“Hey, why don’t you come over to teh MinnPost to debate?”: For the same reason I don’t “debate” at MPR, Startribune.com or on much of any other website or blog. Between my blog, Twitter and, I dunno, my freaking day job, not to mention trying to maintain a modestly-well-adjusted real life, I gotta draw the line somewhere. I’ve given up a lot of online diversions lately .
And, let’s face it, the MinnPost’s comment section is about the same as the Strib’s these days; it’s all noise and no signal. Both of them have come to represent the worst of online “discourse”; mostly people who hide behind anonymity to bellow with rage at people who are different than them. Usenet Newsgroups phoned the Strib and MinnPost comment sections and told ’em to dial back the crazy.
Both are a waste of time. I try not to waste time.
“Why do you oppose banning teh automatic weapins?”: They’ve been mostly illegal since 1934. Seriously – learn the issue before you try to regulate other peoples’ civil rights.
“You oppose gun control? So you think felons should have guns?”: Nope. That is a reasonable “reasonable restriction”.
“If you debate at teh MinnPost you’ll lose!”: In the same way a black guy walking into a Klan rally will “lose”. I’ll get shouted down, sure.
But I won’t lose a “Debate”.
In fact, I may as well reiterate this; I’ll meet any liberal figure – blogger, talking head, pundit, reporter (oh, snap), politician, what have you – in an actual debate about anything we mutually care to debate about. Guns are the hot topic these days – and on Second Amendment issues in particular, I’ll not only meet the libs in an actual debate, I’ll likely make their argument better than they can, before I destroy it. I’m not limited to guns – we can talk education, taxes, transit, whatever. I’m pretty solid on all of ’em. On Second Amendment issues? Let’s just say I’m confident.
Just saying. Try me.
In a real debate, mind you; at a neutral location, with some basic “rules” (they don’t have to be all that formal, but shouting matches bore me) and we can go to town.
Recursive institutionalized (heh) pissing matches like “newspaper” comment sections don’t really make the cut, thanks.
“Why are you constantly bagging on the DFL leadership for not supporting gay marriage? The effort against the Marriage Amendment wasn’t a referendum on gay marriage, after all.”: That’s not the way “Minnesotans United For All Families” and the rest of the anti-Amendment crowd put it. Their rhetoric – “we don’t have popularity contests on civil rights!” – wasn’t focused on the procedural battle over what does or doesn’t go into the Constitution. It was over Adam and Steve and their picket fence.
For Tom Bakk and Paul Thissen not to jam a bill through the legislature that they control largely because of the campaign against the Amendment is intensely hypocritical. For the people who voted for the DFL based on the Amendment not to demand better of the caucus they elected is a betrayal of Gay Minnesotans. Now that the left-leaning PPP poll shows Minnesotans supporting gay marriage, there is no reason whatsoever for Bakk and Thissen not to jam this issue down.
Other than political cowardice and hypocrisy.
“You oppose gun control? So you think felons should have guns?”: Asked and answered. Nope.
“Hahahaha, Merg! You won’t come to teh MinnPost to debate! You are teh coward!”: Real debate. Say when, where, and agree on the rules. If you’ve got the cojones. We all know what an “if” that is.
“But Mitch? There’s a court case in Henco that’ll basically end in legalize gay marriage sooner or later. Bakk and Thissen needn’t lift a finger”: Well, there’s a profile in courage for you!
“You oppose gun control? So you think felons should have guns?”: Er, I answered this twice already. No.
“Mark G***eson says you’re like teh Lord Haw Haw?”: I get called ugly things by people sitting at the back of the bus that also bark at the moon and have tinfoil wrapped around their heads. I give ’em about the same weight.
“Hey, Merg! The Second Amendment refers to “Militia”! Are you in the National Guard?”: I’m sorry – were you in treatment for the past five years or something? The SCOTUS in Heller said “right of the people” means “people” – not government. We – every able-bodied adult – are the militia. That means you, me, and everyone around you that doesn’t have a disqualifying criminal record.
“You oppose gun control? So you think felons should have guns?”: Er, no.
“I’m sick of your arguments. It’s time to re-consider what “reasonable restrictions” are!”: Well, at face value, I’m with you. Most of the restrictions that exist today – gun bans like in Chicago, bans on weapons based on cosmetic features – are utterly useless. Let’s reconsider them!
But that’s not what you’re talking about, is it? This is sort of like the “new conversation about guns” from a few weeks back, which involved your side talking and my side shutting up.
You want to eliminate the Second Amendment, because you think that civilians shouldn’t have guns. It disturbs your idea of the natural relationship between people and government, with citizens toiling away and a benevolent government protecting us, like a dutiful parent. I believe that’s a noxious and repugnant idea of what government is supposed to be, and the Second Amendment helps keep it that way.
“Why don’t you write more about music and history?”: Oh, I meant to over this past two months, trust me. Real life – doing my little bit to defend a vital civil right – got in the way. But there’s more to come.
“You oppose gun control? So you think felons should have guns?”: Er…
“You oppose gun control? So you think felons should have guns?”: It’s cold out, isn’t it?
“You oppose gun control? So you think felons should have guns?”: There are no bones in ice cream.
“You oppose gun control? So you think felons should have guns?”: That surely is a writing implement of immense magnitude.
“Why do you always show your opponents in these pieces to be addled, defective or not-so-bright? Isn’t that a rather demeaning fiction?”: You’ve never met my “critics”, have you?
“You oppose gun control? So you think felons should have guns?”: Um…
“You oppose gun control? So you think felons should have guns?”: …
“You oppose gun control? So you think felons should have guns?”: (facepalm)
“You oppose gun control? So you think felons should have guns?”: …
“Why do you always show your opponents in these pieces to be addled, defective or not-so-bright? Isn’t that a rather demeaning fiction?”: You’ve never met my “critics”, have you?
Huh. I’d always assumed you were actually trying to correct their grammar and usage but had given up once you’d sized up the enormity of the task. Guess I was mistaken about that….
“Why do you always show your opponents in these pieces to be addled, defective or not-so-bright?”
That question explains why the MinnPost has put me in the “do not publish” folder. They tried imposing an arbitrarily enforced “civility rule” (you can bag on GOP pols and Swiftee but other than them, be nice), but given the low level of intelligence among the MinnPost faithful it is impossible to respond and *not* leave them looking like the ignorant fools they are, try as you might.
It’s like a DG clone army over there.
I’m sure they are enjoying their echo chamber.
Did they ban you?
They simply stopped publishing my comments. Eric Black e-mailed me to assure me he didn’t have anything to do with the censorship at the Minnpost, and I believe that’s true. But he evidently didn’t object to them either.
“If you debate at teh MinnPost you’ll lose!”: In the same way a black guy walking into a Klan rally will “lose”.
“You oppose gun control? So you think felons should have guns?”: There are no bones in ice cream.
That was fun, God lov ya Mitch!
I’m hesitant to bag on MinnPost because the still do pick up my stuff once in a while in the “Blog Cabin,” but Swiftee is correct that they aren’t even trying to be anything other than another lefty echo chamber these days. If Brucato walks, the transformation will be complete. And from what I could tell, Swiftee was a hell of a lot more polite than most of their regular commenters.
Brucato is red meat for the orcs. It was funny to watch the Minnpost ignore their own posting rules during the inevitable feeding frenzy that follows one of her posts.
As I’ve always said, their property; their rules and their interpretations of their rules.
That being said, it makes a mockery of the idea anything they do is worthwhile and fools of anyone that claims it is.
“Usenet Newsgroups phoned the Strib and MinnPost comment sections and told ‘em to dial back the crazy.”
Funny ’cause it’s so true.
Brucato is red meat for the orcs.
True dat. They treat her like a cougar Emmanuel Goldstein.
“You oppose gun control? So you think felons should have guns?”: (facepalm)
But all felons should be able to vote – right??? It’s a tossup as to which is more dangerous.