Of Course, Steve Fields, Blogs Really Do Encourage Conversation

A few days ago I posted a comment on my best friend’s blog. I was commenting on an article where James was addressing the liberal outrage at President Bush’s use of the "s-word" on camera. I began my comments on James’ article by pronouncing that the democrats involved in this outrage were hypocrites and like Jesus’ description of the Pharisees, were, “straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel”.

[You can follow the comments exchange to James’ blog post here.]

I then went on to demonstrate why I used Jesus’ statement to describe the democrat’s position by fleshing out the “camel” that the democrat whiners were willing to swallow was the act of criminal perjury committed by their darling, President Clinton, back during the Monica Lewinski scandal. After demonstrating the camel that the democrat’s hypocritically swallowed, I commented that Bush’s use of the “s-word” demonstrated a “cowboy attitude” that is very welcome as opposed to Clinton’s portrayal of America as a “paper tiger” under his leadership. Yet, here are the democrats straining over the “s-word” “gnat”.

Enter a comment from some guy named Steve. He apparently thought he could deflate the arguments of my comment with three sentences (which later he brags about on a post on his blog, which I will get to later):

"Clay -- Liberals are hypocrites? Does that mean conservatives are angels? I don't think hypocracy has a political ideology."

Fair enough. I then responded back to Steve answering his first question with a resounding affirmative. I then turned my comments toward addressing his second question by directing it back at him, since that was his mistaken inference from my original comments. I never said republicans were “angels”. I merely had stated that the democrats’ outrage over Bush’s use of the “s-word” was hypocritical.

I then pointed out to Steve that his comment to James that: “Caesar must be above reproach” only served to make my point. After all, the democrat’s darling, President Clinton, was far from being “above reproach”. So, again I pointed out Clinton’s crime and the democrat’s desire to get the rest of America to “move on past it” and concentrate on issues that really mattered. Yet here they are now having a cow because Bush was caught on film using the “s-word”.

Then, I pointed out that the democrat’s hypocrisy was part in parcel of their whining and calling Bush every thing from evil to Hitler since they lost the 2000 presidential elections.

What did I get back from Steve? The same platitude, everyone is a hypocrite. There are hypocrites on both sides. Apparently Steve was really good at extracting the fantasy inspired implication that republicans are angels from my original comment, but failed to grasp that my rejection of his ludicrous implication meant that I don’t, in fact, view the republicans as being angels (i.e. free from hypocrisy).

At this point Steve shifted gears from simply issuing forth morally relativistic statements to flat out name calling. According to Steve, I was too blinded by partisanship to see. Then he concluded his response with this silly nonsense:

“Furthermore, I can think of many curse words more "mild" than the "S-word," such as the "d-word" and the "h-word."”

How the “h-word” and the “d-word” are milder than the “s-word” is beyond me. And I addressed this later in my response to him. But, first, I once again pointed out Steve’s penchant for drawing imaginary inferences from my comments, this time it was his misguided idea that I was blinded by partisanship.

So, once again I attempted to straighten him out, by pointing out to him that I am not party driven, but ideologically driven. I am a conservative who votes republican because it is the worst of two evils that happens to have the best probability of aligning itself with my conservative agenda than the democrat party which is dominated by the leftist/liberal agenda. I informed Steve that I am not a Bush sycophant and I even provided some examples of areas of Bush’s policies that I disagreed with. So much for my partisanship.

I then addressed his ridiculous claim that the “d-word” and the “h-word” were actually far less offensive than the “s-word” and once again tried to re-direct Steve’s obsession with Bush’s use of the “s-word” toward the fact that Clinton actually committed a crime: perjury.

Steve then posted a response comment with this bit of nonsense:

“Clay, I am not making anything up. Your partisanship is evident in your comments. Just because you did not type the words "I am partisan" doesn't mean it isn't true.”

“You keep talking and saying the same thing over and over... but you don't LISTEN to what the other person is saying. You sre simply regurgitating right-wing talking points.”

Apparently Steve is also a hypocrite, since he accuses me of not willing to listen to him, yet he refused to listen to me and insisted that I am a partisan whether I fit the definition or not. He wants me to be partisan, so in his mind I am. It’s too bad that he couldn’t understand that words have meanings.

He also uses a tactic that liberals love to employ, that is to accuse their opponent of “simply regurgitating right-wing talking points”. This tactic is so absurd that it only merits one possible response: “so what?”. I mean really. Do liberals expect conservatives to make liberal points? Don’t liberals regurgitate left wing talking points? Of course they do. There is nothing odd about a conservative making conservative points. Nor, is there anything odd about a liberal making liberal points. I suspect that this tactic is used to stall while the liberal tries to come up with more names to call his opponent and more clever spin to use to avoid having to actually debate his opponent.

If any one was talking and saying the same thing over and over it was definitely Steve. He just kept on repeating his relativistic platitude that there is hypocrisy on both sides. This, despite the fact that I explained to him that his inference that I thought republicans were angels was false. Had he been listening to what the other person was saying, it should have been the end of it for him. But, clearly he wasn’t and so he goes on to repeat himself yet again over the, “everyone is a hypocrite” platitude:

“You are engaged in a debate about which party is better than the other, but the only person debating that is yourself. I have never made a judgement about one party or another in any one of these posts. I have simply said that hypocricy doesn't have a political party. Just as you criticize the Democrats for their critques of the President, you will find exmples of hypocricy in the Republican party as well.”

If Steve wasn’t preferring the democrats over the republicans then why the repeated lame attempt to refute my charge of hypocrisy at the democrats who were having a hissy fit over Bush’s use of the “s-word” by repeating over and over again that republicans were hypocrites too?

Steve then switches tactics to pretend that it’s not a big deal anyway and that I was the only one going on about it:

"I think the only one making a big deal of this story is you. The conversation about what Bush said was dropped days ago. Again, another example of how you are too blinded by ideology to engage in an real debate about what really matters in this country."

To which I responded:

“You apparently thought it was important too, hence your, "everybody are hypocrits" comment”.

”As for it being a big deal, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Let's see I am a conservative, so I provide counter arguments against the left on my blog and other conservative blogs, so why that calls for you to think it's a big deal to me is puzzling.”

“As for me being blinded by my idealogy and so unable to engage in any real debate about what matters to this country, this just means, that a. you obviously haven't read my blog, b. It's a cheap shot that is easy to make, since you yourself don't specify what matters to this country.”

Steve’s silly notion that I was the only one going on about the whole thing fails to take into consideration that it was because I was responding to his comments as he continued to go on about it himself, despite the fact that according to him, everyone else had dropped it. I’m not sure how Steve knew everyone has dropped the issue. Maybe he’s psychic?

He then complains that the blogosphere is disappointing to him, does more name calling, (apparently I am “ideologically blind”. What does that mean? Why is it when a conservative defends his position he is “ideologically blind, yet when a liberal defends his position he being open-minded and tolerant?) and winds up unintentionally making my point:

“This is one of the things that bothers me about the blogosphere. It becomes a forum for vitriolic partisan squabbles that detract from the most important fact -- that there we are living in dangerous times that require our leaders to deal with serious issues. It is time we all focus on that.”

To which I responded:

“This is another cop out on your part. There is nothing wrong with conservatives having blogs and liberals having blogs. The blog is a perfect forum for them to express their view point on where America is headed. The partisan squabbles (there's that word again, you seem to have trouble with any one who stands behind their convictions) aren't detracting in any way from the dangerous times we live in nor the serious issues that our leadership need to focus on, to the contrary that is what they do.”

”This statement you make either means you are ignorant of what political blogs contain or you are being disengenous. Alot of your comments make me wonder whether you are a liberal. You don't actually respond to any of my arguments you just call me names and make generalized philosphical statement and spout the viewpoint that we need to move on.”

”Either way your statement just proves my point. The democrats whining over Bush's use of the s word instead of focusing on the dangerous times we live in makes my original comment and the other ones dead on. Thanks for making my point.”

And this was the end of the debate on James’ site. Steve decided to devote a post to me on his blog, one of those, what I like to call, “Clay is what is wrong with the blogosphere” type of posts. I’ve had that done to me before by liberal blogger, Rich Championable, except to Steve’s credit, he didn’t delete my counter comments to his points. At least he’s not trying to win arguments by deleting his opponents’ comments and then having the last word like Rich and another liberal ankle biter named Jay do.

In his post, entitled, “Do Blogs Really Encourage Conversation?”, Steve cites James’ blog post regarding the “kerfuffle” surrounding Bush’s use of the “s-word” aired on TV news and my original comment on James’ blog. He then quotes a portion of my original comment. Then he goes on to blog the following:

“His rant goes on a little longer. I decide to respond, questioning Clay’s targeting of Democrats and suggested that hypocricy does not have a political party. I went on to talk about the Bush, free speech and the FCC. I literally had had three short sentences to adress Clay before moving on to the issue.”

For those who follow the original comments trail back on James’ blog, they will immediately catch Steve in a lie. He did talk about Bush’s comment and the FCC, but did not address free speech, and these were aimed at James in his comments, not me. He only gave me three sentences, which included, as I have already pointed out, the disengenous inference that I thought that republicans were “angels”.

“What evolved from those three sentences were two additional (and long I may add) comments from Clay, saying repeating the same thing over and over again - Clinton lied, Democrats are bad and liberals are hypocrites. I won’t repost it all here; you can read the comments for yourself. However, I ended it with:

You keep talking and saying the same thing over and over… but you don’t LISTEN to what the other person is saying. You sre simply regurgitating right-wing talking points.”

“You are engaged in a debate about which party is better than the other, but the only person debating that is yourself. I have never made a judgement about one party or another in any one of these posts. I have simply said that hypocricy doesn’t have a political party. Just as you criticize the Democrats for their critques of the President, you will find exmples of hypocricy in the Republican party as well.”

To which I had already responded with my assertion that I was conservative not republican and had never said that republicans were free from hypocrisy. (Geez, this guy is really slow).

And of course poor Steve couldn’t figure out that the reason why I was saying the same thing over and over again was because he kept the conversation going in that direction, by being too thick headed to see that his defense of the democrats by pointing out that republican’s were hypocrites too was inane as I had conceded that point to him early on back on James’ blog.

"I think the only one making a big deal of this story is you. The conversation about what Bush said was dropped days ago. Again, another example of how you are too blinded by ideology to engage in an real debate about what really matters in this country."

"This is one of the things that bothers me about the blogosphere. It becomes a forum for vitriolic partisan squabbles that detract from the most important fact — that there we are living in dangerous times that require our leaders to deal with serious issues. It is time we all focus on that."

Here comes the “your blinded” crap again. First, it was that I was partisan and blinded. Now, it is I am ideologically blinded. Whatever.

I then, foolishly wasted my time with a few comments exchanges with Steve on his blog. This garnered the following gems of his intellect:

“And finally, I have read your blog. And I was right: it is filled with speech that silences, spewing venom at Clinton and the “cut and run” Democrats”

Speech that silences? What does that mean? Does he mean that my arguments silence opposition because they are irrefutable? Or does he perhaps mean that it is impossible to inject spin into the conversation on my blog because it would make the spinner look foolish? Or does he mean that my blog entries are “speech that silences” because it intimidates his inner sensitive nature? Who knows? Only Steve knows what he means by that.

Steve also likes to charge blogs like mine as being guilty of “shouting down” opponents and “echoing Right Wing talking points”. Apparently, presenting arguments that support your political viewpoint is “shouting down” your opponent according to Steve. Also, expressing your conservative viewpoint (or liberal viewpoint?) to Steve means that you are merely regurgitating “talking points”.

I’m not sure what Steve means here. Obviously, if you are of the conservative mindset you are bound to espouse the same views that other conservative have expressed. The same is true of liberals.

Steve ends his post thus:

“The luminaries of the PR blogosphere talk about how it is good for conversation and connection with the public. But I found from people like Clay that blogging is sometimes just about pushing your own talking points, not engaging in a meaningful debate. Serious issues revolving around Bush’s curse (FCC regulation, cowboy diplomacy, the U.S. role in the world in a post-Iraq ers) were all lost by name calling and partisan squacking.

Maybe this is only true in the political blogosphere. Since Americans are so polorized by politics, platforms for user-generated discussions will only devolve into shouting matches.

I am still thinking about these issues, but either way, I am discouraged.”

Steve thinks that blogging for me is just about pushing my own talking points, (that's funny, before they weren’t mine, they were the right wing’s talking points), instead of being willing to engage in meaningful debate. Have I said already that Steve is slow? The truth of the matter is that “my talking points” are my side of the argument to which he is free to address with his talking points, i.e. his side of the argument. But, he himself never entered the debate beyond platitudes, arrogance and name calling. And he wonders why there is no debate?

The bottom line here is that Steve first tried to use the “everyone is hypocrites” relativistic argument to refute my charge of hypocrisy at the democrats. When he saw that I could back up my charge with argument, he shifted to name calling, (i.e. “you are blinded by partisanship”. When that didn’t work, he tried: “you are blinded by ideology”). Finally, he decided to write a post against me on his blog dealing with the topic of whether ore not conversation was possible in the blogosphere and use me as some kind of example as to why the blogosphere disappoints his quest for meaningful conversation.

My answer to Steve’s charge that you can’t engage in meaningful conversation in the blogosphere is: of course you can! That is, if you are actually willing to converse. But, if you are willing to challenge someone’s point and then only respond with platitudes, name calling, and arrogance when your opponent tries to converse with you by spelling out why he holds the position that he does, then no. No, you won’t find any meaningful conversation because you are stifling it with your attitude and refusal to listen to the other person and actually converse.

Steve may or may not be a liberal. Who knows? He seems to prefer to hide behind the “I’ve seen it on both sides” mask. I did see that he linked to DailyKos within one of his posts, which doesn’t look too good for him if he wants to maintain that he is not a liberal. If he is not a liberal, he sure acts like one.

Like liberals I have encountered before, he seems to thrive on ignoring any argument you make, focus on name calling, and, push the “why can’t we all just get on the same page” propaganda.

The reason that Steve can’t find conversation in the blogosphere, is because, perhaps his definition of conversation requires participants who share the same ideological viewpoints that he does, or, who are willing to abandon their viewpoint after he makes one of his little philosophically relativistic platitudes.

It’s kind of like the liberal’s claim of having the corner of the market with respect to tolerance. The joke is that the only tolerance liberals actually have is for those who agree with the liberal agenda.

One thing I will say about both Steve and Rich Championable is that they both proclaim support for our troops. That is very admirable. Especially, since we live in times where not supporting the troops (started in the Viet Nam War and continued now, today), is shamelessly adopted by the majority of those on the left.