Today, online politics has come to be dominated by two warring camps, just like offline politics. And while many critics complain about the polarization of the blogosphere and its effect on elections, how blogs will affect the economics of opinion journalism is less well understood. In particular, partisan blogs have become so popular that they are threatening the business model -- and the independence -- of center-left opinion magazines, which may be forced to toe the party line to ensure their survival.This is a prime example of the "I'm a centrist! Listen to me!!!" concern trolling.
The assumption these writers make is if they are critical of both political camps, even if they are pulling their criticism right out their own ass, they should have more influence and people should pay more attention to them.
Fuck that.. centrism is lukewarm, indecisive horse shit. Never before in the history of America has partisanship been more necessary. That's why John McCain and Joe Lieberman can go fuck themselves silly, wanking off on how they are all things to all people - when in fact they are nothing but pandering sluts.
Lately we've been seeing a lot of that type of "op/eds" from writers in opinion journals because they are increasingly irrelevant. On the right hand side of my blog, I link to some big left wing blogs. The writers on those blogs are far more interesting to read than the marshmallows "in the middle". Because the professional journal writers pay their mortgage by their columns, they are absolutely freaking out that nobody seems to give a shit about them anymore.
This is a perfect tie-in on my theory of why the internet will destroy Hollywood and the recording industry. Free access to writers who's medium is out there for all to see will ruin the traditional journals because nobody needs to pay for that crap anymore. It's talent that gets noticed in opinion, in movies, in music, and the traditional institutions have never needed to hire real talent. Now the no-talent assholes are being ignored. Boo Hoo.. it's all Atrios and Kos' fault?
This trend will continue. The real talent will be recognized, not the establishment hacks.
As for that "op/ed" of the writer who was fired because Atrios of Eschaton (one of my blog links) called bullshit on one his columns.. Sadly No destroys his argument, here. It's an excellent explanation on why centrism sucks. Go read it.
Why there is so much upchucking in response to “Sensible Liberals” and the bullshit that they peddle is that those whom they have enabled, the wingnuts, have fucked everything up so massively. There is some partisanship in the rejection of “Sensible Liberals” in the sense that it’s pro-Democrat, but most of it is in the sense of reaction to the awful status quo that “Sensible Liberals” worked so hard, along with wingnuts, to build. You reap what you sow, you mealy-mouthed motherfuckers.And naturally Andrew Sullivan had to weigh in..
And to think we once believed the blogosphere could liberate independent thought. Yeah, right. You can now read Brendan, freed from the liberal thought police, at his own blog. Support free thought. They won't.Not terribly surprising because Sully is one of the establishment writers whose hackery is increasingly mocked by the left wingers. He's got an axe to grind with Atrios, who frequently makes Sully his "wanker" of the day" - because.. Sully really is a wanker on most of the issues.
It's not an interpretation. It's about truth versus bullshit. Centrism is actually damaging in our political discourse because it's not about taking a stand. It's about pandering and cowardice. While I think the freak right wingers are morons, at least they aren't trying to make everyone like them by being in the middle.
4 comments:
Straight party line hacks are much more damaging than Centrists are.
You're right about one thing - it's about truth vs. bullshit. It's about thinking critically about where you stand on an issue. If your view of a Centrist is one who takes the middle of an argument just because, then yeah, I agree with you that those suck.
But my view of a Centrist, and how I categorize myself, is one who is willing to look at an idea or an issue and make a decision based solely on what I think is right. Without any influence from an existing party to tell me what to think or how to spin the idea.
I've always considered myself a Centrist. But maybe it's a terminology issue. I usually fall in the middle not because I am in the middle on every subject, but that I am on the right for some and on the left for some.
By the way, you people on the extremes...you are deceiving yourselves if you think your side is "that much better" than the other. You look for ways to justify your actions and automatically attack the other. As a Centrist, I can see how much both sides suck.
I owe you a beer Chris
What.. was I supposed to reply to this?
I think he completely missed my point about "centrism".
TBH, I think its more of a communicative error.
Z is thinking you mean Independent=Centrist, which I dont THINK is what you mean.
And if you do happen to think that mindless devotion to a party (the irony, insert god there and it becomes something else entirely) is better than forming opinions based not on who else beleives them, but whether they are beleivable, then you're an idiot, whoever you are.
Post a Comment