Pretty disgusting, AJ.

As an ex-Communist, I wasn't aware that Marx or Lenin valued politeness. So clearly, the retrogressives of today are not Marxist or Leninist.

That's strange, in my misspent youth, it was the thing to be impolite, to swear, to shock, anything which would upset people's sensibilities. The radical sixties was kicked off by the Free Speech Movement at UC Berkeley campus (in 1965?), opening up the vast field of shock, obnoxiousness, and general great fun for uni students.

Of course, the current retrogressive movement has nothing to do with Marxism or Leninism: more to do with Gramscianism (if they were sophisticated enough to know it), the more open and honest philosophy of the disaffected educated classes, disillusioned after the workers and peasants failed to die for them on the battlements after 1917, who saw the 'revolutionary' role - of anybody who hated the system, it didn't matter who - as that of tearing down the institutions of society, any society, that didn't matter either. Hence, Gramsci's call to 'march through the institutions' of bourgeois society, attack every one of its pillars, bring them all down, on the basis that if we can't have it, i.e. power, then nobody can.

But on reflection if he had lived long enough, even Gramsci would have noticed that that call would have attracted even many fascists and ratbags or people inclined that way. After all, even socialist society has to have some pillars, some institutions, even if they are invariably subverted by their own rulers.

I suspect that Marx, a product of the Enlightenment, pulled back from its implications and devised a scheme which had its roots more in a distant and mythical Golden Past than in the future. He must have known, before his death, that the jig was already up: there would be no genuine proletarian revolution anywhere.

Politeness ? Offending no-one ? Where's the 'freedom' in that ? Nothing should be criticised ? No evil should ever be exposed ? Really ?

Joe

Phillips:

I still don’t understand. You seem to be saying that nature is irrelevant to any argument for or against homosexuality and then you say that there is plenty of evidence to show that it is a naturally occurring trait.

Why would it be relevant that it is ‘naturally’ occurring?

“You thought you finally had me there, didn’t you?”

No don’t worry, you win.

Calwest,

I couldn't care if Leak had barely been dead for an hour. The world is better off without toxic people.

<<Bill Leak has been dead barely a week.>>

But that's not why I said what I said. Nor is it because I'm a nasty and heartless that I'm sure you're going to ride this little bit of outrage for all it's worth just to portray me as. No, what I wanted to do was demonstrate that you righties really only care about your own free speech.

<<His wife and family are surely still grieving ...>>

And I'm sure they're very worried about what li’l ol’ me had to say. You obviously haven't read some of what's out there. You can quit the exaggerated outrage, though. I'll believe your sincerity when I see you defend the honor of a recently-decreased lefty the next time they're attacked on OLO.

<<Yet the best you can contribute is: …>>

Now I KNOW you're insincere. That was by far the worst part of my contribution. It is, however, the only part you can become outraged over. I guess the rest was just too hard to respond to.

<<Did you ever meet Bill Leak?>>

No.

<<On what basis do you call him a bigot?>>

Because of some of his cartoons.

<<The precious and deliberate misinterpretation of his Aboriginal cop cartoon?>>

Among several others, yes. I'd be fascinated as to what you feel the misinterpretation was, how it was “deliberate”, and why it was “precious”?

<<... since you asked for an explanation…>>

I didn't ask for an explanation for anything. I asked for a rational response to my post and received nothing but an emotive and exaggerated outrage expressed over one small part of it.

--

Joe,

I have no idea what Marxism, Leninism, or communism have to do with anything. Your post just read like something that had been spat out by a random word generator, so I'm just going to have to take your word for it that it's disgusting.

--

phanto,

You'll find the answers to your last post in my last post.

So no one else is going to have a go? Go on, tell me what a nasty, nasty person I am. Let that feigned outrage overflow, Godammit!

Oh well, it was an interesting experiment while it lasted, anyway.

I lobbed four grenades in that first post of mine (I refer to it as ‘grenade lobbing’ because of just how overwhelmingly conservative this place is):

1. I showed no sorrow for the death of a conservative hero (I didn’t actually express glee at first, in case any of you missed that in all your rage);

2. I raised s 18C of the of the Racial Discrimination Act without being disparaging of it (I didn’t actually endorse it either, by the way, in case any of you missed that in all your rage);

3. I raised the already-mentioned misunderstanding of the extent to which biological sex is a binary concept, and;

4. I referred to the assumption that children need a parent of both sexes as “baseless”.

All points that are sure to get the knickers of most conservatives in a twist.

The first thing that surprised me was the fact that I only got two bites (At least I think I did. I’m still not sure of what the meaning behind of Joe’s strange Reds-under-the-bed rant was. (As for phanto, he’s simply trying to wrap his head around the difference between a fact presented as a supporting argument, and a fact presented as a sidenote and a point of interest.))

The second thing that surprised me was that, of the two bites which I did get, both took the more pontificating and moralising route (by only choosing to take issue with independent variable 1) which I would have thought was an approach to coping with cognitive dissonance more typical of the left.

Fascinating.

Nah, I’m gonna need a bigger sample size than OLO. Preferably one with a few less wets too.

Thanks anyway, guys.

AJ Philips,

Nothing I have written was prompted by outrage. Nausea and disgust are closer to the mark.

Left wing creeps like you are a dime a dozen and beneath contempt.

You have no idea or attitude of any value. You are of no value. And all you offer is vague and imprecise assertions that you claim he was a bigot "because of his cartoons". That's pretty rich. He produced thousands of cartoons and was revered for his skill and insight. You, though, consider yourself superior, fit and qualified to judge them en masse. Here's something that's no secret: you're not; you're just a creep.

You are a self-regarding narcissist with nothing of interest to say and you've confirmed it. And, need it be said, you are the typical little mind desperately trying to attract attention.

If I were you, I'd just shut up.

Phillips:

You are a legend! It stands to reason that you have to tell us that you are but that does not diminish you star in any way.

We truly are not worthy of your presence!