jump to navigation

Pandagon shows itself to be just another Lefty Echo Chamber August 3, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Blogging, Cultural Pessimism, Liberal Hypocrisy, Pandamansanity.
trackback

From their “disclaimer”:

Pandagon.

Bold, opinionated, ornery. We’ll show up to the party, drink all your booze and tell you that your taste in home decor stinks.

We like blogging on the edge of a knife and we’ll take the knocks that come–trolls, drunken whiny trackbacks, spam that pretends to be praise of the blog–we’ve seen it all and fear nothing. Tell us to f*** off in comments, whine that we’re incivil on other blogs, mock our pets, kick us off your blogroll. We’ll let it roll off our backs as if were nothing but noise on the internets. We will fight back with a panda-like fury that resembles nothing if not panda-like lazy insolence.

“We fear nothing,” hmmm? “We’ll let it roll off our backs. . .” Right. Check this little post out by Amanda and look in the comments. See anything in there from Hoody? Yeah, neither do I. I was told last night that a comment I put in was being held up for moderation. Which, in Pandagon-speak, meaning “deletion” or “banning from commentary.” Since the comment still has not appeared -and others have- I can safely assume that I have -in some fashion- been banned. I’ve not been warned. And their disclaimer makes the case that they wouldn’t ban anyone for contrary opinion.

They’re not afraid of contrary opinion, so they claim.

But it seems that contrary opinion screws up their clear echo chamber feedback, and at least in my case -by appearances- they are prepared to repudiate their disclaimer and prevent folks from posting contrary opinions. Even without warning.

My comment went something like this:

<i>the protesters are theocrats who only see abortion as a flashpoint and as soon as that’s banned, they have a loooooong list of other rights of all Americans they’d like to attack.</i>

You’re insane. NONE of them are theocrats, and from my experience, damned few of them have any agenda beyond stopping the slaughter of the innocents, and will go quietly back home once their pro-life issue is addressed.

But, that would go against your apparent desire to whip your sycophants into a frenzy about how all pro-lifers are mouth-breathing, deep Down-South yahoos without the sense to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Yeah, I know, I was being cranky again. But I was also attempting -even though it is the epitome of an atavistic endeavor- to get through their hapless, hopeless groupthink for just a second, and to challenge Amanda’s gross generalizations.

I sent an e-mail to Amanda questioning this very thing:

I find it curious that my comment on this thread (http://pandagon.net/2006/08/01/stand-off-in-mississippi/#comments) has not been posted, while other comments from more sympathetic Pandagon readers have since been posted.

It makes it rather easy for one to assume that my comments have been banned. Which is of course your prerogative, though if true, I find it curious for two reasons:

  1. Your site disclaimer would seem to suggest that comments negative to your site would present no problem for you. Tell us to fuck off in comments, whine that we’re incivil on other blogs, mock our pets, kick us off your blogroll. We’ll let it roll off our backs as if were nothing but noise on the internets.
  2. If I have been banned, I would have expected an e-mail warning of same.

If this is simply due to a queue of backlogged comments from readers critical of Pandagon and I can expect my comment to subsequently be put up, I understand and apologize for any misunderstanding.

If I HAVE been banned. . .well, that would seem to cast a shadow on Pandagon’s fearlessness, wouldn’t it? Not to mention challenge the Left’s steady proclamations that they defend free speech in all its forms.

-hoody

And after 24 hours, there has been no response (but another DERANGED post from Amanda, possible her worst ever [I know, hard to imagine], so she is alive and apparently ignoring me. So this post will go up).

By appearances, I guess they DO have something to fear, at least from me.

Which is laughable, in one sense. But really sad in a greater sense.

Yes folks, bloggers for the Left. Defenders of free speech. Fearless proponents of modern liberal thought.

Whatever.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. IndianCowboy - August 3, 2006

i’m guessing that the non-religious pro life groups i belong to don’t exist.

2. demolition65 - August 3, 2006

Heh. Try the raving atheist. . .I guess he is non-religious and prolife.

3. Sophist - August 5, 2006

You’re insane. NONE of them are theocrats, and from my experience, damned few of them have any agenda beyond stopping the slaughter of the innocents, and will go quietly back home once their pro-life issue is addressed.

Let me guess, you didn’t read this article either. Here are a few choice quotes:

Benham’s “ecclesiastical court,” a ritualized indictment of the Supreme Court for breaching God’s law, dramatized his contempt for the current legal regime.

One by one, as Elysian hymns poured from the speakers, Benham produced the texts of objectionable Supreme Court decisions. He started with 1947’s Everson v. Board of Education, the case where Justice Hugo Black wrote, “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State.” He went on to decisions outlawing school-sponsored prayer and Bible reading. As each decision was introduced, a man sounded a shofar. Benham shouted denunciations and asked the kids to rip up the pages and throw them onto the grill. Someone pounded a bass drum.

“There’s coming a time when it might cost you your life to stand up for King Jesus,” Benham told the children. “It is our prayer that if you go down, you go down standing up in the name of Jesus.”

He continued with his excoriations, condemning 1993’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey and 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the state’s anti-sodomy law. “Lawrence versus Texas did away with all 4,000 years of historical law,” he said. “It does away with everything the Bible says!”

Benham then produced a rainbow gay flag. As he lamented the way homosexuals “stole the colors of the rainbow,” several men in attendance grabbed pieces of it and ripped it to shreds. Then he held up a paperback copy of the Koran and said, “We have one more issue that we must deal with. With this issue we have three choices. We can either kill them, be killed by them, or we can convert them to Christ.” Several cheers went up in the crowd, and then, after several more minutes of preaching, Benham began to tear the Koran apart. He offered pieces of the book to the men in the crowd — hands seemed to reach out from all directions to take them — and they destroyed the pages further, throwing the scraps onto the grill.

You’re right, I don’t know how anyone could possibly get the impression that these people are theocrats with an agenda beyond abortion. Silly moonbats!

4. demolition65 - August 6, 2006

Let me guess, you didn’t read this article either. I said:

NONE of them are theocrats. Definition: Theocrat: A ruler in a theocracy. Which we do not have.

And you ARE silly, but that’s another topic, another time.

5. Sophist - August 6, 2006

Definition: Theocrat: A ruler in a theocracy. Which we do not have.

Funny, every dictionary I checked defines “theocrat” as both one who rules a theocracy and one who merely favors that form of government. So not only are you playing silly little semantic games, you’re losing them.

6. demolition65 - August 6, 2006

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: