Taboo's Junk Trunk: A Storage Dump for Taboo's Random Literary and Cultural Blatherments
We're Roasting Rednecks and Bleeding Hearts Tonight
Published on November 20, 2004 By TaBooTenente In Politics
I've read your articles regularly as you post them. I think in general, it's fair to say I disagree, on a political level, with your opinions almost unilaterally.

Nevertheless, Draginol is completely correct, concerning his recent article, "My problem with the American Left".

1)There's no two ways about it: Democrats are embarrassed that GWB was re-elected.
2)We cannot believe that a majority of the country supports the direction our nation is headed.
3)I apologize.

We're just blogging, here, okay? If we cannot blog with honesty, then what's the point? We write because we like to write, because we have something to say, and because we want to be understood.

I apologize to the rest of the world that GWB has four more years.
I apologize to conservatives for my arrogant attitude.

Both are open-hearted, honest statements. I am raising my right hand as we speak, so to speak.

Conservatives: If you care at all about unifying the political divide, if you are honestly concerned about the level of partisanship, you need to understand this: it may be arrogance, it may be tunnel vision, but Democrats do not understand why people voted for George Bush. And we are in disarray. We do not know what to do. Yes: it is arrogance, plain and simple; but that does not make it any easier to correct our position.

Liberals: If we still believe in our position, if we still believe that a crucial element of morality in this country is eroding, then we need a new voice. Consider this: John Kerry, like every other liberal (not necessarily party Democrats), wrote off the entire south, along with the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Oklahoma....

We wrote them off, as in, did not try to pick up those votes. Why? If you believe the answer is something other than arrogance, let me know. When a conservative says thay he/she is sick of the label "religious right-wing", or "Rube from Hicksville" or "Redneck" or "Ignorant" or whatever the hell, what do we immediately think as a response?

No need to spell it out. Whether or not our political position is correct, our voice is wrong, and our humanity is sorely lacking. If half the country believes something different from you, we need an answer other than whiny incredulity. Okay? If you take Mississippi, I'll head off to South Dakota. Let's start talking. VP candidates can dally in California and New York if they so choose; but whomever we nominate as a Democratic candidate for president has to join us in the south, and in the midwest, and in rural, suburban, and urban America. We can't stand around consoling 49% of the population and expect the other 51% to experience a collective epiphany. Let's open our ears, and when we speak, let's try to hit the lower registers as well as the shrill ones we've already mastered.

Copyright ©2004, ©2005, ©2006 Joshua Suchman. All rights reserved.
Taboo's Ezine Navigator: Article Index
Taboo Tenente: A Thinker's MFA Journey - Home
The Phallic Suggestion
Stone Soup Blog Forum

Comments (Page 5)
5 PagesFirst 3 4 5 
on Nov 23, 2004
I will investigate, and then I will email you, Little Whip.

TBT
on Nov 24, 2004

And all because I'm trying to close the book on hate

You?  Closing the book on hate?? hahahaha!  That's the funniest thing I've heard in ages!

Need I remind you of your participation in blatant anti-semitism and gay-bashing elsewhere? Can I also remind you of your endorsement of the harrasment I experienced here not to long ago?  Just as you use LW's past against her, your past can be used against you. 

Don't try to be something that you're not.  At least LW has been honest about her background and her progression through life.  Perhaps you should follow suit.

My apologies for hijacking your thread, TT.

on Nov 24, 2004
Among other mistruths stated above, I've never gleefully agreed with Petey that "Hitler was Right to Gas Gays". That is a lie. See, that's the difference, I don't have to make up LW's racism because her blog is rife with it. The rest is opinion, fantasy, and speculation that should be given the consideration due to a coke addict ex-con convicted hacker online fraud artist self-admitted mentally imbalanced 'former' KKK member who seems to have a hate on for me.

I'd prefer to be engaged in more positive conversation here. I'll stop responding when the lies and personal attacks stop, but I have to wonder if Dharma and LW aren't looking for a little attention; they don't seem happy unless they have an enemy to attack.

Kindest Regards,
David St. Hubbins

on Nov 24, 2004
Hmm.

While I have no problem with participants "hijacking my thread", I wouldn't mind a little honesty, here.

Little_Whip, I remember you suggested emailing you with specific questions regarding this topic, and I said I would investigate first. Well, my investigation did not uncover much except the odd links on your home page...which I'm still having a hard time determining the common thread, there. I did not have time to sift through every article or response.

Whomever Dave happens to be, I cannot find any way to research him or the comments to which several people have alluded.

I could accept that someone with a history of extremist beliefs wants to move on, if they are moving on--though ignoring the past probably will not work. But for the sake of clarity and for the sake of honesty, why not skip the ambiguous declarations? I'm willing to entertain most ideas if they are presented respectfully and sincerely, but it seems childish and soemwhat pointless to make veiled allusions to other people's pasts, to duck your own past, for the sake of some imaginary reputation on a simple, modest blog site. I guess points are at stake. But what happens if you collect a wad of points? Does the site pause to offer up a rousing applause? Are you allowed to take an early retirement?

Yes, I understand that people often use these sites as a way to act out aspects of personalities that seem too taboo to play out in society-at-large. But come on! Take a breath, take a step back from whatever imaginary blog personality you have created for yourself, and open up! No need for pure nastiness; that's about as masturbatory as the rest of it. But if you're going to spend your precious time talking about it, guys, why not speak the truth?

" "Listener up there! what have you to confide to me?
Look in my face while I snuff the sidle of evening,
(Talk honestly, no one else hears you, and I stay only a minute longer.)

Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

I concentrate toward them that are nigh, I wait on the door-slab.

Who has done his day's work? who will soonest be through with his supper?
Who wishes to walk with me?
Will you speak before I am gone? will you prove already too late?"
--Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

Yeah.

TBT


on Nov 24, 2004
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)" - Whiman

One of my favourite quotes.

LW: 'For someone whose truly interested in 'positive' conversation, i'll remind you that it was YOU who posted a link to one of MY articles here, and started the negative flow, threats, and accusations.'

I did not post a link to one of our articles here, and that fact is plain to see for anyone who scrolls up. I did mention one of your articles as an example of a toxic user, but did not link to it. I did not make any threats; threats are serious business (like the death threat you made against Sir Pete, the quickly asked TW to delete - plenty of JU regs remember that) and I don't do that sort of thing. And it was Dr. Miller who started the negative flow with his not so nice comment, not me.

Again' I'll stop posting when the lies stop. I didn't make any threats, I took great care to not make any personal attacks or value judgements in my comments above; my statements are factually accurate, not accusations. And I've never agreed or felt that 'Hitler was right to gas gays'.

Kindest Regards,
David St. Hubbins
on Nov 24, 2004

The plus side of having taken a 6 month hiatus from this site means that anything written about me has been buried deep in the files, and would require a lot of effort to find.  I also noticed that my largest previous detractor, SirPeterMaxwell has been exiled from the site.  Having said that, the Drs are working very hard to fill his place with their bile.


By the way, to anyone who was around 6+ months ago, whatever happened to SirPeterMaxwell?


Cheers

on Nov 24, 2004

He was banished


To quote my youngest son, "Cool".  Little_Whip, since I previously commented on politicalmachine.com and not Joeuser.com, I never really understood how the point thing worked.  Where can I find information on that?  That's an open question to anyone who's got the answers.


Cheers

on Nov 24, 2004
Little Whip, David, Start, or anyone else:

Feel free to leave or stay; of course no-one chooses that but you.

Nevertheless, I was not suggesting anyone in particular had made up an imaginary blogging personality.

But for the sake of clarity and for the sake of honesty, why not skip the ambiguous declarations? I'm willing to entertain most ideas if they are presented respectfully and sincerely


That is what I was suggesting, and I'm sorry if anyone feels this is unfair. Also, I was suggesting this:

While I have no problem with participants "hijacking my thread", I wouldn't mind a little honesty, here.


Again, I'm sorry if anyone feels this is unfair. So it goes. I wasn't around to witness the exchange of which you are all accusing each other, but because it was brought up here, where I was attempting to hold a rational discussion, I would like to know the content.

TBT




on Nov 24, 2004
As far as I know the context kind of goes something like this:

Many months ago, back when I had just started to read and comment on the blogs on this site, there was a blogger. His name was David Saint Hubbins, and he was an angry, angry man. He wrote curious articles about the deficiencies of the US system, whihc made many of his fellow bloggers, including the admins, a little vexed. Combined with an effortlessly smug and superior attitude Mr Hubbin seemed certain to become one of the first of the famous suicidal jihad bloggers. Other bloggers like Little Whip and Draginol/Frogboy/Brad Wardell the admin responded by making angry, angry comments on his blogs. And Mr Hubbins responded with equally angry, angry comments. Eventually, after weeks of increasingly obnoxious and unhealthy back-and-forth, the admins had enough and David Saint Hubbins was banned. You can still hear his voice in the wind through the power of anonymous comments, haunting the unbanned bloggers he first fought all those months ago.

He never particularly irritated me, because to a large extent I'm just as arrogant and I'm a little programmed to think in an anti-America way, but he did piss off many of the regular Joeusers, who surprisingly enough happen to be Americans and disliked someone who seemingly never had anything positive to say, ever. When I first arrived at JU I thought Little Whip was one of those stereotypical racist, redneck hicks who seem to abound on the internet. But over time you can see from her articles that that's not the whole picture, and it's a pretty bastardised picture at that. Perhaps there was more to Mr Hubbins than anger and arrogance, but I don't recall ever seeing it.

That's my take on the whole deal anyway, but it's probably better if you just ignore the whole thing and let the past stay where it is. It's up to you whether you want to let anonymous users post on your blog or whether you want Mr Hubbins to either. But all the long-time regulars here have a reputation and they're not always deserved. From what you've written here and elsewhere in your articles I don't think you'd be the sort of person to judge by the words of others so I'll let you get back to it.
on Nov 24, 2004
Little Whip/ David/ Yeah, Everyone:

I posted a similar comment on Whip's thread, but her explanation to the questions I pushed her for at David's urging seemed, if anything, overly candid, and deserves a response here.

David accused her of many things, and if this had not been relevant to this thread I would not have made an issue of this. She retorted, leaving me with a mess of labels thrown about in a thread descending from an article I had written to debunk labels, in general.

All of that is a blatherer's way of saying that only one of the labels contained a particular "interest" for me, the KKK/ Holocaust-Defamer suggestions. In my bleeding liberal heart, I believe that this was the only label to which Whip or David needed a response. I will not repeat the others as I feel they have no bearing on this topic.

Nevertheless, in a separate posting which you may find under the "Blogging" format, Whip responded to each and every label with selfless honor, honesty, and bravery. Some of her articles infuriate me, and when I have time I will respond, but her heart is in the right place...

which is to say this, David:

she gives a damn.

TBT



5 PagesFirst 3 4 5