Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Great History Post at XRoads!

Simpson posts:
Projecting From Pensacola
Posted on November 25, 2014     
Sometimes it’s interesting to recall what someone says in consecutive days. Take this example:
Boy … we should really look down on people who behave that way, right? Well …
“Smacking people around”? That’s her idea of fun? A bit violent, don’t you think? “All a bunch of leftist ideologues?” Oh, no … denigration and put-downs all in the name of ideology. We should really look down on those sort of desperate, mean-spirited people.
Someone from Pensacola’s projecting again. That’s why she’s all about the hate. She’s a rather hateful person … just the right spokesperson/webmaster for a certain Confederate heritage group.
Once again, a man who is supposed to be sooo highly edumacated betrays his learning.

The "smacking" was violent? What does he think I did, reach through the internet and pop somebody's jaws? Obviously, the "smacking around" was verbal. He ought to be familiar with that concept. Verbal bludgeoning makes up a huge portion of his blog's content.

Also, I'm certain he's edumacated enough to tell the difference between namecalling that identifies people's behavior or criticizes their ideology, and namecalling that denigrates people's intelligence or things they have no control over. That's the difference between calling someone a "leftist ideologue," professor, and calling them "troglodyte, stupid, knuckledragger, idiot," etc., which is what you and your sycophants do. (And yes, sycophant relates to behavior, not what a person IS or their level of intelligence, which is what floggers and floggerettes [which also imply behavior] do most.)

But the best comments about history, not heritage, come in the comment thread.  Just look at all the respect for, and discussion of, history here:
Simpson: She threw a Twitter tantrum and claimed that I was “skeered” of linking to her blog. I prefer to think of it as good taste and polite restraint.

Either self-delusion or deliberate lying. There's as little good taste and restraint, polite or otherwise, at XRoads as there is history.
Her picture on Twitter looks like someone who arrived stoned at the DMV thinking she was Grace Slick.
LOL!  I was never much of a Jefferson Airplane/Starship fan, but Ol' Grace was a looker back in the day. And getting stoned was against my religion, but maybe he was stoned when he looked at my profile pic....

A "new" floggerette, "Mousy Tongue" (very likely LibertyLamp-slash-InglouriousBasterd) sez...
The queen of just tweeted “Racism = no objective definition”? 
 ...and she truncated the rest of my tweet:  Means whatever the accuser wishes. But since Mousy (she'd probably freak if she knew that was my clique's nickname for me in high school and college) doesn't grasp the concept of usage as opposed to dictionary definition, my comment means "Racism has no objective definition to most of the people who use it as an accusation." There. Get it now, shweetheart?

Simpson follows up with a typical lie:
"And therefore, she argues, it doesn’t exist. How white of her."
Ah, nope. No such argument. See for yourself:

Then we have this interesting exchange, wherein Simpson and a floggerette deliberately mangle their own historical mastery:
Andrew Raker: Was she talking about Andrew or Lyndon Johnson?   
Brooks D. Simpson: She’s fonder of Andrew.
I dunno. You'd think "... and people were sitting-in..." would give history experts a clue... Maybe I give them more credit than they deserve....

And speaking of clues, here's one for jclark82 -- Simpson is conflating two separate blog posts. The first was about flogger historians... the one about Johnson and sitting-in referred to someone else... the flag opponents on a comment thread following a news story.  Next time, don't take Simpson's word for it. Come to Backsass and see it what I actually said.

jclark82 concludes,
She’s a sadly delusional person, in a movement chock full of them. The only people she smacks around is in her mind, she gets pushed around on message boards.
He didn't see the comment thread I'm talking about or he'd know better than to say that. I'm the one who did the pushing and smacking....

Then we have this from Jimmy "Carnac the Magnificent" Dick --
Jerry just likes the fact that his ancestors were slave owners and fought for the right to own slaves. He wants to own slaves today. He thinks the Civil War was great in that the southern states were going to form their own country where whites would permanently be owners of any and all blacks. His version of history states that these wonderful white man’s paradise was invaded by a tyrannical northern government. He just omits all the parts that conflict with his fantasy.
Has Jerry said any of this on his blog? I'm asking because I don't know, I don't read his blog. But unless he has, what we have here is Mr. Dick thinking he can read minds (actually, what he's doing is projecting what he believes about someone he apparently doesn't know, has never met).  Presumably, Mr. Dick believes himself to be a history expert.

Hope y'all enjoyed this little excursion into flogger "history" -- lies, innuendo, namecalling, mysticism (mind reading), historical ambivalence and an utterly bizarre habit of mistaking ridicule for humor..... Although, it really isn't anything new....


  1. He twists your words, and hopes people don't read your actual articles.

  2. Twists words, truncates statements, tells only part, lies by omission ... and presumably his followers just lap it up.


Comments are welcome, but monitored.