The Queen Bee.
By trevino Posted in User Blogs — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
From Tacitus.org.
Pity Jane Hamsher. It's bad enough to have Double Dragon on one's conscience. What must it be like to further be a public obsessive, a debunked smear artist, a thin-skinned bully, and a functional illiterate to boot? She's the online left's apotheosis of the Queen Bee / Mean Girls thesis of female socialization: vicious, cutting, preening -- and not terribly bright.
And so it is in this light that we must regard her project to "expose" the online right as a "racist freak show." Having utterly failed to make her own case in this regard in the sole instance in which she tried, she has given up entirely on prosecuting her own cause, and recruited others to do it for her. The Hamsher Method: start with a conclusion, and get others to find the evidence. It's not honest, but that's not the standard here. They'll do it for the Queen Bee.
Let's be honest ourselves about this class project: the drones will find the evidence demanded. It will fall into three broad categories:
Legitimate racism. Doubtless much rich ore will be mined in LGF comments. Perhaps at VDARE. Perhaps even, dare it be said, at Free Republic! Et voila, the right is racist! Well. Good. Expose that stuff. Lay it out to dry and wither. And then, best of luck making it stick to the right wholesale. Have you heard that Hitler loved dogs and vegetarianism? Racism only in the eyes of the addled left. This will probably constitute the bulk of the drones' findings. We've already seen enough of this tenuous spleen to regard it for the paranoiac nonsense it is. Remember the idiot furor over Glenn Reynold's racist t-shirt? Read up, and brace yourself for more of the same. Stuff utterly unrelated to racism. Go back and re-read Hamsher's post. Notice the cited examples? What are they about? Jill Carroll. Invective against Democrats. But not racism. Now, this is to be expected from the likes of Hamsher, whose reading comprehension is not especially firm, and who appears to conflate "racist" with "people I don't like" rather often. But concluding that the bulk of the online left is as vapid is a sobering prospect that one prefers to avoid.
So, as they say, bring it on. Let's see the colloquy of the high priests of indignation, imagination and resentment. And then, because they gather at the behest of one who made her name in the realm of make-believe -- and still does -- we may ask them a question of a make-believe wise man:
Who's the more foolish: the fool, or the fool who follows her?
Is something that when exposed, must be dealt with by our guys. Make it clear this stuff is not tolerated - and put pressure on others. They can be with the bigots, or they can be part of the mainstream. They cannot have it both ways.
Good points, well put. They are trying to continue the welfare state with the ultimate goal of a "true" communist state.
I can see where this is headed, so I can't say much, but I think I can ask this:
Whose definition of racism gets used here? A pure standard where any divisions by 'race' is disallowed, or are there some racist thoughts allowed, and some disallowed? Who draws the line?
How many degrees of connection with the above-declared racists are too few before you become a racist yourself?
- The definition: I'm, not sure whose will be used - but I can assure you I will NOT be using the definition that reads, "Anyone winning an argument with a liberal/multiculturalist."
- It's going to take some doing in terms of the connection. I would say that it would be a clear relationship with some of the "legitimate racism" that trevino cited. I'm not going to prejudge anyone on this - although I have my reservations about some people.
On a case by case basis. That's all there is to it.
They are seeing the challenges in front of us and what to run away as quick as they can.
was that I was tired of Democrats going on a witch-hunt for racists every time they wanted to win an election.
And I use the term "witch-hunt" because the real racists are the ones that want to keep everyone's eyes focused on the color of people's skins.
For many years, there were racists in the South and other regions (mostly Democrats) who wanted to keep people out of schools, public spaces, and private businesses because they were black.
Now, the liberal left wants to turn everything into a racial issue. It is the best way to keep minorities voting democratic without getting anything substantial in return for it.
Would the true racist be the one who seeks to keep the issue of race in the public eye, or the one who would ignore it?
Would the true racist be one to insist that people of a certain skin tone need help to succeed, or the one who believes those of all skin tones are as able?
Would the true racist be the one who says that people of a certain skin tone only become warriors because that's all they can find to do, or the one who admires and honors their courageous choice?
Would a true racist be the one to avoid the mention of race when possible, or be the first to mention it?