Shirley Sherrod, or, I Can't Possibly Be Wrong!

[chris_gerrib]

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.

Comments

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

I think adding Gates to the mix really cranked me off. I mean, here's the "liberty and freedom" brigade trying to defend the arrest of a man for breaking into his own house!

This thread was a perfect storm of what sets me off: ignorance of facts, a refusal to admit any error, an extreme "respect" for authority, a lack of intellectual consistency, and a smug tone.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

The rank hypocrisy of the "you will respect my authority" coupled to libertarian principles when it suits them, is a defining characteristic of Rand's Peanut Gallery.