The Washington Times reported on Karl Rove's speech yesterday on the political discourse on the Left:
Karl Rove teed off this afternoon on the liberal netroots, the coalition of far-left blogs and advocacy groups who are a new power bloc in the Democratic party.In response, Karl Rove got cussed out by the nutroots.
"The Web has given angry and vitriolic people more of a voice in public discourse," said Mr. Rove, who served as one of President Bush's top strategists until he resigned this past summer, and is a noted technology nut.
"People in the past who have been on the nutty fringe of political life, who were more or less voiceless, have now been given an inexpensive and easily accessible soapbox, a blog," Mr. Rove said during a speech about politics and the Web at the Willard InterContinental, a hotel just blocks from his former place of employment.
"I'm a fan of many blogs. I visit them frequently and I learn a lot from them," Mr. Rove said. "But there also blogs written by angry kooks."
Mr. Rove cited the results of a study that found that writers and commenters on liberal blogs such as DailyKos.com cursed far more than writers and commenters on conservative Web sites such as FreeRepublic.com.
"My point is not that liberals swear publicly more often than conservatives. That may be true, but that's not my point," Mr. Rove said. "It is that the netroots often argue from anger rather than reason, and too often, their object is personal release, not political persuasion."
The commenters at Think Progress and Atrios proved Rove right.
Here's a fine example:
"F*ck the f*cking f*ckers."
(asterisks mine)
This is what happened when the students at News Buckit compared nutroots profanity with profanity on the right:
And this is what I found, using what I deemed -- through a mix of TTLB and 2006's Weblog Award lists -- to be the 18 biggest Lefty blogs, and 22 biggest Righty blogs. (Not counting this one. :)) I couldn't account for the 6-month time period, and I even gave the Lefty blogs a 4 blog advantage. But it didn't make much of a difference.Here are the data tables.
So how much more does the Left use Carlin's "seven words" versus the Right?
According to my calculations, try somewhere in the range of 18-to-1.
First a look at nutroot's profanity:
Click to Enlarge
Then a look at profanity on the right:
Click to Enlarge
Again- feel free to go to The NewsBuckit to get the complete results.
Rove was right on with this one... The next time you hear a nutty Lefty blogger compare the profanity or hate speech on the two sides of the blogosphere, just remember... 18 to 1!!
UPDATE: Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters has more on the nutroot's community.
++
ReplyDelete[So how much more does the Left use Carlin's "seven words" versus the Right?]
YES, I'M A BAD AMERICAN
by: George Carlin
I Am Your Worst Nightmare.
I am a BAD American.
I am George Carlin.
I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some mid level governmental functionary be it Democratic or Republican!
I'm in touch with my feelings and I like it that way!
I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything.
I believe that i f you are selling
me a Big Mac, do it in English.
I believe everyone has a right to pray to his
or her God when and where they want to.
My heroes are John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy
Rogers, and whoever canceled Jerry Springer.
I don't hate the rich.
I don't pity the poor.
I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste
my time watching or arguing about it.
I've never owned a slave, or was a slave,
and neither have you! So, shut up already.
I believe if you don't like the way things are here, go back to where you came from and change your own country!?? This is AMERICA!
I want to know which church is it exactly where the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton preach, where they get their money, and why they are always part of the problem and not the solution.?? Can I get an AMEN on that one?
I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry ass if you're running from them..
I also think they have the right to pull you over if you're breaking the law, regardless of what color you are.
And, no, I don't mind having my face shown on my drivers license. I think it's good.. and I'm proud that 'God' is written on my money.
I think if you are too stupid and need a translator to know how a ballot works, I don't want you deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years.
I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell me stuff or trying to guilt me into making 'donations' to their cause.
I believe that it doesn't take a village
to raise a child, it takes two parents.
And what is going on with gas prices... again?
I believe 'illegal' is illegal no
matter what the lawyers think.
I believe the American flag should
be the only one allowed in AMERICA!
If this makes me a BAD American,
then yes, I'm a BAD American.
==
Wow! What a can of worms! I am probably what many would consider "prudish" because I don't swear.
ReplyDeleteSo when one speaks of double talk the exists here, not while I visit.
Quite a place filled with the bad news(lies etc..such a fauxtography scandal) and the homosexual tendencies prevalent in the Middle East, and even the hate of cults towards our fallen heroes...but I cannot recall foul from Gateway.
Kind of similar to the Bible...tells all the nitty gritty without holding back, and is a Light.
Thanks again for the light in the world filled with so many LOUD mouthed foul people.
Just my 2 cents.
Many times too, the first comment one finds with major profanity on a conservative site, it is coming from a lefty type who seems to not be able to make a point, but compensates with crudity.
ReplyDeleteNot that many conservative never swear. It just seems that, where as most of the rights come in Comments, the left's come in Posts. Many Times on "Major" leftwing blogs (in the minds of the blogger anyhow)
The kindergartners(sp?) on the left just seem incapable of acknowledging a fact. Their response is always, "you're worse," or "everybody does it." Why can't you lefties just admit that you like to curse, you see nothing wrong with it.....oops, you DO see it's wrong, or your protestations wouldn't be so vehement. Please, lefties, come to terms with your own guilt, and save us from your disfunctional theater.
ReplyDeleteI can think of a couple of blogs on the extreme left that would totally melt down their bile meter they were using that are not on the charts.
ReplyDelete@meatbrain
ReplyDelete18 to 1.
Yes, there's still 1.
Against 18.
"Gotta love that Hoft Hypocrisy"
ReplyDeleteI think the point was not that conservatives do not curse but that they resort to profanity with less frequency.
I bet you could have done better then just 5 examples in 2 years. Doesn't really put Gateway in the running, does it?
TaSS
I think you have to take these statistics a bit further to see the whole deal. Blogs like Michelle Malkin's very rarely show an original post containing "profanity." I'd wager 99.9% of these words are cut and paste examples pulled off a Liberal site to show hypocrisy, unhinged rant, or poor reasoning.
ReplyDelete"I think the point was not that conservatives do not curse but that they resort to profanity with less frequency."
ReplyDeleteAnd there is no reliable evidence for this claim. The News Buckit "survey" is fraught with flaws, as has been pointed out before. The search doesn't account for multiple pages containing the same content (printable pages, mobile versions, archive pages, RSS feeds); it fails to take into account the relative sizes of the sites in question; and it fails to distinguish between actual content and comment spam (some of which has contributed to the count of profanity on this blog).
Put simply, the News Buckit "survey" is entirely meaningless. Hoft will therefore, of course, continue to flog it over and over and over again. It's so much easier, you see, to repeat crap surveys than it is to talk about things that actually matter.
Oh, and BG... that piece wasn't written by George Carlin. The idea that you might check the provenance of the horsecrap you cut'n'paste apparently has never crossed whatever it is you use for a mind...
bj, according to Snopes, George Carlin never said that comment.
ReplyDeleteThat begs the question--is there a Snopes for Snopes?
bg, Nice prose except it was not written by George Carlin.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/carlin.asp
Is anyone shocked when the pathetic meatbrain quotes a known known liar like Suskind?
ReplyDeleteThen again its been noted before that libtards and liars win Pulitzers
Carlin didn't write that:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/carlin.asp
@bg: Carlin didn't write that. Urban legend. I like it, but for future reference, it sort of detracts from the message(s) when you hand over a reason to have an unrelated argument about it like that.
ReplyDeleteRegarding George Carlin's "Yes, I'm a Bad American", it's a fake.
ReplyDeleteSaying F**k or encoding it is not cursing. That consists exclusively of violating the ten commandments. Yes, it's the third for those of you who cut Sunday School.
ReplyDeleteIs anyone shocked when juandos accuses Ron Suskind of being a liar, and cites an article that contains no evidence whatsoever that Suskind has lied? The author of that piece even states outright: "I don't know if Suskind pads his prose or not".
ReplyDeleteNice try, juandos. All you've proven -- once again -- is that you cannot comprehend what you "read".
++
ReplyDeletere: George Carlin
i kind of thought it was an urban legend (has no curses in it), but didn't care..
so just change the title to I am a Bad Republican & discount the author (who curses like any good liberal does lol)..
==
So KR calls the Lefty Netnuts a bunch of potty mouths and one of them responds by using the "F" word as noun, a verb and an adjective, all in one sentence.
ReplyDeleteWow, talk about taking the bait and swallowing the hook.
And, mind you, this is one of those very people who frequently tell how much more intelligent, honest, ethical and sensitive they are than the rest of us.
Sad. Pathetic. Typical.
This is bunk. MyDD is pretty clean, it's the bots that spam such crap.
ReplyDeleteThis is worthless research.
Besides the obvious hypocrisy of Mr. "We will fuck him like he's never been fucked before" Rove lecturing anybody on manners, we should recognize that in an unintentional way Rove is doing the left a favor: reminding the great mass of middle America that activists of the left blogosphere talk like them. Do you think Joe Sixpack goes into a bar wondering why his son is on his 3rd extended tour in Iraq while he can't afford to take his wife to the doctor, and talks about the relative merits of Ludwig von Mises over John Maynard Keynes? No! He tosses one back and says "Fuck George W Bush and his whole fucking, debauched, treasonous, lying family!"
ReplyDeleteThe more we remind middle America that the people in charge of the Republican party and this administration are NOT LIKE THEM, the better we will be in 2008 and beyond.
Is anyone shocked when meatbrain taking apparent pride in his inability to read or do his own homework persists with his delusional take on Suskind?
ReplyDeleteThanks meatbrain for again proving why libtards can't be believed for any reason...
Nice of Rheinhard to remind us of the clueless, the abysmally ignorant, and the helpless who need big government to cover their inability to take responsibility for their own lives...
ReplyDeleteMaybe if Joe Sixpack spent that money on health insurance instead of at the bar the wife could afford to see a doctor...
So is Rheinhard, meatbrain and Joe Sixpack part and parcel of the party of the Seditious & Sleazy?
Seems so...
Rheinhard said..."The more we remind middle America that the people in charge of the Republican party and this administration are NOT LIKE THEM, the better we will be in 2008 and beyond."
ReplyDeleteAnd any of the leadership in the DNC is anywhere close to being like me?
The moneymen behind the party are more like me? Soros is like me?
Buffet is like me?
DEAN?EDWARDS?HILLARY???wake up.
The republicans are closer to the people than the Dems. Tha'ts why, every time they float left they lose. When they go back to Basics, they win handily.
Ron Suskind is the Michael Moore of authors
ReplyDeleteSuskind's journalistic accumen
Suskind's inability to understand relics
This study fails to mention the relative sizes of the left and right, along with the number of comments/commenters. I bet there's a lot more swearing in China than in Monaco too.
ReplyDeleteAnd much of the swearing that occurs on the Right blogs is from left-wing commentors, whereas very few of the right-wing commentors on left-wing blogs resort to profanity. That is NOT factored into the study.
ReplyDeleteI am not a prude; I spent 8 years working at an industrial site, can swear with the best of them, and certainly am not shocked by the swearing of other. What I have noticed, thought, is that swearing kicks in about the time the logic and reason circuits cut out. When one is reduced to swearing, generally all the rational the writer might have had has been expended. And it sure seems liberals reach that point a lot faster than conservatives.
My suggestion is that everyone communicate as if the person they are in discsussion with or about is sitting the your room in a face-to-face, one-on-one dialog. And- with that visualization in mind- it would be useful for the Left to note that it is generally those on the Right who are believer- and often legal participants in the rights given by the 2nd amendment.
To visualize that one-on-one discussion would increase the effectiveness of the Left's arguements and certainly make them less petulant, unimaginative, and repetitive.
Meatbrain
ReplyDeleteOh, yes. Thanks for that. Those extra dozen are going to make a difference against nearly 400,000
The key is to understand why Rove made such a comment. He understood that any critique he made along these lines would set off the very kind of commentary that would prove his point.
ReplyDeleteThe Left is the Gift that Keeps on Giving for Karl.
It is as paranoid and as suspicious as he makes it out to be, and their reaction is a gift.
it would be useful for the Left to note that it is generally those on the Right who are believer- and often legal participants in the rights given by the 2nd amendment.
ReplyDeleteAh the esteemed civility so prized by our noble and rational friends on the right: "if we don't like what you say, we won't use naughty words, we'll just shoot you."
I am humbled by such ineluctable reasoning.
As someone pointed out, size wasn't factored into the study so it's not very meaningful. DailyKos gets, what, hundreds of comments on each of 10+ articles a day? That's definitely going to sway the numbers. What the pollsters need to do is go back through the numbers and take swearing "per capita", so to speak.
ReplyDeleteI suspect the purpose of the foul language of left-wing bloggers is to prevent right-wing bloggers from quoting them.
ReplyDeleteNot at all, Reinhard; it's just an image. However, if you are having a conversation with a police officer in uniform on the street, what are the odds that you would ever use the language found on most left-wing comments? What are the odds of even using such language face-to-face, one-on-one with anyone? I would say the odds of the latter- while not good- would not be as nearly as good as the former.
ReplyDeleteI've been out in the world (Africa) where many non-uniformed types walk about the street armed. Trust me, it does add to the politeness of conversation.
That's kind of a cool search idea. I did it on my own blog and after removing the word "hell" because it was typically used in it's proper way, I got two hits, both from commenters. Cool! Like a frequent commenter told me, I run a PG-13 site. And I'm proud of it, too.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Gateway, check out the last comment on my "Raising the level of political discourse" post.
:-)
Ah I see Mike, so the next time I am at an Iraq War protest and a screaming wingnut counter-protestor screams out that I am a g*ddam Murika-hatin faggit (which has happened), it would perfectly fine to remind him that he should be more civil with me because I own a gun (which I don't but let's pretend for the sake of argument)? And you expect me to believe that such a reminder wouldn't be posted all over the wingnut blogosphere as proof that evil librul traitors were THREATENING VIOLENCE against patriotic war supporters?
ReplyDeleteUpon further reflection, I see that there is one other very serious flaw in Mike's "police officer conversation" analogy. I am like to be more deferential to the police officer NOT because he has a gun, but because he has legal authority over me. An authority granted by the state (and, implicit in our democracy, my consent as "one of the governed"), but subject to regulation and punishment if it is abused (arresting me without cause, etc.) A similar situation obtains, for example, with others in positions of authority over me, such as my boss in work for example.
ReplyDeleteNow, for the time being at least, we still have freedom of the press and speech in this country. Perhaps you feel there ought to be state control on exactly to what extent we are allowed to criticize our government. Or perhaps that the bloggers on your side of the political fence should have some authority over those on mine. But until that happens, I feel no requirement whatosever to be deferential to those whom I genuinely feel are participants in some of the worst abuses of that power "granted by the consent of the governed" in my lifetime.
The analogy I tend to make is this: Whom would you rather associate with? (A) A fellow who argues in the most lucid tones, with lovely polysyllabic turns of phrase and appeals to philosphers from Aristotle to Nietzsche, that the health of the nation and our body politic could be so much improved if we could only manage to get the untermensch on the trains and shipped east, or (B) an angry and crude firebrand whose philosophy is summarized as "Nazi punks fuck off"?
I know I'd pick option B. The right blogosphere and the laughably hypocrtical Mr. Rove (who was behind smear campaigns that Ann Richards was a lesbian and John McCain had a nigger baby) seem to feel that A would be the preferable choice; that it matters not what you're saying, only that you say it with nice words.
So now your argument is that you are entitled to use profanity?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, if you want.
Private blogs can censor depending upon their sensibilities. Me, myself? I really don't care, as long as it is just not a string of profanities which states nothing.
Different argument however then originally presented and I am sure that you can see it is possible to respond without attack.
And rheinhard, there are many signs and presentations at those anti-war rallies that I would find highly offensive and I would have no problem letting you know that in speech that would probably not leave much doubt, even without uttering a single profanity. Your freedom of speech does not trump mine. Be offensive if you want but be prepared for me to respond.
TaSS
What a bizarre line of argument Rheinhard has developed. "Good manners and dialogue" are equated with "deference"? Since when? And no one has argued you don't have the right to scream obscenities to your heart's content, just don't expect us to respect you for doing it (and please don't do it at my kids, okay?).
ReplyDeleteThat said, the reference to obscenity in the left blogosphere is a reflection on inability or unwillingness (which is it Rheinny?) of lefties to engage in reasonable and reasoned dialogue. dialogue. The penultimate paragraph is just chilling:
The analogy I tend to make is this: Whom would you rather associate with? (A) A fellow who argues in the most lucid tones, with lovely polysyllabic turns of phrase and appeals to philosphers from Aristotle to Nietzsche, that the health of the nation and our body politic could be so much improved if we could only manage to get the untermensch on the trains and shipped east, or (B) an angry and crude firebrand whose philosophy is summarized as "Nazi punks fuck off"?
There is a huge difference between the untermensch of ariosophists and that of Nietzche (who was not even religious, which you might know if you read some of his work). Look to Heidegger if you want a contemporaneous antisemitic German philosopher; but try to remember it wasn't a part of his philosophy and he was also Hannah Arendt's lover; a very conflicted person.
You and your "angry firebrands" are the new digital brownshirts, tossing the work of philosophers (and philosophical debate) onto the bonfires of your hatred and ignorance. Go ahead, shout your slogans, goosestep up the boulevard, deface property and intimidate the public. Kristallnacht seems more your style than mine.
Shame on you. Shame on you all.
Note as his logic begins to sputter, the profanity begins with Reinhard. He ignores my commentary in terms of a one-on-one scenario and an environment where civilians travel armed and slides right into profanity (asterisked or not) and name-calling. He finds the need to respond twice consequatively; I guess even he found his first effort unsatisfactory.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would be interested in any single instance he might be able to provide where shouting obscenities from even a demonstration ended up with any effective result other than personal gratification.
And, of course, he implies that a threat of some kind has been made. It is a typical projection of their own hostility by a very frustrated bunch on the Left. And their odds of becoming less frustrated are pretty slim, no matter which major contender wins the White House.
Fascinating. I have rarely encountered a group of people so bound and determined to miss the point entirely.
ReplyDeleteMike is upset because he feels I unfairly interpreted his comment. Let's review:
My suggestion is that everyone communicate as if the person they are in discsussion with or about is sitting the your room in a face-to-face, one-on-one dialog. And- with that visualization in mind- it would be useful for the Left to note that it is generally those on the Right who are believer- and often legal participants in the rights given by the 2nd amendment.
I actually agree entirely with the first non-bolded part. You'll note that where I have used an obscenity in my own writing is was a quote shouted at me by someone else or an example of hyperbole to make a point. If Mike's point is nothing more than "we should all behave as if we are talking face to face", why is it even necessary to add the bolded reminder, which quite plainly parses to "liberals would do well to remember that we own more guns than them." How is that to be interpreted as ANYTHING other than a veiled threat? If you are suggesting that it is somehow disingenuous for the bolded comment to be taken as such, I merely wanted to point out that if the situation were reversed, and I were to point out to someone on the right whom I was disagreeing with that "you should be more civil because I own a gun", that would almost unquestionably be taken as threat. This seems to be a common hallmark of right wing thinking: subtly and not-so-subtly veiled threats can be tossed off without even realizing they are such, and when it is pointed out how those words can be interpreted by those on the receiving end, the only response is spluttering faux indignation.
The alternative and even more ridiculous interpretation of the bolded line apparently is "no no, we're only suggesting that if everyone owned guns (and knew everyone else owned guns) we'd all be more calm and rational becuase 'An armed society is a polite society'." This is of course one of the most transparently ridiculous cliched tropes around. I suppose there was no violence in the old West because everybody carried a Colt? We all know that Jesse James would get the vapors if anyone used a 4-letter word in his presence? Please.
Another determined misinterpretation seems to be that I am equating the non-use of "bad words" with "deference". Again missing the point. The "deference" I was referring to was not to people in general but specifically to those in a position of authority (e.g, the police officer). Mike made a somewhat misleading analogy by comparing political speech among peers to how one interacts with another person in some position of authority or control over you. I pointed out that authority alone does not, per se, entitle the bearer to unlimited deference. We are told we should "respect the office of the President" no matter what, but when the current occupant of that office seems bound and determined to abrogate the very Constitution he swore an oath to uphold, he has broken the social contract which entitles him to that respect and deference.
And of course, anon's spluttering outrage of my supposed misuse of this or that philospher in my admittedly hyperbolisitic example of the ludicrousness of valuing the manner of speech over its content scarcely merits comment. It seems to have been totally glossed over that I am NOT advocating the policies advanced by my hypothetical "person A". I deliberately crafted an example of speech coached in the niceties of language and philosophy to gloss over its underlying horror to make my rhetorical point. A point which seems to have been entirely missed: that while we can agree that it's better in general to talk in civil tones, it is not healthy to elevate the demand for civility over the content of what is being discussed. This is the position which Atrios refers to as "high Broderism", that those "vituperative bloggers" are at fault for becoming infuriated that men advocating for the mass bombing of populations which have not attacked us are treated with that deference and not pointed out as the power mad lunatics they are. Pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes may not be considered proper speech in polite society, but if society is to survive it becomes necessary
"i kind of thought it was an urban legend (has no curses in it), but didn't care"
ReplyDeleteOf course not. That's the basic intellectual laziness of the wingnuts boiled down to its essence: The facts simply do not matter to your kind.
Notice that not one of the articles juandos has linked to contains the slightest trace of verifiable evidence that Suskind has lied. Lots of people saying nasty things about Suskind, yes, but no actual evidence.
ReplyDeletejuandos also serves to illustrate perfectly the axiom that facts do not matter to the wingnuts.