New Anonymous Flogger's Illogic on Display

 UPDATE  UPDATE  UPDATE  UPDATE

Well, you can no longer see the anonymous attack flog. It has gone "invitation only." I can't really take credit, since I don't know this ... but, the blog went private shortly after my blog post about it, so it's not too big a stretch. It seems the Anonymous Flogger didn't like my showcasing her falsehoods and illogic here on Backsass.

What's interesting (funny!) is that the public can no longer see the blog and she has to send email invitations to people she wants to see it.

Truth told, I have no idea why she took the blog private, but I'm glad it is.  The less the public sees of flogger knavishness and deceit, the better I like it.

Floggers can be soooo thin-skinned and cowardly....  They hate to have to make a reasoned defense of their beliefs and comments. They hide behind anonymity, privacy settings and the delete button...

---

I answer her current post. She starts out with:

Time to set our ass-backwards friend straight.

All too often we hear "Confederate Heritage types" talking about "restoring the honor" and "changing hearts and minds", but alas, actions speak much louder than words, now don't they?

Restoring the honor and Changing hearts and minds are phrases coined by the Virginia Flaggers, specifically -- not "Confederate Heritage types" collectively or in general -- in connection with returning the Confederate flags to the facade of the Pelham Chapel.

And often times, the Confederate Heritage crowd will resort to using plausible deniability as cover, and unrelated side issues as a distraction. Take for instance this load of rubbish. Our intrepid author writes:

 "As I have said before, I don't like to call people names that diminish their intelligence. That's too much a flogger thing to do. And, of course, the people whose intelligence they denigrate aren't unintelligent -- they just hold views that floggers don't like, disagree with, and think they shouldn't hold. (That's flogger "tolerance" for you.)"

Sorry, no, Simpson's blog and others are full of the kind of namecalling I'm talking about. I've documented it numerous times on Backsass.

She doesn't like to call people names, she just does it. You mean like calling someone, or something "racist"?  (Boldface emphasis mine. CW)

Did you happen to miss my qualifier? Here, let me help you: 

I don't like to call people names that diminish their intelligence.  ...that diminish their intelligence.  THAT DIMINISH THEIR INTELLIGENCE.

Got it now?

I also note your attempt to equate "someone" and ''something." Don't try that with me, sweetheart. Someone refers to people (or a person); a something doesn't. Be careful of going off the deep end into the waters you're muddying.... You'll get dirty.

What's wrong our dearest author? Why so intolerant all of a sudden of The First Freedom? Convenience? Well, probably just a little bit of ol' fashioned hypocrisy thrown in there for good measure as well, eh?

Explained on my blog. Ignoring it so you can make false connections? My, my, what a flogger thing to do!

Until the recent brouhaha at Crossroads, to the best of my memory, I haven't communicated with Olaf Childress or read his tabloid in over a decade. That he lifted an article from my blog in 2011, without my consent or even my knowledge, and reprinted it in TFF doesn't mean we communicated at the time. I had no idea he had done that until it appeared in your slander blog.

I described The First Freedom that way (racist) because it now includes some content that I consider to be racist. Back in 2001, 2002 when I first became aware of it, it was very conservative and focused on Southern independence. I don't recall any overtly racist articles, although there may have been. I was not a subscriber, and had little to no occasion to read it.

But the point is, namecalling a thing and calling a person names that diminish their intelligence are not the same. But surely you know the difference between an inanimate object -- a collection of paper pages with words on them -- and a human being with intellect, beliefs, perspectives, will, volition, etc. And note, when I said "I don't like to call people names that diminish their intelligence," I meant the kind of language floggers have used repeatedly.

As I once wrote about (and to) Simpson, "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."
http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2014/11/great-history-post-at-xroads.html

If we may be so bold as to speak for "floggers" everywhere...

(We who? There are several of you who put out your blog? Or is it just you? And if it's just you, lose the "we." Remember what Mark Twain said -- "Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we.'" [Brainy Quote]) **

... we're not so sure it is about people who hold views we don't agree with, as much as it is about people who hold views a majority of society as a whole doesn't agree with (or are we supposed to believe that a majority of society believes that the current President of the United States deserves to be lynched? We're sorry, we don't.)

I haven't seen the majority of Confederate heritage folks agree with that, either. I do know that the oft-repeated claim of floggers, floggerettes and fellow travelers, and the misinformed general public -- to wit, the majority of Americans see the  Confederate battle flag as a symbol of racist hatred -- is refuted by several reputable national polls.

But this argument is a distraction. This isn't about our opinions or views, it is about being honest with ones self about who they are, and what they believe. Far too often we have to hear from the Confederate Heritage crowd that "We're not racist" or that the Confederate flag "Isn't a racist symbol"...

Well, see, it depends on what you mean by "racism." Your concept of it, and mine, are likely very different, hugely different things. I don't admit to believing something I don't believe, 'kay? And the symbolism of the Confederate flag is in the eye of the beholder.

...and yet we are left scratching our heads when those same people are off cavorting with people who apparently find enjoyment in burning crosses with the Ku Klux Klan and rallying with Neo-Nazis.

What same people? The "Confederate heritage crowd" is woefully nonspecific. It's a huge crowd, ya know? And it isn't made up of mental clones.

The world renowned author continues:

 "We also know she is obsessed with her concept of racism. In fact, that's basically what the flog is all about."

Well, no, not really. The blog is actually all about "restoring the honor"...

No, it isn't. It's about smearing heritage folks, specifically, the Virginia Flaggers.

... and by that, we apparently mean doing and saying things that are counter-intuitive to the way you would expect one to do, or say if they were really trying to restore any honor, in any way.

"Restoring the honor" refers to putting the Confederate flags back on the Pelham Chapel.  The Virginia Flaggers believe the VMFA's removal of them was dishonorable to the memory of Confederate veterans who worshiped in the chapel, and whose funerals were held there. It's very simple. The Virginia Flaggers would consider the return of the flags as restoration of honor for those Confederate vets, and that is why they flag the VMFA.

As a matter of fact, as of today, the word "racist" has only been used 5 times on this blog, and then only once to describe a person, and guess what? It wasn't our description. Then again, the aforementioned author is an expert on the word "racist", now isn't she? What's wrong dearest author, dabbling in a little projection, are we?

Oh, puh-leeze. You mentioned plausible deniability earlier -- which accurately describes what your accusations of racism without actually using the term is all about. That's what your blog is all about.

"She struggles mightily to make an Everest out of a few molehills using mostly Facebook likes and friendships."

Not quite. While we do think it is relevant to point out "online relationships"; real life, documented physical relationships are definitely more damning, and really drive home the point that much more. And what is the point you might ask? The point is that despite repeated attempts to get the Confederate Heritage crowd to call out their own, they can't bring themselves to do it. And why is that? Well, that's something you will just have to decide for yourselves.

Call them out for what? And what business is it of yours to make "repeated attempts" to get the heritage crowd to do ANYTHING?

Moreover, how do you know they haven't been called out?  I've done some calling out on Backsass, when I thought it was important enough to. But the only people who get off on pointing out that the "heritage crowd" doesn't call out its own are people like you -- and frankly, we don't care what y'all think.

Our author friend goes on to say:

"I am FB friends with many writers, some of whom write erotic romance, which I do not write and do not agree with or approve of."

And adds:

"Yet I'm Facebook friends with some authors who write such as this. Why? Because online writers' communities pass along information about publishing, self-publishing, writing advice, tips about helpful software, promo and marketing, etc...  To be FB friends with an erotic romance writer, to share writing, publishing or promo information he or she has posted, does not mean I embrace erotica. And I don't "drop them like a hot potato" when they post information about their latest erotic romance release -- but for sure I don't promote it, either."

Employing this type of logic, our dearest author should head here and here and click "Like", because after all, we're sure both Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson have some redeeming qualities, we just can't think of any. She could even "friend" them up if she wanted to, except for the fact that Hitler is dead, and Manson... Well, she could always try for a virtual conjugal visit.

What utter hooey. No, dear, that is not the logic I'm employing. It's getting real difficult now to stick with my resolve not to use names that diminish your intelligence, but you're the one showing such illogic, whether I namecall you or not.

But let's cut to the chase, this isn't about "friending up" or "liking" strangers on Facebook...

Then why did YOU  try to make an issue of it, as if it means something? So you're backtracking now?

...this is about the fact that time and time again, we always find the same people running in circles with other people who espouse a whole assortment of nasty beliefs.

We? We who? What same people? What circles? You're going to have to get a lot more specific -- and it will have to be a lot longer on facts and substantiation -- and significance, don't forget significance -- than the crap you've put on your blog thus far.

See, I have no idea who you are talking about -- plus I'm not as orgiastically immersed in linking and tying for slander as you are -- but the people you've written about and identified on your slime-blog are a numerical drop in the bucket of the heritage community.

Thought criminals? Hardly. Take for instance our last two posts. Did we call Burl F. Phillips any bad names? Did we ascribe any description to his apparent beliefs? No, we didn't. Sure, we have opinions on what he apparently believes, and we are fairly confident a majority of people share our opinions on those apparent beliefs, so we leave it up to them to decide for themselves what it all means.

Not thought criminals -- thought police. (Ever read 1984?) But you see, that's not the point. Featuring him on your blog, regardless of passing some kind of judgment on his beliefs, assumes that everyone in the "heritage crowd" knows who Burl F. Phillips is. I'd never heard of him until he showed up on your blog post so I did a quick check of his profile. Some of his images you featured are distasteful, but as far as I can see, they don't indicate hatred that translates to a desire to harm anybody. And I happen to agree with his pro-Israel, anti-jihadist views.

And Steven Monk, did we call him any bad names? Nope. We didn't. In his case, we didn't even find any nasty things he said himself, but on the Facebook page he is apparently responsible for, oh boy! Apparently though, at least one person picked up on the potential implications of what this all could mean, yet instead of taking a stand, and saying "This is wrong", that person instead decided to make excuses and distract. Nice move!

See, this is another place where you run off the rails. YOU are eaten up with people like Harold Covington (who I'd never heard of until your blog post) and you expect we all are as "knowledgeable" (and as eaten up) with this stuff as you are. We're not. You're the one who gets off on it, not us.  If memory serves, I met Mr. Monk long before I'd ever heard of Facebook, at an event at Shiloh Battlefield, and I exchanged a few emails with him about other heritage issues afterward. So when I saw him on Facebook, I either friended him, or accepted his friend request because I remembered his name. In fact, I don't send many friend requests, and when I receive them, I do the barest check of the person's profile before I accept or reject. I don't hire a private investigator to do background check on folks, capisce?

You are putting way, way, way too much emphasis on online "associations."

The bottom line is that only the Confederate Heritage crowd can heal itself from it's own apparent epidemic of bigotry and hate and it does not appear that it cares to tackle that tough task any time soon.

Apparent? To who? Not to me. There's no epidemic, and what you call bigotry and hate are largely figments of flogger imagination, fabricated from fantasy "associations" and imaginary significance, designed to set flogger insides quivering with that most powerful of all addictive substances -- the warm fuzzies of moral superiority. (It is especially luscious to people who are secretly uncertain of their own integrity.)

Tell you what. How about you floggers worry about your own hatred and bigotry. Heal yourself before you start preaching to others. Get the log out of your eye before you complain about the speck in ours. Get sinless before you cast the first stone....

So we will continue to hear this crowd crying "We're not racist! We're not racist!"...

I don't hear heritage folks crying that very much. Where do you hear it? How often? Try to find on my blog where I've said it. Try to find it on the VaFlaggers blog. If someone does make an accusation of racism, I (or the Flaggers or others) might point out that what the accusation defines as racist is not, in fact, racist, but that's not what you're saying, is it?

It might be interesting to learn where you think you're hearing this cry.... So far, you haven't identified a single instance of it.  You've just said it occurs, with no substantiation whatever.  I suspect the disparity is that when a heritage advocate denies racism, they have a completely different concept than the person accusing them of it.

... while some call African Americans "niggers" out of the other corner of their mouths.

Again, make a list of instances of this happening, name the people doing it, and give us a rough estimate of the percentage of the "heritage crowd" that they comprise.  Remember, how folks differ is at least as important as how they are similar.

They will continue to shove Confederate flags down the public's throat...

Got any examples of this? I think this is just your opinion.

whether the public wants them, or not.

You speaking for "the public" now? Remember, the anti-flag nutcases in Richmond who opposed the first I-95 flag were a miniscule portion of the public.

The healing within the Confederate Heritage community begins within the Confederate Heritage community, by first accepting that there is a problem, and believe you, us, there is.  Remember, it's hate, not heritage.

The problem is not within the Confederate Heritage community -- it lies with critics and haters such as yourself and your fellow floggers, so the need for healing lies with you, as well. For us, it is heritage. For YOU, it is hate. That is what you see because that is the color of the glasses you're wearing when you look at us. The hate is yours, not ours.

_________________
** Yes. I use "we." I am an editor. http://wordslingerboutique.biz/editing.html