I've been spending a bit of time on one of those networking sites, swapping nonsense with people I used to know quite well and now... well, thirty years later, we still have a few things in common.
Some of us.
Mostly, we play games. It doesn't provide one with much reason to post on a blog.
Today, I have an excuse.
I had, shall we say, a bit of a discussion. It started off innocuously enough: a former colleague (who -- I hope -- will forgive me for going public on this) posted a link to the video of Helen Thomas' egregious remarks regarding Israel. Another person who had once worked with him left an ad hominem attack on the poster, on the source, and on Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Beck, labeling them as antisemitic. Heh.
My mother responded:
[name redacted] I've seen the video..have you? Glenn Beck was defending Israel's actions this week. Keep Jimmy Carter in mind when you blame the Right for Anti-Semitism.
The fellow tossed another ad hominem attack, including me muddah, labeling her a "right wingnutt" and declaring that "everybody knows the only antisemites are on the right..."
Interesting. [Name redacted], here you have been presented with clear evidence of the left's -- and a powerful member of the Mainstream Media's -- severe anti-Semitic bias, and not only do you refuse to see it, but you throw about unfounded accusations.
How does the nice Jewish man and Israel supporter Jonah Goldberg get labeled Anti-Semitic? Or, for that matter, Glenn Beck, whose open support for Israel has been voiced repeatedly (and whose staff includes several orthodox Jews)? So far as I've seen, the only far -right-nutcase who has spoken anything close to anti-Semitic or anti-Israel has been Pat Buchanan, and even the rest of the far right nutcases tend to move away when he pipes up.
One of the clearest signs of anti-Semitism is to support the avowed mortal enemies of Jews and Israel.
Your attempt at deflection is lame, at best.
Next thing I know, this person has come to me... that is, he posted on my wall, rather than trying to carry on the conversation in view of the others, in the original thread. On my wall:
Frankly, I'm sick to death of ignorant people like you and [my friend]. I don't need anyone giving me lectures, least of all you, about what is or isn't anti-semitism. I suggest reading a good book or two, and not one suggested by a FOX News commentator. You and your ilk scare me.Have a nice life, wallowing in your willfull ignorance.
Sigh. On my wall. I responded:
Such a sad commentary on your presumed tolerant left. Your snap judgment based on a single remark, and I know more about your views and purported education than you will ever know of mine.
OOOO I'm so scared of you! Which is a good thing. And it isn't a snap judgement dear. Scott constantly throws these bombs out. And by the way, you know nothing about me sweet heart.
Honey buns, the evidence tells me you're really good at knee-jerk, and that you think ad-hominem attacks are a good debate technique... puts you in the same group as so many other leftwits. That, and you called me "sweet heart" indicates you think you're superior to me by dint of my support of Scott's post, and you're a sexist pig.
All right. I tossed an ad hominem. But the evidence supported it, didn't it?
Anyway, back to the convo.
You are good. Must be nice being you. Until you look in the mirror, that is. Please, you right wingers and your "bloody shirts" are full of bull shit. Always will be. Now be a good wingnutt and leave me alone.
Umm. You posted on MY [networking] page. You walked into my house ant (sic) tossed about insults. How did you continue to work at [a place at which public relations will always be first and foremost, and rudeness will get you summarily dismissed] with those manners, little man?
(I'm not always the best typost...) ;-)
LOL. Well YOU worked there too didn't you?
I had done so, long years ago. Very astute of him, no?
Anyway, back to the dialog. He:
And I don't recall posting on your page. I responded to something [that friend] did, not you. Although it seems I've uncovered another one of you rightist/libertarian types. Plus your mother! LOL
Oh, good gravy. "LOL" twice in as many posts. Such wit!
Sorry. The dialog. I:
You clicked on my name in the little box. That puts you squarely in my [networking site] house, posting a note to me. If you hadn't wanted to post privately, you might more easily have replied in [the friend]'s thread.
I did work at [that place], for five years. Glad to say I don't remember working with you.
And, I've never been "covered", politically. You didn't need to pull back the curtain --unless you're talking about one around your own little mental shelter.
Well then, dear, take a flying leap. And any reply to this will be considered stalking. Sweet heart. I mean that kindly, considering how butt ugly I'm sure you still are. Have a great day!
Now, long years ago I came to grips with the fact that I aint the purtiest pearl at the prom, but that's just plain irrelevant, isn't it? I ask you, did I just have a battle of wits with an unarmed man, or, as I described on my networking page, an a$$-kicking contest with a no-legged man? Has this person really spent his entire opportunity to debate an issue lashing out without a single reasoned argument?
Is this as commonplace among those on the political extremes as it seems (it seems I see more of it coming, these days, from the left, but that just may be that I'm avoiding listening to the real nutters on the right, and the nutters on the left won't allow me to ignore them).
And, moreover, does posting this here and sharing the bloggy post on my [networking site] page qualify as stalking? Hmmm. If I had boots, I might be quaking in them. ::snort, snort, guffaw::