I Don’t Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

The first post this blog did that generated any attention – and by that, I mean maybe 50-60 hits, in those days before this blog had any kind of regional following at all, back in the summer of 2002 or so – was the “DFL Dictionary”.  The post – which is, unfortunately, lost to history (for now) listed a series of common words that the DFL had re-defined for their purposes.  For example:

“Bipartisanship (noun): to belong to a non-DFL party, but to espouse and support DFL policies without any serious question”.

That kind of thing.

And it’s become almost a cliche among leftybloggers in recent months lately as long as I’ve been reading them;  a sort of inexorable “inflation” in pejoratives.  Conservatives never take umbrage, they “whine”; we don’t argue, we “melt down. 

Now, I’m a pretty lucky guy.  Generally pretty happy with life.  I have two great kids, a job I love, a couple of hobbies I love even more, great family, great friends – really, just about a guy could want out of life.  I’m in the best shape I’ve been in in decades, I’m feeling generally good about life, I’ve dispensed with a lot of real and metaphorical baggage in the past year or so, and while life has all sorts of inevitable twists and turns, things are generally going pretty dang well right now.  One of my hobbies – debating politics with strangers in writing and on the radio – has turned into a fun sideline; in this, I’ve been able to find some semblance of fulfillment, as well as some future possibilities, while honoring my sense of integrity.  In other words, I’m getting little bits and piece of happiness, and all in all it’s a pretty good stretch for me, knock wood.

Which, if you’re a gutless anonymous leftyblogger, means “angry”, “hateful”, bla bla bla.

No, really.  “Stove” from Cocky Slob just can’t get enough of trying to jam people into his own bigoted little template:

It came to Spot today, unbidden. In over three years of reading blogs and writing this one, Spot has been unable to find the word that summed up the festering Bund of the right wing blogosphere. But he’s got it now: bullies.

Ooh.  Another neo-Nazi reference. 

He must be writing about something serious.

What, after all, is a bully? It’s someone who is cruel and overbearing, a thug. Someone who picks on somebody else, preferably smaller and weaker, maybe to make himself feel like a big cheese, or even just appear to be one to the drooling sycophants he wants to impress. The words of the bully almost always have a tinge of intimidation in them, or sometimes more than just a tinge.

Or sometimes much, much less than a “tinge”. 

Indeed, in some cases it’s more of a “little corner of actual meaning that you’ve carefully sanded to fit your own  myopic, bigoted, deranged template through which you force all of your own perceptions”. 

As in “you read “apples”, and see “axles””.

There they sit on the bar stool of grudge and resentment, taking big swigs from their tankards of bile, belting out tuneless refrains of impotent rage. Then, tottering home in crazed and bilious humors, they sit down and write stuff like this.

He links to the piece I wrote Tuesday about former Minnesoros “Independent” writer Molly Priesmeyer and City Pages doddering troll Emily Kaiser. 

Rage?  Bile?  Crazed? 

It is no especial mystery why all the paranoid, poisoned, gun-toting crazies are all on one side.

(Although why some people need to vilify, defame and demonize those who disagree with them is an “especial” puzzler to those of us with fuller, richer lives) 

 The pathology is unremarkable. But its consequences over the last twenty five years or so have been catastrophic.

If only because they – “consequences” like people speaking freely and still disagreeing with “Spot”, gutless anonyme – seem to have driven their author around the bend into complete derangement.

Intimidation?  I wished Molly Priesmeyer good luck in her job searc, having been in her shoes all too many times (sometimes with kids to feed, to boot).  I’d like to be so “intimidated” by my nemeses.

Bullying?   I’m the underdog, you half-trained trick chimp.  I’m a little solo blogger from Saint Paul.  Emily Kaiser writes for a multi-million dollar corporation; Molly Priesmeyer wrote for a Soros front, and not being an untalented writer will no doubt get picked up by another sooner than later.

It is a period from which the barest signs of emerging have now just appeared. But the bud is nascent and the bullies will try to kill it.

Catch that?  It’s not just responding – “participating in life”.  It’s “bullying” and “crushing your hopes”. 

For some of us, the notion of “disagreement” and “dissent” isn’t a threat. For the others, there are anonymously-posted pictures of the Nuremberg Rallies.

Courage my friends.

“Courage”.  Heh.

This from a guy who blogs anonymously – who quite visibly panics, indeed, at the notion of being “outed”, when he’s not taking his defamatory, cowardly little shots at his betters.

The word we’re looking for is “deranged”.  

Look that one up on “Answers.com”. 

Courage, little doggie.  Now, run and play.  You are boring and predictable.

(Via Fut)

195 Total Views 2 Views Today

65 thoughts on “I Don’t Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

  1. President GW Bush is my president, but I will feel a moderate level of joy when he is no longer. Sue me.

    “The “reality” of referring to the President-Elect as “the one”, “messiah”, or similar is pretty damn tame,”

    I find it the worse of the worse! Blasphemy at its most despicable. And that it is coming from a group of individuals who claim to be guided by the word of the Lord and strong Christian beliefs is the ultimate in disrespect. My Lord our God is the only Messiah, and to see people distort that title for political purpose and gain tells much more about them, then it does about those they are mocking.

    I’ve been in this game long enough to have fallen into petty juvenile name calling mode, and have done my best to resist. But when the blasphemous attacks and taunts on Candidate Obama began, I wasn’t upset about them calling him names, I was furious that they chose a religious tac to do so. The celebrity claims, and ‘sound without substance’ was all fair game, but the invocation of some form of religious second coming was/is crossing the line.

    Flash

  2. Flash,

    It’s been duly noted that you’re not one of the insane ones.

    And unless you are highly orthodox, referring to Obama as “The One” or “Obamessiah” as a sarcastic jibe at the hyperbole of some subset of his supporters isn’t blasphemous; I don’t think you can reasonably say that any of his detractors believe Barack Obama is the second coming. (Some of his supporters? Not so sure there).

  3. “”referring to Obama as “The One” or “Obamessiah” as a sarcastic jibe at the hyperbole of some subset of his supporters isn’t blasphemous;””

    I disagree, in fact I think it is the definition of such. But that is my opinion, and you have yours. And if you stop by tonight and have a beer around the fire with us, we can laugh about it. The beauty of living in a civilized society!

    Flash

  4. I find it the worse of the worse! Blasphemy at its most despicable.

    Pffft.

    Tell us again how infanticide works within the boundries of your faith, Flash. Do the one about how Christ would tear the infant from it’s mothers womb with compassion and flush it with love……I just love that one

  5. Flash,
    It is satire on the chanting followers of Barak. Some even say he is here and elected because of the Almighty.

    It is not blasphemous to make fun of folks who are blaspheming.

  6. Flash-
    Not sure how deep you are into strains of conservative thought, but-
    Most conservatives believe that the left equates American racism with original sin. In Helen Goodman’s Sunday column las week she actually used this formulation, but there are other examples. It’s not a hard thesis to defend.
    To the extent, then, that believing that electing Obama become President will make America a non-racist nation or show that we are a non-racist nation, believing that choosing Obama will relieve America of the burden of racism is believing that Obama is the Saviours.
    Therefore it is not blasphemous to mock the fact that Obama is seen as a messiah figure by many of his supporters. Anyone who believe that you can get rid of original sin by standing in line one afternoon and casting a ballot deserves to mocked. They are the blasphemers, not bloggers who call Obama “The Chosen One” or “The Obomassiah”.

  7. flash said:

    “I find it the worse of the worse! Blasphemy at its most despicable.”

    Then I find your opinion the most hyperbolic of hyperbole.

    “And that it is coming from a group of individuals who claim to be guided by the word of the Lord and strong Christian beliefs is the ultimate in disrespect.”

    Clue: neither Republican nor conservative is code for church group, regardless of what angryclown says.

    That is neither here nor there because baby Jesus will probably take no offense at, as Badda mentioned, people observing ‘blasphemy’ and letting it be known.

    “My Lord our God is the only Messiah, and to see people distort that title for political purpose and gain tells much more about them, then it does about those they are mocking.”

    Accept the deed and condemn it’s recognition all you wish, flash. *shrug*

  8. “” Is the garage still open? “”

    Yes. Last year I fried on 12/1 for an 11 month season. This year I think this last keg will fry before that, but Neighbor Jerry thinks I should get another one anyway *laughing*

    “”mock the fact that Obama is seen as a messiah figure by many of his supporters””

    I can, to a point, accept this!

    “”They are the blasphemers, not bloggers who call Obama “The Chosen One” or “The Obomassiah”””

    This is down right wrong. But that is my opinion, we can agree to disagree

  9. I can, to a point, accept this!
    As long as you don’t get a thrill up your leg, you’ll likely be alright. If you buy the Obama Inaugural Commemorative Coin, you are a freaking lost cause.

  10. I’m a little late with this one, but what the heck:

    Peev

    “BTW Foot, I strongly suspect that like me, this guy isn’t particularly afraid of Mitch, in shape or otherwise. ”

    And Foot:

    Since my observation is based on facts (he’s nice to Mitch’s face; a shrieking, invective flinging jerk to him when they’re separated by 15 miles), and your observation is based on a weird combination of nothing and bizarre post hoc “logic”, I’ll stick with my theory.

    That’d be my point, actually. I have no interest in intimidating anyone, much less getting into a fight.

    As I’ve written any number of times in this blog, I’ve generally found that once I’ve met someone with whom I disagree, I usually manage to stop treating them as facile collections of ugly stereotypes. It usually goes both ways, for most people. I’ve managed to have fairly cordial or at least civil relationships with a number of leftybloggers with whom I disagree strenuously, but have bent an elbow or two around and have gotten to know, at least cursorily, as people rather than drooling, comic stereotypes; Chuck Olson, Luke Francl, Jeff Rosenberg, Chris Dykstra, Robin Marty, the Publius guys…heck, I’ve even been able to keep it “just business” with Mark Gisleson and Diane “MNob” Gerth.

    But there are a few exceptions. And Mr. T is one of them. We met, we had a beer or three, we chatted – and then he took a couple of really gratuitous cheap shots at me afterward. Not just the “Nazi” crap – that’s the mark of a fatuous juvenile mind, and of little enough concern. No, he’s dug lower than that.

    So no, intimidation isn’t my bag (and even if it were, “don’t get into fights” is a good commandment in the world of self-defense, ifyacatchmydrift). It’s more a matter of “the Golden Rule”, treating people the way you’d like them to treat you. I don’t mind mixing it up with people – it’s a bit of hobby, in case you haven’t noticed. But I like to keep it just business, if it’s at all possible; when it gets personal, it’s just too ugly, and who the hell needs that?

    By the way, while I didn’t collude with Swiftee in “outing” Gerth or Timmon, I think it’s hunky-dory he did; maybe the local sorosphere will get a bit more civil, now that they don’t have the benefit of anonymity. However, I do NOT believe in “outing” peoples’ places of employment; nobody should take shit at work for their avocational life.

    I won’t allow anyone to “out” anyone’s employer on my site, I strongly discourage anyone from doing it at all, and if anyone gets the bright idea of trying to do it to me, I will – I don’t say this lightly – find any way I can to bring legal action.

    And that, as they say, is all she wrote. As it were.

  11. Pingback: The Twin Cities Daily Liberal » This could restore my respect for John McCain

Leave a Reply