A milestone in my life as a conservative rabble-rouser: I’ve been banned from a liberal blog! Why? Because I was “obnoxious,” “patronizing,” and I “insulted” people.
–
If you want the full context of what went down, check out the debate on this post, then this one, and lastly this one. Under a revised profile I left a parting message for the little darlings, but just in case they decide to delete it, I think I’ll post it here for posterity:
–
Hah! I’ll admit, I took a couple potshots at some stunningly bad logic, and described your position in frank terms, but you libs really oughta consider that for the most part, my insults were in RESPONSE to:
–
– Aryeh insulting as a “scumbag,” a “nosy and controlling neo-christian,” a “cultist,” and a “bully”
–
If you want the full context of what went down, check out the debate on this post, then this one, and lastly this one. Under a revised profile I left a parting message for the little darlings, but just in case they decide to delete it, I think I’ll post it here for posterity:
–
Hah! I’ll admit, I took a couple potshots at some stunningly bad logic, and described your position in frank terms, but you libs really oughta consider that for the most part, my insults were in RESPONSE to:
–
– Aryeh insulting as a “scumbag,” a “nosy and controlling neo-christian,” a “cultist,” and a “bully”
– Emily lying about my very words, mischaracterizing “I understand there will always be some teens who have sex” as “You aren’t willing to admit that sex is something that teenagers have and will continue to have.”
– that twit Things Come Undone likening me to ABORTION CLINIC BOMBERS based on – you guessed it! – ZERO evidence whatsoever.
– Brittainy demagoging me a sexist, an “ideology-driven nutjob,” “crazy anti-sex, anti-woman” (also based on nothing more substantive than her hatred & ideology), & insulting my “reading comprehension skills.”
–
It’s also worth noting that Brendon’s idea of an “insult” is more than a little bizzare; I claimed that societal narcissism is a result of liberalism. Right or wrong, it’s a debatable position, not a personal insult.
–
Now, do I particularly care that any of you insulted me? Nah – I’m a big boy, and I’ve taken worse from better. I don’t mind a light jab or two – from either side – but I DO mind when self-righteous hypocrites get on their high horses and pretend they’re innocent little angels (remember Angelica from the cartoon “Rugrats”? That’s you guys.)
–
Not only that, but you shouldn’t be surprised that your position – that some humans are unworthy of being protected by lethal force – is looked upon unkindly by normal Americans.
–
Anyway, thanks for the laughs and the practice; I do so enjoy taking the occasional trip to the ol’ intellectual boxing bags! Catch ya later.
–
Calvin
–
PS: as always, I’ll be sure to keep you in my prayers to the “invisible man in the sky.”
–
It’s also worth noting that Brendon’s idea of an “insult” is more than a little bizzare; I claimed that societal narcissism is a result of liberalism. Right or wrong, it’s a debatable position, not a personal insult.
–
Now, do I particularly care that any of you insulted me? Nah – I’m a big boy, and I’ve taken worse from better. I don’t mind a light jab or two – from either side – but I DO mind when self-righteous hypocrites get on their high horses and pretend they’re innocent little angels (remember Angelica from the cartoon “Rugrats”? That’s you guys.)
–
Not only that, but you shouldn’t be surprised that your position – that some humans are unworthy of being protected by lethal force – is looked upon unkindly by normal Americans.
–
Anyway, thanks for the laughs and the practice; I do so enjoy taking the occasional trip to the ol’ intellectual boxing bags! Catch ya later.
–
Calvin
–
PS: as always, I’ll be sure to keep you in my prayers to the “invisible man in the sky.”
–
UPDATE: Yup, I’ve been deleted. Oh well, their hypocrisy is pretty glaring on their own pages for anybody independent passersby, and as for the rest…well, I can’t even begin to guess how many psych-analysts & all the intensive care you’d need to untangle the years of brainwashing and biases that’ve layered on over the years. Deception is a tangled web, indeed.
Conservative Standards 
Feel free to delete this comment, but I hope any of your readers click those link so that they can establish for themselves who got out of control first.Anyways, I hope that invisible man in the sky thing works out for you. May the Great Spaghetti Monster bless you and keep you.Brittany
LikeLike
Y’see, Brittany, I’m not as quick to censorship as the YTL crowd is are. And I think the full context speaks for itself quite nicely, thank you very much (if the “crazy anti-sex, anti-woman” demonization is something you’re proud of, then that alone says it all).Methinks the YTL crowd needs to learn the lost art of self-reflection….The Great Spaghetti Monster – another of my favorites! It never ceases to amaze me how these cookie-cutter lines are thrown about without question.
LikeLike
Calvin, your “logical arguments,” as you put it; can be made without the ad homin attacks. Calling someone Hitler, Stalin, or Doctor Mengele is not actually attacking their position, it is attacking the person. Thank you for praying for all of us over at Youthinkleft.com, we’ll do the same. May you someday see the light and realize the error of your ways.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
As I pointed out, you guys had more than your share of “ad homin attacks,” and I put up with them. Stop pretending otherwise. Do you guys EVER chastize your own? Because you sure as heck dropped the ball in this case.And in context, I stand by the historical allusions I made. Pointing out the similarities behind both your & their positions and the rationales behind them is anything but trivial.And sorry guys, but when you take inherently-unethical positions, don’t be surprised if people wonder about your ethics.
LikeLike
Calvin, I’ll chastise my collages when they are out of line. The fact of the matter is that you started the insults. No one was personally attacking you on Youthinkleft.com until you started, by saying that someone had a drug problem. You claim that you had already been insulted and provide a link to a completely different site. It was your choice to continue that discussion on our site. Then, you started in on people who hadn’t even been involved with the other site. The facts all point to you as the culprit behind the insults and my colleges, while still responding to your arguments, were defending themselves. If you can provide me one instance on Youthinkleft.com in which someone attacked you without provocation, I’ll drop the argument all together. Your last sentence needs to be amended. You feel that our position is unethical and you make the logical fallacy that everyone thinks like you, unfortunately, that is not the case. To you and maybe your rightwing brothers our position is unethical, but the entirety of the American people does not. As a final note, may I clarify for anyone that reads your site, you weren’t banned from our site because we couldn’t argue with your logic, because frankly we can do that in our sleep. It was because you were rude, insulting and just not someone we want to associate with. Next time you are at your GOP meeting, ask the person in charge if insulting people is correct argumentation. Perhaps then, you will finally believe us.
LikeLike
People not having the courage to attach an identity to their attacks is another of my favorites…“I’ll chastise my collages when they are out of line.” That’s a lie, since you’ve yet to do so.Other site or not, it doesn’t change the fact that Things Come Undone is a demagogic moron who had that insult coming to him.Now my comments are unacceptable because you don’t FEEL babykilling is unethical. Well guess what? Right & wrong are not matters of perception.You don’t wanna associate with me? Why would I care about winning the approval of ideological con-men like you? I already accomplished my goal, which was to inject a shred of conscience into the heart of today’s Holocaust movement.
LikeLike
Say, “Anonymous,” are you Alex, or are you Brendon Schweers?
LikeLike
I characterized the “pro-life movement” as anti-sex and anti-woman. I didn’t say you specifically were. But I hardly think that comment was of the same magnitude as yours — I did not say anything about your personal ethics, your intent, or your personality, despite the fact that I believe you to be needlessly condemning women to suffering and possible death. I criticized your <>agenda<>. That’s where the distinction comes in, in my opinion.But do remember, I was not the one who made the choice to censor you. I left the discussion, but I don’t have the power to ban anyone, nor did I call for a ban. As far as I know, banning you was judged in the best interests of creating a civil culture on youthinkleft, and I think the ban may indeed help with that. I was not a part of that, though.And “babykiller” you may think I am, at least give me credit for making mostly cogent arguments. I am certainly willing to admit that you are capable of making sound arguments, when you’re not being hyperbolic and offensive.
LikeLike
So I’m not supposed to interpret a blanket attack on my position personally? Sorry, but slanderous misrepresentations of entire groups of people kinda rubs me the wrong way (Despite my deep disgust for abortion, I gave more benefit of the doubt in that “patchwork” paragraph: “people who have been deceived,” “intimidated by the ‘constitutional’ angle.”).I never presumed that you made the censorship decision. Nor do I deny that websites have the right to censor whoever they want. I just think the hypocrisy of your pals needs to be kept in mind.Frightening arguments, but they were more cogent than most abortionists, but again, context is everything: I stayed patient with numerous commenters, but even I have my limits – and abortion is the one issue that tests my patience more than any other.
LikeLike
Clavin, this is Alex and you can call me a liar all you want, but the fact remains that I said I would chastise my collages when they were out of line. As I said before, I did not see them out of line, therefore, I wasn’t lying. Again, that was your opinion of Things Come Undone. Whether you felt as though it was coming to him or not, didn’t mean you had to bring it to our site and attack others in the process. The fact that it was on the other site is important, you could have kept it there, but you didn’t. As far as we are concerned it was unprovoked. I never said that your comments were unacceptable because I didn’t think babykilling was unethical. As I clearly stated in my last post, the American people do not all think like you. No where did I state that what you are claiming. Next time, have a warrant behind your attack.Finally, in response to your last comment, a good politician would want to. If you really cared about politics and how they work, you would know that. If you really want to “inject a shred of consciences,” as you put it, then you would do it more moderately and not by alienating your opponents. What has it gained you? We are just more entrenched in our position and less likely to listen to your “reason.” Congratulations, if that is what you call mission accomplished. Oh and before I forget, may I again point something out to your readership, Calvin could not provide a single instance in which we personally attacked him. Do you really want to listen to someone that goes around attacking people and not addressing their arguments? This was also proven here on his own blog. Notice how he lost his temper and started rattling off insults, while I have done nothing but to simply answer his points.
LikeLike
“I did not see them out of line.”How are you supposed to hold debates with people who either a.)hate truth and fact, or b.) are functionally illiterate? Folks, please scroll up to the original post & see if anyone else got “out of line.”People don’t change who they are just because they’re commenting elsewhere. His past moonbattery was a clear indication that he didn’t want a serious, principled discussion.“I never said that your comments were unacceptable because I didn’t think babykilling was unethical.”You said “You feel that our position is unethical and you make the logical fallacy that everyone thinks like you, unfortunately, that is not the case.”I report, you decide.A good politician would not want to alienate people suceptible to reason. That is true. However, YTL’s general clientel doesn’t fall into that category; it’s a bastion of left-wing extremism. And don’t feed me this lie that you’re MORE entrenched in your position because of me. None of you were ever going to change (I stated up front that my remarks were primarily for outside readers that stumble across it).The rest: Gentle readers, please read it for yourself. I think the picture, in the final analysis, will be that of a liberal in full spin mode.
LikeLike
First Calvin, you say that we were out of line, yet you continue to ignore the fact that you began it and my colleagues were defending themselves. However, to be fair if you will be so kind as to present me one instance where my colleagues were out of line, I’ll be happy to look at it and if necessary take to my colleagues. I have gone through and read the post and I fail to see anyone besides yourself, and perhaps gladtobealive, who were out of line. Please feel free to point out what you felt was out of line on our part.Second, you continue to make excuses about why you began the insults, but the fact remains that you did start it. It appears that things come undone was rationally refuting your claims. He or she might not have had the best of conduct on the other site, but at the point where he was still being rational on our site, didn’t give you the right to start battering him or her with insults. Also, Calvin, you have yet to explain away the insulting of other members, who had nothing to do with the other site or the way things come undone acted.Ah, I see that you misunderstood my comment. What I meant by my original comment was that when you said, “And sorry guys, but when you take inherently-unethical positions, don’t be surprised if people wonder about your ethics,” that was your opinion on ethics. I was trying to make a point that you should let each person decide what is ethical to them, and not make general assumptions that they think like you and would agree with you. The way it seems that you interpreted my comment was that I didn’t value your opinion because I didn’t think “babykilling” was unethical. Which is not the case, I wanted to make sure that you understood that a lot of people would disagree with you and you shouldn’t make the general assumptions about people.Calvin, our website is an open discussion about the issues, trying to better understand where each side is coming from. If we were a “bastion of left-wing extremism,” then why would we feel the need allow comments to be posted? We could just post our opinion and say, “That is how it is people, you should listen to us.” Instead, we value comments from all sides, as long as it is a thoughtful and meaning discussion, not one that has devolved to petty insults and name calling. From your point of view we are not “susceptible to reason,” but the only reason that I have seen you present is your ad homin attacks and logical fallacies that we have responded to. Calvin, I am speaking for myself now, but I always approach a discussion with an open-mind to both sides, hoping that I can reach some understanding with the other side. Unfortunately, your insults and other conducts have forced me to be re-entrenched into my position. Regardless, I agree that we should let the readers decide. Some facts that the readers can’t ignore, is that you have failed to present an instance when we began a personal attack on you and also the conduct on your own blog. We started out having a polite, civil discussion and then, you started to personally attack me. I chose not to indulge you by responding back in kind. Instead I continued refuting your claims rationally and allowing your own behavior to play out to your readers. On one final note, in psychology, there is a concept known as foot-in-the-door. This concept talks about how you can change people’s minds about things in small steps, i.e. getting your foot in the door. This is quite and interesting concept to read about, perhaps it will provide better results than your current tactics in any future endeavors to “inject a shred of conscience into the heart of today’s Holocaust movement.”
LikeLike
Calvin,I will agree with you on the fact that YTL is very left-winged. After all, what are a bunch of left-winged youth supposed to do? We are not telling you how you should think. If we were, we would not allow comments. We are simply further elaborating on the topics we cover, and we pose our arguments with cold-hard facts from notable websites. If you believe our facts are incorrect, I beg you to take them up with the websites from which they were provided.I beg you to let this go and I will be contacting all authors on YTL, asking them to let it go if you are willing to. This could obviously go on forever because as the old adage goes “There are two things that friends never talk about: Religion and Politics.” We have obviously found an issue that takes both of these topics and brings them together. Now, while we will not change our reading material, we will allow you access to the site again if we are able to put this one aside. Also, on further posts, we need to keep the debating to an educational level and not result to childish insults and tactics.I thank you for your time.~Brendon Schweers
LikeLike
Alex, I don’t know how many times I can say “see above,” so this’ll be my last time doing so. See above.Try as I might, I just can’t bring myself to feel guilty about my conduct. Maybe my evil conservative heart will have some more sympathy once the Democrat Party removes “open season on the unborn” from the platform.Brendon, if by “let it go” you mean don’t dwell on it, I don’t plan to. I don’t care whether or not I’m allowed back on YTL, and I don’t care if anybody else lets it go. However, don’t expect me to retract a single word, either.
LikeLike
Calvin, I don’t know how many times I can tell you that the incident you want me to “see above,” were all provoked by your own conduct. I still await you proving how you didn’t provoke the actions. When I “see above,” all I see is your own edited version of what people did. You didn’t even post your own conduct before and after said incidents. I’ve reviewed the full conversation, and nothing that was said to you was unprovoked. Not feeling guilty about your actions is your own choice, because my primary reason for being here is to defend YTL reputation as an actual place of open discussion. I believe that your conduct on your own blog has been more than enough to discredit any claims against us by you, especially the fact that, unprovoked, you chose to insult me and then close our discussion without responding to any of my positions. This speaks far more about your character and creditability to your readers than anything I could have every said. Thank you Calvin, your conduct has provided me examples with which I can prove my point and restore the creditability of our website.
LikeLike
ROTFLOL. TTYL!
LikeLike
I don’t expect you to retract any words.
LikeLike