Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Hypocrisies Among Our "Moderate" Friends

As I recall, it was George F. Will who once wrote that one should hold onto one's wallet whenever approached by a group representing itself as "concerned" about one thing or another. 'Course, as I also recall, this was in the days before Concerned Women for America, so perhaps that group is the exception that proves the rule.

Here is Young's Corollary: Beware anyone who makes pretensions to "civility."

Recently, some commenters --- safely cowering in anonymity/pseudonymity --- to our friends over at NoVA Squishes ... er, "Too Conservative," have taken to launching attacks upon me. I suppose I should be used to it, but the boys over at the now-quiescent Not Jack Herrity have dubbed me "Thin Skin," for what that's worth.

Of course, both Chad Dotson at Commonwealth Conservative and Shaun Kenney at his eponymous blog have recently discussed the behavior of the cowering types and the evils of their practices. But it seems that those commenting at NoVA Squishes ... er, "Too Conservative" have elevated the hypocrisies to an art form. And just to be clear, these comments are not directed at those running the site.

One of the more popular cuts against me apparently is that I'm "mean," or "vulgar." I suppose belittlement to any extent is acceptable, just as long as one refrains from identifying an idiot as an idiot.

For example, there's Krissie Kjome Nohe, who apparently doesn't like belittling. That is, of course, unless it's the right target: me. She said at TC that:
Krissy is with a Y not an IE. And I stopped using it in Middle School. But, as your name calling ways show, your maturity seems to be stuck at about the 7th grade, I will let you, and you alone, continue to use it.
But here is what Krissie later says to me: " J. Willie Young - Only if you use the 'Y.'"

Then there's Anke Cheney (posting as "awcheney"), who posted this little slander: "Kris, there's truly no point in assuming this person to be a gentleman...he's never given any indication of it before." 'Course, this was the same Anke Cheney who managed Harry Parrish's primary reelection campaign against Steve Chapman, engaging in a campaign of dirty tricks, but quoted in the newspapers as stating that "the campaign had absolutely nothing to do with the charges against Chapman" and immediately proceeding to affirm that the campaign had "report[ed] them when they came to our attention." And this was the same "lady" who inundated my mail box a few months back with missives using phrases like "pissing matches," and calls me and my "allies" (whoever they are) "fanatics," "extremists," and "right-wing radicals."

I'm not frequently given to quoting Scripture --- my degree is in law, not theology --- but I do seem to recall something to the effect that, before thou removest the mote from thy neighbor's eye, though shouldst remove the boulder from thine own.

All too frequently, people appeal to purportedly "objective" standards as a point of attack against those who disagree with them. But they are objective standards that they are perfectly willing to abandon when it serves their personal ends.

18 comments:

Shaun Kenney said...

You're dead on, James.

I hope certain individuals can read this and reflect on this. However, political discussion being a study in projection rather than intelligent debate, I doubt anyone with their dander up is going to treat this with the respect is should deserve.

...save Mr. Too Conservative himself, who should. He's genuinely got too good a blog to let it get hijacked by others.

Kris Nohe said...

Jim, I would point you to Matthew 7:12, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Or you could state it more simply as the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This Jim is the Ethics of Reciprocity. On this subject Wikipedia states, "The ethic of reciprocity should not be confused with tit for tat, revenge, an eye for an eye, retributive justice or the law of retaliation. The ethic of reciprocity is not about retaliation; it is about treating others with the same respect and consideration as one wishes to be treated. A key element of the ethic of reciprocity is that a person attempting to live by this rule treats all people, not just members of his or her in-group, with consideration." To put it in plan Dr. Phil language, "You teach people how to treat you." You call me Krissy and so I called you Willie, because I was affording you the same level of respect that you afford me. But I shall attempt to rise above and therefore you can see that I have called you by the name you call yourself, Jim. If you cannot afford me the same respect, then sir, it is you and not me who is the hypocrite.

I will leave you with one last thought from the philosopher Epictetus, ""What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others."

James Young said...

Kris, I yield to your superior knowledge of Scripture, or search engine. As for your "attempt to rise above and therefore you can see that I have called you by the name you call yourself," your tardy efforts are noted in light of your prior actions which illustrate your preferred mode of behavior.

As for your other comments, the worst (only?) thing I ever said about you was that you were incompetent, or more accurately, that you incompetently handled matters entrusted to you without seeking the aid of individuals (I have previously identified three, one of whom was myself) who might have, and would have gladly, helped you in completing your task, coupling incompetence with arrogance, a truly dangerous combination. Sadly, recalling the story of the farmer, the mule, and the 2x4, sometimes first, you have to get their attention.

And once again, you quote Dr. Phil's dime-store psychology. Another reason I'm glad Mrs. Young works outside the home.

Tom James (aka Brave Hart) said...

Well, Mr. Young you certainly do have impressive credentials.

I certainly hope I have found the person who can answer my many questions about Gov't, and society!

I replied to your comment over at Shauns site. And am anxiously awaiting your reply. If it's good maybe I'll hire you for my conflict with Hanover County on these issues!

I've been through 3 attorneys so far.

NOVA Scout said...

To some of our sensibilities, James, you do cross into the vulgar and coarse ("pissboys" is quite juvenile and unnecessary, for example). That some of us think so and say so is part of the fairly public and visible nature of exchanges on these blogs. Many of the things and people you complain of were reactions to comments from you that fall from the sky in a thread and instantly change the atmospherics to ones of personal animus, rather than the discussion of an issue. You have some choices. You can modify your behavior, or you can expect people to find it out-of-phase with the discussion of issues that some of us like to have. You probably should not expect people to not push back against you or to refrain from remarking on some of your more boorish outings. You are capable of substantive contribution, adn sometimes achieve that. But you also seem to fancy yourself to hold the keys to the kingdom on conservative orthodoxy and bring a great deal of apparent anger to many of your comments. In general I sense that others are more gentle with you than you are in return, but sometimes folks just get tired of it and say so. There was a time when I thought you were a Pastor John-type spoof. I now know that not to be the case. But pity all of us when we miss something valuable you might offer becasue we've seen too much of the low-level reaction. It brings almost everyone down and often collapses a thread into schoolyard taunts from all sides. Obviously everyone can do better, but I sense that you think you're free and clear in all of this.

Your friend,

NOVA Scout
(from an undisclosed cowering safe-house in Northern Virginia)

Willis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
James Young said...

Tom: Thanks. They are what they are.

nova scout: Well, darn! You take offense. Your "sensibilities" are bruised. As for me, I prefer people who think, rather than people who feel, their way to political decisionmaking. I don't abide reflexive myrmidons in any context, whether they be for Bill Clinton, Chairman Sean, or for the sainted GWB (another humorous reference; get it?). I've been active in politics in PWC long enough to see "pissboys" (which, like "FemiNazis," are really rather rare). Furthermore, it's difficult to understand why those who cower in anonymity/pseudonymity should take offense, since their name is not attached. It's a cultural reference, as I have explained before, so get a sense of humor. "Vulgar," "coarse," "juvenile," "unnecessary." Well, I'll make my own judgements as to what is necessary. As to the former, I fail to understand how that is anything less of a personal attack than your characterization of my comments, thus proving my point.

As for "whining," willis, I'll refer you to the aforementioned post by nova scout.

I make no pretensions in the rough and tumble of political discourse. It is wholly appropriate to document the hypocrisies of those who do, and attempt to marginalize anyone who dares call them out on their pretensions and standards of convenience.

Willis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
James Young said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
James Young said...

Perhaps, Willis. But I work very hard to avoid applying to others standards that I abandon myself, when convenient.

Willis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
James Young said...

I give you credit, nova scout; your post demonstrates my oft-repeated point about taking much more time to respond to BS than the naked, BS assertions themselves consume. Yet you display so many of the characteristics that you purport to condemn, I wonder whether --- in a Pastor-John-type spoof --- you are a parody attempting to demonstrate with slapstick the irrationality and hypocrisy of those you purport to support. Of course, that you would confess that "There was a time when I thought you were a Pastor John-type spoof" demonstrates either unremitting arrogance, and/or utter ignorance of Republican goings-on in Northern Virginia over the last decade or so.

Take, for instance, your comment that I "seem to fancy yourself to hold the keys to the kingdom on conservative orthodoxy and bring a great deal of apparent anger to many of your comments." Hiding in anonymity, you accuse me of arrogance, or its functional equivalent, and dismiss my comments as motivated by anger.

Your accusations are, of course, absurd. I have never presumed to be such, any more than any other poster on any other webpage sets himself up as an authority. I make judgments only for myself, and attempt to apply objective standards, and would not presume the arrogance which you so regularly display in your little rants and attacks. You, of course, set yourself up here as some sort of authority on me, yet your broad aspersions lack -- as usual -- the support of any facts whatsoever, whereas any criticisms I render --- take, for instance, my complaints that Chairman Sean's campaign for Lt. Gov. was dishonest insofar as he claimed to have "lowered taxes," even though he did no such thing --- are specific, and tend to eschew the label-making of which you accuse me. You make pretense of disliking personal attacks --- purportedly made by me --- while having no apparent compunction about launching them against me.

It is also bold talk for an "authority" who seems never to have met me, or is fearful of retribution, and so refuses to reveal himself. But it is your accusations which render you one who "seems to fancy" himself to hold the keys to the kingdom of legitimate discourse, and adjudicator of "anger," or whatever other belittling aspersion you wish to cast in order to avoid the heavy lifting of actually justifying your self-serving assertions and broad brushstrokes. Anger? While anger might be justified in response to the arrogance so regularly demonstrated by the likes of you, i.e., one who, so far as we know, is displaying an arrogance utterly unjustified by your record/ achievements, it is not anger.

Disgust? Certainly. Contempt? Absolutely. To paraphrase Peggy Noonan, I am not angry with you. I hold you and those with similar pretensions in contempt. There's a difference.

Willis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
James Young said...

Wow! A 21-year-old whose website links to Democratic Underground asserts that I have anger issues and that I should see a pshrink.

Priceless!

Willis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
James Young said...

Willis, you are a child. Only grown-ups here.

Willis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Willis said...

Deleting my comments now??? Shame on you!

An objective reader of this blog would see clearly that you have done exactly what you criticized others for doing.

That makes you, sir, a hypocrite.

Go ahead, delete this one too.