Comments on: The trouble with potbanging http://reharmonized.an-earful.com/2007/11/trouble-with-potbanging/ All kinds of music and whatever else sounds reasonable Sat, 01 Aug 2009 03:33:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Tortmaster http://reharmonized.an-earful.com/2007/11/trouble-with-potbanging/comment-page-1/#comment-347 Tortmaster Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:40:30 +0000 http://reharmonized.an-earful.com/2007/11/trouble-with-potbanging/#comment-347 <p>I want to point out a couple major problems that seem to be a theme of your Duke Hoax posts. First, you always give the benefit of the doubt to the potbangers and highlight the worst possible implication from the "Liestoppers." Second, you are hypocritical about other bloggers using snide and insidious comments. Here is an example of what you wrote that speaks to both of the problems:</p> <p>"Behind the rally was a spirit of VIGILANTISM.... It’s all depressingly consistent with VIGILANTISM'S bad rap.... The “CASTRATE” banner, which was likely the work of only a few of those present but was apparently tolerated all around, ... I get a whiff of MOB PSYCHOLOGY from the videos of the event on YouTube." </p> <p>(emphasis added). As you can see, I put a number of your sentences together to show what you said. Then, here is what you have to say bout the Liestoppers' interpretation of the same event:</p> <p>"... which doesn’t mean I have any truck with the knee-jerk geniuses who imagine the potbanging crowd as some kind of lynch mob ...." </p> <ol> <li><p>The Liestoppers are "knee-jerk geniuses" because they described the crowd as some kind of "lynch mob." </p></li> <li><p>You described a "castrate" banner, vigilantism, and a "whiff of mob psychology," but it is a knee-jerk reaction for someone else to call it an attempted lynching. </p></li> <li><p>You apparently are able to read the minds of all the potbangers so that you know they would not be violent. </p></li> <li><p>You ascribe every Liestopper as having the same view of the potbangers, but you say the "castrate" banner "was likely the work of only a few of [the potbangers] present." </p></li> <li><p>Is there such a difference between "vigilantism" with a "whiff of mob psychology" and "lynching" that you need to call people names? </p></li> </ol> <p>Do you see any bias and hypocrisy in those arguments? These are my opinions. Tortmaster</p> <p><center><strong>~   ~   ~</strong></center></p> <p><i>You're nothing if not thorough. You're probably right that my rhetoric is sometimes too strong for someone who's complaining about divisive rhetoric. I never claimed to be unbiased or balanced, though--only to be looking critically at both sides.</i></p> <p><i>The lynch mob thing is easy though--lynch mobs kill people. If you were wrongly accused of rape, would you prefer to be confronted by enraged leftists with bullhorns and banners, however vile, or an angry crowd with a noose? I realize "lynch mob" is sometimes used more figuratively, but the typical anti-potbanger rant shows little sign of understanding the difference. </i></p> <p><i>Tortmaster's extensive list of the excuses I make for the potbangers is <a href="http://reharmonized.an-earful.com/extra-comments/#comment-378" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</i></p> I want to point out a couple major problems that seem to be a theme of your Duke Hoax posts. First, you always give the benefit of the doubt to the potbangers and highlight the worst possible implication from the “Liestoppers.” Second, you are hypocritical about other bloggers using snide and insidious comments. Here is an example of what you wrote that speaks to both of the problems:

“Behind the rally was a spirit of VIGILANTISM…. It’s all depressingly consistent with VIGILANTISM’S bad rap…. The “CASTRATE” banner, which was likely the work of only a few of those present but was apparently tolerated all around, … I get a whiff of MOB PSYCHOLOGY from the videos of the event on YouTube.”

(emphasis added). As you can see, I put a number of your sentences together to show what you said. Then, here is what you have to say bout the Liestoppers’ interpretation of the same event:

“… which doesn’t mean I have any truck with the knee-jerk geniuses who imagine the potbanging crowd as some kind of lynch mob ….”

  1. The Liestoppers are “knee-jerk geniuses” because they described the crowd as some kind of “lynch mob.”

  2. You described a “castrate” banner, vigilantism, and a “whiff of mob psychology,” but it is a knee-jerk reaction for someone else to call it an attempted lynching.

  3. You apparently are able to read the minds of all the potbangers so that you know they would not be violent.

  4. You ascribe every Liestopper as having the same view of the potbangers, but you say the “castrate” banner “was likely the work of only a few of [the potbangers] present.”

  5. Is there such a difference between “vigilantism” with a “whiff of mob psychology” and “lynching” that you need to call people names?

Do you see any bias and hypocrisy in those arguments? These are my opinions. Tortmaster

~   ~   ~

You’re nothing if not thorough. You’re probably right that my rhetoric is sometimes too strong for someone who’s complaining about divisive rhetoric. I never claimed to be unbiased or balanced, though—only to be looking critically at both sides.

The lynch mob thing is easy though—lynch mobs kill people. If you were wrongly accused of rape, would you prefer to be confronted by enraged leftists with bullhorns and banners, however vile, or an angry crowd with a noose? I realize “lynch mob” is sometimes used more figuratively, but the typical anti-potbanger rant shows little sign of understanding the difference.

Tortmaster’s extensive list of the excuses I make for the potbangers is here.

]]> By: CHRIS DAVIS, HARVARD http://reharmonized.an-earful.com/2007/11/trouble-with-potbanging/comment-page-1/#comment-348 CHRIS DAVIS, HARVARD Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:37:14 +0000 http://reharmonized.an-earful.com/2007/11/trouble-with-potbanging/#comment-348 <p>OK, let's visit "the best of all possible worlds" for the radical left: let's assume, with the sincerity of the narrator of Voltaire's Candide that Crystal Mangum was, in reality, viciously gangraped by a group of white, privileged thugs. Let's assume that the ensuing rallies, banners, Peruvian pot banging, arabic-style ululations, attendance of the lip-glossed cable babes was all in good faith. Fine. Then what do we make of the deafening silence on the part of the self-described "concerned community" of radical nuts about today's piece in the WSJ about the unending black-on-black violence in Detroit? Are we to assume the WSJ is fabricating its account, bending the stats, slamming the 'hood? No. We instintively know Detroit is a cesspool of drug dealing, rape, murder, assault, filth and dangerous schools. So, then, where's the outrage, to quote the always sincere former senator, on the part of the cable babes, the gender studies girls, the radical studies boys, Nancy Grace and all the rest? What, too afraid to unfurl the old "Sterilize" banner in the middle of it, huh? Or, is it OK for politically correct groups to engage in any form of behavior they want?</p> <p><center><strong>~   ~   ~</strong></center></p> <p><i>Wow! This is such a wild non-sequitur that I guess I'll leave it up. I can't seem to find my crystal ball at the moment, so I'm afraid I don't have an answer for you. </i></p> OK, let’s visit “the best of all possible worlds” for the radical left: let’s assume, with the sincerity of the narrator of Voltaire’s Candide that Crystal Mangum was, in reality, viciously gangraped by a group of white, privileged thugs.
Let’s assume that the ensuing rallies, banners, Peruvian pot banging, arabic-style ululations, attendance of the lip-glossed cable babes was all in good faith. Fine.
Then what do we make of the deafening silence on the part of the self-described “concerned community” of radical nuts about today’s piece in the WSJ about the unending black-on-black violence in Detroit? Are we to assume the WSJ is fabricating its account, bending the stats, slamming the ‘hood? No. We instintively know Detroit is a cesspool of drug dealing, rape, murder, assault, filth and dangerous schools. So, then, where’s the outrage, to quote the always sincere former senator, on the part of the cable babes, the gender studies girls, the radical studies boys, Nancy Grace and all the rest? What, too afraid to unfurl the old “Sterilize” banner in the middle of it, huh? Or, is it OK for politically correct groups to engage in any form of behavior they want?

~   ~   ~

Wow! This is such a wild non-sequitur that I guess I’ll leave it up. I can’t seem to find my crystal ball at the moment, so I’m afraid I don’t have an answer for you.

]]>