You know the old saying: Another day, another Conservative Personality Disorder volunteer research subject. Yes, loyal readers, the Palace once again has the good fortune to have a live specimen walk through our gorgeous gates, and selflessly offer herself up for the benefit of our important research. Last evening, a heretofore unknown person who goes by “Georgia Dixon” commented on a post of mine from last August regarding Nancy Wake. Ms. Wake, a.k.a. The White Mouse, was a war hero who had died while I was in London, on August 7, 2011, at the ripe old age of 98. My post was, among other things, a gushing hagiography to her extraordinary accomplishments. Nine months later, Georgia Dixon wrote this:
I am a female warrior and a U.S. veteran, trained as a counterintelligence officer. Understandably, my background as a woman in miltary intelligence led me to admire her incredible exploits and selfless valor. I also happen to be unapologetically conservative, and risked my life so that you and other foul-mouthed misinformed pagans can spew your one-sided, hate-filled brand of godless liberalism. The next time you use your website to attempt to debase others whose only fault in your self-righteous eyes is to disagree with your skewed world view, you should at least rely on facts and realize that conservatives have given their very lives and spilled their blood so that you can rant against them. Oh, and did I mention I am from Texas, too, which produced more medal of honor recipients in WW II than any other state.
Gosh, where to begin? Let’s just take it from the top, shall we?
I am a female warrior and a U.S. veteran, trained as a counterintelligence officer.
You sound awesome, Georgia Welcome to the Palace! I am sure I speak on behalf of my many tens of loyal readers when I say it is an honor to have you here, and that we very much admire and appreciate your service to the United States.
Understandably, my background as a woman in miltary intelligence led me to admire her incredible exploits and selfless valor.
Yes, I can certainly see how it would. Nancy Wake was absolutely amazing. I wish more people knew who she was.
I also happen to be unapologetically conservative, and risked my life so that you and other foul-mouthed misinformed pagans can spew your one-sided, hate-filled brand of godless liberalism.
Now, Georgia, I am sensing some hostility and resentment here. And that seems really strange, considering that you were not drafted into military service: you freely chose it. So for the life of me, I cannot understand why you would resent defending the Constitutional principles of free speech and religious freedom on behalf of your fellow citizens, who may or may not share your political views or religious delusions. That makes no sense. Surely you can see that there would be no value in having the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment if they only apply to people who agree with you. That isn’t any kind of “freedom” at all, is it?
Furthermore, the value of free speech — especially political speech — is foundational to our democracy and vitally important to the affairs of our nation. Indeed, that is the very reason why we engage in it. So, for example, if you were to support the U.S. government taking a particular course of action and I disagreed with you, I would have not just the right but the duty to say so. I would explain why I think you are wrong and the reasons I believe what I do, and I would offer facts and evidence to support my position. You might then consider my case, and either reconsider yours or counter with your own evidence and reasoning. This kind of discourse is absolutely essential to a functioning democracy.
But that is not what you are doing here, Georgia. Not by a long shot. You have not pointed to a single fact that I got wrong or failed to consider, either in the Nancy Wake post or elsewhere on this blog. Nor have you made any argument about why you think I am wrong, about anything. As far as I can tell, your only point is that you object to very existence of godless liberals. And that is some seriously fucked-up un-American shit, right there. It’s as if you believe people who do not agree with you personally about gods, guns and gays (or whatever) are undeserving of basic rights in their own country.
You have called me a “foul-mouthed misinformed pagan” spewing a “one-sided, hate-filled brand of godless liberalism.” Now I certainly do cuss a lot, Georgia. I’ll give you that. But it’s a bit of a red herring here, is it not? This is my fucking blog and I will fucking say whatever I fucking want however I fucking want. If your delicate “female warrior” sensibilities are offended by that kind of language, by all means feel free to go elsewhere. The Internet is a big place. You can even start your own fucking blog and use it to complain about all the naughty words over at Perry Street Palace. But the reason I say this “foul-mouthed” complaint of yours is a red herring is because it has absolutely nothing to do with any argument I’ve made, only the way in which I’ve made it. I’ve noticed that this complaint arises a lot with conservatives, especially some of the creationists over at Pharyngula. It’s as if they actually believe they have a superior argument simply because they didn’t drop any f-bombs. Well, here’s a newsflash: some very ugly things can be expressed in the most innocuous of terms. Here’s another: you do not automatically win an argument by scolding your opponent for their language like some uptight old school marm.
In short: “foul-mouthed?” Guilty as charged. So what?
But then you call me “misinformed,” and yet you fail to point out where I am mistaken. About anything. I mean, in the general sense I am surely misinformed about a lot of things — we all are — so without some further clarification on your part by, say, pointing out to me the error of my ways, I’m afraid I’ll just have to dismiss this charge as baseless. But even if it were true, wouldn’t a better response be to, you know, inform me? It’s almost comically ridiculous to hurl out “misinformed” at someone, and then not bother to inform them.
Then there is the charge of “pagan,” which I will provisionally accept if the definition is either the second or third one here:
- one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks. Synonyms: polytheist.
- a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Synonyms: heathen, gentile; idolator; nonbeliever.
- an irreligious or hedonistic person.
- a person deemed savage or uncivilized and morally deficient.
You are free to deem me “savage or uncivilized and morally deficient,” but then of course the burden would fall on you to prove that this is indeed the case. And failing that…well, then you’d just look like kind of an asshole. But the thing about your use of “pagan” as an epithet is that it strongly implies that you are not a pagan yourself: that is, you are a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.
Let me take a wild guess which one.
I’m kidding, of course! Because it matters not a whit which one, for the purposes of this discussion anyway. You do know that there are pagans and atheists in the U.S. military, right Georgia? That’s right: pagans and atheists have fought and died for your freedom to believe and say whatever cocked-up bullshit you want to. There are also — are you ready for this? — liberals in the military. It’s true! Liberals have fought and died for your right to proudly announce your embarrassing conservatism on this very blog, and to hurl (frankly substandard) insults in my general direction. Given that so many godless and liberals (and probably even godless liberals) have served in the U.S. military, whatever point it was that you were trying to make only shows that you are spectacularly full of shit.
And what’s with this “one-sided, hate-filled brand of godless liberalism”? I don’t know where you’re going with that. I suppose it’s fair to say that I have a “one-sided” opinion, but doesn’t everyone? Yes, I admit it: I do indeed have my own point of view. But “hate-filled”? It’s true that I hate things that I find hateful. Unnecessary suffering comes to mind. Injustice. Misogyny and bigotry. Willful ignorance. Non-defensive violence. On the other hand, I have a tremendous amount of love and compassion for my fellow creatures on our little blue planet. I write a great deal in defense of liberalism precisely because I love my country, and I have watched in horror as conservatives have sought for decades to unravel the social progress of women and the economic progress of the New Deal. I am godless (and so are you, actually) because there is precisely zero evidence for any gods. You can try to convince me that I am wrong of course, and I would welcome having that discussion. But you know what? You’re going to have to do a whole lot better than you’re doing.
The next time you use your website to attempt to debase others whose only fault in your self-righteous eyes is to disagree with your skewed world view, you should at least rely on facts and realize that conservatives have given their very lives and spilled their blood so that you can rant against them.
Now Georgia, that is just not fair. The Palace is not in the business of debasing anyone: our best-selling product is mockery—not debasement. It says so right there at the top of the page. But putting that aside, once again you have leveled some serious accusations that are entirely unfounded. For example, if I do indeed have a “skewed world view” (so saith the conservative “warrior” monotheist), I cannot help but wonder exactly where I’ve gotten things wrong. I try, as best I can, to ensure that my views about the world track reality, at least as well as I can know it. Sometimes of course I will get things wrong, and when I do I enthusiastically welcome correction so that I have a more accurate understanding of things going forward. You, on the other hand, just toss out “skewed world view,” as if that makes it so. It doesn’t.
Further, your statement that conservatives’ “only fault in your self-righteous eyes is to disagree with your skewed world view” is just flat-out wrong. In my self-righteous eyes, conservatives have many faults that are far more problematic than disagreeing with my world view (skewed or not). Hell, anyone who picks up a newspaper can see that: homophobia, misogyny, racism, narcissism, bullying, delusions, dogmatism, denialism, corruption, greed, obstructionism, economic incompetence, social Darwinism, cruelty, hypocrisy — I mean, the list goes on and on. Let’s face it: if conservatives just sat around disagreeing with my world view, we certainly not be in the messes in which we presently find ourselves. We might have a top-notch single-payer health care system, for instance, like every other advanced Western civilization. We could have a decent education system, and maybe even a sane energy policy that does not rely on bombing and occupying countries in the Middle East. Perhaps someday, even clean water and air.
So I have to say you really missed the boat on that one. But where you really go off the rails is when you suggest that (a) I do not rely on facts, and (b) that it has somehow escaped my comprehension that conservatives have fought in the U.S. military. What facts am I missing? Interestingly (okay not really) you do not say. And OF COURSE I KNOW conservatives have fought in the U.S. military. And yes, at least some of them likely did so in defense of, among other things, the principle of free speech (which would by definition include my little blog rants). It works the same way as the ACLU defending human shitstain Rush Limbaugh on principle, even though he loathes everything they stand for. It’s the principle that matters. Putting aside the pompous arrogance of your ‘splaining to me what I “should” do on my own blog, you really have no understanding of this whole “free speech” thingy, do you? Or why it is vitally necessary in a democracy.
Oh, and did I mention I am from Texas, too, which produced more medal of honor recipients in WW II than any other state.
Honestly, I have no idea what your being from Texas has to do with anything. It just sounds like a total non-sequitur. I mean, good for Texas that it had so many medal of honor recipients in World War II. On the other hand, Texas also produced George W. Bush. So, you know, there’s that.
In any event, you have not made any real argument that I can discern, beyond “I really do not like godless liberals, and they are unworthy and undeserving of the U.S. military’s protection and Constitutional rights.”
If that’s it, then the only appropriate reply is this one:
Thanks for stopping by. And have a nice day.