If you want to read mindlessly offensive, badly-written drivel, but are bored of US-centric ‘nuke EUrabia’ screeds, I strongly recommend A Tangled Web. It’s horrible. I mean, really horrible: the sentiments, the writing, and the design. You’ll want to scrub your eyes with a wire brush after reading it. Highly recommended.
Alternatively, should you wish to read some pseudophilosophical religious bilge, the Anchoress is an excellent purveyor thereof: "Beware the urge to utilarianism. Everything does not have to be of "use." Nor does everyONE. It is enough to BE, if BEING is what you have been called to. The Pope is not a CEO. He doesn’t have to DO anything. He just has to BE. Terri Schiavo does not have to get up and dance a jig to be valuable. She is valuable in her BEING, as the object of her family’s love. And God’s".
The latter comes via The Asserter (are they a couple?). I’m not going to pass judgement on his site, save to note that he links approvingly to the piece above, John Lott and Oliver Kamm, and doesn’t appear to understand the difference between criticising someone’s sloppy English and accusing them of supporting mass murder…
You’re not often wrong, John, but you’re wrong on this one. A Tangled Web is certainly badly designed, barking and drivel, but somehow I think that Kamm is worse.
He does link plenty of those ‘Eurabian hell’ sites though, in case you’re missing them.
Funny, you don’t appear to understand that to stipulate that the StWC statement contained sloppy English is to concede rather than to rebut my point. Glad we both agree that it was sloppy English.
P.S. Note that I did display discomfort in linking to a piece authored by John Lott as my jumping-off point :) But, you know, stopped clocks… &c.
Eh? I’m aware the STWC article contained sloppy English, but (while I suspect my grandmother would disagree here) sloppy English isn’t a reliable indicator of sympathy for mass-murder and terrorism.
Kamm was accusing them of the latter, on the basis of evidence that only reasonably allowed him to assert the former. He was wrong to do so.
Sloppy English *is* a reliable indicator of sloppy thinking, and this is what I am accusing them of. I acknowledge that the explanation for that sloppy thinking is open to debate, but the possibilities are finite and none of them involve any positive ramifications for the author and endorsers of that statement.
One possibility, which you seem to be disputing, is that they in fact have sympathy for mass-murder and terrorism. If that’s not the case, one would think they would have constructed their statement(s) more carefully so as to give some actual indication of this fact, instead of simply leaving it to Oracle John B to divine it for us all on the internet.
Another possible explanation, of course, is that they are simply morons. I admit not knowing which explanation to favor. (Neither do I care very much.)
I do want to disabuse this notion that "just sloppy English" is some kind of all-purpose excuse, however. Imagine that a short time after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, someone had released a statement reading,
"We support Timothy McVeigh’s right to protest his government’s actions in Waco two years prior, by whatever means he finds necessary."
With no apparent qualification or hedging.
Now, this statement does not explicitly endorse McVeigh’s bombing just as StWC’s statement does not explicitly endorse this or that terror attack in Iraq. So, would such a statement, as well, be mere "sloppy English"? Or something else? Would the statement merit criticism and condemnation?
I know my answer and it is consistent. Is yours?
With no apparent qualification or hedging
just on a factual point, there was both qualification and hedging in the original (draft) letter. The fact that Oliver Kamm chose not to include it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.
Sloppy English *is* a reliable indicator of sloppy thinking
How, exactly, do you intend to show that? How reliable?
Correct English is easy to demonstrate. Correct thinking (whatever that may look like) is harder.
There’s nothing wrong with being a moron. It’s worked very well for the Royal Family, the aristocracy, and hordes of bankers.
Asserter – your McVeigh analogy entirely undermines your point. Had someone said in 1994, "We support the rights of people who protest against this evil government tyranny by whatever means they find necessary", it would have been utterly insane to accuse them of thereby supporting the Oklahoma bombing when it happened the following year.
The argument that "sloppy English is a sign of sloppy thinking" has its merits, but it is somewhat surprising to hear it in the mouth of a supporter of George W Bush.
It’s funny to think that the whole moral superiority of a bunch of bloggers (including a famous condiment) is based on two isolated phrases "by whatever means necessary" and "sir I salute your courage, etc"
Guys,
Thanks for your profound observations on ATW. We put a lot of effort into producing the design that so offends, so it’s kinda nice to feel appreciated! Just one thing – if any of you weenie-leftists ever reaches pubescence, I suggest that your first trial of new found adulthood should be to improve your limited understanding of the world. We’ll be waiting for you on ATW – shot at by all sides.