Dean, why do you even bother with the fucking trogs?

I don't know, this "Poor Man" person seems to show some signs of being a decent person who can actually be talked to. I'll keep my fingers crossed, anyway.

Dean, I've picked up genuine anti-war stalkers before; so enraged over the fact that I was a "warmonger" (yes, they actually used the term "warmonger"), they couldn't rest until I was slandered into the mud with misquotes and libelous lies. I quit blogging for a while because of it. At this point, I've vowed to completely ignore trolls of every shape and size -- which, unfortunately means ignoring 85% of the Left these days.

And that's me; surely you've had worse experiences. Just let the lifeless little morons play in their urine-drenched sandbox. We have more important things to bother with.

Yeah well I'll tell you, it's funny reviewing that thread. Almost none of it's about the cartoon, really, except what they think it "obviously" means and what I "obviously" meant by it when I posted it and how anything else I might do or say is probably just a lie, yadda yadda. I thought the part about how I supposedly didn't know it was a slap at Indymedia until Cerdip told me was particularly choice.

I dunno, you may be right. Arguing in circles with someone who doesn't want to accept anything you say really is kind of pointless.

It's more of that "right wing racist code" that only leftists understand

Can you explain why the "knife in the back" metaphor attracted you here? Was it just a coincidence that this imagery evokes the Dolchstosslegende?

If so, fair enough, and that seems to be your main argument. But the cartoon you link to is at least ambiguous. Seems to me that the words at upper right are supposed to read "Democrats against Bush."

With all due respect: given the widespread view on the right that this war requires us to demonstrate our unified "will" in order to win, I don't think it's surprising that folks would get upset about apparent invocations of the Dolchstosslegende. It's objectively scary!

Take a look at this classic: "Under Cover: My Four Years in the Nazi Underworld of America -- the Amazing Revelation of How Axis Agents and Our Enemies Within Are Now Plotting to Destroy the United States" by John Roy Carlson (1943)

Can you explain why the "knife in the back" metaphor attracted you here?

Brett, Dean is here because it's his blog.

I have actually met this "Dean" person in person, and I assure you all that he is not quite the idiot he seems to be in his blog.

Please excuse me now -- I had my tongue stuck so far in my cheek that I'll have to have it surgically extracted. (The part about meeting him is true.)

It looks to me like a mock-Socialist 'self-critism' session they're trying to catch you up in, there. Reason won't work, sorry to say.

Brett:

Can you explain why the "knife in the back" metaphor attracted you here?

Okay, first off, can we start with the realization that I am not on trial here? That I don't have to prove what I "really" mean when I say something? That if I say "this is what I mean," you will simply accept that I'm telling the truth?

When looking at those ridiculous threads on those other blogs, one constant held true: I'd say what I thought, and people would basically say, "Nuh uh, you're a liar, you didn't mean that, what you really meant was THIS!" How the fuck am I supposed to even respond to that?

Really, if we can't start with the basic "okay, I believe you mean what you say," then what's the point of the this conversation?

So now, ASSUMING you will simply take my word that I mean what I say what I mean, I'll answer your other questions:

Was it just a coincidence that this imagery evokes the Dolchstosslegende?

Despite the fact that I am well-versed in Nazi history--and I know a good bit more about it than most people--I was not aware of the historical parallel.

When asked about it, Cerdip, the actual author of the cartoon, said he wasn't aware of it.

Is that good enough for you, or do you figure Cerdip and I are both just liars?

If so, fair enough, and that seems to be your main argument. But the cartoon you link to is at least ambiguous. Seems to me that the words at upper right are supposed to read "Democrats against Bush."

It's a cut off sign with the a peace symbol and the words "democr" "again" "bush" "hitle" "no" and "wa." It also includes, quite prominently, the Indymedia graphic. Indeed, the Indymedia graphic is much bigger and more prominent than the sign.

I would say that there is clearly a subtle dig there at the more extreme elements of the Democratic Party. The kind who equate Bush to Hitler, the kind who suggest that our troops are terrorists or akin to Nazis. And there are, very sadly, some elements in the Democratic Party who take such attitudes. Are they worse than the worst elements of the Republicans? No, but they're not the ones under discussion here. Neither I nor the cartoonist should be expected that every piece of social criticism--which is all this is--should be "balanced."

There are some vile, hateful, despicable elements in the anti-war left. Do you deny this?

With all due respect: given the widespread view on the right that this war requires us to demonstrate our unified "will" in order to win, I don't think it's surprising that folks would get upset about apparent invocations of the Dolchstosslegende. It's objectively scary!

If it were objectively scary then we'd all be afraid, and from what I can see, we all aren't. And I frnakly don't see any widespread effort to require anything like what you're suggesting.

I do see people--and I am one of them--who think that if you are truly a patriot, then even when there's a war you disagree with, you do not compare our troops to Nazis or terrorists, you do not call the Commander In Chief Hitler, or even accuse him of lying when he may just be doing something you disagree with or may simply have been wrong about. You support the troops and you hope for the best, as any good patriot would.

If that attitude--that belief that you ought to treat your fellow citizens who are on the line fighting a war that Congress authorized--strikes you as akin to Nazism, then you have a very warped perespective, in my view.

But you think what you want. I wouldn't dream of requiring you to do anything. I'll just think that if you compare our troops to Nazis, and our CiC to Hitler, that you're a backstabbing, unpatriotic butthead.

Am I allowed to think that without being a Nazi myself?

Your assumption is correct, for what it's worth! Thanks for the reply. I agree with most of what you write, save three points:

1) the dig in the cartoon is not subtle.

2) the view that we need a unified "will" to win the war on terrorism is a mainstay of Republican rhetoric, both within the party and without. Check out Tom Delay's press releases, or the op-ed pages of the Washington Times, or anything written by Victor Davis Hanson. It's a scary view, because it means that anyone who criticizes the president (as long as he's Republican, I'll bet) can be accused of stabbing soldiers in the back and of causing the death of American civilians. Aside from the fact that the argument is weak on the causal front, it also is an excuse for shouting down dissenting views. I realize that it's also an article of faith on the right that dissent is not being attacked right now (after all, we've got a "liberal media"), but that faith is mistaken in my view.

) Accusing the president of lying is a mainstay of wartime opposition rhetoric, and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not one is patriotic. Check out Lincoln's speeches on the Mexican War, for example.

Dean -- dude, at least they spelled your name right.