Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Wingnut meme of the day: Bill Ayers, homosexualist Previous entry: Ain’t No Valley Low Enough

Kerning and snowmobiles

If you haven’t yet read the report on Troopergate, well, it’s entertaining stuff, in a disturbing sort of way.  (PDF here, summary here.)  One thing that jumps out me is that all the wingnuts out there who looked into Sarah Palin’s eyes and saw that she was one of them aren’t fooling themselves.  She’s pure wingnut: vindictive, obsessed with gaining the power to control others through any means necessary, and enraptured by the own ability to cause suffering that exhibits itself in the glee to which they defend “enhanced interrogation techniques” to their crowing about how a woman saddled with an unwanted pregnancy should have shut her legs.  Sarah Palin’s family went after Mike Wooten and then Walt Monegan in a way that reminded me, strongly, of the way that the wingnutsphere exerts its power, which is a process that Lindsay described as scalp-collecting, with a firing being the preferred form of scalp collected.  Or collecting heads on stakes or foreskins.  I’m honestly surprised more wingnuts don’t have a head count in their sidebars, they love this process so much.  Here’s the steps:

1) Select a victim.  Usually the victim has done something offensive to wingnuts, but not to normal people and/or their offense has nothing to do with their form of employment, which is what the wingnuts would like to separate them from.
2) Start digging around in hopes of finding something that’s probably not at all related to why they offend you that you can use to get them fired.  It’s rarely going to the be the first dozen things you try, and part of the “fun” is throwing so much shit around that the target’s employers grow weary of having to deal with it and get into the mentality of thinking, “Any excuse we can use to let them go.”  The irrelevance of the excuse to the actual wingnut offense is a key detail here.
3) Get them fired or force them to resign because they can’t take it anymore.  If that’s not possible, then punish them some other way.
4) Crow and add a notch to your belt.  Yeah!  You’ve acted like a child and made someone’s life miserable for reasons that you yourself think are bullshit.  Time to crack open a bag of Cheetos and celebrate.


Having been a target myself, I think I know the pattern well.  I like to flatter myself that I’m in illustrious company, as you’ll see, but in reality, the wingnut vendetta against me when I joined the Edwards campaign was a sign that right wingers were beginning their downhill slide and had to pick increasingly small and vulnerable targets.  After all, this process was applied to Bill Clinton, whose offense was daring to be a Democrat in the White House, which wingnuts consider illegitimate, even though they can’t come up with a socially acceptable reason that the White House should be eligible only for one party.  But the reason he was impeached was a blow job and a trumped-up perjury charge.  Dan Rather’s offense was telling the true story of Bush’s draft-dodging and just general unwillingness to be cowed by an angry right wing mob, and they got him with kerning.  By the time Michelle Malkin was stalking the Frost family in hopes of digging up shit against them for daring to testify in Congress on behalf of an SCHIP expansion, scalping had begun to really lose its potency.  The recent attempts to get PZ Myers fired for being an outspoken atheist who used a bit of humor in making his point about communion wafers was half-hearted, and mostly the nuts console themselves by slamming his email box.

Liberals Do It Too, the wingnuts are sure to cry, and they did when Lindsay wrote about it.  And it’s true that targets are selected and targets are taken out.  But with liberals, there’s not often a gap between why they dislike the person and why the person got taken down.  Joe Lierberman’s offense was being so far to the right he didn’t deserve to be called a Democrat any longer.  His punishment was getting stripped of his party affiliation by the voters. Don Imus’s offense was saying racist things, and he got suspended for saying racist things.  Which is different than this Troopergate situation, where Wooten’s offense was a messy divorce and the attempted reasons to get him fired were snowmobiling and drinking beer in a squad car.  And Monegan’s actual offense was not firing Wooten, but the excuse for firing him was a vague insubordination erected after the fact.  Really, the closest thing to a wingnut-style scalping were the attempts to break up Clarence Thomas’s confirmation proceedings with the sexual harassment allegations, and even then, I can’t say it’s the same. And that’s because the support system behind Anita Hill coming out and telling the truth were concerned about Thomas’s hostility to women’s rights, and his willingness to harass female underlings was evidence of that. 

The report is way too cautious, and it’s enough to cause one to wonder if people in the Alaskan government have been cowed by Palin’s intimidation tactics.  What the Palins did is mind-blowing, even by wingnut standards, because you would think that they’d have realized that their behavior was inappropriate considering the level of power that Sarah Palin had in Alaska.  Todd Palin seems to have hired a private investigator (or stalked Wooten himself), for fuck’s sake, and had him following Wooten around trying to come up with dozen reasons to fire him and just be done with it.  I had flashbacks to having to take down pictures of my family off my Flickr page because people were combing over it, looking for something to “get” me with during the Edwards debacle, but this of course is a hundred times worse.  Sarah Palin really cannot be granted more power, because god only knows what kind of vindictive campaigns she’ll go on as Vice President.  She and her husband lack the basic propriety and dignity required to hold high office.  (I know her husband won’t technically hold the office, but it’s clear that she gives him free rein to treat her power like his.) 

The whole situation, and the wingnut tendencies it illustrates, bespeaks a larger obsession with control and power that I personally can’t quite understand.  It’s ironic, considering how right wingers like to stroke themselves about their libertarian tendencies. But the main appeal of “libertarianism” for many is that it makes it easier to use intimidation campaigns to control your neighbors’ behavior.  Government and other institutions like it, such as universities, are a pain in the ass because they have all these rules about leaving people alone, and having to have a legitimate reason to fire someone.  The wingnut definition of “freedom” is stripping people of government protection for basic rights.  The libertarian ideal world is one where people can be fired for voting for Democrats straight up, for instance.

By the way, Lindsay is right that liberals shouldn’t grow hungry to use similar tactics.  As the Malkin example shows, there’s diminishing returns in that.  Every time you publish people’s phone number or encourage readers to contact their employers and get them fired for their political opinions, you disgust truly freedom-loving people.  It’s a road to irrelevance and it’s wrong for us to step on it.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 12:06 PM • (42) Comments

The findings seem pretty accurate and in line with our wrong-headed ideas on employment. In general, an employer may fire an employee for whatever reason they want or no reason at all as long as they are not firing someone because of gender, race, creed, disability, etc…. The investigator didn’t let Palin off the hook, though, suggesting that she did break the law by reaping a personal (not financial) benefit from the use of her position in that regard.

Palin’s actions seem like Politics 101, and by that I mean par for the course but on a most basic and artless level. A more skilled politician might have been more adept at achieving her ends while covering the means. Then again, maybe not. Dick Cheney’s bald abuse of power was equally blatant.

Do you think the Clarence Thomas hearings marked the beginning of these modern scalpings, or was it something else?

Comment #1: Earnest  on  10/14  at  12:31 PM

Earnest,

My understanding is that it’s all retaliation for Bork not being confirmed, but I’ve been wrong before.

Comment #2: Mark  on  10/14  at  12:38 PM

“Or collecting heads on stakes or foreskins. “

Ha ha, very appropriate! Check this out:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/intro.html

Comment #3: Catbus  on  10/14  at  12:41 PM

The libertarian ideal world is one where people can be fired for voting for Democrats straight up, for instance.

By the way, Lindsay is right that liberals shouldn’t grow hungry to use similar tactics.  As the Malkin example shows, there’s diminishing returns in that.  Every time you publish people’s phone number or encourage readers to contact their employers and get them fired for their political opinions, you disgust truly freedom-loving people.  It’s a road to irrelevance and it’s wrong for us to step on it.

Secret balloting in elections is important for that reason.  External or peer pressure can be oppressive and freedom limiting.  This is why I oppose the “Employee Free Choice Act”, an Obama and Democrat promise to the unions.  IF passed, the act will do away with secret balloting in employee elections over whether to have a union with a particular employer.

BTW, Earnest, Bork came before Thomas.  One could argue Bork was more dangerous because he was a more competent right-winger than Thomas.  At least video rental histories are private now as a result of Bork’s treatment.  Biden’s answer to the “what I’ve learned” question from Couric addressed this.  He used to think the president should be given discretion to nominate an ideologue if he’s qualified for the position.  He now believes ideology matters in the Senate evaluation of an appointee, to the extent it can be identified and predicted.

Comment #4: MiddleageLiberal  on  10/14  at  01:03 PM

Behaviour such as the wingnuts is easy for them to rationalize because they start from the premise that they are superior. Sometimes they are open about that belief, but most times they are not. Being superior, it is easy to justify punishing the inferior; who, somewhere down the road.become things to be controlled/used/discarded. The reasons for their superiority complex range from economic (I have a better job than you.) to religious (My God is superior to yours.). An extreme example of such belief and its ultimate end-game is, of course, the Holocaust.

Now, before anyone says I am playing the ‘Nazi Card’ I am not saying they are Nazis, but rather their behaviour is akin to Nazi ideology and other thought processes that make other people ‘things’. See studies of serial killers, for example. See slavery also. Things are easy to destroy as they have not the same rights/feelings as people.

Comment #5: caliban  on  10/14  at  01:12 PM

To provide a bit of clarification re my earlier post here’s a quote from the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible concerning 1 Samuel:

“(18:25-27) David buys a wife with 200 Philistine foreskins.
David kills 200 Philistines and brings their foreskins to Saul to buy his first wife (Saul’s daughter Michal). Saul had only asked for 100 foreskins, but David was feeling generous. “

Comment #6: Catbus  on  10/14  at  01:17 PM

sorry, caliban, apologia notwithstanding, that STILL invokes Godwin’s Law.

Comment #7: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  10/14  at  01:28 PM

Mark @ 11:38 - Bork was part of it but it goes back even further to Nixon’s impeachment.  One of the primary defenses of Nixon back in the day was “they all do it” and usually bringing up LBJ or JFK.

Comment #8: dakine01  on  10/14  at  01:32 PM

Don’t be too quick to make a martyr out of this Wooten. Anyone who Tasers his 11-year-old stepson is a bad actor in my book.

Comment #9: Bitter Scribe  on  10/14  at  01:52 PM

I still remember in the wake of the Starr Report the hours upon hours of TV pundits and GOP (and concern-troll Democratic) Congresscritters endlessly reading from it into the public record (after, of course, some ritualized pearl-clutching about the children hearing these horrific details).

Interesting how much less we’re hearing about the Troopergate Report from the fourth estate.

Comment #10: Ben Alpers  on  10/14  at  01:55 PM

My understanding is that it’s all retaliation for Bork not being confirmed

Don’t forget the earlier episode of John Tower, nominated for Secretary of Defense in 1989 but not confirmed—and as I recall “Liberals” were blamed for that too, for bringing up his drinking and partying and what have you. 

Until I read the Wikipedia entry I hadn’t realized that when Tower was torpedoed his replacement ended up being… Dick Cheney.  Brrr.

Comment #11: FlipYrWhig  on  10/14  at  02:07 PM

Don’t be too quick to make a martyr out of this Wooten. Anyone who Tasers his 11-year-old stepson is a bad actor in my book.

Actually, I understand that incident is more complicated than it sounds.  As in the kid wanted to know what it felt like, so stepdad dialed it all the way down and demonstrated.  Horrifically poor judgment, but not an act of aggression.  And none of the Palins seemed to think it was a big deal for two years, until the divorce.

All of that said, no one’s nominating this guy for sainthood.  But even if he’s an utter waste of a human incarnation, that’s really beside the point.  As I said in a much more sarcastic way to a troll a few days back, a governor misusing her power to pursue a personal vendetta is Not Okay, even if the person she’s targeting is a bad person in their own right.

Comment #12: Seraph  on  10/14  at  02:11 PM

According to Henry Hide, I believe, the Clinton impeachment was partially payback for the Richard Nixon impeachment/resignation.

In the long run, however, Bork was more important. Nixon had at most one Presidential term left in him; Bork, if confirmed, would still be on the court today.

Comment #13: Anonymous  on  10/14  at  02:14 PM

Yep, Earnest, the law allows people to fire for personal vendettas all the time, and Palin got away with it because it’s technically legal.

However, grown adults understand that it’s wrong to destroy someone’s life by depriving them of their gainful employment for reasons irrelevant to their job performance, or, as in this case, for doing their jobs too well.  And in many workplaces, policy has come in line with morality, and it’s against the rules to fire people for personal vendettas, which is why Wooten’s job was protected.  Legal /= moral.  A better society would be one that tightened laws so that people cannot be fired for things irrelevant to their job performance, such as being divorced or voting for Democrats.

Comment #14: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/14  at  02:16 PM

I never said Wooten was a good guy.  I said he was a person with rights.  Tasering a child is an offense, if true, that should have landed him in jail after a proper trial.  But the accusation of it unproven should not mean the end of his employment.

Comment #15: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/14  at  02:17 PM

One could use this analogy:  Even if someone is guilty of a crime, the cops shouldn’t manufacture evidence against that person.  That subverts the purpose of justice, and every time the cops get away with it, the easier it is to manufacture evidence against innocent people.  I would guess that trumped up evidence is used a lot, without regard to whether the accused is guilty or not.  But the abuse of power is a problem in both cases. 

So in a sense it doesn’t matter if this guy is a good person or not, if the methods used to remove him from his job are an abuse of power.

Comment #16: V. Bacfarc  on  10/14  at  02:29 PM

According to Henry Hide, I believe, the Clinton impeachment was partially payback for the Richard Nixon impeachment/resignation.

Did Hyde really say that? I’m amazed he would be that honest, the bloated, dissembling sack of manure.

As for Palin and Troopergate, without getting into the merits of whether her ex-brother-in-law did or didn’t deserve firing, it’ll be interesting to see how her “move along, nothing to see here” defense plays out. Obama has been much more forthcoming about Ayers, which is a far more tenuous connection.

Comment #17: Bitter Scribe  on  10/14  at  02:32 PM

Don’t be too quick to make a martyr out of this Wooten. Anyone who Tasers his 11-year-old stepson is a bad actor in my book.

Should the guy lose his job on trumped-up charges because he’s a dumbfuck who married into the wrong family?

You can defend the guy against losing his job because of his vindictive in-laws without defending the poor judgment he showed on several non-job-related occasions, like illegally shooting a moose.

Comment #18: Mnemosyne  on  10/14  at  02:55 PM

And Monegan’s actual offense was not firing Wooten, but the excuse for firing him was a vague insubordination erected after the fact. 

Actually, it wasn’t so vague.  The specific instance of insubordination her people cited was the fact that he went to Washington on his own dime to lobby their reps in Congress for funds to combat violence against women which he considered to be epidemic in Alaska (it is) and which she had refused to do.  That’s the story Palin preferred people to believe over the charge of abuse of power for personal ends which tells you all you really need to know about Palin’s administration.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/news/4-as-it-happens/126-going-off-the-reservation-was-the-last-straw.html

Oh, and since Republicans now support torture of suspects, aggressive warfare, secret trials of enemies of the state as defined by the Great Leader, indefinite prison without trials for same, a survelleince state, hatred-fueled political rallies, the all-powerful unitary executive who is above the law, using riot police to pre-emptively arrest and intimidate political dissidents, using the power of government to harass political opponents, fetishizing masculinity and militarism, AND attacking as the sources of all our problems the unions and liberals and queers and foriegners and dark-skinned people… 

Fuck Godwin’s Law, Eric.  It does not apply to people who actually are acting like fascists.  (“Rejector of memez” indeed.)

Comment #19: RobW  on  10/14  at  02:55 PM

V. Bac, exactly.  That’s unfortunately why I’m an unwilling supporter of the verdict in the O.J. trial.  The cops framed a guilty man, but it doesn’t matter.  If you frame someone, the verdict should be that you didn’t prove your case that they’re guilty.

Comment #20: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/14  at  02:56 PM

it’ll be interesting to see how her “move along, nothing to see here” defense plays out

Honestly?  I don’t think it’ll make much difference.  I think her support is pretty much down to the Hard Core these days, and they’ll probably see this as a point in her favor - not letting any silly damn rules get in her way as she goes after a Bad Guy, or some such.  The only way I see this actually making an impact on her one way or the other is if she’s indicted.

Comment #21: Seraph  on  10/14  at  02:59 PM

According to Henry Hide, I believe, the Clinton impeachment was partially payback for the Richard Nixon impeachment/resignation.

Oh, and fuck Hyde too.  That’s bullshit.  25 years after the fact, they got their payback?  No attempt to go after Carter?  It’s crap.  Feeding the tribalism of the base with the tried-and-true “they started it” childishness.  More of the same victim-had-it-coming crap.  They never considered Clinton’s presidency legitimate and sought to undermine it before he even took office.

Comment #22: RobW  on  10/14  at  03:05 PM

Yep, Earnest, the law allows people to fire for personal vendettas all the time, and Palin got away with it because it’s technically legal.

I can’t understand how anybody gets “technically legal” out of the report when - literally - finding No. 1 is that she violated Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

How can it be “technically legal” to have broken the law? I understand why Sarah Palin acts like it is, but she’s a lying idiot. Can someone explain to me how a finding that she violated state law represents anything legal?

Comment #23: Chet  on  10/14  at  04:57 PM

RobW:

Fuck Godwin’s Law, Eric. It does not apply to people who actually are acting like fascists.

Indeed. Godwin’s Law isn’t a shield you can use to deflect attention away from the fact that you’re saying or doing openly fascist things. It’s just a stupid fucking internet meme, one that has long since outlived its rhetorical usefulness or entertainment value. It doesn’t translate to “it’s not fascism when we do it,” and anyone who attempts to use it like that is complicit in our descent into fascism.

Comment #24: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  10/14  at  04:59 PM

I always thought Godwin’s Law was dumb. We’re supposed to just ignore one of the 20th century’s most significant historical events, which led to tens of millions of deaths and had an impact that lasted for decades?

Comment #25: Bitter Scribe  on  10/14  at  06:15 PM

We’re supposed to just ignore one of the 20th century’s most significant historical events, which led to tens of millions of deaths and had an impact that lasted for decades?

I think the point is that it was an event of extreme significance, and therefore one should be reticent to compare any other situation to it, since more than likely you’re about to betray a serious lack of perspective.

On the other hand, it’s not like historians of the mid-20th century refuse to even look at that time period. It’s not a violation of Godwin’s law to say “this was the mindset that allowed Hitler to rise to power, and here’s the same mindset in operation today”. Indeed Bob Altemeyer’s work on Right-Wing Authoritarian personality type was predicated, largely, on the effort to understand how Nazism had such a sway over the German people.

Comment #26: Chet  on  10/14  at  06:30 PM

You can defend the guy against losing his job because of his vindictive in-laws without defending the poor judgment he showed on several non-job-related occasions, like illegally shooting a moose.

I can’t get exercised about the moose shooting. Wooten shot a moose using his wife’s permit. Whether she shot it or he shot it was immaterial to the moose. His story is that, although she entered the lottery and drew the tag, when they ran across the moose she did not want to shoot it. Either way, the Wooten family would enjoy a number of moose dinners. Party hunting is actually legal in many states, like Minnesota, which makes sense, because hunting large game animals is not a solitary pursuit. Just getting one out of the bush is challenging: a female moose can weigh 600-800 pounds.

Comment #27: Hector B.  on  10/14  at  06:46 PM

Wow, what a nerve I struck.  Apparently Godwin’s Law is oppressing the Left.  ::eyeroll:: 

Show some enterprise, slackers: research some history and find a replacement.  Meanwhile, quit trivializing the Nazi event.

Comment #28: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  10/14  at  07:14 PM

The lesson of the moose shooting is one Levi Johnston should take to heart: marry into the Palin family, and everything that you think they think is cool is getting filed away to be used against you in a custody dispute.

Comment #29: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/14  at  07:34 PM

eric, are you saying this could never happen again? we can’t look at how hitler started out and LEARN FROM HISTORY? prevent a repeat? i thought sticking one’s head in the sand and saying the devil must have made him do it was a fundie meme.

is there a meme about darfur yet?

Comment #30: chibi  on  10/14  at  08:11 PM

“Apparently Godwin’s Law is oppressing the Left.”

I do actually have a question about Godwin’s Law.  Can we compare someone the Nazis when they’re setting squads of murder-commandos on their least favor group of Others, or do we have to wait until they’ve started to pay more attention to exterminating the group(s) in question than to military objectives?  Please don’t tell me we have to have a body-count before we can do it.  That will take forever, especially since most of the planet learned from the Nazis’ errors and now refrain from keeping records even if they think they’re totally not ever going to get called on the whole genocide thing.

Comment #31: preying mantis  on  10/14  at  08:41 PM

“V. Bac, exactly.  That’s unfortunately why I’m an unwilling supporter of the verdict in the O.J. trial.  The cops framed a guilty man, but it doesn’t matter.  If you frame someone, the verdict should be that you didn’t prove your case that they’re guilty.”

Amanda agrees with the O.J jury? Are you serious Amanda?

Comment #32: Hilbily  on  10/14  at  08:45 PM

Seraph: I think her support is pretty much down to the Hard Core these days, and they’ll probably see this as a point in her favor - not letting any silly damn rules get in her way as she goes after a Bad Guy, or some such. 

Dead right. Defense of her behavior focusses on “look how bad Wooton was”, and the argument is that she was justified in what she did - even if she was motivated because Michael Wooton was her ex brother in law - because she just wanted to clean up the AST.

Comment #33: Jesurgislac  on  10/14  at  09:11 PM

The Nazi ideology was partly based upon the theory that certain people are better than others and others are less than human- things to be controlled. This is a classic sociopathic belief expressed by serial killers and slave owners among others. That is why claiming someone is a terrorist who must be killed is, in part, a sociopathic assertion; that is, the person in question is not named, s/he is given an objectifying title: terrorist.  It is my firm belief that McCain’s and Palin’s use of such to identify Obama is clearly a coded call to exterminate the object.

You can use Nazi -like thought processes without being a Nazi; although, the slope is terribly slippery.

Comment #34: caliban  on  10/14  at  09:44 PM

Yep, Hillbilly.  I think the cops fucked it up for the prosecution, end of story.  Cops need to learn a lesson from the O.J. case, which is that you make an honest case or you don’t make one at all.  O.J. was guilty, but by presenting a case based on fraud, the state failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  Merely introducing fake evidence into a case presents reasonable doubt, in my opinion.

Comment #35: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/14  at  10:04 PM

Researching Godwin’s Law (is the first link ALWAYS Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law

I came across the felicitous phrase reduction ad Hitlerium  (sweet!) as in here:

Linking by implication the fallacy of reductio ad Hitlerum to online discussion length had been done prior to 1990 by a poster named Richard Sexton in 1989: “You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the participants drags out Hitler and the Nazis.”[8] Godwin’s Law does not, however, claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. “Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust,” Godwin has written. It has not been established whether Sexton’s quip had any influence on Godwin’s law, though Sexton continues, citing an apparent joke by Godwin, to claim Godwin borrowed the idea from Sexton and named it.[9]

Like Godwin himself, I just don’t like seeing the comparison bandied about lightly.

Comment #36: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  10/14  at  10:11 PM

Eric:

Like Godwin himself, I just don’t like seeing the comparison bandied about lightly.

Perhaps you should go back and read RobW’s post a little more carefully, then.

I’ll tell you what I don’t like: People who use Godwin’s Law as if it somehow automatically invalidated any comparison involving Hitler and/or the Nazis, no matter how appropriate it is. Again, Godwin’s Law isn’t a valid argument. It has no sound logical or rhetorical content, and it’s not a relevant rebuttal to anything at all. It’s just a stupid internet meme.

Comment #37: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  10/14  at  10:24 PM

“O.J. was guilty, but by presenting a case based on fraud, the state failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  Merely introducing fake evidence into a case presents reasonable doubt, in my opinion. “

fake evidence? Amanda, are you feeling OK?

Comment #38: KLH  on  10/15  at  12:22 AM

“Like Godwin himself, I just don’t like seeing the comparison bandied about lightly.”

Perhaps you could define when it stops being light, then?  Does it hinge on the degree of similarity to Nazi tactics or Nazi history, or is it tied to the chronology of the Nazis’ rise and reign?  Do we have to wait until someone with a PhD in history or political science from a respected school has implicitly or explicitly laid the groundwork for the comparison?

Comment #39: preying mantis  on  10/15  at  12:37 AM

I wonder what the MRAs have to say about the Palins’ vendetta against Wooten.  Is that the sound of crickets chirping?

Comment #40: keshmeshi  on  10/15  at  01:01 AM

Got it dan, got it, you can unmap “stupid internet meme” from F1 already.

Comment #41: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  10/15  at  02:26 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.