Sunday, June 8, 2014

Andy Hall Hates Southerners

Or, rather, he loves to ridicule, denigrate and belittle them, which sure ain't no sign of love, or even tolerance.

Rob "Tu Quoque" Bakur is working on a thesis or something, and he posts a snippet of it on his blog. The very first entry in the comments is this:
Andy Hall says:   
June 5, 2014 at 11:09 PM

Ah, serious academic writing.
Once I asked a True Southron his opinion of Chicago Style, and he replied that he preferred thin crust instead.
Perhaps if Andy had asked the question correctly -- What's your opinion of the Chicago Manual of Style?" or "...the Chicago Style Manual?" -- the "True Southron" would have known what he was talking about.

After all, Wikipedia tells us that "Chicago style may refer to several things:"
~The Chicago Manual of Style, a guideline for writing documents and news reports
~Chicago school (architecture), a style of commercial buildings
~Chicago school of economics, a school of thought among economists and academics
~Chicago blues, a genre of blues music
~Chicago-style dixieland, a genre of jazz music
**Chicago-style pizza, a deep-dish variety of pizza**
~Chicago-style hot dog, an ingredient-laden variety of hot dog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_style
Was this "True Southron" supposed to read Andy's mind (what a horrible thought) and just know which one he was talking about?

The most telling thing about the Texas Scalawag's comment, however, is his deliberate choice of a "True Southron" to denigrate -- specifically, the denigration of intelligence, which is a hallmark of flogger thought, and the flogger approach.

My question is, how many True Hispanics would give Hall a similar answer to his ambiguous question? How many True African Americans? How many True Gays, True Feminists, True Socialists? And since a great many of them would likely get it wrong, would he find it necessary to denigrate them in some blog comments somewhere?

Americans have never been dumber. Google it to see just how dumb. That Andy deliberately chose a "True Southron" to ridicule for something that is far from uniquely "Southron" showcases his animosity for Southerners. It tells us a lot more about his decency and integrity, or lack thereof, than it does about "True Southron" ignorance.

27 comments :

  1. Corey leaves a comment. He sez, "Well since Andy mentioned Academic writing and then Chicago Style you would guess a normal thinking person would not first think Pizza."

    He mentioned academic writing to Tu Quoque. He doesn't say he mentioned it to the True Southron. Did you miss that?

    In fact, he mentions the "True Southron" in a completely different paragraph than the academic writing reference.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Now Tu Quoque sez, "Right, he also does not mention who the "True Southron" is. In fact, he doesn't mention much at all, regarding the conversation."

    Correct. His identifying the person only as a "True Southron" is a blanket smear of all True Southrons -- which is a form of bigotry. And he certainly "mentions" enough about the conversation for it to constitute ridicule and denigration of whoever he's talking about.

    Which was exactly what he intended. If you believe it wasn't, ask him what was his motive for even bringing it up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Baker sez,"Why don't you ask him yourself? -- re: whether ridiculing Southrons was Andy's intention. Well, because I believe I already know the answer; there's no need for me to ask.

      Delete
  3. There's also the possibility (and a good one) that the "True Southron" in question was being tongue-in-cheek with the academic stiff and he was simply too obtuse to get it was a joke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's a possibility, in which case, Andy can't tell the whole story, or the True Southron wouldn't look stupid.

      Delete
  4. I guess it's insulting, but I just laughed. The joke IS funny, regardless of who it's levied at. I found it funny because I probably would've answered "pan" instead of "thin crust." I've never heard of Chicago style writing before this.

    "Stupid" is relative anyway, and many smart people would be oblivious to the Chicago style. Like me. I only took the two most basic English classes I could get away with (getting an A- in Eng 110, and a C in 111, basic composition), so I could be legitimately called "stupid" about English. But my degree is in Biology (much harder than English) and I work in a pharmacy, so it all evens out. Stupid is in the eye of the beholder.

    I doubt that the average brain surgeon or NASA scientist knows about the Chicago style either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know about style manuals, including the Chicago Manual of Style, because I'm a writer, and it's for writers. It's not the manual I use though. I use Garbl's Style Manual because it's online. I'm not crazy about the owner. Garbl is a Acronym for Gary B. Larson, He's a flaming liberal. But it's nice being able to look things up on his style manual.

      It may be a joke but I'm convinced that's not why Andy posted it. I am convinced, based on past experienc with him, that he did it solely to denigrate "True Southrons" -- i.e., supporters of Confederate heritage.

      Delete
    2. It is pretty clear you haven'tstuudied the WBTS either except on a few biased blogs.

      Delete
  5. So now Hall is incorporating ridiculous prevarications and fatuous Henny Youngman one-liners into his lame repertoire? What a jackass. Then again, always remember that Hall is the same shameless schmuck who humiliated his own mother-in-law on the internet for the approving laughs of his fellow limousine-liberals. Sure his wifey just loved that. Yes sireee, quite a guy that Andy Hall. And Baker? Just a clueless know-nothing kid playing grown-up. But I do wonder if he still routinely cheats his employer by illegally making use of school property for personal use. No doubt he is.

    PS- I once asked a True Scalawag where the constitution prohibits secession. He answered: "Racist"!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, Tu Quoque once told me surfing the net is allowed at his school under certain conditions.Love your P.S. hahahaha.

      Delete
  6. This is the sort of game they're expected to play (and certainly believe they have to play) if they want to make it in the left-wing academic world - get articles and books published, invites to history conferences, job advancement, &c.

    Insulting Confederate heritage groups and those engaged in such activities fits the bill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, Tu Quoque only posted a couple of paragraphs of his thesis, and my blog post was about Andy's comment, not Tu Quoque's thesis. But you're right about admittance to the left-wing academic world.

      Delete
  7. Over at Hall's blog, Hall, the dumbass, is lecturing everyone on diversity. He also has up a series of photographs from a Banquet he recently attended where, of the approximately 200 guests, ONE, I REPEAT ONE, is non-white. Do'oh!

    As for Baker, that little sneaky cheat is positively in violation of his employers stated rules on the use of electronic media.

    http://www.nctq.org/docs/Gwinnett_County_2013-14_Personnel_Handbook.pdf
    (Page 26)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just read Baker's "thesis", and it reads like an eigth-grade book report. And by the way, the "tu quoque" moniker is just so perfect for that idiot. It is an absolutely perfect example of Baker advancing arguments and ideas of which he has no understanding. He is such a useless twit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My entire nickname for him is Tu Quoque Bakur. He told me once I was spelling his last name wrong, and I had to 'splain to him his moniker was inspired by Tupac Shakur...

      Delete
    2. Why I tend to ignore the guy. Engaging Baker in an argument is like having a urination contest with a skunk.

      Delete
    3. Truthfully, it is probably best to just ignore Baker altogether, but he is such an annoying, oafish, ass-clown, that he is often an irresistibly easy target. And Connie has reduced him to a laughingstock by labeling him "Tu Quoque". Still, he fully deserves all the scorn and ridicule he receives.

      Delete
  9. Over at Hall's blog, an old thread has re-surfaced. In this particular thread, ("Ninety-Eight per cent of Texans") Hall goes to great lengths to prove that, well, evidently slavery was legal in Texas prior to the War. Among the "information" he dramatically produces is a table which, he says, describes the ratio of slaves to families throughout the CSA. A thoroughly useless statistic, but whatever. Curiously though, Hall produces absolutely no information which provides corresponding data for the slave/slave family ratio in the USA. This is especially interesting because Hall frequently complains, quite bitterly in fact, that slavery is minimized or discounted as a cause for the War by Confederate sympathizers. Yet Hall himself deliberately ignores the obvious fact that slavery was widely practiced in the USA just as it was in the CSA. This being the case, Hall then ignores the natural and irrefutable conclusion that it is impossible that slavery was even remotely the cause of the war. Once again, how is it possible that the slave-owners in Kentucky waged war against the slave-owners in Mississippi to eradicate slavery? For goodness sake, Lincoln himself, vigorously and repeatedly denounced and rejected the idea that the war was fought over slavery. It is a thoroughly asinine concept. But there is more from our very, very white Texas Scalawag.

    Hall, in silly and stupid flourish, and apparently trying to convince the reader of his moral superiority, writes the following:

    "...Southerners who didn’t own slaves could not but avoid coming in regular, frequent contact with the institution. They hired out others’ slaves for temporary work. They did business with slaveholders, bought from or sold to them. They utilized the products of others’ slaves’ labor. They traveled roads and lived behind levees built by slaves. Southerners across the Confederacy, from Texas to Florida to Virginia, civilian and soldier alike, were awash in the institution of slavery. They were up to their necks in it. They swam in it, and no amount of willful denial can change that..."

    I will re-write the paragraph, replacing a few carefully chosen words, and the entire paragraph will remain equally true:

    "...Northerners who didn’t own slaves could not but avoid coming in regular, frequent contact with the institution. They hired out others’ slaves for temporary work. THEY DID BUSINESS WITH SLAVEHOLDERS, bought from or sold to them. They utilized the products of others’ slaves’ labor. They traveled roads and lived behind levees built by slaves. Northerners across the USA, from New York to Kentucky to Maryland, civilian and soldier alike, were awash in the institution of slavery. They were up to their necks in it. They swam in it, and no amount of willful denial can change that...

    They did business with slaveholders. Boy did they ever. In 1859 alone, the North section of the country purchased over $400,000,000.00 in slave produced goods and services. That's approximately 12.8 BILLION DOLLARS in 2014 dollars. 12.8 BILLION. 12.8 BILLION.

    So shut up Andy, you are a sad farce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, you are so right, Austin. I think THEY think if they say it enough, people will believe it. That won't make it truth, but they seem to not be interested in truth. They're interested in clinging to and promoting their liberal viewpoints that slaves were virtuous and without human foibles, and slave owners PLUS all white Southerners were humanity's worst examples of evil.

      I've blogged about this before HERE.

      Delete
    2. has anyone ever came up with the numbers of slaveowners who fought for the North? I would love to see some facts produced.

      George

      Delete
    3. As would I. I'd also love to see the spin these Floggers would try to put onto it, probably require a road man to follow it.

      Delete
  10. In truth Connie, I don't think even they believe all the nonsense and garbage they spew about slavery. As I never tire of repeating, how can two slave-owning countries fight over slavery?

    PS- Just re-read one of Simpson's older threads on the subject, and it is a thread which captured one of Baker's earlier usages of his "tu quoque" replies. This was especially funny, because in a discussion regarding Northern slave-traffickers, Simpson said something like "Southerners pointing out Northern involvement absolves them of nothing". Well that was all it took. Baker became hysterical almost immediately and breathlessly shouted "tu quoque! tu quoque"! He could scarcely contain himself. Dear Lord it was funny. "Tu quoque", for chrissakes. What a doofus.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Now Hall is just getting loopy. He writes:

    "As for slaves in “the north,” next time someone says that, ask them to estimate how many slaves there were in the Union states, excluding the border states of Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland. The correct answer is around 1,800, fewer than the student population of many modern high schools".

    What reduces this particular comment to a screaming farce, is that in this very same thread (Ninety Eight Per cent of Texans) Hall has a graphic which he calls a map of the Emancipation Proclamation (Hall calls this map a "great tool"). And the legend of this EP map identifies, quite properly, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, and West Virginia as "Union slave states". So when Andy smugly, and stupidly, suggest that only Delaware should be counted as a slave state, he contradicts not only established historical fact, but his own detailed graphic.

    Accordingly, when people tell you that slavery was the cause of the war, ask them how is it possible that a country fighting to eradicate slavery held approximately 450,000 slaves in 24% of its states. Go ahead and ask, and see what brainless bovine scatology they come up with.

    PS-A High School with 450,000 kids would be a very big High School.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The arguments and claims of floggers and their fellow travelers change -- sometimes they become outright contradictory -- depending on what point they're trying to make. I've wondered about this blatant dishonesty on their part -- unless, of course, they sincerely don't realize they're doing it. That takes a very powerful cognitive dissonance, though. I think they know.

      In my opinion, their integrity in arguments takes a back seat to their primary aim/goal/motivation, which is the demonization of white Southerners, past and present (exception, of course, themselves, if they happen to be white Southerners. Demonizing their fellow white Southerners and worshiping the saintly yankees exempts them from demonhood....)

      Delete
    2. You can also add into that those slaves held in parts of Western NC and Eastern Tennessee that were pro-Union too. A good many slave owners from those parts sided with the Yankees and wore the blue.

      Delete
  12. The United States was a slave-owning society, so the fact that some of its soldiers would own slaves is to be fully expected. I think the case of Union General William Harney helps illustrate the point. Harney was a General from the Union slave state of Missouri, and like many Union Generals, he was cruel, violent, and sadistic. He was a life-long slave-owner, and some years before the war, he viciously tortured, and ultimately murdered one of his slave girls (Hannah-she apparently lost his keys).

    http://books.google.com/books?id=lsEzAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=william+harney+slaves&source=bl&ots=nADbP7E8XR&sig=RUv7HJFXl1mixhJ5gwf7iqxoDYM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-kSbU-erHYKpyASKpILwCQ&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=william%20harney%20slaves&f=false

    During the war he served in Washington, no doubt with his slaves, and he retired in 1863. In 1865 he was given one final distinction, when he was brevetted Major General. His Brevet was for "long and FAITHFUL service". No mention, however, of the murdered slave girl.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Connie,

    I used your commenting policy, word for word, on Cold Southern Steel. I know I did not have permission. I intend to use it in the future, do you mind???

    ReplyDelete

Comments are welcome, but monitored.