Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Jeff Goldstein gets to the nub of it

Those Jooooozz, they're like that, you know:
The question is, why? Is it to "out" "racists" who may damage conservatism at large by dint of their being attached to the movement publicly? . . .
Finally, are there other motivations at play here? — a wish, for instance, to preen unsullied amid the harsh spotlight of political correctness at the expense of forever closing down legitimate areas of inquiry and the free exchange of ideas.
You can read the rest. Like I said a few posts ago, I sided with Goldstein in his debate with Patterico about Rush Limbaugh's "I hope he fails" comment, and fear that Patterico's engagement with me might be the result of smoldering embers of a long-held grudge. That is (we hope) irrelevant to the present discourse, but it does show how what Hollywood calls the "back story" can come into play in such discussions.

What sometimes occurs is a basic problem of organizational dynamics, where personal ambition and personal grievances are externalized as arguments about something else -- anything else. People don't want to admit to being envious or insecure, or to talk about their own fears and doubts, so instead they find someone to scapegoat.

This kind of scapegoating attack is dishonest, because it's not about what the attacker says it's about. Andrew Sullivan's wild obstetric speculations about Trig Palin are an example of this. Any rational observer -- and Sarah Palin's Uterus is admirably reasonable -- can see that Sully is actually suffering from borderline personality disorder, and all his demands for an investigation of the evidence are merely the externalization of his own underlying psychopathology.

Goldstein and Patterico might each accuse the other of scapegoating, each claiming that his opponent's arguments about Rush Limbaugh weren't actually about Rush Limbaugh. I am here to mediate their unfortunate dispute, because it is my heartfelt desire that all men should live in the harmony of universal brotherhood and . . .

What the hell? No, scratch that universal brotherhood crap. Patterico sucks, Goldstein is inarguably Da Man, and you can cue the soundtrack from the rumble scene in West Side Story, baby.
When you're a Jet,
You're a Jet all the way,
From your first cigarette
'Til your last dyin' day.
That's how I roll. If Patterico wants a rumble, we'll give him a rumble, even if it's just me and Goldstein against the whole damned blogosphere.

BTW, I'm not making any accusations or anything, but the first sign that Charles Johnson was going nuts was when he went after Pamela Geller. Patterico's March attack on Jeff Goldstein . . . just a coincidence, I'm sure.


  1. Good response, although you refernece those Jets smoking and everyone knows smoking is bad for you.

    But if we are going to get into the three bong hits dorm debate stuff you referenced below...well maybe for old time sakes.

    Because that is herbal medicine. Just do not get caught doing it in LA County without your medical card in possession.

  2. FWIW: there are plenty of people who are solidly in your corner, Stace. I'm one of 'em. This constant witch-hunting has *got* to stop.

  3. It's also very foolish to irk someone as well versed in Catch Wrestling as Jeff is.

  4. Patterico has another problem: he is a lawyer and, more specifically, an ADA. Most lawyers don't think like normal people and parse things way too much [sometimes a revulsion is just a revulsion]. Add to that that he is an ADA, the biggest abusers of the law through its parsing [ADA's wouldn't know original intent if it bit them in the arse]. Most lawyers have been taught to think in a way that does not comport with Common Sense or reason.

    PS: I'll be a Jet, if you'll have me.

  5. Wait.

    Patterico is in L.A.

    Charles Johnson is in L.A.

    Patterico hunting wacists.

    CJ is hunting wacists.

    Could it be that they're the sa…?


  6. Add Patterico's fight with Radley Balko to the list.

  7. Patterico's March attack on Goldstein? You mean Goldstein's March attack on Patterico, don't you? Patterico did not attack Jeff for Jeff's take of Rush's comments. Jeff went on an all out attack against Patterico for Patterico's take of Rush's comments and it looked like Jeff would not stop until he had driven the deviator-from-the party-line from the blogosphere. It did not work out that way, though.

  8. Right, nk. Patterico banned Jeff G. and claimed victory. Oh, and also claimed that he had made a death threat against you for good measure.

    Isn't that right?

  9. I didn't attack Patrick Frey. I attacked Patrick Frey's dangerous misunderstanding of how language functions, a misunderstanding that is not peculiar to Patrick Frey.

    Patrick Frey doubled down. He banned me. And now he's back, making similar mistakes that impel me to make similar corrections by way of argument.

    You, Nick the Greek, were too busy taking pot shots at me personally to ever really understand what the argument was about, or why I felt -- and continue to feel -- the need to make it.

    Frey and his coterie continue to back conservative policy, but they are inscribed structurally by the linguistic rules of progressivism. Which can only lead them down one path.

    In this case, we see inquisitions based on how a statement made Patrick feel. If he wants to say McCain is racist, he should say it. What he shouldn't do is try to weasel out of his position by making the ridiculous claim that a statement can be "racist" without some racism to tie it to.

  10. I thought Goldstein was attacking Patterico's argument, not so much Pat (at first anyway before the whole thing devolved into a pissin' contest). I came down on Goldstein's side then, mostly because I agreed with him that allowing the Left to define what can/can't be said doesn't foster meaningful discussion, and neither does self-censorship of the kind Pat though Rush should have engaged in.

    Oh, and I hope Obama fails.

  11. JeffG,

    People disagree whether someone should be labeled a racist simply because of one or two prejudiced comments ... as you well know since we discussed it last night at your blog. I understand you disagree but it surprises me how unwilling you are to acknowledge other viewpoints on this topic.


  12. I was nasty with Jeff and that's a fact. But it took me a while to get there, if it matters. I went back and forth and tried to understand both sides for quite a while. But, like Mr. McCain says, there was a rumble and I finally decided I was not Tony. (If Darleen were Natalie Wood, I might have behaved differently.^_^)

    As for this kerfuffle this was my position, after some thought:

    228.Well, if I took McCain seriously, I might be upset. Because …

    I don’t think “natural” is synonymous with “reflexive” no matter what Dafydd [ab Hugh] says.

    And McCain is not making it clear at all that he is being descriptive and not prescriptive.

    And I saw an implication of approval of the attitude in his sentence structure and choice of words.

    But were I to defend it, I could, not for the racism, but for the principle of imposing political correctness in public but not in private life.

    Until Mr. McCain accused Patterico of trying to create non-racist credentials non-racist credentials as a career builder. Which I think is a disgusting accusation. And then the insolent West Side Story analogy.

    So if any part of this is about me ... there's where I'll be. By Patterico and, in the words of my neighbor and former Congressman, punching back twice as hard.

  13. BTW, the banning of Jeff's IP at Patterico's lasted maybe two days after the kerfuffle in March. Since then, Jeff has been "banned" only because he believes he is banned. It's an easy thing to test. And it's the same thing Jeff did at PW with a commenter named SEK.

    I know because Patterico told me so when I asked him to unban Jeff.