I got a rare comment from a liberal today. It was on a post about an article in the NYT on gender differences. In summary, the author said (modified in the same way that liberals modify quotations from the right in their posts in the liberal echo chamber):
"I know you wacko liberals believe that there is no difference between men and women except those created by biased white men, but we scientists (unlike you) have to make sense and the only way we can do that is to recognize the obvious differences created by Mother Nature as well as some not-so-obvious differences that we are able to observe, replicate and record just like the scientific method says we should."
Said wacko liberals, of course, must respond to such a report by getting out their paint gun and spraying every publication of this heresy with their echo chamber-approved response. My modest post referring to the heresy was so honored, Here is the first line:
"So much for the liberal NYT."
This comment made me think: "So much for my claim that all liberals believe everything printed in the NYT." Apparently they make an exception when the NYT prints something that is true. As rare as that is, I believe that I am justified in sticking with my claim (about liberals and the Times). If the NYT starts printing more truth, and they might, [don't hold your breath-ed] it being 3 long years before another presidential election, I may have to modify it. The next comment is one that appears to be left over from posting it on a series of right wing blogs and merely repeated here as a filler:
"Incidentally, Charles Murray also wrote your favorite book, "The Bell Curve," which is often cited by the right-wing élite in their efforts to "prove" that affirmative action is futile because blacks are too stupid to deserve to succeed."
I have not read this book, but I have heard it referred to on posts about racial discrimination. I don't remember what it was cited for, but I'll bet my day's pay that it wasn't for what Anonymous says it was. In the liberal echo chamber it is permissible to "alter" the facts when referring to right wing posts. Thus any post from any publication that disagrees with the liberal agenda can be translated into "what-we-liberals-know-that-right-winger-REALLY-meant" language and thereafter quoted as if the right winger had actually said those translated words. I doubt that any elite right winger said that AA was "futile", that blacks are "stupid" or that they do not "deserve to succeed." I do believe that Anonymous has a Word document containing the following template that can be copied and pasted into any comment and then tailored to fit - left wing blog or right:
"Charles-Murray-wrote-"The Bell Curve,"-which-is-often-cited-by-the-right-wing-élite-in-their-efforts-to-"prove"-that-affirmative-action-is-futile-because-blacks-are-too-stupid-to-deserve-to-succeed."
What can I say about the next line:
"And you claim to be such a heroically independent thinker."
Sigh. 'deed I do.
When I saw the next line I at first thought it was the signature! Then I, of course, realized that it meant me. Or my post. Or all my posts? That is the trouble with paint gun comments to our posts. One never knows just which of our shots hit the commenter's hot button.
"Pathetic"So, another air-headed, template-using liberal commenter that is ill equipped to grapple mind-to-mind and therefore resorts to the paint gun. It is so much more satisfying to have a responsive comment to respond to. Thanks (sincerely) for the comment.