Trash of the Titans
(Note: I started this post a few days ago, then some shit happened and I couldn’t complete it until now.)
[Gavin adds: This isn’t ‘the’ Trevino piece, by the way. That one’s still in the workshop with concomitant sounds of hammering, sawing, and mysterious electrical discharges. PS: Help, I’m trapped in here. Someone press the red button in the fake plaster bust of Milton Friedman.]
Ezra Klein has a nifty idea:
All across the sphere, you’ve got policy experts, brilliant writers, incisive commentators with particular knowledge in one or another area, but you rarely see the best engage with the best, everyone preferring instead to beat up on the weak, lame, and stupid. I’d like that to change, and since I don’t see the incentives for it to happen on individual sites, someone should exploit the vacuum and create an explicit home for such confrontations. And hey, I’ll even volunteer for a health care debate to help start it off.
A clash of the titans, eh? Nice. However, there’s nothing wrong with beating up on the “weak, lame, and stupid” — basically the working definition of a wingnut. Isn’t that what wingnuts are for? But I get where’s he’s coming from. Wouldn’t it be nice to see Duncan Black and Glenn Reynolds finally go at it head to head, rather than keep on with their simmering, often sideways, often proxied feud? Of course Instayokel would end up being (an incredibly unfunny) Andy Kauffman to Black’s Jerry Lawler, but then I don’t care about seeing an even match so much as I want to see a spectacle of annihilation (the genocide-enthusiast and fake-libertarian getting what he so richly and directly deserves); one-sided lefty victories would be the inevitable result of such pairings (could Klein really disagree?).
Wingnuts are, at best, silly and misguided; more likely, they are baroquely stupid and evil. Most of them disallow commenters, refuse to talk to callers who aren’t sycophants, have the awesome bad taste to think that “Day by Day” is humorous, to think that the paste-eating cretin Jeff Goldstein is intelligent, talented and funny. How could the results of Klein’s dream “blogger thunderdome” not be foreordained? Wingnut “titans” exist purely by their self-created isolation from direct critique. Intelligent, principled conservatives went the way of the Dodo a long time ago. Hitchens, the lapsed-leftist who relishes debate, is the exception who proves the rule. Or does anyone really think that Special Ed, say, could outduel …well, Ezra Klein? But as sure as I say all this, Klein links to a duel that proves me oh-so-wrong:
Armando, of Daily Kos fame, and Josh Trevino, the artist formerly known as Tacitus, have created a group blog named Swords Crossed. The concept — get this — is to have a blog where intelligent, articulate defenders of the left-wing philosophy and perspective will coexist and interact with intelligent, articulate defenders of the right-wing philosophy and perspective.
In Pork Swords Crossed lays the perfect — and I would say, unique — preconditions to prove me wrong. (Thanks a lot, bitchez.) How? Because its Left representative, Armando from Kos, is a timid mouse, and the Right representative, Tacitus, is a spectacularly dishonest trolling-artist whose specialty is longwinded diversions that fatigue his opponent into submission. What we have here then is the blogging equivalent of Hannity & Colmes; in this case the Hannity figure is marginally more intelligent and ever-so-slightly less vituperative, but such matters little when the Colmes figure, who is admittedly and admirably fine at the kung-fu of wonkery, is still such a pushover when it comes to direct clashes with certain ideological enemies who argue in massive bad faith.
Now before you start with your “gah, you’re attacking a fellow Lefty again, Retardo! why??” spiel, let me qualify my characterization of Armando. He’s not always a pushover; indeed, when it comes to his comrades or former comrades at Daily Kos, he can be quite a bruiser. His kung-fu is formidable when it comes to attacking BushCo. on subjects like SCOTUS appointees, for instance. So he has a spine and is capable of being disgusted by the more awful manifestations of wingnuttery — like, say, pro-torture arguments. But being disgusted at the principle of it is one thing; such a reaction must go hand in hand with disgust at the inhumanity of the purported human beings who advance such depravity. Hating the sin while loving the sinner is a noble thing, but hating the sin while giving the sinner an invitation to sin again is something else; turning the other cheek doesn’t mean becoming a punching bag.
It’s been said more than once that writers, foremost among all professionals, exhibit the most ingratitude toward those who’ve helped them. Such an observation, while possibly banal, might still be a useful enough starting point to determine just what it takes to light Armando’s fires — or not light them, as the case may be. Armando owes everything he is online to Kos, which might lead you to suspect that Armando would repay the favor with some display of loyalty. Sadly, no — if it means burning a bridge of ambition with someone on the other side. Attack Kos from the Left, or in a meta-sense that diminishes the site, Daily Kos, or — most importantly — Armando’s position there, and Armando reveals his edge. Attack Kos from the far wingnutto right, personally and pathologically and with the dedication and zeal you might have thought only Donald Luskin could attain with his Krugman stalkings — which is exactly the pattern Tacitus and Mike Krempasky have displayed over the years — and then Armando is suddenly fair & balanced, Colmes-like, and he just might even go into business with you.
Tacitus, the marble douchebag, will bulldoze Armando because Armando will allow it. And in my opinion he’ll allow it because he thinks taking Tacky’s shit will ultimately further his ambitions. But then you can’t fight with one hand tied behind your back in civility and deference to a “good friend” when the friend in question is a ruthless professional troll, much less one as smugly fucktardious as that bad faith-infected, distended gasbag Josh Trevino. Robert Farley doubts that Swords Crossed will amount to anything more than “hollow pomposity”. I think that’s an optimistic forecast. Far from Ezra’s “Clash of the Titans” dreamfight, a Main Event battle between heavyweights, Swords Crossed is instead like one of those midget wrestling matches way down on the card, the kind of also-ran event that nobody watches because they’re out buying popcorn or taking a leak.
Dammit, I had this idea a few weeks back – a site where feuds could be addressed in numerous ways, be they chatrooms, forums, disciplined post-rebuttal-rerebuttal threads or whatever.
I was going to invite Juan Cole and Hitchens, or maybe El Duncarino and Instadouche as my opening night spectacular and watch the adwords dollar literally trickle in.
I just got stuck on a name, and now I see that the best one (bar perhaps duelingbanjos.com) has gone to Armando – I could never have come up with a name that conjurs up images of DVDA though.
The concept — get this — is to have a blog where intelligent, articulate defenders of the left-wing philosophy and perspective will coexist and interact with intelligent, articulate defenders of the right-wing philosophy and perspective.
This represents everything that 3Bulls! stands against! If you can’t have a meaningless, childish argument on the internets, then nowhere is safe! Quick, PP and Gregoire! To the Bulls Cave!
The concept — get this — is to have a blog where intelligent, articulate defenders of the left-wing philosophy and perspective will coexist and interact with intelligent, articulate defenders of the right-wing philosophy and perspective.
Instead of ‘Crossed Swords,’ they could’ve just called it ‘Obsidian Wangs.’
The concept — get this…
Who is this Daily Kose, and why is this Eliza person trying to tell me about what Two Babes did earlier, friendlier, with more doggies, and with a lot more sass?
edit. tacitus, the marble COBAG!! or are you scared of ann b=t-w all up in your biz??
in light of recent events mr retardeau, shouldn’t it be tacitus, the marble COBAG!! or are you scared of ann b=t-w all up in your biz??
also:
“Instead of ‘Crossed Swords,’ they could’ve just called it ‘Obsidian Wangs.'”
Sadly, Yes!
I want to see “the” Trevino piece. The spoon-pounding-on-the-high-chair rant of the resident S,N! Tacitus-obsessive (“We hates him, precious!”) is tedious and recycled.
But something new would be nice. Perhaps you’ll even do better than FDL. Godspeed!
Why hey, Tacky! I’m touched that you could tear yourself away from hunting typos in Andrew Northrup’s posts to grace us with your presence.
The link to my old blog is a nice touch. Why, why did I not think of doing that myself in this post, I wonder?
Cheers, kid. Don’t spend so much time nursing the obsessive hate that you miss the nice day outside.
And good luck to Gavin!
Lee Trevino!
Oh wait, Josh Trevino. Dag.
Cheers, kid…
I wouldn’t survive past this. This clichéed expression, obviously intending to convey false bonhommie telegraphs the writer’s grasp of nuance and complexity so throroughly that at this point, continuing would only result in a severe migraine.
“argue in massive bad faith.”
This is the problem with right-wingers, right here.
Where’s my smelling salts?
It’s worse than just ignoring “arguing in good faith.” Some of the more accomplished wingnuts know they’re arguing in bad faith. They just don’t care. For them, the purpose, language in the use of argument and debate is not to communicate ideas, but to defeat your opponent and to marginalise quaint notions such as truth, real-world evidence or delusions or morality.
Why, why did I not think of doing that myself in this post, I wonder?
What, you expect mighty Tacitus, Destroyer of Worlds, to actually read posts that mention him? He’s got to get back to Googling his name to find out if any more leftypinkoislamonazicommies are stabbing America in the back by talking about him!
well hey. i didn’t know about this history!
damn, have i been hanging around the wrong parts of the internets!!
Personally, I don’t care what the wingnuts think. The most carefully researched, reasoned, nuanced arguments would still ultimately be in support of the real-world outcomes they have produced. Namely, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dead innocents. Torture. The marginalization of the Constitution of the United States of America. The complete mockery of the separation of powers and the form of government the founding fathers intended. Huge deficits funded by hostile governments. The utter loss of American prestige and moral guidance in the world.
Nope, I don’t care how good you are with words, COBAGS!! You can’t defend what bush/cheney and company have wrought. And you will be consigned to the dustbin of history along with all the flakes and cranks that jumped on this evil bandwagon of death in the last five years.
mikey
“Obsidian Wangs.”
Make for a good site banner.
The fact is, the italics tag remains unclosed. I blame the Democrat Party.
Uh, so should I shut down Objectivist v. Constructivist because a bunch of racial realists whom I deeply disagree with (and, btw, who have pissed off both Armando and Josh in past blog debates) have been actively contributing to my debates with my friend and colleague (whom I deeply disagree with on many issues) on race v. racialization?
Is the whole debating thing just stupid–doomed to devolve into Daily-Show-type “Even Stephen” routines (which I dearly miss)–or can something substantive ever come out of them?
I hope that worked. Probably didn’t because if it were as simple as putting in “[less-than sign]/I[greater-than sign]”, I’m sure someone would have done it already. But hey, you never know.
As for Wangs Entangled (as the mascot of Balloon Juice called it), I read a half-dozen or so posts and I agree with your assessment. This is Armando, the guy everyone loves to hate, the poster child of BDS? His first post boiled down to “No, I really am patriotic, pleeease believe me!”
Or his second post, or first post after an initial startup period or something. I dunno, I meant to comment on it over there but never got around to it. But anyways.
Found it. To be clear, I don’t disagree with his point that accusing one’s opponent of being unpatriotic is irrelevant, a low blow, etc. But saying that he’s right on general, almost abstract principles is damning with faint praise. Money quote from the post:
Speaking for me, I love the United States of America and am devoted to its well being. Again, speaking for me, I think it is the greatest country in the world. Yes, I am one of those folks who believes in American Exceptionalism.
That is why it is particularly galling to me when I read this…
I admit, it’s not like I have a solution to the problem all planned out and ready to go. But the first post from the right of that blog says that the intent of the Fighting Dems thing is a deliberate deception to hide the Democrat’s total lack of concern for the troops (implying along the way that the Republicans do care, and the most important thing for the troops is as much combat as possible). What’s Armando’s response? To go on the defensive right out of the gate. I may not be able to “fix” Swords Crossed, but it pretty obviously needs fixing.
Y’all need to read the comment thread on the Ezra post- wacky tacky basically shits all over the possibility of the whole idea, and he is the cosponsor. Also, his best material is “sic”.
I love how he instantaneously appears at any mention of his name, I mean try it- just whisper cobag, it’s like saying cookie around a two year old.
Also, Tacky doesn’t even post to the thing- he basically just ignores Armando.
man is anyone more of an approval whore than J-Trev?
It isn’t liberal bias to predict Prof. Black would whup Prof. Reynolds in a battle royale (wow, that sounds like something that would happen in a Far Side Cartoon) — after all, Prof. Black keeps himself in shape … mainly so he can be fodder for Phila. society reporters to comment on him being sweaty from jogging …
Ah … takes me back.
Good times …
Is the whole debating thing just stupid–doomed to devolve into Daily-Show-type “Even Stephen” routines (which I dearly miss)–or can something substantive ever come out of them?
If you Yanks stop playing it like team sports (i.e. the objective is knowledge, not winning), maybe something substantive will come out of it.
Yes, I am one of those folks who believes in American Exceptionalism.
Oh, good, another potential buyer for one of my “I’m With Stupid” T-shirts where the arrow points at the wearer’s head.
Huh? How the heck did I get drawn into this?
Krempasky —
Because Armando has gone out of his way to do business (so to speak) with you and Tacitus over the years, while at the same time you and Tacky have done nothing but beat up on Markos personally and his site as well (while concomitantly ripping him and it off).
I just visited Bores Crossed.
Mr Ñ pretended to be upset… because Goldstein had talked about taking anti-anxiety pills and some lefties were amused.
He kept defending his completely indefensible argument the whole way through a 100000+ reply discussion thread, maintaining the oleaginous pomposity from beginning to end.
My God. They’ve reinvented USENET.
Armando… you utter berk.
Retardeau – true to your name…you really don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. I’ve worked with markos for more than a year now over a particular issue on which we can agree. It doesn’t change the overall disagreement and even sharp elbows…but “done nothing but beat up on Markos personally” shows that you’ve not done a lot of actual reading. Take a lesson from Markos – grow a thicker skin.
I’ve worked with markos for more than a year now over a particular issue on which we can agree. It doesn’t change the overall disagreement and even sharp elbows…but “done nothing but beat up on Markos personally” shows that you’ve not done a lot of actual reading.
Yes, you’ve worked on the net-regulation issue — which was a pragmatic decision by the both of you, and for the benefit of all (ty, btw).
But that doesn’t mean you’re not also full of shit. Remember thisexchange?
Which was just one example. I won’t say that you attack Markos with the regularity and vehemence of Tacky, but you’ve done it enough that Armando might ought to think twice about recommending to our side you and your supposed decency — that is, if Armando is in any way loyal to the man who made him. And if tact and common sense should require Armando forbearance when it comes to you, it goes quadruple for Tacky.
With all that out of the way it’s still nice to see that you’re an unimaginative jackass: by repeating Tacky’s cricket-chriping insult you emphasize its lameness. Anyway, relay my best regards to Ben Domenech; and considering your party’s and ideology’s future prospects, you may want to rework that old Death Star graphic on your personal site, but that’s just a suggestion. Leaving it up as testament to your own hubris might be the better way to go.
Huh? Again, you make little to no sense. I’m repeating something Trevino wrote? I’m a friend of Ben Domenech? I once took a whack at a ridiculous jackass at elementropy who couldn’t find his own ass with a map?
I’m sorry – you’ll have to do better…actually far better. If you’re incapable of throwing rocks back and forth and still share a beer, then you’ve got no future in politics. It may well be that you’ve no interest in such a thing, and if so – never mind any of this.
Wow. Forgive me. You were that jackass. My, if I’d have noticed that – I’d have not bothered to try and shed a little reason here. After your embarassing display of the absence of reason a few years ago – I suppose nothing really shows any evidence of growth to date.
Nice to see you’re still not so fast on the uptake, Krempasky.
This isn’t about the “and be able to still share a beer” test; it’s about Armando effectively subsidizing two assholes who have done their best to both rip-off and insult Kos, Armando’s benefactor.
If Armando still wants to share a beer with idiots like you and Tacky, that’s his problem. But when he repeatedly tried to sell to the Kos community that you two were honest conservatives, that was going too far. And now that he’s providing a forum for circulating the views one of the most loathesome, intellectually-dishonest asshole reactionaries on the internet, he’s gone far beyond too far.