Monday, March 05, 2007

How Long Before Kinsella Shows Up and Denounces Someone?

Having read both Cherniak's post and McClelland's original post, I would say that McClelland eventually did the right thing when he put the boots to arthurdecco. It is also ironic (a point Cherniak seems to miss) that the intent of McClelland's piece was to expose some anti-Semitic remarks made by Rev. Ted Pike of the National Prayer Network.

Mitigating factors aside, it is clear that anti-Semitic remarks were made in the comments section of McClellands blog, some (arguably) by McClelland himself. Since my understanding is that McLelland is to the Blogging Dippers what Cherniak is to Liblogs (roughly speaking, McLelland "owns" the site), demanding that he step down is like demanding that the stars fall from the sky. There's no point to it. I would, however, suggest to McClelland that he offer something in the line of an apology. Everyone says dumb things occasionally (or allows them to be said in one's presence), and the best thing to do is own up and move on.

And if you do feel like slagging off some ethnic or national group, pick a relatively powerless one, like the Ystonians. There aren't many around, and most of those that are look like they grew up next to Chernobyl. They're reedier than the English! So if you see any you can usually out-run them and, failing that, they can't throw much of a punch.

The thing I'd like to know is: where's that conflict buzzard Kinsella? Shouldn't he be flapping around making free with the denunciations?


Anonymous said...

You're an anti-Semitic piece of crap. That's why quite a few of us thought it was time for your real identity to become known.

bigcitylib said...

Warren, is that you?

Dr.Dawg said...


I think you mean "Eustonians." They're a sad bunch, very inbred:

Man, those guys move in next door, our intellectual property values will go through the floor. Count on it. :)

SDC said...

And after you run this Mclelland fool out of town on a rail, maybe you can find out exactly who was behind the "Don't vote for Rae cuz his wife is a dirty Joo" flyers that were going around the Liberal convention, hmmmm?

Jason Cherniak said...

"arguably"? Come on - he said he won't care if "they come for the Jews". Sometimes you just need to call a spade a spade.

bigcitylib said...

He did say that towards the end of a long and heated exchange, Jason. But how do you think this jibes with the origonal post itself. Again, the point of THAT seems to have been to expose anti-semititism on the part of a well-know evangelical.

Why would an anti-semitic hardcore do something like that?

Lord Kitchener's Own said...

Well, the argument by the person Robert (FINALLY!) asked to leave the post was that people like the Reverend get quoted just to make anti-semitism look bad, and that because people point to crazies like the reverend it undermines the essential "truth" of what the reverend had to say.

When someone pointed out that this global Jewish conspiracy theory of making anti-semites look bad was anti-semitic, THAT's when the trouble started, as Robert refused to acknowledge that a theory of global jewish domination of the Western world was anti-semitic until finally (supposedly) being convinced of it (I presume, though I'm not certain, that he's STILL not convinced that scrawling "f@ck the Jews" on a wall would be anti-semitic).

Frankly, the needle on my "benefit of the doubt" meter snapped off long before Robert wrote "When next they come for the Jews I doubt I’ll even be able to muster up a 'what a shame'". I don't see how anyone can get past that one though. "Heated exchange" or no (and it was a bit heated as people desperately tried to get Robert to acknowledge that a conspircay theory that the Western world is controlled by Jews was anti-semitic) there's no excuse for someone stating an indifference to the prelude to a second holocaust. But even now Robert is claiming elsewhere that he "stands by his words" and that his "indifference" (to the rounding up of Jews) is not anti-semitic. In Robert's eyes, apparently, indifference is not hositility. Even if it's indifference to a people being rounded up again like the were by the Nazis. Well, sorry. Not buying it.

There's a word for people who don't think indifference to the next incarnation of the rounding up of Jews is anti-semitism.


bigcitylib said...

Well, "standing by your words" when you've said something stupid is not good policy. I hope he changes his mind on that.

canuckistanian said...

that was the most disgusting thread i have ever read. that you would make light of it, and people who would "denouonce" it, speaks volumes of your character.

"arguably"???? that was the most blatant, unambiguous, and incontrovertible anti-semitic statement i have read on the blogosphere. RM is no better tha arhturdeco. at least arthrudeco could plausibly plead insanity...what's RM's excuse??? that he got so tired of being called an anti-semit that he decided to become one??? great defence there!

if the ndp has any soul left, they will immediately kick this anit-semitic prick out of their midst.