Loon at Large

Sometimes it's hard to keep perspective on things, and it may seem obsessive at times.. i.e., this fascination I have with Douglass V. Gibbs. I guess I've spent a lot of time and effort to catalog the details.

Jen mentioned something yesterday about "traffic", or the lack-there-of on my blog. I get about 40 or 50 readers a day.. and in the context of partisan political blogs, I guess that's low. I've always said that I don't care about hit counts, I do this because I think it's fun. Besides, I think if only 1 person wants to read what I have to say, then that's pretty cool.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if I were interested in hit counts, I do know how I could adjust things to make it more attractive to a wider audience and get higher numbers. I could change the blog layout - I could find a niche that is a little more specific than the general type commentary that I'm doing.. I could change the language style, etc... but hit counts really don't matter unless you're trying to make money, and so why not stick with something that suits your style better, right?

What I'm trying to say is.. I'll bet nobody reads my 2000 word Loon essays... except for the Loon that is.. and that's okay! Most of the people who read my blog that know me probably look at the first sentence, see the "Doug is an asshole" opener, and skip to the next post.

I'm fine with that, and so I'm going to continuing doing the Doug is an asshole blogging regardless of what anyone else may think about it. Heck, I've never cared what people think about what I do.. so why change now, right?

I still owe a debunk of Doug's "homos are bad" screed, but today he posted a 2,528 word rambling whine about why he's not actually a coward for deleting all opposing arguments from his blog, and why he feels justified in not quoting or linking points that he is arguing against.

It has to be seen to be believed.

Seriously? 2,528 words to say that anybody who argues against your points is "trolling"? It's posted at 1:45am.. and I can just imagine Doug sitting there, furiously pounding away at the keyboard. I'll show those LibTards who's boss!!!1

Doug likes to use analogies to make a point, and sometimes analogies are appropriate when done with care. The problem with Doug is that he tries to create a relevance that really isn't there. In this case, he's using a "bad behavior at my party" analogy... and he's arguing against points that he claims other people are making. He doesn't substantiate any of it, of course. That's a Doug trademark, so what he is claiming about other people may or may not be true. It's a guess.

In terms of his analogy, he says thus;

Now, imagine those party crashers that were ejected suddenly crying out, "You are infringing on my right to party! How dare you take my right to party away from me! By kicking me out of your party that makes you a coward!"

I can't speak for, or defend mystery people and their points that Doug is paraphrasing. I have no idea if somebody really claimed a "right to comment" on the internet. I suppose somebody could have.

I can only speak for myself, and I don't claim a "right" to comment on Doug's blog. I simply call him a coward for not allowing me to do so, as I allow him to do so here. This is particularly egregious behavior when his post is referencing me specifically, arguing against things I did not write, and not allowing me to correct the record.

It is not my right to correct the record. Doug is a dishonest coward for not allowing it.

I did not "lie" about agreeing to withhold comment on his blog. I simply will not allow anyone to reference me, or argue against me, without quoting me or linking to me, and without giving me the opportunity to correct the record. That is a dishonest and cowardly practice.

Got that, Douglas V. Gibbs? Now you correct your post, claiming I "cries so much that I don't give him his due credit". It has nothing to do with "credit" and everything to do with credibility and common sense.

Imagine if I simply took Doug's posts, attribute completely different meanings to his points, do not quote him, nor link to his post. A reader would have zero frame of reference for judging the arguments.

It would go like this;

Doug wrote a post about gays, being in or out of the closet. He says that gays are responsible for people loosing their right to free speech, and causing the government to close down their personal blogs.. and threatening them with prison if they don't start liking gays.

Doug goes on to say that the gays are organized and destroying Christianity, because gays hate everything that is good in the world, and are really sick and twisted and want to make sure everyone else can't live freely. They chose to be that way, because gays are really heterosexuals that are sick and choose to be gay because of that moral sickness. Gays think Christians should be put in jail, and so the only way to protect families is to wipe out the gay people.

Okay.. that doesn't look like a particularly fair fight, right? The problem with this example though, is that my paraphrasing of Doug's post is pretty much exactly what he's saying. Still, somebody reading that may not understand the points Doug was trying to make if I am not actually showing the reader the text of his points.

Heck, I could remove the word "Doug" and replace it with "Christian Conservatives believe", or.. in classic Doug fashion, use the words "a particular blogger".. which is an obvious reference to me without making the reference directly. Using that strategy, he hopes to escape the "you're a coward" accusations by using a wink and a nod to those who know who I am without actually naming me.

It's all a bunch of subterfuge.

Ultimately, and those that follow this theme know this, I think Doug is a great asset to the progressive movement. If there are people who are open minded and reasonable, they can look at his exact words, and mine, and make a judgement. I think people like Doug are a huge asset.

But Doug also likes to argue against "liberals" who are, shall we say, less than fully informed on the issues. In this case, Doug has a liberal friend that he actually likes, and he bemoans the fact that not all liberals are like his friend.

If only all liberals were as easy to get along with as my good friend Sam, which is pictured behind me in the photograph on the right. When the discussion of Socialized Medicine (Government paid health insurance) came up, he says to me, "Doug, I can't believe you have a problem with free health care."
[...]
In the end, I prefer conversations with my buddy Sam - but, being the person that I am, I cannot let a few nasty nuggets by Tom the Neurotic Liberal to go unanswered

Of course, Doug prefers to debate that way because Sam says that "Socialized Medicine" is "free".

And so.. that lights up Doug's brain, because it's obvious to everyone that it's not "free", right? Yep - that's right. And so, because he proved his friend wrong, that means that "universal health care" is bad policy.

Say what?

Notice the jump Doug makes there? Because his friend was wrong about a particular component of the issue, that makes the entire policy agenda wrong.

And that's the way that Doug argues, and why he likes his friend Sam.

Doug doesn't argue health care finance with me. I've worked in the field for 20 years. I've written extensive essays on the issue, describing the costs, benefits, the logical components, the facts, the statistics, addressed the issues with European health care, and Canadian health care.. the differences between "single payer" plans, versus government run "health care providers".. the relevant issues with Medi-Care and Medi-Caid.. and on and on.

It's no wonder that Doug likes his friend Sam. I expose Doug for not even understanding the fundamental issues related to the health care debate. He actually thought Democrats wanted to put the providers on the government payroll. Instead, it's much easier for him to debate his friend Sam. He likes Sam. Sam is a good liberal.

There is a component of Doug's personality that makes this interesting though. I know he can't make a convincing argument when he debates against my actual point of view. That's why he paraphrases and attacks straw man arguments. However, Doug does have a huge ego, and an intense competitive spirit. Doug's world is about "winners" and "losers", as I've documented several times. Hence, Doug will ultimately give in because he can't stand the thought of me thinking him a coward, and can't stand the thought of appearing to sensible people as having the inferior point of view.

And so we get;

watch for (in the near future) my response to posts (I will provide the links when I respond since he cries so much that I don't give him his due credit) called "Inherintly Dishonest," "Say What?" "A Giant Strawman," and the one that begins, "Doug bitched me out for posting a comment on his blog. . ."

Which of my posts he chooses to respond to, even if he does at all, is of course entirely up to him.. but I'd be curious his view of my morals essay. However, I wrote a few posts that had to do with "Biblical verses", and Doug lives for explaining the "true context" of what those verses actually mean.

My point, ultimately, in terms of all those issues is in the morals post. It explains why Doug believes that his interpretations are the "true meaning" - and why that is the fundamental basis of his world view. I argue that world view is the real evil that has existed in mankind for millennia.

And so, I expect Doug to pull out his theology and say "Jesus meant".. over and over. That's completely missing the point. The real issues are not about what Jesus said, or biblical scriptures. The issue is about moral absolutism - which is just as harmful as moral relativism.

In any case, I did enjoy his 2,528 word explanation of why he's not a coward. I don't buy it, but it was entertaining. And, I have to give a little credit that Doug's writing mechanics appear to have improved in the last month or so (somebody editing it?). There is still a lot of "stream of consciousness" redundancy, but some is to be expected in blogging. It's not like a novel where you edit endlessly.

I look forward to his mighty "smack down" (as he puts it) of my actual arguments this time, as opposed to constantly arguing against things I did not say. However, I'm almost 100% sure that he's not going to quote me. He's going to write his argument, without providing the reader my viewpoint, and end up once again arguing against a straw man. Somewhere in his post, he'll provide a link to my post. Ostensibly, the reader would first read my post, and then his.. but he knows that most everyone who reads his blog is not going to do that.

In any case.. I'll just end up doing my usual bit. I'll take what he actually wrote, and compare it to what I actually said.. and leave it up to whoever reads it to decide which is the more convincing argument. I have absolutely no doubt that Doug will not debate me, but rather once again debate the straw man.

Game on!