Showing posts with label Norman Mailer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Norman Mailer. Show all posts
Friday, September 30, 2011
Janeane Garofalo Starring In... Far-Left Racism-Obsessed Virtual Reality Moonbattery
When a would-be media figure is as marginal as Janeane Garofalo, they certainly face continual pressure to stay relevant.
For her own part, Garofalo has no idea how to do that. So when appearing on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, she decided to re-hash her greatest hits: accusing conservatives of racism.
It's something she tried before, when she accused the Tea Party of opposing the policies of US President Barack Obama out of "racism, straight-up". Her most recent dip into her arsenal of weaponized racism is a little more confusing. They support Republcian Presidential hopeful Herman Cain out of racism.
Get it? If they oppose a black man politically, they're racist. If they support a black man politically, they're racist. Garofalo's argument basically amounts to "they're racist, no matter what."
"Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican party. Conservative movement and tea party movement, one in the same," Garofalo declared. "People like Karl Rove liked to keep the racism very covert. And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity say you can say 'Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look we have a black man.'"
Olbermann being Olbermann, he declines to offer any critical comment or question of Garofalo's comments, even the one that seems entirely elementary to any rational human being.
(Considering that Olbermann began the segment by noting that Palin didn't focus on what GOP hopefuls were doing wrong in the debates, it's pretty clear that Olbermann is allowing his personal bias to absolutely overwhelm ration.)
To describe Garofalo's argument as childish is beyond understatement. But examining it logically for any more than two seconds immediately reveals something abotu Garofalo that rathional people... already knew.
As an argument, this is intellectually lazy. It's exceedingly intellectually lazy. It essentially amounts to virtual reality reasoning.
Originally posited by Norman Mailer, virtual reality reasoning describes a closed system of thought. The virtual reality thinker locks themselves into a narrow, compact realm of possibilities. Not only may no answer to any question be found that is not already programmed within the system, but no question may be asked that isn't already programmed into that system.
For Garofalo, the question is "why are conservatives racist?" The answer is "because conservatives are racist, no matter what."
In a previous outing on Olbermann's show, Garofalo suggests that someone may even be paying Cain to run for President. She offers absolutely no evidence other than her own demand that any visible minority give her their undying political allegiance.
It seems necessary to wonder whether Garofalo herself is the nut or the dolt in the "nuts and dolts"-themed segment until one realizes that she's both.
Any information that Garofalo is presented with -- including an impressive level of support for Cain's ideas within the Tea Party -- will, in her mind, immediately be warped and twisted to reach one conclusion: the Tea Party, Republicans and conservatives are all racist. No matter what.
And yet Janeane Garofalo wants to be the absolute arbiter of who does and does not have credibility. It will be a sad day for American politics if she ever actually achieves that level of influence.
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.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Global Warming or Virtual Reality?
South African Live Earth organizer viewing climate change through blinders
If anyone doubts that Global Warming has become the world's penultimate bogeyman, they need look no further than the excuses offered by the organizers of Johannesberg, South Africa's Live Earth concert.
"We're expecting 10,000 here tonight," said John Langford. "It's a bit chilly, and we've had a strange winter. Is it climate change?"
Langord also noted that it recently snowed in Johannesberg for the first time in 25 years.
Aside from the absurdity of blaming the poor turn-out on climate change (the concert is supposed to be in support of climate change-fighting efforts -- people turning out is support for belief in climate change; apparently people not showing up is the same), Langford reveals an intriguing undercurrent underlying the climate change lobby.
Simply put, climate change has taken on all the characterstics of a virtual reality ideology.
Originally posited by Norman Mailer, a virtual reality ideology has a number of characteristics. First off, it's a closed system. There are a very limited number of possibilities that an individual adhering to a virtual reality belief system are able to explore. According to Mailer, there are few legimiate answers, but even fewer legitimate questions within such a system. The intellectual options of anyone ahdering to a virtual reality ideology are severely limited.
According to Mailer, however, the most important element of a virtual reality belief system is that, no matter what question is asked, there is one answer underlying the entire system, and that is the one that the individual had before the question was ever asked. In this case, the answer is always climate change, even if it isn't necessarily global warming.
Thus, no matter what is being considered, the answer that many proponents of the climate change virtual reality will offer is climate change.
This is very interesting considering that the top concern of most climate change lobbyists is global warming. Yet so many will also point to increased cold weather as evidence of "climate change" (merely a broader term for the global warming phenomenon), and evidence that human activitiy is the overwhelming cause.
Yet, also consider that the climate change lobby relies heavily on the scientifically-demonstrable greenhouse effect to support their claims. Yet, the greenhouse effect can only be used to explain global warming, not global cooling.
Despite this logical difficulty, individuals such as Langford resort to climate change alarmism when trying to explain a weather pattern that, since it has happened only twice in the last 25 years, is still extremely rare.
And all of this despite the fact that poor publicity is more likely the explaination for the failure of his little concert.
If anyone doubts that Global Warming has become the world's penultimate bogeyman, they need look no further than the excuses offered by the organizers of Johannesberg, South Africa's Live Earth concert.
"We're expecting 10,000 here tonight," said John Langford. "It's a bit chilly, and we've had a strange winter. Is it climate change?"
Langord also noted that it recently snowed in Johannesberg for the first time in 25 years.
Aside from the absurdity of blaming the poor turn-out on climate change (the concert is supposed to be in support of climate change-fighting efforts -- people turning out is support for belief in climate change; apparently people not showing up is the same), Langford reveals an intriguing undercurrent underlying the climate change lobby.
Simply put, climate change has taken on all the characterstics of a virtual reality ideology.
Originally posited by Norman Mailer, a virtual reality ideology has a number of characteristics. First off, it's a closed system. There are a very limited number of possibilities that an individual adhering to a virtual reality belief system are able to explore. According to Mailer, there are few legimiate answers, but even fewer legitimate questions within such a system. The intellectual options of anyone ahdering to a virtual reality ideology are severely limited.
According to Mailer, however, the most important element of a virtual reality belief system is that, no matter what question is asked, there is one answer underlying the entire system, and that is the one that the individual had before the question was ever asked. In this case, the answer is always climate change, even if it isn't necessarily global warming.
Thus, no matter what is being considered, the answer that many proponents of the climate change virtual reality will offer is climate change.
This is very interesting considering that the top concern of most climate change lobbyists is global warming. Yet so many will also point to increased cold weather as evidence of "climate change" (merely a broader term for the global warming phenomenon), and evidence that human activitiy is the overwhelming cause.
Yet, also consider that the climate change lobby relies heavily on the scientifically-demonstrable greenhouse effect to support their claims. Yet, the greenhouse effect can only be used to explain global warming, not global cooling.
Despite this logical difficulty, individuals such as Langford resort to climate change alarmism when trying to explain a weather pattern that, since it has happened only twice in the last 25 years, is still extremely rare.
And all of this despite the fact that poor publicity is more likely the explaination for the failure of his little concert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)