Jim, you’re too trusting of the media! Getting soft?

It sure seems like they can do anything they want these days.

Christina D on June 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM

There’s no way to do it without drawing attention to the actual misdeeds of their own kind, so they won’t do it.

They can hardly use this as fodder without publicizing the Playboy one.

Jim Treacher on June 1, 2009 at 8:47 PM

Jim, you’re too trusting of the media! Getting soft?

It sure seems like they can do anything they want these days.

It is quite likely to be used as fodder by someone in the MSM, and the playboy one is likely to be ignored

They can hardly use this as fodder without publicizing the Playboy one.

My thoughts exactly.

Remove the article. It can only cause damage to Michelle’s credibility.

meci on June 1, 2009 at 6:19 PM

Haha, she is actually attacked in the first article as one of the intended rape victims, and her site has a mocking post which makes fun of it. Anyone willing to judge it by (headlines) so blatantly out of context damages their own credibility, not hers.

Remove the article. It can only cause damage to Michelle’s credibility.

bigskinny on June 1, 2009 at 6:04 PM

I think I was pretty much arguing the middle ground between you and CK MacLeod.

I might not want to get down in the gutter, but it seems he doesn’t even want to look down at the gutter and recognize who’s there trying to pull us into the gutter with them.

I’m tired of having our party being attacked as “hateful and intolerant” by hypocrites who spout this kind of filth. And I intend to remind people who really is spouting it.

Scrappy on June 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Dont worry bout what the other side says… they will say you are hate filled even if you are so perfect that you wear a halo.

Once the debate hits the gutter, its in the gutter. (period) Why not accept that fact and deal with it there? If the opposition wants to conduct its arguments in the sewer get down in the filth and let em eat a big fat slice of it.

But hey thats me. I dont pretend to be perfect, not so sure I wanna be. If I wanna get in there and get “scrappy” you can cheer me on or walk away. I wont pass judgment on those who walk if they wont pass it on me for getting in there and enjoying it.

I say dont @#$%ing stoop to the level of these #*%$&! Let them wallow in their own @&$# and suck %$&@.

Hows that?

Do I offend?

Do I care?

I too think that coursening the debate is not helpful, and the language used is regretable.

It’s just that I’m in favor of pointing out who is out there throwing the kinds or bombs we are talking about. I’m tired of having our party being attacked as “hateful and intolerant” by hypocrites who spout this kind of filth. And I intend to remind people who really is spouting it.

I think it’s simplistic to assume that the only way to “fight” against people like Hugh Hefner or his authors (not that I really think he’s worth fighting against) is by using their language and adopting their standards and attitudes.
CK MacLeod on June 1, 2009 at 5:12 PM

I think it’s a bit simplistic to assume that I advocate lowering to their level, and I’ve pointed out the differences between the levels used on this site and in playboy’s article. I think you’re being simplistic by trying to equate the two.

But on to your point about lurid headlines. Crafting headlines is an art aimed entirely on getting a quick point across and getting people’s attention. And how are you going to better shame a ridiculous article from playboy with a headline?

“Mens magazine says some not nice stuff”
or
“Playboy makes ‘Hate-F*ck’ list”

I think you know which one is more likely to get ignored.

You shame him by telling everyone who would be offended by it exactly what he said. Yes it’s an offensive headline. And I want people to know how offensive liberals can be. It’s the unvarnished truth. So, sour on it all you like, I still disagree with you and hope that many others here do too.

I’ll also note that I’m raising my problem here, openly, rather than “narc”‘ing on the author, and I’m not demanding that he censor himself, just as I’m not censoring myself. However, he doesn’t seem to be monitoring comments or to be interested in participating.

CK MacLeod on June 1, 2009 at 4:48 PM

Well, I suppose if you’re looking for a political site where people aren’t going to quote those who they mean argue against then you’re going to have to make one yourself, cause I’ve not come across one yet.

If you’re going to allow the opposition to disarm you into not fighting against them because of the language they use, you can expect that they’ll use it a lot more often.

Sure, they’ve mostly all seen a lot worse in a lot of places – that’s why some of them don’t go to the movies or watch TV as much as they used to, or feel isolated and assaulted by our culture – but why do they have to have it thrown in their faces even at a place like this? I think we should aim higher.

You’re not getting it, Scrappy. I can’t speak for the others questioning this post, but it has to do with the crude attitude and language – even when partly masked by asterisks. The question is whether HotAir is or should be a place we’d feel comfortable recommending to socially conservative people – say my churchgoing parents and friends – or not.

I’m not saying I know the answer – it’s not my site. I know what I think and I stated it above, but, in case it’s not clear, I don’t care about turnabout being fair play. I don’t think we need to descend to PLAYBOY’s level, and I think we should err on the side of respectful language and attitudes. If the site-owners feel different, that’s fine. It’s nice to know what the house rules are.

CK MacLeod on June 1, 2009 at 4:29 PM

Well, I don’t think that being critical of it or making jokes at it’s expense is “turnabout”. In order for his joke to be turnabout he’d have had to actually suggest that some liberal out there should be hate-f*cked. And no, I don’t like using the language either, but it’s hard to quote and comment without it.

So, sure, I get it, but I disagree. In my opinion letting something so hateful as the playboy article slide without comment is more irresponsible than not calling attention to and shaming it. In this case the author uses mockery to shame it, and well, that’s fine with me.

I’m not saying I know the answer – it’s not my site. I know what I think and I stated it above, but, in case it’s not clear, I don’t care about turnabout being fair play. I don’t think we need to descend to PLAYBOY’s level, and I think we should err on the side of respectful language and attitudes. If the site-owners feel different, that’s fine. It’s nice to know what the house rules are.

So making a joke about some people being ugly is as bad as encoutraging “hate-f*cking” someone?

Sorry, but I don’t think so.

Scrappy

Didn’t see it as a joke, but I can understand where you were going with it. And no I didn’t say what you did was as bad, I just said we shouldn’t bother with their level.
Still, I wouldn’t have done that but that’s just me.

I’m sorry but I agree

We’re better then them, we don’t need to be stooping to the level of playboy’s repulsive article.

Defector01 on June 1, 2009 at 3:39 PM

So making a joke about some people being ugly is as bad as encoutraging “hate-f*cking” someone?

Sorry, but I don’t think so.

The Playboy article was stupid.

For HotAir to complain about the Playboy article, but then run this post is really, reeeeeally stupid.

orange on June 1, 2009 at 2:30 PM

Really, cluelessness like this is painful to witness.

It’s mocking playboys article for being so blatantly stupid and hateful. Or is it that you just don’t like when republicans actually take offense to something so offensive? We should just not comment on it at all right?

Please, If you’re looking for the place to take the moral high ground, it’s probably best not to try to do it by attacking an article which is critical of someone who writes about raping people based of party affiliation.

The women in the “Theirs” section are so ugly when they walk into a room, mice jump on chairs.

For HotAir to complain about the Playboy article, but then run this post is really, reeeeeally stupid.

orange on June 1, 2009 at 2:30 PM

It’s a joke, made to insinuate that there aren’t any Lefties the author even finds attractive.

We’re better then them, we don’t need to be stooping to the level of playboy’s repulsive article.

quote by Benjamin Franklin (with an add on by Kangjie)

The Playboy article was stupid.

For HotAir to complain about the Playboy article, but then run this post is really, reeeeeally stupid.

orange on June 1, 2009 at 2:30 PM

And why is that, Moby?

Ooh, there was that one chick with the reddish hair who was on CNN in the mid-80’s… but I can’t remember her name and I’m not sure she was liberal.

Turns out she was not a lib, I think your talking about Lyne Russell. Used to appear with Bernie Sanders.
She now works in canda and ws on the O’reilly factor not long ago talking about the media and tea-bag thing

For HotAir to complain about the Playboy article, but then run this post is really, reeeeeally stupid.