Mark,
Is this the sort of broad brush hyperbole (ie for effect) that you use in your estimation of Buchanan, Sobran and Matatics?
""Brownshirt" Vandals aren't really equivalent to Nazi's Kristallnachters, I'm just saying that for effect, to show were their thinking leads. . . .."
"Buchanan, Sobran, and Matatics aren't really antisemites, I'm just saying that to show where their thinking leads. . . ."
I agree with you mark: rational debate got left at the gas station, several miles back.
OT: did anyone read Buchanan's piece in the latest "Wanderer"? It was particularly awesome and vitrolic while Sobran's piece was actually reflective and almost meditative.
Ernst Roehm was a homosexual, and he was the C.O. of the Brownshirts (before Hitler got rid of him on the 'Night of the Long Knives'.)
I really don't understand what all the fuss is about concerning Mark's characterisation of the bullying, lying, intolerant 'gay' lobby.
When did "kafuffle" become the go-to word in the blogsphere? It's the about the 10th time I've seen it used in the last couple of days!
Mark,
The fact that you even had to write this (very eloquent and easy to follow, by the way) is proof that Some People Will Never Get It.
Your point is plain. There's nothing to argue with. Those who do these sorts of things in the name of tolerance are hypocrites (and no, I am not implying through this statement that they should be put in a camp somewhere).
C'mon, Mark, just come out and say it, "When gay activists talk, they remind me of Hitler!"
Easy, Josh. I don't think that it's boiled down to hypocrisy. There is a lot of fuzzy thinking going on, and some commentators got into rhetorical analysis that overtook the issue. I don't think that malice or deception was intended by any of the commentators [even Andy!], so the charge of hypocrisy is not really accurate, if you mean that some intended a double standard.
Fr. Brian,
I was actually referring to those individuals who preach tolerance and then refuse to show differing opinions none. My comment wasn't aimed at those who have taken issue with Mark's statements.
Thanks, by the way, for joining us. Always nice to have a priestly voice out there!
Wow. None=any. I know you all get the picture, but my bad grammar offends me 
.
Greg:
It's only when they muzzle free speech, threaten, intimidate, inflict violence, property damage, and death, all for the sake of their ideology, that they do that. I know it's a wild connection, but I'm just an over-imaginative guy.
Wow, I can't even begin to scratch the surface of this huge rhetorical knot you've tied. There's nothing as sad and frustrating as someone who's deceived himself, and maybe a few others, into believing he didn't say what he said, and that "you oughtn't to have taken it that way." You wrote, "When you are gay, you are above such pedestrian concerns [as private property rights]." That's what you wrote. That gay people do not respect private property. And then you drew a comparison to Nazis. You can't back out of that by saying "[we don't feel] the moronic compulsion to proclaim complete identification." Except, you did proclaim complete identfication, with no qualifying language at all.
You wrote what you wrote, and no amount of defensive obfuscation changes that. You either ought to own up and defend it, or apologize.
I happen to agree that there is a good number of shrieking, intolerant voices on the left, and that sadly they have a lot of control over both "mainstream" and "alternative" media. They are destructive to important social institutions, human relationships, and the good aspects of the causes they ostensibly engender. When hysteria and paranoia inflict a movement, it's doomed to fail. In the long run, I don't think we have anything to worry about from the extremists.
I also see the same thing happening on the right. To put it concisely, "Politics makes strange bedfellows."
One more thing--let me clarify that I don't necessarily find your comparison (gay activists to Nazis) "offensive." Offensive language should be defended. I find it inaccurate, and sloppy. That should be criticized.
Would you guys all stop saying "kafuffle"? It sounds like some kind of rich German desert and I'm trying to fast on Fridays!
- Thanks
What's to take back? There is an element of satire in the Brownshirt thing. Where's your sense of humour?
And BTW we've plenty to worry about from extremists. Extremists gave us abortion, and are about to land us with 'gay marriage'.
"'When you are gay, you are above such pedestrian concerns [as private property rights].' That's what you wrote. That gay people do not respect private property."
That's not how I would take that. Imagine that Mark had said, of the actual brownshirts, "When you're German, you are above such pedestrian concerns [as private property rights]." That wouldn't be saying that all Germans are disrespectful of private property, only that the brownshirts believed that being German gave them the right to destroy the property of others.
Sense of humor? You'll have to pardon me if I don't find deliberate, state-sponsored murder of a minority, how you say, "funny." Give me a couple hundred more years of historical perspective and distance, and I MIGHT be willing to crack a smile over it. But not with it, historically speaking, having just happened.
I'm no supporter of the left wing, but your decidedly right-wing (hell, might as well call it Moral Majority) characterization of a demonstrably oppressed minority as "Brownshirts," as if that majority had any government endorsement of its destructive actions (surely one of the more important aspects of the Brownshirts, since otherwise they'd have merely been a destructive rabble,) is absolutely vile, ahistorical, and ludicrous.
That you have somehow managed to convince yourself that there are "degrees" of brownshirtedness that apply to minor acts of civil disobedience undertaken by misguided (and criminal) individuals speaks volumes about your duplicity and complete lack of understanding of well, anything having to do with Nazi Germany. It also marks you as an hysterical, dishonest demagogue.
I know this is really really really hard for people with Heightened Sensitivities to grasp, but making a joke at the expense of gay bullies is not the same as making a joke at the expense of Holocaust victims. I know that gay bullies like to think of themselves as Holocaust victims (in between acts of vandalism and other sorts of abusive behavior), but the rest of us can see the difference and rather enjoy making fun of the martyr complex. Nothing is so funny as a completely self-absorbed narcissist.
Where's my sense of humor? Color me touchy, but I thought holocaust jokes were pretty much off-limits.
And LACAstronomer, you've written what Mark *ought* to have written, not what he did. That's not a defense, it's a correction.
Oh, and Tom:
Thanks for that masterpiece of hysterical, dishonest demagoguery. Hilarious! Gay agitprop and narcissism. They go together like Laurel and Hardy. Criticize a gay vandal and you WANT TO LOAD GAYS ON THE BOXCARS! Too funny!
"Interestingly, if I were to write that ideologically-driven vandals were "doing the devil's work", I doubt Andy would hyperventilate,"
Unless you have some sort of evidence that the Devil goes around murdering people and causing destruction as the brownshirts did, no, I won't get mad. That you're capable of imagining the great bogeyman from down under as a real being is not my concern; in this world, we punish perpetrators, not myths. It's a fact, observably so, that the brownshirts demonstrably caused suffering on a massive scale. Given that you're prone to believing mythologies, though, I'll let it slide that you can't comprehend the difference.
It's your blog, write what you like. I'll still think you're a jerk for doing so.
One other thing: I'm always amazed when people things like "your decidedly right-wing (hell, might as well call it Moral Majority) characterization of a demonstrably oppressed minority as "Brownshirts," as if that majority had any government endorsement of its destructive actions (surely one of the more important aspects of the Brownshirts, since otherwise they'd have merely been a destructive rabble,) is absolutely vile, ahistorical, and ludicrous."
In case it escaped notice, the mere fact that you are an oppressed minority (which is, by the way, not at all clear in the case of gays) does not mean that you are immune from the ability to act like a brownshirt. Brownshirts were, after all, once an "oppressed minority". Look at how awfully they were treated in the Beer Hall Putsch, poor dears. And they most certainly did not not have state approval. Meanwhile, gay are happily making use of the machinery of the State to inflict all sorts of punishments on Incorrect People. Moral: just because you are a victim doesn't mean you can't be a brownshirt too. A lesson for people who are so terribly worried about being "ahistorical".
The great thing about my blog, andy, is that you can say that I won't even accuse you of using "hate speech" or vandalize your home.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's not a good analogy. It obfuscates the actual issue because people just talk about the word 'brownshirt'.
It's not the best way to make your point, and you have to admit, you have to keep trying to explain the use of the word. If you have to do that, it's because on some level it isn't working.
And honestly, I did find the comparison between stickers and brownshirts offensive. If the stickers had said "die hetro Christian scum", I could have seen the point. But pretty rainbow stickers with "respect diversity", really all they were was annoying and ironic.
What we should be debating is why people felt able to try and silence a Christian opinion and what we should do to rectify that. Not your choice of analogies.
And as much as the sarcastic Fr Stanley would like to jump up and down and point the metaphor-police stick at people, you can use whatever metaphor you want. Just don't expect to get your point across as well as you could and expect to keep on posting what-I-actually-meant-by-the-word posts. Your call.
Nope. Not saying gay beating don't occur. They not only occur, but are transformed into Grand Martyrdom Theatre like the Passion of St. Mathew Shephard. It's just that we don't ever hear about the Passion of Jesse Derkhising or Mary Stachowicz in the same way.
As I've repeatedly said, and you choose to ignore because you want to play drama queen, violence against gay is evil and a sin. But when I point out the violence of gays, I get the normal schtick about how I deny there is violence against gays. All quite old.
And when I make it ultra clear that noting a relationship between minor forms of ideologically driven violence is not the same as identifying that minor violence with its most horrendous manifestation, you can't think of anything to do but reiterate the falsehood that I identify the two.
Oh, and call me names. The last resort of a frustrated bully.
Meanwhile, the links will just keep coming in, demonstrating that the Sexual Orientation of Peace seems to have a strange habit of resorting to violence, threats, muzzling of free speech and whatever force it can get away with in order to crush criticism. I'll be sure to post them when they do. You can be sure to get really mad.
Chicanery and rhetoric, Mark. It never stops with you.
"I know that gay bullies like to think of themselves as Holocaust victims (in between acts of vandalism and other sorts of abusive behavior), but the rest of us can see the difference and rather enjoy making fun of the martyr complex."
Oh, I see. You're saying that gay beatings and murders don't actually occur? That gays don't have any reason to suspect that they may be targeted for harassment and worse for what they are?
"Criticize a gay vandal and you WANT TO LOAD GAYS ON THE BOXCARS! Too funny!"
Is there something wrong with you? Did I say you want to load gays on boxcars? I said, Mr. Reading Comprehension, that the comparison between criminal gays committing minor vandalism and Nazi Brownshirts murdering 100 people, and arresting 30,000 others (at the behest of the government) is completely invalid and borderline retarded. Do try to follow along, OK? After all, you do realize that by couching your argument in this way - that the gays are the Brownshirts and the churchgoers therefore must be the Jews - that you're saying the churchgoers are some sort of oppressed minority, right? Jeesh, talk about a narcissistic martyr complex. But then, that's nothing new.
"Brownshirts were, after all, once an "oppressed minority". Look at how awfully they were treated in the Beer Hall Putsch, poor dears. And they most certainly did not not have state approval. Meanwhile, gay are happily making use of the machinery of the State to inflict all sorts of punishments on Incorrect People."
Uh huh. So I assume this means you think the gays will eventually inherit the government and go on a mad rampage, arresting and murdering Catholics in a blood-sodden pogrom that will go down in history as "Liberacenacht," or the Night of FABULOUSNESS. No? Of course not. See? Stupid analogy. Bad metaphor. Get it now, genius?
err, sorry for the double post. How'd that happen?
"And when I make it ultra clear that noting a relationship between minor forms of ideologically driven violence is not the same as identifying that minor violence with its most horrendous manifestation, you can't think of anything to do but reiterate the falsehood that I identify the two."
Wait. You deny that by equating gay vandals to Brownshirts, you identify, by implication, minor vandalism (violence? Please.) with the horrendous violence committed by the Brownshirts?
You can't be serious. I refuse to believe you're that dim, or that your readers can' see through the chicanery.
"Brownshirts" maybe a colorful yet inappropriate characterization, but in recent weeks we have read about lawsuits being placed against clergy in the Europe who have voiced a "dissenting" opinion about homosexual rights.
This past century is ripe with examples of those who gain power and target the religious with violence. It is perfectly capable of occuring once again as some self-righteous, tolerant types decide to forcibly make changes.
larry dvm:
"And LACAstronomer, you've written what Mark *ought* to have written, not what he did. That's not a defense, it's a correction."
No, he wrote an *analogy* of what Mark wrote to explain the correct interpretation of the words Mark used. Therefore, it is a defense.
"Chicanery and rhetoric, Mark. It never stops with you."
That's it! The perfect name for my yet to launched long-awaited anti-brown (or beige) shirt blog!
"Chicane and Kafuffling It!"
(backup choice: World Wide Kant)
"larry dvm:
"And LACAstronomer, you've written what Mark *ought* to have written, not what he did. That's not a defense, it's a correction."
No, he wrote an *analogy* of what Mark wrote to explain the correct interpretation of the words Mark used. Therefore, it is a defense."
Thank you, Jason H. Of course what I meant was to show how that phrase should be taken. Its obviously sarcastic. It doesn't represent Mark's own views, it parodies the views of the gay "brownshirts". Thus, he's not saying that he thinks gays don't need to respect property, he's saying that the people who did a certain thing think they don't need to respect private property. It's just a parody of what some people think, its not an indictment of all gays, any more than my analogy would be an indictment of all Germans.
Tom is certainly right about 'gay' beatings. In their book 'Men Who Beat The Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence', D.Island and P. Letellier relate that the "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."
Wasn't there also a well-attended Sado-Masochist event entitled 'Beat me in St Louis' held recently in thatm (clearly benighted) city?
Tom-WWR writes:
You're saying that gay beatings and murders don't actually occur?
And then, 2 seconds later, we get:
Is there something wrong with you? Did I say you want to load gays on boxcars?
So putting words in Mark's mouth is perfectly fine, yet you whine when someone does it to you?
The h-word was mentioned above, but if the shoe fits, wear it - your statements are amazingly hypocritical, and its rather funny that you've displayed such obvious hyporcisy for all to see.
It's seems to me the problem with Tom & Andy & the other jerky apologists for the gay brownshirts is they are ignoring the obvious. Rather than get mad at the gay brownshirts for their vulgar violations of the First Amendment they choose instead to get mad at Mark for saying such gay people who violate the rights of Christians are "brownshirts".
A true civil libertarian would be outraged at the tactics of the gay brownshirt crowd. A sane gay nonbrownshirt even more so. So I have a question "Tom...Andy what's your malfuction?"
Ben - I've condemned the vandals. I'm sorry that I don't feel the need to engage in idiotic, hyperbolic, historically-inept references to do so.
I think the 'Gay Brownshirt' tag is funny and spot-on! Many 'gay' activists continually seek to suppress debate, often by violent means. They know that they cannot win the moral argument; so they rely on name-calling and intimidation to help advance their agenda.
andy, please stopping defaming and spreading hate about the Vandals. They don't even exist any longer as an identifiable tribal clan to defend themselves. Can't you come up with a less offensive term?
"A true civil libertarian would be outraged at the tactics of the gay brownshirt crowd. A sane gay nonbrownshirt even more so. So I have a question "Tom...Andy what's your malfuction?""
Ah, another genius. Andy and I both clearly condemned the actions of the people who defaced the sign. If you'll engage your higher cortex and do a wee little search, I'm sure you'll see, unless of course you have your "member of an oppressed, billion-member, politically powerful religious group" glasses on.
As for Brian Thomas, it took you two seconds to parse the simple sentence between the two parts of my response? You ARE slow, aren't you? Shea's hyperbole implied that homosexuals are not, in fact, a persecuted minority, but that they have a "martyr complex." I used that against him rhetorically. Perhaps some gays do have a martyr complex, though. I'll admit that, and it certainly doesn't surprise me to see recognition of a familiar state of affairs from a Christian.
Furthermore, I was not putting words in his mouth. He said, and I quote, ""Criticize a gay vandal and you WANT TO LOAD GAYS ON THE BOXCARS! Too funny!" Now follow along, cause this is the important part: by using this hyperbole, he attempted to derail the argument ("Brownshirt" is not an accurate or appropriate metaphor for those whose "damage" can be reversed, as one commenter said, by application of a steam iron, if it helps you stay with the issue) to somewhat bizarrely accuse ME of saying he hates Jews. A dishonest tactic at best. You will note that I call him on it when I say, "I said, Mr. Reading Comprehension, that the comparison between criminal gays committing minor vandalism and Nazi Brownshirts murdering 100 people, and arresting 30,000 others (at the behest of the government) is completely invalid and borderline retarded." See? Logic. It's your friend.
Hope this helps.
Actually, that should be ..."that he hates GAYS." Which he does, of course. He just may not want to load them onto boxcars.
Tom et al.
Disapproval and hatred are different things. One of the cues for this is the different words applied to each concept.
I disapprove of my temper, of my childrens' sloth and the sex lives of my gay friends and fellow church musicians. But I don't hate any of these people.
One of Mark's ongoing themes is the absolute refusal of some gay activists and their allies to admit that there is any distinction at all between disapproval and hatred. They don't come out and say that. They just impute hatred whenever disapproval is voiced.
Can't we all get back to bashing libertarian strawmen? I miss that.
I'm not even sure that's a proper use of the word "chicanery."
It usually applies to some kind of underhanded subterfuge. If this is the transparent derision being complained about, by definition, it would hardly qualify. . . .
All this anger at Mark for calling these gay brownshirts what they are brownshirts. So little anger at the gay brownshirts themselves.
If I was gay rather than wasting my time getting mad at Mark because my mind is coruptied by some useless PC double standard I'd instead be tearing the gay brownshirst a new one. If only because they make real gays look bad & their actions are a violation of the First Amendment. Much like I do to "prolifers" who shoot abortionists or scum monkeys like the "Rev" over at godhatesfags.com rip them a new one in print.
Andy & Tom you boys have no brains or common sense. Save your rage for those who trulely decerve it.
someone pointed out the increased persecution against believers in Europe and Canada.
Lest you think it could never happen hear, Abortionist Dean referred to pro-lifers as "Taliban" in a recent discussion.
With the Patriot Act, and Waco as precedence, a Dean (or fellow traveler) could be a very scary thing for Catholics, Evangelicals and observant Jews.
Ben - perhaps your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking, what with the "If I were gay..." line.
Pay attention: We're not gay. We're not Jewish. And we have condemned those responsible for putting shiny stickers on someone else's property.
"Andy & Tom you boys have no brains or common sense. Save your rage for those who trulely decerve it."
Ben - and you're a complete idiot. See how productive that was? Dumbass.
Andy who cares if you are gay or not? Not me. My statement stands.
You're total smeghead aren't you Andy?
What, when you get down to it, is the driving factor for gay rights? Seems to me that it's both tolerance and acceptance.
Now, a truly tolerant soul would realize that some people are going to disagree with him, especially under the gay argument that all sexualities & all value systems should be respected. If you're truly in a state of moral relativism, you respect dissenting opinions as much as you do your own. This, however, doesn't have to keep you from working towards your aims.
But clearly, the entire driving force behind the gay movement has been undermined by people who do things like this. When I spoke of the "hypocrites" early on, this is what I meant: people who preach tolerance but really want me to agree with them, having no respect for my opinion or values.
When Mark calls some act typical of the brownshirts, this is what he means. Didn't the brownshirts crush opposition by undermining various viewpoints through similar tactics? Is the metaphor completely lost on us all? Not to me; I've followed Mark long enough to read his dozen explanations to various objectors. Go Googling and you will find plenty of examples where this metaphor has been used, in some places better than others.
The Brownshirt tactic is anti-Catholic. We know that since every individual is made in the image of God, we must afford everybody basic human respect and dignity. When Mark points out examples of where these values are being crushed in the name of a Higher Good, the majority of us understand what he's talking about. The objection to this metaphor based upon various levels of action was responded to rather nicely with Jeff Miller and Photoshop.
Ben -
"You're total smeghead aren't you Andy?"
Since this has pretty much been the level of your argumentation, I can see any hope of reason, let along agreement, is impossible.
Kiss my ass.
andy.
Do you mean - 'Kiss my donkey'
or - 'kiss my arse'
Just curious 
Andy,
Your the one who brought name calling into the discussion(ie Jerk). Now YOUR bitching like a gimbod about level of argumentation.
Bottom line all anger at Mark for calling gay brownshirts what they are. Brownshirts & SOOOOOOOO little anger at the gay brownshirts themselves. Accept a token "Well I said their bad."
Josh IS CLEARLY an Intellegent fellow.
>But clearly, the entire driving force behind the gay movement has been undermined by people who do things like this.
Ya just don't get it do ya Andy?
Gee, Andy, I guess that Mark should apologize to you for living - as should BenYachov, Ed, Josh, and anyone else who disagrees with you. Sorry we darken the earth with our presence - but of course, if abortion on demand had been available years ago (like I suspect you feel it should have been) we'd probably just be in the landfills like so many millions of other "clumps of unwanted fetal tissue".
Please let us know where people should apply to run a blog that meets with your approval - as well as what criteria must be met regarding social consciousness, atheism, victim mentality, and ethical treatment of vegetables. What opinions will be tolerated; who is allowed to post; how many post-graduate degrees are needed to qualify to enter a discussion on semantics?
I note that you don't have your own blog, but choose to berate those who do, and are willing to offer a forum to one and all - even those who choose to ream their hosts. Nice guy.
Bet I know what your motto is:
"Vivat lingam, nonsurrat resurrectum."
(Look that up in your Funk & Wagnall's....)
Wow, Billy, nice segue into abortion on demand to rid the world of people like you - cripes, you and Mark have your Nazi analogies all nice and proper! Is there some sort of Catholic industry in such things?
P.S. I do have my own blog - I see your internet skills and reading comprehension are right up there with your ability to make inept comparisons.
Sorry, Andy -
I missed the blog titled "I'm the Omniscient King of the Universe, and Everyone Else is Just Dirt."
(Or was I supposed to do a search for a blog with "Andy" in it somewhere - that would hardly be fair; there are undoubtedly some real jerks out there, and I wouldn't want to address them the same way I'd speak to someone as exalted as you.)
Oh - Andy, did you have any intention of answering my basic question (what opinions are low-lifes other than yourself qualified to offer) or was I asking too much of your magnificence? I note that you managed to focus on a side issue of my post, to the exclusion of the primary discussion point.
Gosharootie, being a supreme being like you must be really tough!!
Gadzooks - I keep coming up with more things to say to Andy, and I hope he'll forgive my slowness of wit - I know that he's got to be 10e100,000,000 more intelligent than anyone else, since he knows how to say "kiss my ass...."
1) Tell the truth - wouldn't you like to see people like Mark, BenYachov, and myself put to death -or better yet, killed prior to birth?
2) IS your motto what I surmise?
3) Why is it OK for you to call Mark and I Nazis ("Nazi Analogies") while you're bitching about the 'brownshirt' reference?
4) As an avowed atheist/agnostic/anti-religious individual, what gives you the right to surmise anything about 'Catholic' practice - "Is there some sort of Catholic industry in such things"? (Especially since I'm NOT a Catholic, not that it matters to you. You've made it clear that anyone who thinks there may be a supreme being [other than your magnificent self] is a candidate for Bellevue)
5) Would you care to explain why I shouldn't go out and treat every 'liberal/atheist/revisionist' (or whatever you'd prefer to style youself as) with the same degree of contempt you treat EVERYONE with? How do you manage to crowd so much hate into a single head? (Or are you twins, triplets, or a diverse multicellular self-autonomic being from Deneb?)
Billy Pilgrim: I missed the blog titled "I'm the Omniscient King of the Universe, and Everyone Else is Just Dirt."
That's because you missed seeing the words "homepage" right next to Andy's name and email.
If you had clicked on that link, you would have found Andy's blog. You should take the time to investigate these things, otherwise, you could end up looking like a fool who just opened his mouth to hear his own words flow out. I'm sure you wouldn't want to create that impression.
Tess,
I'm sorry. I didn't know that the concept of "Irony" was so hard to grasp.........
***sigh*** Looks like I should have stuck with the Ludovico stuff after all; reality is getting so hard to handle. Pete? Dim? Anybody?
Hey, Andy:
Ever see Mel Brook's first great film, "The Producers"? Now it's the biggest show on Broadway, having been made into a musical.
Doncha think Mel Brooks is such an insensitive lout for using all that Nazi stuff and making light of it? How do you explain that, given that Mr. Brooks is Jewish? Is it self-hate? Ohhhh. I know: Mel is married to Anne Bancroft, who's Catholic. Thaaaat explains it. That's why Mark's reference to brownshirts is so off the wall, right?
Will the metaphor police please admit to metaphor police brutality? Please google the word "brownshirt" and see just how far off Mark allegedly is. This is common usage, people. Andy and Alias Clio and others are welcome to their opinions, but they've been riding their high horses pretty darn hard and not cleaning up the horsepoop after themselves. This has gone on for days and daze. To borrow another line from those old police procedurals: Move along, folks. There's nothin' to see here.
"Or was I supposed to do a search for a blog with "Andy" in it somewhere"
Um, no, your Royal Brainlessness - see that thing at the end of each of my comments, the thing that says "Homepage?" Well, when you click it (yes, even someone as challenged as yourself), it will take you to that person's homepage - usually a blog! Woo!
"I didn't know that the concept of "Irony" was so hard to grasp"
Hmmm, perhaps your dictionary uses a different definition of "irony" than the rest of them in the world. There's nothing ironic about saying "you don't have a blog" when the link for the blog is staring you in the face. That's called "stupid."
Irony is at least entertaining.
"1)Tell the truth - wouldn't you like to see people like Mark, BenYachov, and myself put to death -or better yet, killed prior to birth?"
No, that's positively idiotic. I'd like to see you think a little clearer, but until such time as you advocate violence against another group or carry out such violence, you're welcome to be an idiot all you like.
"2) IS your motto what I surmise?"
Given that I'm not much for dead languages, I can't answer that. Feel free to translate and I'll answer you.
"3) Why is it OK for you to call Mark and I Nazis ("Nazi Analogies") while you're bitching about the 'brownshirt' reference?"
Ummm...I called you Nazis? I see once again that your reading comprehension has failed you. Allow me to educate you.
When I said "cripes, you and Mark have your Nazi analogies all nice and proper!" - I was not calling you Nazis, I was making a statement on YOUR Nazi analogies (brownshirts for Mark, aborting the unfit for you). It was a comment on the comparisons you drew, not on you being a Nazi. Do try to keep up.
"4) As an avowed atheist/agnostic/anti-religious individual, what gives you the right to surmise anything about 'Catholic' practice"
Eighteen years as a practicing Catholic is a start, but then also being a generally compassionate human being plays a part too.
"You've made it clear that anyone who thinks there may be a supreme being [other than your magnificent self] is a candidate for Bellevue)"
Nah, simply irrational. Which is why when a believer says "It's all faith" I won't argue it with them, no point to it. When you start claiming evidence and proof, then you've got some explaining to do.
"5) Would you care to explain why I shouldn't go out and treat every 'liberal/atheist/revisionist' (or whatever you'd prefer to style youself as) with the same degree of contempt you treat EVERYONE with?"
Do whatever you like. I'm sorry I don't have much sympathy for people who compare shiny stickers to the oppression of the Jews. And I don't treat everyone with contempt, just people I consider mental twits. If you feel my contempt, well, then guess which category you're calling home.
I think Tess and Alias Cleo would say I've not treated them with
I think Tess and Alias Cleo would say I've not treated them with contempt... hmmm... odd that. Guess which category they don't call home, genius.
"How do you manage to crowd so much hate into a single head?"
Oh spare me your persecution complex, Mr. Martyr. I hardly have time enough to love those I want to love, let alone hate the idiots of the world. You overestimate your influence
Fr. Brian -
Nope, never seen it. However, I would assume the Mr. Brooks' motives for its use are quite different from that of Mark, which is also complemented by his being a member of the oppressed group using the power of the memory against it to help with healing.
As for Google, the first hit I get is the dictionary definition, and the next was from IndyMedia claiming "brownshirt" activity because some conservative was spoofing an online persona. And, hey, you know what, it's just as idiotic to call that "brownshirt" as it is to put stickers on a church sign. God (heh) forbid there ever is something to qualify as brownshirt activity, because you folks will be searching hard for a word to call it after mocking this one.
Andy - let me resort to a quote (which, in your infinite wisdom, you can surely identify) and which I'm sure will warm your heart:
"For I am an asshole. And being an asshole is neither good, not bad. It just is."
You never did notice that I DON'T feel that stickers and Kristallnacht are the same thing. Or that what I resent is the position of [some] people on the 'liberal' side of things which they feel allows them to scream "discriminiation/insensitivity" and then take below the belt potshots at others with impunity. (And that isn't intended to be a reference to you.) The same holds true in both directions - a 'conservative' who tries to silence a gay rights activist with jeering, or a Christian who refuses to let a Muslim speak, both qualify as "repressive" (let's drop the 'Brown' word for the moment.)
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER in all of the writings of yours I've read have you said that you were a) sorry for anything you said to someone, b) said that you could possibly be mistaken, c) said that you could learn from someone else. I'm pretty sure that since I've more or less agreed with you here, you'll simply say "see - told you I was right" and declare a conquest over a "mental twit" / "idiot of the world."
ps - as to dead languages; it's not all that hard to run anything through the internet for translation, but here's some help:
"Long live erection, there will be no resurrection"
Yeah, it's easier to assume things about something you've never seen so that it supports your argument.
BTW, it is a classic movie, one of the funniest around. Of course, one needs a sense of humor....
"You never did notice that I DON'T feel that stickers and Kristallnacht are the same thing..."
Sorry, but since your first comment on this post was one regarding my apparent wish to have you, Ben, Mark, and others liquidated, what was I to think? That you were in agreement with me? If you agreed with me, why would you suggest I want you gone? (Not that I want any of you gone)
However, since you do seem to agree, I'm glad.
"NEVER, NEVER, NEVER in all of the writings of yours I've read have you said that you were a) sorry for anything you said to someone,"
I apologized for calling Mark (as opposed to his blog persona) bitter and little. Does that count?
" b) said that you could possibly be mistaken,"
It's entirely possible.
"c) said that you could learn from someone else."
I learn from people all the time; that's how I went from being a right-wing Catholic to a libertarian-leaning atheist. The more I learn, the more I fine tune my philosophies in positions, whether through agreement or disagreement with others.
"ps - as to dead languages; it's not all that hard to run anything through the internet for translation, but here's some help:"
Sorry, Google had nothing, and I wasn't going to spend the time to plug it in word by word into an online dictionary. Much simpler to ask you, no?
I am starting to understand now -- you'll have to forgive me, but by now you must know that I am awfully slow. Such other usages of the term "brownshirt" are idiotic, too. Such usage doesn't connote that the term might be evolving. No, that would make too much evolutionary sense. Much easier too lapse into the metaphor police mode, which acts like France's Academe, which is always condemning/policing the use of the "foreign" terms in France, and offering lame substitutes rather than acknowledging that language evolves.
The irony is that after several days, you still don't get the connection between your wanting to control the use of the term "brownshirt" with the activists who stickered the sign wanting to control the use of the term "Episcopal."
Fr.
From a review:
"Far from self-deprecating in its Jewish humor, the movie conveys cultural confidence: it is a rebellion against invisibility, the equivalent of dancing on Hitler's grave."
Yes, just like Mark's use of the term brownshirt! Oh wait, nothing at all like it. Give me a break.
"The irony is that after several days, you still don't get the connection between your wanting to control the use of the term "brownshirt" with the activists who stickered the sign wanting to control the use of the term "Episcopal.""
Gosh, by that line of thinking anyone who wants to change anything anywhere against the will of others is a brownshirt. Well, now that's quite a useful terminology we can all make use of!
Are your homilies this cogent and informative?
Boy, quite a leap there. I'm just pointing out that your metaphor policing here has gotten more and more degrading. By the way, I don't support anyone calling you names, or assigning a color to your shirt.
Reading the review isn't the same thing as seeing the movie. My homilies are usually pretty cogent and informative -- of course that might have something to do with the congregation.
Andy,
You know what? I'm actually learning from you - and that's a good thing.
Thanks. And my apologies for taking such an offensive initial position.
That is to say, they don't come to church hostile and ready to pick a fight, such as your entrance into this blog.
Andy teaches lots of things. Whether or not those are the lessons he intends, well, I would not know. It wouldn't seem that would be the case, but Andy could be a troll: one never knows. Just like Andy questioning whether I am actually a priest. I believe this is called ad hominem argument, and it should generally be avoided, as it degrades the argument.
"Andy teaches lots of things. Whether or not those are the lessons he intends, well, I would not know."
And I could very easily say the same for you, Mark, and others. Hugs all around.
"It wouldn't seem that would be the case, but Andy could be a troll: one never knows."
No, a troll would come around just to cause trouble, then bow out after the fireworks begin. I comment liberally on blogs across the spectrum, agree or disagree.
"Just like Andy questioning whether I am actually a priest. I believe this is called ad hominem argument, and it should generally be avoided, as it degrades the argument."
As I said, my experience with several priests has been that their personalities have run quite counter to the one you seem to present here. That was the whole of statement and its only implication.
..it's only implication according to Andy.
See, that's the problem in a nutshell. You want to take your experience at make it normative. E.g., use of the term "brownshirt."
...and make it normative. Sorry. My bad.
"See, that's the problem in a nutshell. You want to take your experience and make it normative."
As opposed to those engaged in a debate that don't? Hmmm, ok - so why are you even debating the issue?
You find it ok to reduce a portion of the horrors of the Holocaust to putting stickers on a church sign and I don't. Settled. Happy?
I think that it is possible to debate something without insisting on being the sole arbiter of what is "idiotic" usage, etc. When presented with other uses of the term, and other uses of Nazi terms and themes, you are blithely dismissive. If it pleases you to be dismissive of the issue in this matter, then go for it, dude. I'm sure you are patrolling the streets of St. Blog's searching for more kafuffles, as you are also engaged in Mark's most recent item on satanic literature in the middle school library. Be sure to turn on the flashing lights and the siren.
Sorry, Fr., but if Mark wants an echo chamber he should post a notice to that effect.
And if he wanted a metaphor policeman, he'd call you 911.
I see, so I (and others) are allowed to disagree with Mark when you think it is appropriate? Well, I'll be sure to file my petitions with you prior to posting any comments here - please ensure they get all the necessary blessings and sign-offs in a timely fashion. God bless.
This is a disagreement about the use of one word, brownshirt. If you want to be a siren about it, and warn of the tremendous insult intended by its use here, go right ahead. Most of us aren't buying it. You've been given other examples of the terms use, and dismiss it out of hand. Whatever. But be prepared to be called on your siren call, and that from here, you look to be policing the blog.
Petitions? What are you talking about? This is about defending one's position. You gave it a try, in the midst of others' vulgarity, lapsing occasionally into the ad hominem [Don't we all? I apologize if you were offended. I don't think I attacked you personally. If I did, I withdraw such statement and ask forgiveness]. Insofar as the term is really being used in other contexts, I'm hardpressed to call this anything more than a kafuffle. If you wish to read into it anti-semitism or the end of respect for the Holocaust, I think you are in a distinct minority. And as far as your claim for being more sensitive than others here, that distinctly has not been borne out in your responses here.
But keep up the comments. We all learn from each other, no?
Wow! You guys are still going at it! Amazing!
Andy, I will take the same care not to offend your sensibilities as you take not to offend mine.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
