one must refer to inferior things, such as crude references to body parts considered “dirty” and to people who are less than masculine according to that society’s norms.
In dominant American culture, masculinity is defined as being assertive, aggressive, strong, a leader, and heterosexual. This is what Bob Connell refers to as "hegemonic masculinity" in his classic book, Gender and Power. Hegemonic masculinity insists that men be dominant over others in society to prove that they are “real men.”
“Emphasized femininity,” Connell’s counterpart to hegemonic masculinity, encourages women to be passive, nurturing, caring, mothering, and otherwise subordinate. Yes, our definitions of masculine and feminine change over time and place yet these ideals are primary in our media and in how we socialize children. Note also how gay men are equated with women thus they are set aside from the more powerful group of heterosexual men."
As such, not only does Don Beemer's man-on-man-fellatio-related epithet suggest that homosexuals rank lower on his internalized sense of the social hierarchy, but women do, as well.
"Our language reflects our society--the words I have discussed here all distinguish between men and women—all to reinforce and maintain the gendered hierarchy of power."
Words such as "bitch", "pussy", "cunt", and (the word that served as the genesis for this particular discussion) "cocksucker" certainly do help serve this function, regardless of whether or not those who speak such words intend to, or even bother to stop and think about it.
Curse words and insults that refer back to excrement also tend to take on deeper meanings, particularly when dealing with racial minorities (just consider typical skin colour of said minorities, refer it back to the colour of the aforementioned excrement, and this one becomes crystal clear).
So Martin Rayner may think that "dirty cocksucker" is just a word that he can carelessly fling at another person. He may think that it doesn't carry any deeper meanings that he should stop to think about it before he utters it.
But sociologists such as Byrad Yyelland, Sally Raskoff (and myself) know better. And it actually says a lot about Mr Rayner -- things he may not be entirely comfortable with admitting.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Speaking of Loonishness...
Since mr Rayner's still running his mouth, let's remember a few of his more entertaining episodes:
Canadian Cynic telling Wanda Watkins to "fuck off" is like Alexander Hamilton writing The Federalist Papers
"Somehow, the person who's points I can't refute is the one who's stupid
"This is stupid, too. Why? Um...
Werner Patels is a jerk, too.
Then again, messing with Werner Patels may have been one thing that the little crybaby may have wanted back.
Canadian Cynic telling Wanda Watkins to "fuck off" is like Alexander Hamilton writing The Federalist Papers
"Somehow, the person who's points I can't refute is the one who's stupid
"This is stupid, too. Why? Um...
Werner Patels is a jerk, too.
Then again, messing with Werner Patels may have been one thing that the little crybaby may have wanted back.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
A Quick Lesson in Libel: Clownshoes Edition
But thanks for reading, Marty
In a recent post, Martin Rayner lobs some rather odd accusations toward the Nexus:
Well, my "reliability" as a source aside (the story is fully referenced, he can take issue with the reliability of the Saskatoon Star Phoenix if he wants to, but my hands are clean), Mr Rayner is apparently in need of a lesson in the meaning of libel.
Now, perhaps it may be true that I've been insulting or offensive toward the "esteemed" mr Rayner. But I would challenge him to produce proof of his so-called libel.
Near as any rational individual could tell (and we've certainly learned not to count mr Rayner among the ranks of the rational), this could come down to one of two issues: one passage in which I suggested that Martin Rayner may not be his true identity (although this was confirmed by way of this letter written to Keith Martin and reproduced on his blog). If this were not his real identity, then he would in effect be cavorting under the identiy of someone else, in effect stealing their identity. Although we know this to not be true now, at the time it was a perfectly legitimate expression of opinion, which is not libellous.
Other than that, perhaps mr Rayner's panties are in a knot over my suggestion that he needed to start a paypal account to accept donations on account of an inability to pay his bills. When one calls their paypal account the "Red Tory sustainability fund" (suggesting his use of a free service is not financially sustainable), one wonders what else mr Rayner would have expected. Once again, it's a valid statement of opinion, one that he himself has fuelled via his own indiscretions.
Whereas, on the other hand, mr Rayner's refusal to admit that whomever was posting on his blog under the alias "number four" was clearly not myself (which has been confirmed through photographic evidence, and can further be confirmed by examining the guest list of the Conservative party function I was attending at the time), does qualify as libelous, because he has, all along, refused to amend his position.
On that note, we also note that the learning curve among Rayner's various cohorts and groupies is rather steep. I've been informed that my name has been dropped at least one other time as the presumed identity of another dissenting poster on Rayner's blog.
In other words, they weren't smart enough to feel stupid the first time they did so and were proven wrong, so they certainly weren't smart enough to feel stupid when they did it again -- which ironically doesn't prevent them from looking stupid nonetheless.
Some people just never learn, no matter how many times you teach them.
As for villifying mr Rayner? Well, one of the two of us found the wherewithall to defend Canadian Cynic over his vicious attack on Wanda Watkins.
I don't need to villify mr Rayner. He does a good enough job of villifying himself.
In a recent post, Martin Rayner lobs some rather odd accusations toward the Nexus:
Not exactly drawing on “reliable sources” here (considering that the individual in question persistently vilifies and libels me without cause)
Well, my "reliability" as a source aside (the story is fully referenced, he can take issue with the reliability of the Saskatoon Star Phoenix if he wants to, but my hands are clean), Mr Rayner is apparently in need of a lesson in the meaning of libel.
Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others. Libel generally refers to statements or visual depictions in written or other permanent form...
...In order for the person about whom a statement is made to recover for libel, the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.
Now, perhaps it may be true that I've been insulting or offensive toward the "esteemed" mr Rayner. But I would challenge him to produce proof of his so-called libel.
Near as any rational individual could tell (and we've certainly learned not to count mr Rayner among the ranks of the rational), this could come down to one of two issues: one passage in which I suggested that Martin Rayner may not be his true identity (although this was confirmed by way of this letter written to Keith Martin and reproduced on his blog). If this were not his real identity, then he would in effect be cavorting under the identiy of someone else, in effect stealing their identity. Although we know this to not be true now, at the time it was a perfectly legitimate expression of opinion, which is not libellous.
Other than that, perhaps mr Rayner's panties are in a knot over my suggestion that he needed to start a paypal account to accept donations on account of an inability to pay his bills. When one calls their paypal account the "Red Tory sustainability fund" (suggesting his use of a free service is not financially sustainable), one wonders what else mr Rayner would have expected. Once again, it's a valid statement of opinion, one that he himself has fuelled via his own indiscretions.
Whereas, on the other hand, mr Rayner's refusal to admit that whomever was posting on his blog under the alias "number four" was clearly not myself (which has been confirmed through photographic evidence, and can further be confirmed by examining the guest list of the Conservative party function I was attending at the time), does qualify as libelous, because he has, all along, refused to amend his position.
On that note, we also note that the learning curve among Rayner's various cohorts and groupies is rather steep. I've been informed that my name has been dropped at least one other time as the presumed identity of another dissenting poster on Rayner's blog.
In other words, they weren't smart enough to feel stupid the first time they did so and were proven wrong, so they certainly weren't smart enough to feel stupid when they did it again -- which ironically doesn't prevent them from looking stupid nonetheless.
Some people just never learn, no matter how many times you teach them.
As for villifying mr Rayner? Well, one of the two of us found the wherewithall to defend Canadian Cynic over his vicious attack on Wanda Watkins.
I don't need to villify mr Rayner. He does a good enough job of villifying himself.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Sounds About Right
Red Tory describes his assorted cohorts & groupies fairly accurately
...Oh, wait. That was me.
But while we're in the business of issuing challenges, I have an interesting one for "Red Tory". Write a short, marginally readable post about the red tory political philosophy, and explain to us how it's impacted your "thinking".
And while you're at it, keep saying my name, keep getting mad, and keep avoiding any sort of debate with me.
I really don't mind. I like being proven right.
...Oh, wait. That was me.
But while we're in the business of issuing challenges, I have an interesting one for "Red Tory". Write a short, marginally readable post about the red tory political philosophy, and explain to us how it's impacted your "thinking".
And while you're at it, keep saying my name, keep getting mad, and keep avoiding any sort of debate with me.
I really don't mind. I like being proven right.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Oh, He's So Angry
Red Tory still running his mouth (on empty)
Despite his typical lack of anything decent to say, Red Tory is still trying desperately to carry on his one-man-vendetta against the rest of the blogosphere, today taking aim at Nexus of Assholery valued collaborator Werner Patels and (predictably) at the Nexus istelf.
In particular, RT directed his ire at two posts: one written by mr Patels advocating for a bloggers' code of civility, and another, written by myself, that addresses some of the philosphical underpinnings of the climate change debate.
Once again, Red Tory's issues with the posts in question aren't very well clarified.
Of course, his steadfast defences of Canadian Cynic's vicious attack on Wanda Watkins pretty much does demonstrate where he stands regarding civility. Then, there's (g)utter genius like this.
We can easily ascertain where Red Tory stands on the issue of civility.
Then, there's the question regarding the climate change post. Perhaps he'd like to clarify his misgivings. Does he take exception to the idea of virtual reality ideologies (he may want to take that one up with Norman Mailer, who actually wrote it as a criticism of the war on terror that Red Tory so stringently opposes). Does he want to refute the idea that climate change is often envoked in explaining phenomenae to which it is dubiously (if at all) linked? Does he want to refute the idea that climate change (vis a vis global warming) is often envoked as a preconcieved notion?
He can consider himself free to answer, but he won't, and here's why:
He's just too damn angry.
Why is he so angry? It's actually pretty simple to explain. While an obvious tinge of jealousy directed toward people who have something other than other people's blogs to write about seems detectable, it really does seem that he's mad because someone addressed him.
But here's the kicker: Red Tory addressed us first.
One can actually consider the discovery of this remark (which, at the time barely seemed worthy of addressing) as a fluke committed in the process of exploring the blogosphere. It was written in response to a post on Dark Blue Tory. It reads as follows:
"Hmmm. Let’s see what “original thoughts” CBL has, shall we. A link to a site called the “Nexus of Assholery” that… surprise, trashes liberals accuses Dion of “slander” and features a picture of George Bush giving the finger."
Perhaps it was thus unsurprising that Red Tory was so eager to address us here at the Nexus. Yet, one has to consider the ridiculousness of this. At the time, Red Tory's premier problem with the Nexus was this:
I later explained in a post that this banner is actually supposed to be ironic. Red Tory was clearly "barking up the wrong tree" (his words), considering the previous banner:
Merely by viewing a banner that its test audience found hilarious, Red Tory thought he identified an ideological opponent, and he has since been steadfast in his attacks. Then, when someone decided to push back, he just plain got mad.
I was one. Now, should the esteemed mr Patels choose to keep pushing back, we are two. Red Tory seriously needs to reconsider how much time he's willing to spend pursuing conflict with someone who is really not a mere ideological opponent (ideally, an ideological opponent should actually be a fellow ideologue, and Red Tory simply hasn't found one here).
He and the rest of the trolling yellow "journalists" of the blogosphere (right or left) need to understand that if you attack us at the Nexus, we at the Nexus will respond. Perhaps Eminem has actually said it better than anyone:
"We're gonna bring it to anybody who want it/
You want it you're gonna get it/
You name 'em we're gonna hit 'em/
Chew 'em up and spit 'em out/
(Too much venom)/
And if you roll with 'em we're gonna fuck you up with 'em"
We can keep this up as long as you can. By the by, just keep on getting mad, because it just makes us seem all the more rational, and makes you seem all the more ridiculous.
Despite his typical lack of anything decent to say, Red Tory is still trying desperately to carry on his one-man-vendetta against the rest of the blogosphere, today taking aim at Nexus of Assholery valued collaborator Werner Patels and (predictably) at the Nexus istelf.
In particular, RT directed his ire at two posts: one written by mr Patels advocating for a bloggers' code of civility, and another, written by myself, that addresses some of the philosphical underpinnings of the climate change debate.
Once again, Red Tory's issues with the posts in question aren't very well clarified.
Of course, his steadfast defences of Canadian Cynic's vicious attack on Wanda Watkins pretty much does demonstrate where he stands regarding civility. Then, there's (g)utter genius like this.
We can easily ascertain where Red Tory stands on the issue of civility.
Then, there's the question regarding the climate change post. Perhaps he'd like to clarify his misgivings. Does he take exception to the idea of virtual reality ideologies (he may want to take that one up with Norman Mailer, who actually wrote it as a criticism of the war on terror that Red Tory so stringently opposes). Does he want to refute the idea that climate change is often envoked in explaining phenomenae to which it is dubiously (if at all) linked? Does he want to refute the idea that climate change (vis a vis global warming) is often envoked as a preconcieved notion?
He can consider himself free to answer, but he won't, and here's why:
He's just too damn angry.
Why is he so angry? It's actually pretty simple to explain. While an obvious tinge of jealousy directed toward people who have something other than other people's blogs to write about seems detectable, it really does seem that he's mad because someone addressed him.
But here's the kicker: Red Tory addressed us first.
One can actually consider the discovery of this remark (which, at the time barely seemed worthy of addressing) as a fluke committed in the process of exploring the blogosphere. It was written in response to a post on Dark Blue Tory. It reads as follows:
"Hmmm. Let’s see what “original thoughts” CBL has, shall we. A link to a site called the “Nexus of Assholery” that… surprise, trashes liberals accuses Dion of “slander” and features a picture of George Bush giving the finger."
Perhaps it was thus unsurprising that Red Tory was so eager to address us here at the Nexus. Yet, one has to consider the ridiculousness of this. At the time, Red Tory's premier problem with the Nexus was this:
I later explained in a post that this banner is actually supposed to be ironic. Red Tory was clearly "barking up the wrong tree" (his words), considering the previous banner:
Merely by viewing a banner that its test audience found hilarious, Red Tory thought he identified an ideological opponent, and he has since been steadfast in his attacks. Then, when someone decided to push back, he just plain got mad.
I was one. Now, should the esteemed mr Patels choose to keep pushing back, we are two. Red Tory seriously needs to reconsider how much time he's willing to spend pursuing conflict with someone who is really not a mere ideological opponent (ideally, an ideological opponent should actually be a fellow ideologue, and Red Tory simply hasn't found one here).
He and the rest of the trolling yellow "journalists" of the blogosphere (right or left) need to understand that if you attack us at the Nexus, we at the Nexus will respond. Perhaps Eminem has actually said it better than anyone:
"We're gonna bring it to anybody who want it/
You want it you're gonna get it/
You name 'em we're gonna hit 'em/
Chew 'em up and spit 'em out/
(Too much venom)/
And if you roll with 'em we're gonna fuck you up with 'em"
We can keep this up as long as you can. By the by, just keep on getting mad, because it just makes us seem all the more rational, and makes you seem all the more ridiculous.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Red Tory is Trying to Make Some Point, One Presumes
But one wonders what that might be
Apparently still stinging from the one-sided beating laid by the Nexus upon Red Tory and his assorted cohorts and groupies, our good friend Red Tory has conjured this "brilliant" counterpoint.
Hoo boy. Apparently, this is what passes for a "Thinking Blogger" these days.
After all, nothing sets one apart as a "Thinking Blogger" as a blog that specializes in empty attacks on other blogs, does it?
But let's allow Red Tory an opportunity to defend himself. Either that, or allow his cohort Mentarch to do it for him, by addressing what objection he has to the passage quoted.
Does he wish to dispute whether or not marriages are legal prior to sexual consumation?
Or is there any other part of the post in question he wishes to refute?
Or, perhaps, he would like to refute the subtextual theme of the post--the idea that inventing various indistinguishable and legally ambiguous variations of marriage is diluting the institution of marriage, all in the name of ill-defined political correctness?
In many cases, "domestic partnerships" can be viewed as a form of marriage open to same-sex couples, yet forwarded as an indistinguishable alternative to marriage so as to not offend religious or social conservatives. Would Red Tory like to dispute the idea that it would be better so simply allow same-sex couples to have marriage (as has been done in Canada) while establishing new, distinct legally-recognized marital statuses (as has not been done) to meet needs not necessarily covered by marriage?
Or does he prefer empty attacks? He may feel free to respond on his blog, or respond here. Then again, knowing Red Tory, he'll likely choose not to respond at all.
Apparently still stinging from the one-sided beating laid by the Nexus upon Red Tory and his assorted cohorts and groupies, our good friend Red Tory has conjured this "brilliant" counterpoint.
Hoo boy. Apparently, this is what passes for a "Thinking Blogger" these days.
After all, nothing sets one apart as a "Thinking Blogger" as a blog that specializes in empty attacks on other blogs, does it?
But let's allow Red Tory an opportunity to defend himself. Either that, or allow his cohort Mentarch to do it for him, by addressing what objection he has to the passage quoted.
Does he wish to dispute whether or not marriages are legal prior to sexual consumation?
Or is there any other part of the post in question he wishes to refute?
Or, perhaps, he would like to refute the subtextual theme of the post--the idea that inventing various indistinguishable and legally ambiguous variations of marriage is diluting the institution of marriage, all in the name of ill-defined political correctness?
In many cases, "domestic partnerships" can be viewed as a form of marriage open to same-sex couples, yet forwarded as an indistinguishable alternative to marriage so as to not offend religious or social conservatives. Would Red Tory like to dispute the idea that it would be better so simply allow same-sex couples to have marriage (as has been done in Canada) while establishing new, distinct legally-recognized marital statuses (as has not been done) to meet needs not necessarily covered by marriage?
Or does he prefer empty attacks? He may feel free to respond on his blog, or respond here. Then again, knowing Red Tory, he'll likely choose not to respond at all.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Red Tory Ups the Ante with a Brilliant Rebuttal
...Not.
In the manner of many who simply can't allow better minds to ever have the last word, Red Tory has responded to my rebuttal of yesterday with a less-than-brilliant and comicly much-less-than-scathing retort:
It's hard to hold such "brilliant" comment against him, however. Clearly, he's very, very angry.
And now he's so unhappy that he managed to get it? Why is that? Could it be because he, his cronies and his groupies all got more than enough of that attention, and between the lot of them, couldn't defeat me, or even so much as make me angry?
My comments were thoroughly rubbished? Surely he jests. Actually, he's never addressed the comments themselves at all, and apparently won't.
For example, will he refute the lack of practical distinction between anonymity and pseudonymity in terms of concealing one's identity? Will he explain how he can compare Canadian Cynic to some of history's greatest political thinkers, and still retain his intellectual dignity?
Apparently not.
Which is fair enough; sometimes in life it is simply better to admit defeat and move on.
While admitting defeat is apparently a skill Red Tory has yet to master, moving on, well... we'll see whether or not that's a different story.
In the manner of many who simply can't allow better minds to ever have the last word, Red Tory has responded to my rebuttal of yesterday with a less-than-brilliant and comicly much-less-than-scathing retort:
"Like a brainless flesh-eating zombie in a B-grade horror flick, flame-baiting CELEBRITY BLOGGER Patrick Ross, simply refuses to remain in the six-feet-under of cyberspace where he more rightfully belongs."Really? Six-feet-under? In Red Tory's dreams, perhaps.
It's hard to hold such "brilliant" comment against him, however. Clearly, he's very, very angry.
"He’s back seeking attention; brainless and intellectually slovenly as ever, now with a hilariously feeble-minded “rebuttal” which is actually nothing more than a warmed-over rehash of the fabulously dreary assertions he made in the comments section of an earlier thread. The fact these have already been thoroughly rubbished is something that the late Mr. Ross is evidently too much of a catastrophically bumptious, willfully deluded clod to acknowledge, let alone accept."Wow. He says such mean things. But he again overlooks a number of key facts, including the fact that he chose to address me in his blog. That's an invitation to a rebuttal. In fact, rebuttal seems necessary, and was delivered. If anyone was "seeking attention", was it not the individual who addressed me in the first place? It would seem that he was indeed seeking my attention.
And now he's so unhappy that he managed to get it? Why is that? Could it be because he, his cronies and his groupies all got more than enough of that attention, and between the lot of them, couldn't defeat me, or even so much as make me angry?
My comments were thoroughly rubbished? Surely he jests. Actually, he's never addressed the comments themselves at all, and apparently won't.
For example, will he refute the lack of practical distinction between anonymity and pseudonymity in terms of concealing one's identity? Will he explain how he can compare Canadian Cynic to some of history's greatest political thinkers, and still retain his intellectual dignity?
Apparently not.
Which is fair enough; sometimes in life it is simply better to admit defeat and move on.
While admitting defeat is apparently a skill Red Tory has yet to master, moving on, well... we'll see whether or not that's a different story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)