Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Keeping Us Honest

Today's admittedly late piece for the Daily Banter deals with some of the backlash I received to my comments on Michael Moore yesterday.

Here's a quick excerpt:

"The response to my little slam against Moore, Stone and Assange was swift and ferocious. Via Facebook and e-mail, I was raked over the coals pretty relentlessly for daring to specifically correlate Michael Moore to Todd Akin, the argument of my detractors being that I had set up the dreaded false-equivalence. A number of people, including my friend, podcast partner and fellow Banter-ite Bob Cesca, felt that I was being a liberal self-defeatist and that I failed to see how Moore, as a guy who’s not in a position to directly affect public policy, was a poor comparison to someone like Todd Akin, who is. Also, according to my critics, there’s the fact that Moore is an outlier who isn’t thoroughly representative of the overall opinion of the left, as Akin’s views are of the right. All of this is, of course, true — but that’s not really the point and it’s not why I felt it was important to call Moore out for his views while continuing to call out Akin for his."

Read the Rest Here

FYI: Cesca has already said that his column tomorrow will be a follow-up to mine, which means that the debate that went on for quite a while yesterday on Facebook will more than likely continue.


Steven D Skelton said...

SLPC names the FRC a "hate" group and equates them with the thousands of various factions of the KKK.

Dick move? Certainly.

Huffingtonpost, and many other outlets, spread the outright lie that the FRC supports the execution of homosexuals in Uganda.

Dick move? Certainly.

But the only responsible party for shooting up the FRC is guy who did it. Period.

I am beyond in favor of having a conversation about the way we talk to each other.

I think a great first step towards a more civil discourse would be to stop blaming our political opponents for the actions whack jobs.

Anonymous said...

Chez, Moore (who i think is a pretty decent guy) and Stone (who i think is a total douche) may be wrong in defending Assange. but they may be wrong, or they could be right. Assange is "allegedly" a rapist (or sexual predator, or whatever), but there is no clear evidence that he really is any such thing. as much as you hate the guy, for releasing classified US information (and i don't really give a shit, actually i think he did a good job), there is clear evidence that Sweden government will extradite him to the US, as long as he is not convicted to a death penalty. and that is exactly what the US wants. they want to imprison him for releasing "classified" US information. do i think the guy has to answer for his sexual abuse accusations, yes. does he have to stand a death or life trial (or life in prison) for releasing the undercover shit of the US government? hell no!

ZIRGAR said...

Nerve touched! OUCH! Seriously, it seemed to me that your overall point was that defining rape to suit your personal agenda is a bad thing, no matter who does it. Maybe that's simplistic of me, but that's how I understood it; whether it's a man who's simply stating his party's misogynist ideology or whether it's some fringe guys on the "other side'" it's never right. Ever. I think that's a far cry from painting both sides with the same brush. Maybe it's a fine line, a slight distinction, but I think it applies in this case.