Sunday, 21 August 2005
|1904 - Why D. C. Simpson respects the NY Times|
From a recent LJ entry, D. C. "Rain" Simpson, of the leftist webcomic Ozy and Millie:
But then, my respect for the NY Times is actually pretty low these days. If it weren't for Paul Krugman, it would mostly be gone [...]
If you want to know the truth about Paul Krugman, you have to read those nasty eeeeevil right-wing blogs like Power Line. A good example is their recent shredding of Krugman's screed repeating the tired old claim that Gore really won in 2000 and Kerry really won in 2004, despite the fact that not even the Times itself reached those conclusions.
Of course, Simpson wouldn't ever read those. Oh, no. They might destroy his comfortable leftist worldview.
current mood: cynical
...leftist webcomic Ozy and Millie...
I believe you're confusing Ozy and Millie with his political commentary comic, "I Drew This". How is Ozy and Millie leftist...
Simpson uses O&M to make leftist comments on the state of the world, too, thinly disguised as humor. Of course, when you call him on them, you're promptly branded as one of those eeeeevil neocons.
Making a comic that expresses a view that is not BUSHROX does not make it a lefty comic. The author may be a liberal, that does not make all his works such.
O&M expresses leftist views enough of the time that it's fair to say it's a leftist comic. It's well beyond just "a view that is not BUSHROX"; it's actively spewing leftist propaganda.
I'm not trying to be a troll, but I am honestly curious, as to what particular strips stand out as "leftist" views. Take the current strip, "My dad says when he was a kid, stars were edible". Not particularly a "leftist" or "right" view. Or Zen, the Board Game. Or Millie asking where or not Bruce Wayne had on his Driver's License, "Wayne, Bruce" or "Man, Bat"...or Millie's mom creating the tastiest ice cream, and her husband becoming a pirate living under Ozy's father's couch...
One need look no farther than the strips depicting President Bush as a sock puppet, or the ones slamming the war in Iraq.
Y'know what I think? I think the conflict between you two is a clash of personalities more than a left/right opposition.
I'm sure that's part of it, but the clash was started, and is fueled, by his strident leftism and my opposition to such things.
Your equally strident opposition.
Not just that, but the demand for a one-sided nature of things. Mr. Simpson put out an announcement on the O&M mailing list that the war in Iraq was not to be discussed as it did not relate to the comic. As long as that was actually the case, there was no problem, it really was off-topic. Later, however, it did relate to the comic would have been very much on-topic and yet the embargo was still there and pointed out. "I can talk about it, but nobody else dare!" It's one thing to disagree, it's quite another to pull crap like that.
He's gotten much better since then. :}
Sure. He's run off all of the conservatives, so there's nobody left to argue with him.
"I can talk about it, but nobody else dare!"
I'm pretty sure I've heard that sentiment before somewhere... hmm, can't remember where, but I'm sure it was somewhere I used to hang out and don't anymore.
I see your period of mourning and pondering self-improvement has ended and you're back to taking potshots once again. That, and you've yet again (or is it still?) mistaken attempts at moderation to end flames as censorship. As I recall you fanned a number of flames and chased off of a number of folks, maximizing the harm you could do, before leaving.
I'm not sure you are even aware of what it looks like, but while I'm no psychiatrist or psychologist, it looked - and still looks, from your continued actions - like you're projecting your father onto Jay or such. Since you're trying to get along with your family in one way or another, you instead lash out at someone you see as having similar views but who is safely distant and not family.
I was merely attempting to point out that Jay has a tendency to often display the same behavior he criticizes. I was driven off of Jay's channel for doing the same thing Jay did; that is, bringing up subjects that he apparently felt free to comment on, but that I was told I wasn't welcome to share my opinion on in "his" channel. It really is the same thing, in essence, and that was my point.
Driven nothing. Your opinion would be tolerated, if grudgingly, but your constantly pugnacious tone was what was not tolerated - and rightly so. You yet again are painting attempts at moderation (firefighting) as censorship. They are very different things. I was there, remember, so don't bother continuing to lie to me about it. I've had enough of your lies whether on channel or in messages about what was happening on channel.
Jay, and remember I was in the same room as he was, did his best to put out the fires. He simply ignored you more times than you can imagine, hoping you'd just burn yourself out.
What you say has less than no value. I've witnessed what you've done and what you continue to do. I'll admit it took me longer than it should have to see you for what you are. You are nothing but a force for destruction, whether you realize it or not.
You started fires.
You fanned the flames.
You did so repeatedly, on many occasions the resultant heat of your arson driving others away.
You only left after there wasn't anyone more left you were likely to drive off.
You continue to make a pest of yourself on his LJ account at every opportunity.
You continue to try to inflict damage every chance you get.
You have not changed.
Your message to Jay the other night reminded me of this work work of the_gneech, specifically the lines: "You can't just act like a prick and then come back later and ask for a do-over. You haven't done anything to make up for it, you haven't done anything to earn another chance, you haven't paid for your mistakes, and I see no reason to think that in ten minutes time you won't just act like a prick again."
If you don't like that reputation, stop earning it.
Honestly, I figured my comments were still welcome by virtue of the fact that Jay continues unscreening them and hasn't told me to stop leaving them. It seems unusual and immoral to allow me to comment after setting up a way to screen comments and to allow me to repeatedly do so without telling me to go away and then to turn around and criticize me for commenting. However, since it's you doing the criticizing and not Jay, I can't really hold that against him.
What I do is leave comments that attempt to challenge a viewpoint that I see as flawed. Jay does the same thing, and in fact that's what he says he was doing on DC Simpson's usergroup when he was booted from it. If I'm not welcome here to do that, then that's fine, go ahead and remove me. However, it reinforces my original point, which was merely that Jay criticizes the same kind of behavior he exhibits.
And I'll admit that I do that too; it's something I have in common with him. I'm trying to change, but it's not an overnight process.
When I set the journal to screen comments from non-friends, I did so only to allow myself to remove those designed purely to troll. Whatever else can be said about yours, that's not among them.
Paul is not writing for me. I'm perfectly capable of doing that all by myself. His criticisms are his, not necessarily mine. If you don't like them, then you should respond to him.
Well, in that case, he should direct his comments about my continued posting to you, since that is really up to you.
I do appreciate your acknowledgement that I'm not "purely trolling", at least.
There is, I think, rather a difference between being welcomed and merely being tolerated.
There is also something immoral about "tolerating" someone and then using that "tolerance" against them, which is what you seem to be attempting.
So evidently one can either be intolerant or immoral. Some choice that. Well there is one other choice, agreeing with you at the price of their own principles. Some choice that, too. What you've been doing, as I see it, is exploiting someone's tolerance in order to do harm... but only just enough so as to be an irritant but not enough to earn being banned: a brinkmanship of irritation. I know you don't want to hear it, but hopefully now that I've gone and said the things I've said you might get around to thinking about them someday. Well, I can dream.
Your mistake is assuming my intention is to irritate and do harm. Sometimes (well, often, I suppose, to be honest) I don't take the best tone with what I'm saying, but I always feel like there's a genuine point in what's being said.
And if those are the only possibilities you can see, then you're shallower than I originally gave you credit for.
For a while I did figure it was intentional, as it sure looked calculated. Now I'm not so sure and willing to be charitable and figure you don't even realize that you're doing it, you just do it. It's a sort of safety valve, for you, but you don't see the effect it has on some others as you don't realize that the valve is there even as you use it. Of course, I'm not sure you've comprehended a word I've said, in this reply or any of those previous. It took me some time to see past how you portrayed yourself and see you as you actually act. Toss it off as shallow if it helps you cope, but I'll still consider it finally being observant. It certainly took me long enough.
The OTHER side says...
I was there too, and if you weren't in the "in" crowd, you were ignored. I didn't see who Mephit supposedly drove off. But it was apparent that Jay drove a lot of people off; spot is a good example, and I'm sure past logs that people have can prove that too. I also think we put up with his temper tantrums quite well.
His reputation is what you and Jay spread about him, but that doesn't mean it's true.
If you are referring to #wt, then yes there was a clique and I felt it as well. That's one reason I had no problem at all moving to the cafe. Some of the clique followed, and I felt that too. I doubt you will believe it, but both Jay and I were on the outside of that. Yes, even in his own channel, he was bit of an outsider to things. It was Masem who actually tried to point things out.. and actually got listened. I think I tried to point it out earlier, but that didn't go anywhere. That, however, is not at all the issue.
As for reputation, it's amazing to me how many still believe him - but then he even had me duped for a couple years as he used me to help him screw things up in the cafe and drive people off one by one (that's most galling thing of all - and I suspect and fear he's incapable of understanding that that is what he did and the harm he caused by that - being used by someone to help them hurt a friend is not a fun experience or realization). Mostly his reputation is what he says, which is not true, but many believe him all the same, which only encourages a sad stasis. The truly depressing thing is it took it me so long to see how he really is, even with repeated examples of his troublemaking right in front of me. If you didn't see who he drove off from the cafe, you were not there. The stuff that happened in #wt I can see as largely the result of a kid not realizing what he was doing. What he did in the cafe, after he supposedly grew up, was not. He can call himself a mephit all he wants, but until he stops stinging - even if he only stings a few people - his behavior is that of a scorpion and he ought to be treated as scorpion. I've seen to too many stung (I include the ones he has run off, who don't even realize they were stung), and been stung too hard myself, to do otherwise.
Wow. I used to read O&M a few years ago and I know that D.C was kinda annoying and soapboxy back then, looks like there's been no change on that front.
It's a shame, too: when he's not being shrilly leftist, he can be quite funny.
Plus he draws real good.
I haven't really been reading since his message of the day was that "everything good that has happened was because of liberals" chain e-mail.
I have a certain tolerance threshold for asininity and I'm afraid that very much exceeded it. I've no tolerance for historical revisionism, economic ignorance and especially not for the bastard children of both.