Jack Johnson
OK, so I guess it’s time for somebody here at Plunderbund to weigh in on the proposed (Plunderbund alum) Eric – Matty slugfest. Here it is:

I agree with staff at BSB.

I don’t know where LisaRenee learned that [ignoring personal attacks works], but it is in stark contrast to what I have learned over the last few years. John Kerry. Swift boat. End of story.

Would it be great if we could stick to just the issues? Hells yes! We win every time if the discussion is about just the issues. BUT IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE ISSUES. If you let the right wing take cheap shots unopposed, they dictate the discussion! They dictate the language! It’s how “liberal” got turned into a dirty word. It’s how the “Kerry insulted the troops” propaganda was even able to launch.

So, when Naugle hits with “Liberal men are such pansies” (which is clearly ridiculous), you have two choices. The first is to ignore it, and history has shown that, repeated enough, that statement becomes perceived as fact. The second is to punch back.

Was Eric literally trying to set up a back-alley boxing match? I doubt it. The intent was to put Naugle on the defensive; call his bullshit. If Naugle says yes, you’ve got a wingnut who actually wants to literally fight a Buddhist. If he says no, you’ve got a wingnut who talks big, but is afraid to back it up. Either way, Eric wins: the “liberal men are pansies” meme is squashed early, before it gains steam, and Eric outsmarts a “tough-talking” right-wing authoritarian. Not that the second part is hard.

Tagged with:
  • Looking like a TKO…

  • Tom

    Far from it, given that the people described here will be more often than not found to have liberal views, including the particular person being criticized:


    It’s going to take more than a little boxing bravado and hyperventilation over one word by one blogger to counter Vanderleun’s fundamentally accurate observations. If you wish to exclude yourself from the mentality of that group, be my guest. That doesn’t change the fact that the group is still there, that it is largely, if not predominantly, liberal.

  • It’s fine. I got more.

  • So Tom. Here’s the thing. You characterize my challenge as hyperventilating, yet you and your wingnut buddies spent the better part of a day going batshit crazy over something that didn’t even exist. Something someone with a voice that included duty and soul would have dismissed with a quickness.

    Yet you and dozens, if not hundreds, of people were sitting around going “Oh…My…God!”. No they didn’t! With a virtual rise in your voice at the end of every phrase. I don’t think there is much of a point to your boy Vanderleun’s sexless voice thing. But I feel like I know where the true neutered ones exist. In the middle of their safe right-wing talking points, draped in their flag and religion. Looking around for others who will nod their heads in labotomized agreement.

    The TKO was that Matt was silent in his reply to my quest to find the real pansy. We all knew where he was the whole time anyway. You included. I think you and Vandy sell our youth short in a pretty big way with the characterization in his post.

    I would surely exclude myself from whatever the hell it is he is talking about. I think I have a pretty good sense of duty, honor, and country. From the origin of the phrase, actually. My duty is to call bullshit on right-wing crap, it is an honor to do so, and I do it for my country.

    Got me?

  • So to summarize: You are basically saying “yes, all liberals ARE pansies who speak in a sexless, souless, inflected voice”.

    I’m just saying I think I disproved this hypothesis.

  • Jerid

    Naugle doesn’t deserve a long comment here. I’ve found this whole thing pretty hysterical. His mouth wrote a check he couldn’t cash. Politics aside, anybody knows that makes him a wimp.

    Feel free to keep telling us we’re wrong on politics and policy, just don’t think you can throw whatever personal remark you want our way. ‘Cause remember, Vessels has got a standing offer on the table.

    The phrase goes “put up or shut up.”

  • #5, A word search in my comment failed to find the word “all.” You are “summarizing” something that doesn’t exist, in an attempt to disprove a hypothesis that was never made. By doing so, you unfairly and incorrectly accused your correspondent of stereotyping. Nice try. No sale.

  • “is largely, if not predominantly”. Dude, get a spine and own your rhetoric. You are going to begin the narrative of pansy conservatives if you don’t watch it…

  • If you don’t understand the diff between “largely” (an observation), “predominantly” (an observation), and “all” (a stereotype), I can’t help you.

  • Here’s an observation. You set about little safety grenades that you can pop when you get called out. Convenient yes, but still a bit pansy. Just go ahead and say liberals are pansies already so we can box and get it over with. Sheesh. You conservatives are such weasels…I mean largely, if not predominantly so.

  • Temper, temper. :–>

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!