Sirkowski Attempts to Present a Philosophical Argument.

Wednesday, 7 March, 2007

First, we need to examine what Sirkowski wrote on Liberal Avenger:

Condi the childless negro dyke

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.


Maybe We Should Be “Liberal Avenger Watch” Instead

Friday, 16 February, 2007

Unethical comment tampering and a cover-up revealed over at The Liberal Avenger:

Patterico’s Pontifications: Liberal Avenger Site Rewrites Comment To Make It Look Like the Commenter Had Sex With His Sister 

Patterico’s Pontifications: Full Screencaps of the Rewritten Liberal Avenger Comment, Together with An Explanation of Why It’s Not Even Close to Funny

Patterico’s Pontifications: More Fallout from Liberal Avenger Comment Modification Non-Scandal

The Y Files: With Avengers Like These..and Reason Magazine

Pandagon: Urgent Online Integrity Alert

Herd Watching: The Liberal Avenger… A Full On Idiot

Sirkowski thinks this is all about him.

Sirkowski’s Comments

Wednesday, 14 February, 2007

Sirkowski has some comments over at Patterico’s Pontifications. I might go over some of them later if I have the time. Examples:

  1. ARGH! HAHAHAHAHAHA! Stop being such Christoretardinbredfaggots and go back to fucking your sisters.Comment by Sirkowski — 2/13/2007 @ 9:23 pm
  2. WOW! You guys found secrets on the Internets? lol I mean, it’s not like the information about who I am and what I do for a living is spread all over the net, right? RIGHT? You guys are like real detectives, you should probably try finding some WMDs or something. You might come up with something else than PR0N!!!!!11111By the way, I was supposed to be banned a few months ago. Still waiting.[We can put your comments in moderation if you like. — P]

    Comment by Sirkowski — 2/14/2007 @ 6:57 am

  3. Starship Titus
    Also check out Sister Wulfia Focka on, it’s good Catholic fun![Links NSFW. — P]Comment by Sirkowski — 2/14/2007 @ 7:05 am
  4. And the funniest part? Sirkowski probably thinks he’s being rational and propper…

    Why would I try to be rational with you guys? Seriously, get over yourselves. Call the Internet police to send a waaaaaahmbulance cuz it’s serious business!

    Dana says:
    or it could even have been you.

    It can’t be me, but try to guess why.

    someguy says:
    Certainly enough to restrain whatever impulses I might have to write sleaze. “Daddy, why did you write that back in 200*?” is a question I want to be able to answer, rather than skulking away from my own family.

    Ok, maybe you guys don’t get it so let me set the sarcasm swith to off for an instant. As far as cartoon porn goes, I’m almost a household name and I’ve talked many times about my job on the Liberal Avenger blog. All my family knows about, no problem there, to the contrary. I’ve even been hired a couple of times to do school books illustrations, no problem there either, lol.

    Jeez, in what sad puritan world do you guys live? You guys are not gonna pull off a Ted Haggard and start masturbating on my pictures in secret, right? I’d feel real dirty…

    not! lol

    I thought conservatives were man’s mans. Not little princesses who tie their panties in a knot like Catholic school girls at the sight of pornography. Oh no! A facial cumshot! Eeeew! Like, totally gross, ‘am gonna tell Jesus!

    What does “NSFW” mean?

    It’s my middle name.

    Comment by Sirkowski — 2/14/2007 @ 1:23 pm

Freedom and Religion

Tuesday, 13 February, 2007

From Miss Dynamite:

“Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion”
Debbie Schlussel, coming from a Jew, someone who should understand religious persecution, that just makes you extra retarded. YOU FAT DUMB BLOND JABBA THE FUCK, WHY DON’T YOU EAT ANOTHER PIE? MAYBE IT’LL STOP YOU FROM SAYING STUPID SHIT LIKE THIS!And that black woman who says “Atheists need to shut up”. Do black people need to shut up? Maybe you should bake some pancakes for Debbie, Aunt Jemima, instead of fucking complaining, right?

What did Ms. Schlussel, a fat Jew as Sirkowski helpfully points out, mean by freedom from religion? What does Sirkowski mean by freedom from religion?

Before we proceed, it should be noted that Sirkowski is Canadian, and that Canada, in its founding documents, notes: “Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law” and,

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication.

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

As an Atheist, does Sirkowski feel unfairly discriminated against because his country was founded on the recognition of the supremacy of God??

The fundamental freedoms, of course, mean that religious people have the same freedoms as the non-religious or members of minority religions (pastafarians too). As the majority of people are religious in Canada, is it necessary that a minority have a veto regarding the behavior of the majority? Is the outward religious practice of the majority of Canadian citizens an unnecessary and onerous burden on the non-religious minority?

In what sense could it be understood that religious activity unfairly burdens the non-religious (or those who practice a different religion)?

In terms of government and religion, where is the line between the government doing something I disagree with and government injuring my rights? I don’t particularly like it when government entities give tax breaks or other handouts to owners of sports teams. I think that it lacks prudence and is wasteful. Everything else equal, I would vote against a politician who advocated such schemes. However, I don’t think that government has no right to engage in such behavior, I don’t think that giving a handout to the owner of a sports franchise injures my rights.

I don’t know if Sirkowski’s racial slur against Ms. Hunter was absolutely necessary. I’m sure, if asked, that he would say that because he’s a liberal, and not actually intolerant, when he says intolerant things it is only to illustrate someone else’s intolerance. In my opinion, that is an odd kind of tortured logic.


Tuesday, 13 February, 2007


Feb 9th at 3:03 am by sirkowskiBill Donohue, Catholic League president.

“Name for me a book publishing company in this country, particularly in New York, which would allow you to publish a book which would tell the truth about the gay death style.” [MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, 2/27/04]

“The gay community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done.” [MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, 4/11/05]

Addressing former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) in a press release, Donohue said: “[W]hy didn’t you just smack the clergyman in the face? After all, most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn’t allow themselves to be molested. So why did you?” [10/4/06]

“I’m saying if a Catholic votes for Kerry because they support him on abortion rights, that is to cooperate in evil.” [MSNBC’s Hardball, 10/21/04]

“We’ve already won. Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not a secret, OK? And I’m not afraid to say it. … Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost.” [MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, 12/8/04]

“Well, look, there are people in Hollywood, not all of them, but there are some people who are nothing more than harlots. They will do anything for the buck. They wouldn’t care. If you asked them to sodomize their own mother in a movie, they would do so, and they would do it with a smile on their face.” [MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, 2/9/06]

“If someone tells me that there’s a statue of Martin Luther King with an erection receiving oral sex, I don’t need to see it.”


I have not come to defend William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Right.  He is no friend of mine, and, frankly, he is something of an embarrassment.  The question that concerns me is the point of Sirkowski’s criticism.  Who does William A. Donohue represent?  Who takes William A. Donohue seriously?

What is it about these statements that Sirkowski find objectionable?  Why?  Does Sirkowski understand, appreciate, or deal with the underlying arguments, the philosophical grounding of William A. Donohue’s position?  Don’t misunderstand me: it is not that William A. Donohue is above criticism, or isn’t wrong in what he says, or that Sirkowski isn’t right in this instance to point out what a colossal ass the man is; it is that Sirkowski provides no evidence of his own coming to terms with the statements made by William A. Donohue.

Sirkowski, of course, as a writer on The Liberal Avenger, preaches to the converted; he is providing a common ground, a touchstone if you will, that like minded individuals can access on a daily basis, giving them comfort that there are other who think like them.  Like the call and response of an evangelical church service, Sirkowski does not need to explain where his criticism lay; Sirkowski does not need to deal with the ideological, philosophical, or value judgments that make his criticism possible.

Sirkowski is also providing an opportunity for readers to feel an emotional response so that they can remember why it is that William A. Donohue, as a representative of the “Conservative Right”, is subject to criticism.  As public opinion research shows, people can’t always explain in intellectual terms the differences between Liberal and Conservatives; most people need a heuristic, like affect, to help them make differentiations.  Conservatives, for people like Sirkowski, are hateful, warmongering, bigoted rubes.  Whether this has anything to do with Conservatives (whatever that means), Republicans, Catholics, or any particular self-identified Conservative is altogether beside the point.

The conceit, of course, is that if you find William A. Donohue’s statements objectionable, then you will then feel good things towards those who oppose him (Liberals), and bad things about those who “support” or are at least associated with his position.  You will feel this affect without having to engage in any intellectual activity, let alone develop a coherent picture of the differences between liberal and conservative ideology.

Sirkowski, Atheism, and Respect

Thursday, 8 February, 2007

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Is Atheism a Religion?

(Note: I am gonna do something that will get me banned from DeviantArt, so I’m cleaning my account and saving some journal posts on my Blog. Think of it as a best of.)

Everytime [sic] I write about religion, there’s always someone who has to come and tell me that atheism is a religion too. Is a void filled with emptiness [sic]? No, it’s not filled with anything, it’s empty you morons! Atheism is the absence of religious belief. How can you have a religion without religious belief? Is simple logic out of your grasp? Sniffed too much glue after school?

I don’t care that these ignorant farts are 12 years old moral relativists who don’t know how to spell, they still need to go fuck themselves.

I don’t mind having an argument [sic] with someone who isn’t a fucking ignorant prick. I can disagree respectfully with someone who’s logic didn’t come out of his rectum. I don’t even mind if people are religious, one of my best friend is a Christian and we never had any arguement [sic] at all about religion. But if your critical thinking skills are so flawed you can’t even make the difference between 1 and 0, fuck respect and fuck you! You deemed fit to waste my time with your ignorant opinion, I’m gonna [sic] have you know how unpleasant it was. Civility has it’s [sic] limits and so does my patience.

Now, if you think this post is aimed at you, no it isn’t. It’s cute that you think I would remember who you are, but you’re not that lucky. This entry isn’t aimed at anyone in particular, it’s aimed at the part of humanity that thinks reality will bent [sic] to their fit their views. But if you take it personnaly [sic] nonetheless and feel inclined to reply, you better read this entry again because you obviously still don’t get it. And after that, if you still don’t get it, try this other journal entry:

First, some definitions: Negative Atheism is an absence of religious beliefs. It is different from agnosticism because it claims that people can know the truth about religious claims. For a negative atheist, there is no persuasive reason to believe in God. On the other hand, Positive Atheism is a claim about the truth of religious beliefs, namely that they are false; there are good reasons to not believe in God. In any case, Atheism is a claim about the nature of the world and the truth-value of other people’s claims about the world. I would suggest that Sirkowski read Michael Martin’s Atheism: A Philosophical Justification.

Two questions:

  1. What are the limits to civility?
  2. What is the nature of religious belief?

By the way, I would suggest that Sirkowski not denigrate those “who don’t know how to spell” when he, in fact, has demonstrable trouble spelling and difficulty with English grammar.

Is Sirkowski Watch Libel?

Thursday, 1 February, 2007

celesprayer II, over at the Miss Dynamite Forum, has accused Sirkowski Watch of libel.

From NOLO:

An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person’s reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media).

The questions we must ask:

  • Are our statements here false?
  • Has Sirkowski’s standing or reputation been injured?

As this is an opinion site, dedicated to critiquing the political writings of Sirkowski, it’s clear that no charge of libel could be brought, just as no movie review, no matter how harsh or insulting, could ever be challenged as libel.  It wouldn’t make sense to make up statements by Sirkowski; what he writes is too hackneyed and forced to pass up.  Sirkowski himself is given to wild statements about the intelligence, predilections, and probable behavior of public figures; shouldn’t turn about be fair play?