I wondered how best to reply to the accusation that I was dragging down the progressive blogosphere in a Michelle Malkin-esque way. Should I start a flame war? Should I take it on the chin and ignore it? Should I engage in a reasonable debate with a blogger who I consider pretty intelligent most of the time? Last time I tried talking with NDP bloggers (who just happened to post at Rabble.ca by coincidence) I wound up taking a verbal beating for backing what I thought was a pretty reasonable attempt from Elizabeth May to convince nuns that Canada needed to provide women with access to abortions.
Now it seems I’ve touched on another area where I’m not allowed to tread without partisan blowback, and that’s in speculating as to the demise of NDP power in the House. Because I played out my conclusion of the hypothesis that Jack Layton is going to lose a lot of votes (as will other parties) to the Greens next general election, I’m suddenly akin to a blowhard, anti-Islamofascist blogger popular in the right-wing spin-o-sphere in America. I don’t think my blog is the tipping point for the destruction of free speech and good sense in the ProgBlogs.
[Saskboy's] type of mangling of logical structure in the name of partisanship is indeed a rarity in Canada’s progressive blogosphere. And I only hope that by pointing out such problems when they do appear, we can keep from falling into the same fact-free black hole which the American right so happily occupies.
I do believe I’ve been zinged. But maybe I’m taking The Jurist’s words too hard, and he really means that I’ve just veered off course, and not meaning that I’m all the way to a Vert-ified Level 5 Islamofaschist-phobe Spin PhD. Am I without hope of recovering my progressive forthright nature, or am I terminally conservative, give it to my straight doc?
So remember - Don’t do what Donny Don’t does. And don’t pretend I’m not Donny Don’t.
Danke (”Thank you”, for those that don’t know the German at all).
==
As a bit of a note to myself: There’s also a lot of speculation from people like Jack Layton when it comes to hypothetical election outcomes. Jack doesn’t want Elizabeth May in the televised leaders debate, despite the facts laid out here for even himself to read. He’s using his crystal ball to determine that the Green Party is not going to win any seats in the coming election, so why bother including them in the debate that helps determine the outcome of the election?
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Rosie | 31-Jan-07 at 8:22 pm | Permalink
meh. Ignore partisan bullpoop. You call it as you see it. It is completely impossible that everyone will agree with you 100% of the time. Although the analogy to malkin is pretty insulting. yuck.
Partisanship is the name of the game. If you can’t take the heat, get outta the kitchen ;)
JimBobby | 31-Jan-07 at 9:40 pm | Permalink
Whooee! The dippers is lookin’ more’n'more despret but yer right as rain, Sasky. All o’ the parties’ll lose sum t’ Lizzie May’s bunch. I jest hope it’s enuff t’ get one or two Green MPs settin’ in the House o’ Comments.
Speakin’ o’ hypothetical outcomes, King Steve was jest speculatin’ on what’d happen if we had us an electionvote right away. I s’pose Jack an’ Steve mighta talked ’bout that when they wwas pow-wowin’ on a compromised Clean Air Song’n'Dance Act.
JB
Olaf | 31-Jan-07 at 9:42 pm | Permalink
SB,
This was my favourite part:
mangling of logical structure in the name of partisanship is indeed a rarity in Canada’s progressive blogosphere
As much as The Jurist would like to think otherwise, this type of behaviour is quite common throughout the blogosphere, and shockingly not just among conservatives.
Saskboy | 31-Jan-07 at 9:48 pm | Permalink
Olaf, you don’t deny that I’m a logical mangler? :-O I’m shocked ;-)
I try not to mangle logic, but rather give my thought process when I arrive at a conclusion. That way if my logic is broken, someone can tell me where I went wrong. I don’t really see why The Jurist thinks working from a likely, yet hypothetical outcome, is logic mangling when we’re talking hypotheticals like future elections. It’s not like I was justifying war in Iran because Tehran would look better with A&Ws on every corner.
CfSR | 31-Jan-07 at 9:48 pm | Permalink
I wouldn’t worry about it.
You haven’t lost your progressive card. Giant Political Mouse still lists you on the Sask Progressive aggregator. I just checked.
The problem lies in the fact that some New Democrats (generally the same ones who look like they are going to blow a head gasket when you reference the “NDP party”) think NDP is the only Canadian synonym for progressive.
And that’s not really your problem.
Saskboy | 31-Jan-07 at 10:27 pm | Permalink
If that’s not it, what is my problem CfSR? :-D
Please tell me I need to know… ;-)
CfSR | 31-Jan-07 at 10:34 pm | Permalink
I think some U of C prof wrote something about bloggers. :-P
I, however, don’t pay much attention to U of C profs.
They gave us Rob Anders and Stephen Harper.
The Jurist | 31-Jan-07 at 11:41 pm | Permalink
Of all the nights to work late. Ah well, let’s keep this relatively short: just a couple more examples to see if we can’t work out this distinction between “speculation”, “speculation with suggested result” and “speculation being adopted as fact to promote result”.
Speculation alone: “I wonder if Stephane Dion is really a separatist mole?”
Speculation with suggested result (like Shae): “If Stephane Dion turns out to be a separatist mole, then the Libs should remove him as party leader.”
Adoption of speculation as fact in order to promote result (like Saskboy): “That’s right! The Libs should remove Dion as leader!”
Speculation alone: “I wonder if the Greens will be at 1% in the polls by Canada’s next election campaign?”
Speculation with consequence: “If the Greens are at 1% in the polls at election time, then they should be excluded from the leaders’ debates.”
Adoption of speculation as fact: “That’s a good point! The Greens should indeed be excluded from the leaders’ debates!”
Are we any closer to seeing the difference?
—-
Incidentally, I’ll note that I certainly don’t see most of Saskboy’s posts as falling anywhere near this kind of category even when I don’t agree with him. Any resemblance between Saskboy and Malkin is solely in the pattern of thinking as conveyed in the posts in question, not the general tone/accuracy/credibility of the respective blogs.
And I’ll readily grant Saskboy to be “pretty intelligent most of the time” as well. :)
Abandoned Stuff by Saskboy :: May Calls For Strategic Voting? Or Does She? | 29-Sep-08 at 9:22 pm | Permalink
[...] Some Babblers just don’t care for someone who isn’t in love with the NDP and every thing they do. I guess I should have just summed up by saying that if Scott ever has something good to say about the Green Party, it will be when Stephen Harper invites Stephan Dion over for Christmas dinner at Stornoway. [...]