Go to previous post:
For those of us who came in late

Go to Electrolite's front page.

Go to next post:
Holding pattern

Our Admirable Sponsors

August 7, 2002

Speed seduction Brad de Long on the “four stages of becoming a Rhinoceros… excuse me, a neoconservative”:
The first stage is to hold that the flaws—the mighty flaws—of the center-left in American politics are important enough to more-or-less balance the flaws of the right. The second stage is to start making desperate and implausible excuses for Republican politicians and functionaries. The third stage is to lose contact with the substance of public policy issues, and focus instead on intellectual and rhetorical “errors” made by those left of center. And the fourth stage is to start acclaiming right-wing political hacks as noble thinkers, and right-wing office holders as bold and far-sighted leaders with a plan to guide us to utopia.
[11:56 PM]
Welcome to Electrolite's comments section.
Hard-Hitting Moderator: Teresa Nielsen Hayden.

Comments on Speed seduction:

Matt Welch ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 01:29 AM:

Anyone else bored stoopid by the endless blog-world exercise of pin-the-label-on-the-Kaus? I suppose it serves as a handy distraction from actually having to engage with his arguments on their merits....

Patrick Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 01:43 AM:

Don't rush to be defensive. I've just recently been dissing doctrinaire lefties over on your friend Layne's blog. I'm entitled to point out the converse: that there really is an identifiable pattern by which liberals get seduced by the sectarian right.

De Long was in fact talking about Kaus, but I'm not particularly interested in passing judgement on Kaus, which is why I cut the Kaus references and left in the general observations. News break: I don't really care about thirteenth-century Florentine politics, either, but Dante's typologies are still interesting and relevant.

Glenn Reynolds ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 10:28 AM:

Well, as someone who straddles the left/right divide on many issues, I can see one thing seductive about the right. They're far less prone to calling you names when you disagree with them. Example: I disagree with the Christian bloggers on, well, almost everything except the fact that the Catholic Church's sex-scandal coverup is a disgrace: abortion, cloning, school prayer, etc. But they're always polite.

The vast number of pseudonymous, name-calling lefty bloggers, on the other hand, doesn't make the left seem more attractive. As the saying goes, the left looks for heretics and the right looks for converts, and both get what they're looking for.

alkali ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 11:34 AM:

... I can see one thing seductive about the right. They're far less prone to calling you names when you disagree with them.

This rhetorical move -- charging that one's opponent has behaved unethically, and using same that improper behavior in the course of making the charge -- may hereinafter be referred to as "the Coulter" or "to coulter".

The term is coined in honor of the right-wing pundit who wrote a book asserting that the American news media hate America because they are purportedly so mendacious and otherwise unethical in describing their political opponents. That book was subsequently itself demonstrated to be thoroughly mendacious and otherwise unethical in its description of the news media.

Example: Krugman asserts that the Bush OMB lied about the effect of the Bush tax cut on the deficit, pointing to a transparently false OMB press release. Kaus coulters by charging that Krugman lied in describing the press release as a lie, because the OMB claims that the self-serving falsehood was an innocent mistake and Krugman can't prove otherwise.

Example: DeLong asserts that Kaus has been seduced by the sectarian right. Reynolds coulters by complaining that "[a] vast number" of "lefty bloggers" are name-callers.

Duvall ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 12:03 PM:

Oh, come on. Tribalism is hardly the exclusive province of left-of-center commentators. The right spends as much, if not more, effort bashing "RINOs" as the left does bashing, uh, "rhinos." If Welch wants to know more about the dangers of right-wing adherence to doctrinal purity, he should probably just ask his new boss.

Matthew Yglesias ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 12:10 PM:

I would posit that everyone — irrespective of ideology — is more likely to praise someone who is moving toward rather than away from them politically, irrespective of the "objective" distance.

As to why Glenn doesn't get called names from conservatives who he disagrees with, that's probably because he doesn't blog too much on those issues (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Avram ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 12:37 PM:

Coultering? I have enough trouble trying to figure out what fisking is. (Shouldn't it mean excessively identifying with one's aggressors?)

Brian Linse ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 12:46 PM:

I'm bored, yes, but Kaus has been 'out there' for awhile now, and his arguments should be attacked. His move away from more liberal views seemingly timed with his move to Slate doesn't help the perception either. But I agree that the tack used by most of his critics is not productive.
Let's see how your predominantly conservative supporters in Blogville would react if you gave the same emphasis to your more progressive views that you give to your conservo ideas. I've always viewed you as, on balance, more center-left than conservative, but there'as a lot of red meat over in Insta-Land to distract the Right from some of that pesky progressivism you sneak in. Look at how the right has treated David Brock. He was a genius, now he's a pathological liar? I've spent hours searching the net for a substantive rebuttal of Brock -- bupkis! None. Nada.
A winger is a winger is a winger. Lefty or Righty, it just doesn't matter. Truth and progress always thrives closer to the center.

John Farrell ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 12:48 PM:

In fairness, it should be pointed out that Coulter was dumped from National Review Online precisely because she has a tendency to demonize and go over the top.

I think Glen Reynolds has a good point. But I would offer another candidate on the right who has been around much longer than Coulter, and who early on established a reputation for attacking people who disagreed with him--and that's Bob Tyrell of the American Spectator....

(I count myself among those conservatives who read NRO and wish TAS would please just go away already...)

John Rosenberg ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 12:50 PM:

The idea that someone would move from left to right only if "seduced" assumes that normality and rationality find their natural home on the left and, further, that some sort of explanation other than normal political opinion is required to explain why someone would ever leave his home on the left. Seduction, as an explanation, has the added benefit of implying weakness of will and perhaps even general low character. Perhaps it is the pervasivesness of assumptions like these on the left that have led so many people to feel uncomfortable there.

rncarpio ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 02:27 PM:

From what I have read, Kaus' main interest lies in social issues, especially welfare reform. Many liberals predicted a catastrophe when Clinton signed the welfare reform bill, but the results have proven Kaus right. There has also been more evidence from social science about the effects of the things that cultural conservatives decry - teen sex, single motherhood, etc. If you care a lot about something, and one "side" seems to be consistently wrong about it, it's natural to drift to the other side.

Matt Welch ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 03:06 PM:

Patrick -- 'Twas not a "rush to be defensive," nor even a criticism of your posting this (actually, I found it interesting). Just expressing my own semi-private boredom with pin-the-label-on-the-Kaus.

Brian -- Yes, his *arguments* should be attacked. My point exactly!

Duvall -- Who is this "boss" person you speak of, and how come he hasn't paid me any money?

Ulrika O'Brien ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 03:09 PM:

First, I suppose I should point out that my political affiliation is still Libertarian after all these beers, and as such I think I too can claim to straddle the line between left and right on many issues. But when Glenn Reynolds observes, "...I can see one thing seductive about the right. They're far less prone to calling you names when you disagree with them," the only thing I can think to do is fall about laughing.

Not on my planet, monkey-boy. But it seems to me symptomatic that he should think so. Increasingly, over the last few years, I've been noticing smart people who should know better wearing blinkers to the failings of the Right -- like their tendency to leaping into name-calling anyone who questions them -- and claiming that it's the other side that does it more. Either I'm nuts, or something very like De Long's seduction process really is going on. Or possibly Phil Agre is more right than I like about the effectiveness of the right's hard-cranking propaganda machine (not that I'm sure that that's necessarily different from what Brad DeLong is talking about.) At any rate, people
seem, with surprising frequency, to be substituting everybody-knows-isms (like the "liberal media" meme) for critical observation and analysis, and it bugs me.

My disappointed optimist streak is showing again.


John Rosenberg ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 03:17 PM:

Please see an extended comment of mine on this issue on my blog, DISCRIMINATIONS, at http://rosenblog.blogspot.com/2002_08_04_rosenblog_archive.html#79992721. Thanks...

ben ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 04:32 PM:

Kaus' original piece was a fair cop. The Post got spun, badly, and he called them on it. DeLong, bizzarely, decided Kaus' media criticism indicated a) a lack of concern about world hunger, and b) the first step towards a staff position on the Weekly Standard. Both of these conclusions are pretty silly, and the first is kind of laughable. These are the facts of the matter. How DeLong and Krugman want to label Kaus (a fellow Gore voter) is their own affair.

Glenn "Monkey Boy" Reynolds ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 04:44 PM:

Well, I spend plenty of time on cloning, follies of the Drug War, etc. And I get disagreement on that -- Orrin Judd is always telling me that I'm wrong. But I don't get the nastiness that I get from the lefties. Your mileage may vary, I suppose, though I think Ulrika has kind of proved my point.

Josh ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 05:01 PM:

"Well, I spend plenty of time on cloning, follies of the Drug War, etc. And I get disagreement on that -- Orrin Judd is always telling me that I'm wrong. But I don't get the nastiness that I get from the lefties. Your mileage may vary, I suppose, though I think Ulrika has kind of proved my point."

I'm sorry, are you really arguing that making a Buckaroo Banzai reference counts as nastiness?

Hanoi Xan (head of the World Crime League) ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 05:14 PM:

"I'm sorry, are you really arguing that making a Buckaroo Banzai reference counts as nastiness?"

If you're one of the 4 people who have seen the movie, no. But try it with a mugger and see how far you get. "See, 'monkey boy' is what the Black Lectroids called the--OWWW! Don't hit!!"

Insinuating that Glenn "who should know better" has succumbed to the right's "propaganda machine" was of course a perfectly resonable thing to say. One must never look for the root causes when someone starts thinking differently. Better to assume they have been brainwashed away from what all reasonable people believe.

The right is after all a cult. And when people start leaning to the right are falling under their sinister control. Please. It's as ludricous a thing to say as "people lean to the left because it's easier to get laid." AND HOW!!

Ulrika O'Brien ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 05:15 PM:

Well, if making a Buckaroo Banzai reference counted as nastiness, then I'm afraid it would constitute more of a counter-example to Mr. Reynolds than support. On the whole, I've been a much more right leaning Libertarian than left-leaning one, over the arc of my political life. I've voted for Ronald Reagan, for fuck's sake. And have been known to support the NRA, when they aren't too busy embarrassing themselves. If that's the hallmark of a lefty, then the "center" has been moved farther right than even I had supposed.

And of course we all know that a single example, while sufficient to disprove a generalization, is not sufficient to prove one, yes?

Ulrika "resonable" O'Brien ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 05:28 PM:

I do like the "try that on a mugger" move though. Damn, that should work on almost anything, since it's a complete non sequitur:

"We must stop Saddam because he has Weapons of Mass Destruction [tm]!"

"Yeah, tell that to a mugger."

"It's perfectly common business practice to get paid out six times the percentage you put in."

"Yeah, tell that to a mugger."

Wow. I feel just like the monkey man who discovered the bone club.

Josh ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 05:34 PM:


Personally, I like the equivalence between Glenn Reynolds and a mugger.

Hanoi Xan ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 05:35 PM:

Let's see. Called someone a monkey boy, assumed no one could possibly take that as an insult since everybody's seen the movie, was called on it by presenting a scenario where 'monkey boy' might be taken as an insult by someone who hasn't seen the movie and has a gun, let scenario sail over head,...yep, you got me. Non sequitur. Purple monkey dishwasher.

Ulrika O'Brien ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 05:53 PM:

Slowly: the fact that a rhetorical trope from
one realm of discourse, where one set of expectations about common background knowledge may reasonably apply, and correction can be made trivially and without great expense, will likely fail in a completely different realm of discourse where entirely other assumptions apply and correction may be quite costly proves exactly nothing about the value of the rhetorical trope.
Canadian dollars don't function as New York subway tokens either. When you swap frames of reference, new rules apply. Surprise. But this whole line of discussion does nicely distract from saying anything of substance on the topic.

anony-mouse ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 07:40 PM:

Maybe the appearance of greater tendency toward name-calling and nastiness on the left comes not from an absence of such behavior on the right. Rather, perhaps it comes from the fact that much of the right was consigned to the nuthouse years ago and is regularly ignored, while large portions of the extreme left are yet mainstream.

Avedon ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 07:46 PM:

I just want to say for the record that I have been called names by right-wingers all my life and I haven't noticed things being any different now. My rightish friends don't call me names, but they are my friends. The rest of 'em are pretty rude.

And, just btw, I consider things like "Demoncrats" and "DemocRATS" to be names, among the many, many names that righties level frequently at lefties. Commie, degenerate, pervert, liar, traitor, blah blah blah - we get this stuff all the time.

Demosthenes ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 09:00 PM:

Let me get this straight...

is the argument here that

a) the right doesn't namecall (which is nonsense- the proof is left as an exercise for the google Usenet archives- try variations on the words "Godless Commie', "Statist", "Communist", "Socialist", or even "Liberal" itself)...

b) the right doesn't expell heretics (which begs the question of what the hell is going on down in Texas with the anti-RINO actions of the Republicans)...


c) that because one can switch from one side to another, that automatically invalidates the "seduction" argument (when both can easily exist as different processes, and nothing in DeLong's original post can be construed as denying that?)

I'm sort of confused here.

As for Kaus? The problem is one of identification- if Kaus is identified as a liberal, and (due to his popularity) as a prominent one, then his comments will either consciously or unconsciously be thought of by readers and commentators as representing liberals and liberalism. If nobody cared about labels then Matt would be right, but we live in a world of stereotyping, pigeonholing, and labelling, and trying to swim against *that* tide is pointless. All it would mean is that when you get labelled by someone willing to do it, you're defenseless against it.

Jason McCullough ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 09:01 PM:

'But I don't get the nastiness that I get from the lefties.'

That's because the issues you apparently disagree with conservatives on are areas where the online technocratic libertarian variant of the GOP either doesn't give a damn about or they agree with you. Offhand, I can't think of a single economic issue where I've agreed with you, for example, but on plenty of "social" and civil liberties stuff I do, and I'm probably "center left."

I think it's more an issue of your audience's tastes than anything else.

Demosthenes ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 09:03 PM:

By the way, Glenn... is it the namecalling or the pseudonymity that bothers you about those aforementioned leftists? I know a few bloggers always precede the word "pseudonymous" with the word "regrettably", but I hadn't figured you for that type.

Avram ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 09:04 PM:

I'm relieved to see that Glenn disapproves of name-calling. I conclude that he'd never stoop so low as to call someone he disagrees with a nasty name like, say, idiotarian.

Glenn Reynolds ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 10:40 PM:

I've only seen fragments of Buckaroo Banzai on cable, and the "monkey boy" reference did indeed go by me. Josh's comparison to a mugger is no doubt a rhetorical trope from the movie "Liquid Sky" and is actually praise.

I don't think I've ever used the word idiotarian myself -- at least I don't recall it, and my sitesearch shows only a single appearance of the word, used by someone else.

In response to Demosthenes, I have nothing against pseudonymous blogging in general, but there seem to be a disproportionate number of name-calling lefty blogs that are pseudonynonymous. And it's not just my opinion: Nick Confessore emailed that he thought the same thing, and suggested it was MWO's influence. Whatever. I understand that people may have reasons to be pseudonymous, and I'm sure the reporter in Houston who was just canned over his blog wishes he had used a 'nym. But those of us who use True Names tend to feel -- well, hell, I don't really know how other people feel, but I feel -- that when pseudonymous bloggers sling insults at us they are taking advantage of their pseudonymity: they can insult a real person, but we can reply only to somebody's sock puppet.

This seems to have strayed rather far offtopic, though. I can only repeat my own experience. With the exception of one regrettable episode involving Richard Bennett, my views on teen sex, cloning, abortion, etc. haven't gotten me anywhere near the kind of venom from people on the right that my views on the war, or on gun control have gotten me from people on the left.

Steve ::: (view all by) ::: August 08, 2002, 11:11 PM:

Uhh, perhaps it's that it's late, but I don't think Josh is the person who introduced the mugger trope. Also, it's hardly surprising that perceived backsliders and heretics get some of the nastiest venom; some of the RINO-bashing I've seen directed at McCain from Republicans and general right-leaning sorts online has been positively vicious. Has, say, Arianna Huffington attracted the same kind of fire that Kaus is currently coming under? (My guess: No, because Huffington's lurch to the left was before the wider presence of politically-oriented weblogs. I bet you could find some good Usenet and Freeper rants, though.)

Avram ::: (view all by) ::: August 09, 2002, 12:28 AM:

I don't think I've ever used the word idiotarian myself -- at least I don't recall it, and my sitesearch shows only a single appearance of the word, used by someone else.

Glenn, it shows up six times on this one archive page alone (and none of those occurances are within quoted text).

The first instance is in a short sentence linking to a post by Dr. Weevil, who doesn't use the word in the linked-to post (though he does use "idiotic").

Further down the page, you use it several times, attributing it to Charles Johnson, but using it freely and without scare-quotes or any other indication of a desire to distance yourself from the word. In that post, you refer to "two examples from people I often disagree with, but who I think fall into the anti-idiotarian camp", but from the context it looks like you left the word "don't" out from between "I" and "think". Anyway, you close with "You wouldn't hear this from an idiotarian, for whom such professions of open-mindedness are only meaningful if aimed at murderous thugs."

So it might be true to say that you've never called any particular person an idiotarian, Glenn, but not that you've never used it.

Josh ::: (view all by) ::: August 09, 2002, 12:36 AM:

"Josh's comparison to a mugger is no doubt a rhetorical trope from the movie "Liquid Sky" and is actually praise."

Uh, *my* comparison to a mugger? No, that was Hanoi Xan.

But back to my main point. Even if you didn't recognize the reference, do you really think someone wishing to be nasty to you would call you "monkey-boy"?

Patrick Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: August 09, 2002, 12:41 AM:

Jesus Christ. I woke up this morning with some kind of godawful bug, so I stayed home from work and, uncharacteristically, didn't look at my email all day. So of course this thread gets dozens of messages.

I think I liked it better when people of different political stripes were conversing reasonably, exchanging insights, and discovering points of agreement, instead of lining up with the Left Team and the Right Team. Okay, everyone has a tribal streak, me certainly included, and everyone has grievances to resent and travesties to be angry over. That's human.

My own personal history puts me on both sides of the contest of anecdotes over who's a bigger meanie. I got beaten up more than once for admitting to liberal political views when I was a kid in the suburbs of Phoenix, Arizona. And as late as the early 1990s, it seemed to me that, in online discussions, the real extremes of personal nastiness came more from the right than from the left. (GEnie SFRT regulars will recall a particular fellow whose login was the name of a common carpenter's tool.) But in the last few years, the real extrems of hostility that I've personally encountered have come from people who call themselves "left." Not from the majority of left-leaning folks I know, and yet...I get disagreed with by conservatives and libertarians, and it seems to me that some of them argue in good faith and some don't and the proportions are pretty normal, and the same goes for people to the left of me. Except that there's a spike of really shrill hostility in the left direction, a disruption to the usual curve of distribution.

It's entirely possible that the real problem is that I'm sensitised to right-wing extremism and crankery and simply filter it out. I don't, in fact, spend much time on blogs that appear to contain nothing but Ann Coulter-style rants about the perfidiousness of liberals. (Such blogs certainly exist.) I do go out of my way to look at blogs that people recommend to me as articulate and lefty, and I wind up being surprised (silly me) at how many of them seem to be full of poorly-reasoned arguments and shrill namecalling. Obviously, there's some observer effect going on here.

My "seduction" headline was probably wrongheaded. There's something about Kaus's evolution, and the way some people's views change, that I'd like to articulate, but I think casting it in simple "left"/"right" terms was a mistake. More on this later.

Regarding monkey boys, Ulrika sort of explained this, but let me make it explicit: Like a significant number of the regulars in these comment threads, Ulrika has known me for years in science fiction fandom, where lines from Buckaroo Banzai get quoted as joke taglines fairly frequently. It's pretty understandable that Ulrika should accidentally slip into our shared subculture's idiom while posting here. Whatever the case, it's pretty funny to see Ulrika, of all people, getting slammed as some kinda right-baiting liberal. Life has many unexpected tricks to play on us all.

Regarding blog pseudonyms: I don't like 'em. I try not to make an issue out of it, and I know people of all stripes who feel they have good reason to use them. But it bothers me. When I'm in a dispute with someone who calls themself "Pericles" or whatever, I feel very much at a disadvantage. Patrick Nielsen Hayden is a real person; you can look me up in the phone book, you can accost me in front of my office building, you can find me at conventions and public appearances. "Pericles" is a drive-by with mirrored glass windows. It seems wrong. I try to be tolerant, but I basically don't like it.

Avram ::: (view all by) ::: August 09, 2002, 01:25 AM:

When I'm in a dispute with someone who calls themself "Pericles" or whatever, I feel very much at a disadvantage.

Actually, I feel like I've got an advantage under those circumstances, for just those reasons -- I'm Avram Grumer, I've got an extensive online history, a track record people can look up, and )I like to think) a small but positive reputation. Joe Anonymous is just some guy who can type. The fact that he's not willing to tie his words to a personal reputation hurts him in my eyes.

Christopher Hatton ::: (view all by) ::: August 09, 2002, 06:59 AM:

I don't have a blog, but I post comments under my own name (well, unless the name is part of the joke, as in the debate a while ago among various historical/legendary figures). I sometimes regret this when I say something stupid, but I still think it's better to take responsibility for what I say. Personal responsibility: and me as left as anyone outside the CP... :-)

Please folks, by now we all know that Ulrike, whatever you think of her views, didn't mean to insult anyone. (If you're not a Fan, and you want to know what she meant, substitute "earthling" for "monkey boy" -- we are all monkey boys to non-primate-descended aliens. It reminds me of the part of Twisting The Rope where Martha uses the expression "What you mean we, white man," to which Mayland Long responds "White man? Inapposite, even as an insult."

This is a spur on the Turnpike of this discussion. If you wanna live in the "You're a namecaller!" "No, YOU'RE a namecaller!" "Namecaller, namecaller!" world, I can recommend some good elementary school playgrounds. I've just been reading this up until now, and the folks in this comment thread have MUCH more interesting things to say than that.

Please say them. Drop this stupid namecalling namecalling. (That first 'namecalling' modifies the second, OK?)

Charles Kuffner ::: (view all by) ::: August 09, 2002, 11:53 AM:

"I understand that people may have reasons to be pseudonymous, and I'm sure the reporter in Houston who was just canned over his blog wishes he had used a 'nym."

FYI, Glenn, the Houston Chronicle reporter in question did use a pseudonym (Banjo Jones) on his blog. Someone figured out who he was and outed him to his boss. He was ordered to take his site down, then he was fired.

Reporter outed. My take is here.
Reporter fired. My take is here.

Armed Liberal ::: (view all by) ::: August 09, 2002, 12:40 PM:

Great thread. My comment:

More important; it remains a two-dimensional tug-of-war in which one small team gains and another loses. I'll restate that the rest of us are watching from the cheap seats as the game itself becomes increasingly irrelevant to us and our lives.

Interesting stuff on anonymity; I may try and write something today.


John Farrell ::: (view all by) ::: August 09, 2002, 01:21 PM:

Since Kaus comes into this, I thought I'd paste in his reaction to Brad DeLong's initial blog. Whatever else you can say about Kaus, he's kept his sense of humor:

"Brad DeLong says there's still time for me to save myself. But I'm afraid it's too late. The Scaife money is too good. And the lifestyle! The subtly-scented billets-doux from the Heritage Foundation. The wild after-hours parties at Barbara Ledeen's secret hideaway. (You haven't seen anything until you've seen DeLay do his "elephant" trick.) The "access" to Hollywood's glamorous right-wingers. Both of them!. Maybe there was a time when I could give it up. But when I looked at my depleted visage in the mirror this morning, I realized I can't. Not any more. I'm in too deep..."

Richard Evans ::: (view all by) ::: August 09, 2002, 08:25 PM:

I can't help feeling a bit irritated at the idea that I'm supposed to feel like an idiot because my political view of other humans is too positive and I want to be too nice to them, but I'm now also a meanie name-caller. How...odd.

Also, do you respect me because I typed "Richard Evans" there? I could be anyone - and probably am.

Glenn Reynolds ::: (view all by) ::: August 09, 2002, 10:14 PM:

Avram: I typed "Idiotarian" into my search window and found one reference to Ramesh Ponnuru's use of it. It's here. When I try to follow your link it bounces me to my front page, but I'll take your word for it.

Josh ::: (view all by) ::: August 10, 2002, 02:40 AM:

"Also, do you respect me because I typed "Richard Evans" there? I could be anyone - and probably am."

Depends. How do you feel about David Irving?

Beth Bernobich ::: (view all by) ::: August 10, 2002, 09:15 AM:

About the "idiotarian" archive link: Try this one, which doesn't have the bouncing problem.

Matt McIrvin ::: (view all by) ::: August 12, 2002, 11:25 PM:

Og discover bone club! Why Ulrika call Og monkey man? Og insulted! Og wish Og never discover bone club!

Og hate black monolith! Black monolith turn Og wife into flying space fetus! Black monolith NOTHING BUT TROUBLE!

B. Banzai ::: (view all by) ::: August 14, 2002, 05:47 PM:

Hey! Guys and gals! Don't be mean!

Remember: Wherever you go, there you are...