First, we need to examine what Sirkowski wrote on Liberal Avenger:
January 12th, 2007 by sirkowskiThe stuff that inhabits the Little Green Fucktards [sic] (I don’t link to these assholes) is twisting its collective panties like a Catholic school girl over comments made by Barbara Boxer to Condi Rice.
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go – attacking Secre tary [sic] of State Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman.
“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.”
Then, to Rice: “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”
Wingnuts, let me explain to you how your outrage is ridiculous with three simple words:
Penis! Penis! Penis!
UPDATE: Since our wingnuts seem too stupid to understand this post, here’s an explanation.
Wingnut: Man I hate niggers!
Me: Shutup [sic] faggot!
Wingnut: GASP! How intolerant, *SOB*
Still don’t get it yet? Still think I’m the intolerant one here? That’s because you can’t even begin to grasp the concept that is intolerance. To you it’s the truth that is intolerable. Mentionning [sic] the existence of racism, be it in an academic way or in the form of satire appears as intolerance to you. Seriously, you wingnuts keep telling us that homosexuality is bad and that black people are lazy (and can’t swim). It’s ok [sic] to say that homosexuality is a sin, but don’t call Condi a dyke. It’s ok [sic] to be racist, but please be a polite bigot, you don’t want to scare the moderates and show them your true face. This is political correctness as its best.
Next, we need to examine Sirkowski’s argument. What, exactly, was he tyring to convey? I think that it would be wise to forgive some lack of clarity on Sirkowsi’s part; English is not his first language and he often struggles presenting sentences that are gramatically correct.
First, Sirkowski’s tendency to delete comments belies his argument to value “tolerance”. I think that he forgets that he has demarcated between what is tolerable and intolerable without presenting a coherent argument as to what goes in which category. Otherwise quite reasonable attempts to engage him in discussion or to get him to further clarify his arguments are regarded as trolling. Sirkowski always believes that,
- What he writes is always clear and should be self-evident to any half-way intelligent reader
- Lack of understanding, whether real or feigned, is indistinguishable from trolling, and thus out of bounds
- Sirkowski never needs to offer further proof or elucidation
- What he disagrees with is by definition intolerable, mendacious, and/or the result of stupidity or insanity
Second, Sirkowski seems to be arguing that in a humorous or satirical presentation, that is any sort of character assassination presents against someone he disagrees with, is by definition tolerable. This may be true enough for the choir, but for those of us who remain unconverted the rhetorical strength of his argument is undercut by his own repeated examples of hypocrisy. Sirkowski hates being made fun of and will delete comments that seek to do just that. He is not able to give as good as he gets, he has remarkably thin skin, and will delete any comment that frustrates him in any way. Sirkowski mixes thin skin with an often humorous misunderstanding of certain basic philosophical theories or political facts.
One should note that while Sirkowski does not link to Little Green Footballs, he isn’t, after all, the one who is intolerant.