Jon Stewart Loves NAMBLA! (snark alert)

By: Lowell
Published On: 8/29/2007 8:44:51 AM

Jon Stewart loves NAMBLA?  Of course not, but it's a running joke on his show.  Unfortunately, Virginia Republican bloggers have Z-E-R-O understanding of abstract concepts like political satire, snark, and humor.  It's rocket science, after all.  Luckily, Joe Stanley apparently is a rocket scientist...and so is Jon Stewart!  Who knew? :)

h/t: Eileen at VBDems

Comments



Big difference (Va Blogger - 8/29/2007 9:10:21 AM)
First, Jon Stewart is mocking the use of initials, never really calling any group Nambla, which is fundamentally different from what Joe Stanley did. Second, Jon Stewart is a comedian, and has nothing to gain from these jokes except the laughter of his target audience. If Joe Stanley were a world renown practical joke artist, you would have a point. He's not. He's a political operative, he has an agenda, and his "joke", as you're trying to blithely brush it aside as, was caused by that agenda.

Even if you think it was a joke (which, since you're a Democratic hack, of course you do), you have to recognize how some people would be offended by it; the same way if you told a racist or a sexist joke, you may try to brush it off as humorous or not serious, but other people would still be rightfully offended by it. However, the fact that Joe Stanley did this, then not only refuses to apologize, but continues to stand by his flat-out comparison of the ODBA and Nambla, shows that he's not just employing satire, something Jon Stewart makes a living doing, and is indeed *not* joking, which means he's engaging in the lowest form of a smear campaign futher a political agenda.

While I'm not surprised that you stand fervently behind Joe Stanley, I do wish that from time to time you made your double-standards not so blatantly partisan.



If you don't like this blog there's a simple solution. (Lowell - 8/29/2007 9:17:34 AM)
Don't read it.


By the way, how can I be a "hack" (Lowell - 8/29/2007 9:19:45 AM)
when I have never been paid a penny to run Raising Kaine?  So, you're saying that anyone who's a strong progressive is a "hack?"  Are all the conservative bloggers "hacks" too?  Finally, why are you resorting to ad hominem attacks on Joe and me?  Oh wait, I almost forgot, going ad hominem means you have no argument. 


Hack doesn't mean paid (Va Blogger - 8/29/2007 9:29:46 AM)
It means that you will always side with the Democrat in an argument, no matter how dishonest you'll have to be. Being a hack means you can turn any situation into a partisan debate, and you take one side of that debate every time.

And yes, there are many, many conservative hacks, both inside and outside of the blogosphere.

And I believe I made my argument, which you completely ignored for whatever reason.



OK, now for another definition: "troll" (Lowell - 8/29/2007 9:35:41 AM)
See here

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, has come to mean someone who intentionally posts messages about sensitive topics constructed to cause controversy in an online community such as an online discussion forum or USENET groups in order to bait users into responding."

Tell me how you're not a "troll" on this pro-Democratic, progressive blog.  I mean, obviously your messages are always on "sensitive topics constructed to cause controversy."  That's the classic definition of a "troll."  Also, how about "mak[ing] argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person, concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others."

So why should we not ban you as the "troll" that you clearly are? 



Let's see. (Va Blogger2 - 8/29/2007 9:50:49 AM)
"Someone who intentionally posts messages about sensitive topics constructed to cause controversy."

Since I have never started a diary or a thread, and have only responded with my opinions, I don't believe I fall into this category. I don't think the comments I made have been about sensative topics, only political topics, which covers almost every single post here. And I don't believe being a conservative is controversial. You are allowed to disagree with that assessment, but there is nothing inherently controversial about being a Republican, or about posting my opinion on matters.

"in order to bait users into responding"

Again, this is not something that I do. I've never goaded anybody into responding to me. I've only posted my opinion.

"mak[ing] argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person"

Every post I make here can be construed as "argumentative", since we are debating politics. If you seek a site where everybody agrees with each other and there is never any dissent, then you should ban me.

My posts are never intended to discredit another person (which is more than I can say for the recent front-page post about Alton Foley), but I'll get to that in the next part:

"concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation"

This is 100% flat-out wrong. Every single post I've made on this blog has contained a valid point, relevent to the topic at hand, and in continuation of the discussion in the thread. You may not agree with my posts, but trying to say that I do not focus on the point of the conversation is a lie. In fact, there have been numerous times where I post a valid point, and in response I am called a troll (which I consider an ad hominem attack), and the point of discussion I make is completely ignored.

"with the intent of provoking a reaction from others"

My intent is to post my opinions. There are many of my posts that do not have a response to them.

I contend that if you believe that I am the "classic definition of a troll", then you have had the good fortune of never really encountering one.

The only "crime" I've committed here is disagreeing with you. I've told you this before: If having a conservative commenter on your site is too much for you, then you own this blog. You have full right to ban me. But if you decide to, it will not be because I'm a troll, it will be because I am a conservative.



No, you're going ad hominem (Lowell - 8/29/2007 9:55:39 AM)
That's my #1 beef, aside from your heinous beliefs on the heroes of Virginia Tech, etc. 


Ignore this troll (LT - 8/29/2007 10:25:23 AM)
Don't let this miscreant badger you, Lowell. He's a known troll and has been badgering those of us on Swing State Project, first as Va Blogger and then as Unabridged. Ban 'em or ignore 'em, but don't let 'em get to you.


Thanks for the "heads up" (Lowell - 8/29/2007 10:28:18 AM)
What did he say at Swing State, just out of curiosity?  That liberals caused global warming or something?  That it's really the Iraqis' fault for being blown up?  Wait, I shouldn't give him any ideas!  LOL


You can check for yourself (Va Blogger2 - 8/29/2007 10:47:42 AM)
http://www.swingstat...

Nothing but more opinions. It must be why I haven't been banned from that site either, no matter how often someone calls me a troll for disagreeing with them.



Actually... (LT - 8/30/2007 10:18:05 AM)
He has a tendency towards picking fights and derailing blog diaries while offering nothing other than parroted GOP talking points. Give him the same treatment as I Pubes, unless you feel that VA Blogger can serve as a barometer of GOP nervousness.


I like Va Blogger (tx2vadem - 8/30/2007 12:28:44 AM)
While I certainly don't see all of his/her post, I certainly enjoy the color he/she adds to debates.  And for the most part, he/she makes reasoned arguments.  Though I do grow tired of the argument that all votes are equal and circumstance and one's decision making process are irrelevant considerations.  ;)  But hey, we all perceive things a little differently.

Arguably, this is meant to be a progressive community and that would exclude him/her.  But moving our purpose forward must be refining our arguments.  And what better way to do that than allow debate from a sensible conservative commentator.

If you want to see illogical, poorly reasoned conservative arguments, that is Citizen Tom (sorry, CT, I love your crazy arguments though. Heritage Foundation essays! I just eat it up!). 



A better example... (LT - 8/30/2007 10:21:07 AM)
would be NOVA Middle Man. I disagree with him, but he seems sensible.

Unfortunately, VA Blogger is hardly sensible and strikes me more as a troll. Trying to talk sensibly to him/her is like talking to a brick wall.



Who would have thought... (Bubby - 8/29/2007 10:35:58 AM)
Who would have thought that the same ODBA members that defended one of their own for posting a porn snuff video would be offended by a link to a wacko political group.  Buckle up whiners the ride just started! 

www.olddominionblogalliance.com
 



They're just indignant (Susan P. - 8/29/2007 1:04:14 PM)
Republicans are just indignant about being associated with something they DIDN'T do because there are so many things to answer for that they DID do.  Like Larry Craig, Mark Foley, and everybody on this growing list.  Or like Nick Rerras calling women professionals "the FemiNazis."  Or like John Welch's bankruptcy.  It's so much more fun to feign outrage when you're wrongly accused, even as a spoof, than to defend the indefensible.  That's why they're so vocal -- it's an attempt to drown out the calls for accountability on their part.