Jul. 22nd, 2010

chris_gerrib: (Default)
So, regarding that "let's try and use Shirley Sherrod to smear the NAACP" kerfluffle, I agree completely with John Scalzi. For those not clicking through, the article leads with "it was pretty much a race to see who could possibly be the biggest jackass" and quickly christens Andrew Breitbart as the winner.

Not surprisingly, The Usual Suspects disagree. Apparently, we've missed the point, which was the "inappropriate" audience reaction to Sherrod. This surprises me, I guess, since even Jonah Goldberg gets it.

But this points out a problem with one of the conservative movement's favorite tactics. See, conservatives frequently make arguments based on association. For example, "Elena Kagan wrote a paper on socialism, therefore she's a socialist," or "Obama 'pals around' with terrorists, so you can't trust him."

The problem is, this cuts both ways. So, if you associate with Breitbart, and Breitbart lies (or operates with slanderous disregard for the truth), you are a liar or a slanderer. Since this cannot be tolerated, it must be vigorously contested. Breitbart isn't lying, our eyes are. Or, maybe Sherrod has some other flaw.

Or pink unicorns and Hey! look over there...

But never, under any circumstances, can we conservatives admit error.

Profile

chris_gerrib: (Default)
chris_gerrib

August 2025

S M T W T F S
      12
3456789
10 11 121314 1516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 18th, 2025 01:25 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios