Argumentation From Hatred

It generally doesn't surprise me to read the shrillness in many parts of the blogosphere, but occasionally I read something that truly boggles the mind. Sequence of events:

1) Rumors sprout that Kos might be gay.
2) Glenn Reynolds defends Kos.
3) Some Kos supporters vilify Reynolds.

The comment thread is simply amazing. It's mass delusion on a grand scale. When someone vilifies another for something sincere and just, I can only conclude that he's no longer dealing with facts, but rather arguing from hatred. It comes from the dark side of human nature.

Share this

Perhaps I could sketch out a

Perhaps I could sketch out a reason, other than hatred, for an at least Reynolds-skeptic (if not Reynolds-phobic) reaction to this story.

1. He blithely mentions that some commenters are saying that Kos is gay, but doesn't link to any examples of such comments. This could be because he doesn't want to dignify the comments but if so, why mention them at all.

2. He gets to appear like a reasonable guy condemning the rumour he is nonetheless helping to propagate

3. It's not like it's the first time he has adopted a weaselly "I don't believe this but other people are saying this" type of argument - I seem to remember his "coy" attitude to outsourcing. It was clear that he had a major problem with outsourcing but didn't want to fall out with his more economically literate peers by adopting a firm stand against it.

The comment thread is simply

The comment thread is simply amazing. It's mass delusion on a grand scale.

Maybe you skipped over the part of the comment thread where nearly every regular commenter thought that LB's post had misinterpreted Reynolds. Or is that the mass delusion on a grand scale of which you speak?

Frank, While Reynolds may

Frank,
While Reynolds may have been against "outsourcing", he's certainly not anti-gay and would have little reason to think that "gay = bad". He has plugged Kos's book several times. He's not out to ruin Kos's reputation. The simplest explanation to me is that Reynolds was trying to defend Kos.

Maybe you skipped over the

Maybe you skipped over the part of the comment thread where nearly every regular commenter thought that LB’s post had misinterpreted Reynolds. Or is that the mass delusion on a grand scale of which you speak?

I don't visit that blog often, so I couldn't tell you which commenters are regulars, but the vast majority support Lizardbreath's interpretation. The number that don't can be counted on one hand as evidenced by comments such as "I know there are many, many reasons to be irritated by Glenn Reynolds, but I'm on the ogged/idealist/tim/b/etc. side." Yes, it seems like mass delusion to me: get enough wingnuts together and they'll convince each other of pretty much anything.

Johnathan, the number who

Johnathan, the number who agreed could be counted on one hand. The vast majority of the thread is clowning.

I’m on the ogged/idealist/tim/b/etc. side

Including the person making the comment, that's one hand already.

He blithely mentions that

He blithely mentions that some commenters are saying that Kos is gay, but doesn’t link to any examples of such comments. This could be because he doesn’t want to dignify the comments but if so, why mention them at all.

Because he wants to respond. Glenn frequently responds to things on other blogs. His response is entirely dismissive: "So try to keep things at something better than a seventh-grade level."

he’s certainly not

he’s certainly not anti-gay and would have little reason to think that “gay = bad".

I don't think you'd need to be anti-gay to adopt the "X is gay" pseudo-slur against someone who was a political opponent. The whole point about this type of pseudo-slur is that it's hard to counter without coming across as a bigot or by omission confirming the story. My reference to outsourcing was intended not to compare his view of outsourcing to "gayness" as such* but rather to illustrate his MO - given his past record in disingenuousness, a little skepticism might be warranted when he proffers another "Not that I agree with this but People are saying X". Particularly when you can't quite find any people actually saying X.

*The comparison would be between his views on outsourcing and his views on the propriety of spreading a rumour about someone, book endorsements notwithstanding, who represents a similarly shrill and partisan but opposing wing of the blogosphere.

get enough wingnuts

get enough wingnuts together

We're mostly moonbats, actually.

I think wingnut is a left

I think wingnut is a left epithet for rightists. Moonbat is, as apostropher points out, the equivalent opposite epithet.

Wingnuts and Moonbats? "We

Wingnuts and Moonbats? "We have to get these two together Ray"

Double reverse outing is so

Double reverse outing is so gay!
I'm having some trouble understanding something. When I was a kid, it was a smear to say that someone was gay. That's because homosexuality tended to be frowned upon, and even if you didn't care about someone's sexuality, unless you...

I believe any rumors you may

I believe any rumors you may have heard that Glenn Reynolds is gay are unfounded. Please refrain from spreading such rumors until you have credible evidence that Reynolds is a practising homosexual.