LGF and LGFers | trolls and lizards | brownshirts and nero’s mob | fate of ernst roehm

April 18th, 2004 § 18 |

today for the first time i am obliged to clean up comments. as an advocate of free speech, i don't want to censor comments. but there isn't any choice, with a crowd like the LGFers.

it's as if you had a party and one of the guests started to throw liquor on the other guests or scream uncontrollably. or wildly start groping somebody else's girlfriend.

uncoy.com is a place for civilized debate and conversation. no screaming or throwing liquor allowed. your opinions are welcome. histrionics and violence are not.

with the LGFers it goes farther. charles johnson has assembled one of the most unruly and unpleasant mobs since nero.

it may be a virtual mob - thank heavens we do not need to smell, taste or see your horde - but is no less a mob.

charles johnson for some reason prefers to call his mob, lizards rather than trolls. the distinction is lost on me:

Call on the LGF Clue Phone™ for Mr. Yglesias: lizards are not trolls, and trolls are not lizards....Thanks to all lizardoid minions (and regular folks too) who expressed support for me and LGF. You guys are a very smart bunch, and you should be proud of the way you acquitted yourselves, there and in the recent altercation at Winds of Change.

it seems this is an organised band determined to subvert open debate and throught their clamour and violence. vandalism (?). in short, brownshirt tactics.

i understand that these are serious charges, but charles johnson has been guiding and shaping these assaults on the mild-mannered and sincere matthew yglesias, who is a guy who even has the courage to admit his own mistakes.

yglesias's characterization of charles is spot on.

The true genius of LGF, however, can only be discovered by browing through the pre-9/11 bits of the archives -- mild-mannered tech blogger suddenly driven mad by terrorist attack. A tragedy for the internet age.

i even remember visiting the LGF weblog in distant times for information on web design on a mac.

neil at tacitus has documented another three cases of brownshirt tactics on the part of charles johnson and his mob.

those who encourage brownshirts should not forget the fate of ernst roehm.

justice, civility, equality before the law, due process. all have been easily disposed of in the last few years.

whatever values of democracy charles purports to attach himself to have long since been subverted by the patriot acts one and two, guatanomo bay, flouting of the geneva convetion, WMD and the unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation. to mention just a few things in passing.

what do these people want? clean your own house first.

gradually the lizard reference begins to make sense.

ADDENDUM

there are now not one but two weblogs devoted entirely to the invective and misdeeds of LGF, as the LGF quiz blog puts it:

Let me suggest the following: If you've got at least two websites, apparently owned by different people, whose expressed purpose is to watch your every move and report on alleged racism, bigotry, and/or prejudice on your blog, you've got a public relations problem. A serious public relations problem.

it's not just the left. as well as tacitus, others on the same side of the political street as charles johnson are equally disgusted with the LGF brownshirts.

§ 18 Responses to “LGF and LGFers | trolls and lizards | brownshirts and nero’s mob | fate of ernst roehm”

  • pch says:

    What’s really odd about the hate-on they have for Tacitus, is that Tacitus is, broadly speaking, one of them. In other words, a conservative pro-war blogger.

    But because he had the temerity to criticize Charles Johnson, he became anathema.

  • lgf watch says:

    I don’t think Tacitus is a conservative pro-war blogger of the ‘anti-idiotarian’ kind, the way CFJ is. On Tacitus you’re quite likely to find some intelligent commentary and analysis, rather than just one endless ream of hate-filled postings by people who delight in other people’s misery.

  • Dom says:

    Quite a party the three of you are having.

  • Powderfinger says:

    I’m sure it is a first for you to have to clean up comments. You’d have to get comments to clean them up. Out of 10 posts on your main page, 6 of them have no comments at all. The majority of the rest seem to be less than impressed with your intellectual acumen, if you get my drift.

    There seems to be quite a cottage industry in bashing Charles Johnson. Unite, ankle biters! If you all hold hands and scream your very loudest, someone who matters might actually notice that you exist.

    If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, is CJ still a Nazi?

  • alec says:

    so this is the new rhetorical trope of the LGFers. i’ve seen it on a number of other weblogs.

    “we are more numerous and thus your opinions are worthless.”

    well it certainly beats struggling to think of a coherent answer.

    mob psychology at its worst. my comments stand as printed above.

    i find it darkly amusing that LGF and LGFer are synonyms for hatred, bigotry and cruelty. all across the web. left and right.

    i will never forget a much earlier excursion into LGF where i had the pleasure of reading such comments as “nuke baghdad” and phrases like “muslim scum”.

    i didn’t know then that charles lets comments like that stand but censors down anyone who dares put forward notions of tolerance and humanity and compassion.

    not that anyone with those values would be likely frequent LGF at this point.

  • Dom says:

    Charles censors repeated trolling and LGF bashing and very occasionally deletes the most offensive posts. I’ve often posted balancing or critical remarks, never had any trouble. If anyone here’s been banned could you please link to precisely where you posted, for the record?

    The arguments here lump everyone together, that’s the reason 20,000 + unique visitors per day is relevant. If you have a rational view and don’t go in too headstrong I’m pretty sure you’ll be tolerated if unloved. Or just go on with your conference call, if you think it’s worth it. My points on a thread here went unanswered, another reason it’s good to have company.

  • alec says:

    dom, your questions have been answered at length now. please check that thread. thanks for all your posts.

    i’ve personally seen suggestions of nuking and carpet bombing iraq on LGF more than once.

    so the censorship only seems to operate in one direction. if bashing LGF is more offensive than the idea of h-bombing another country, then there is something profoundly askew in the universe.

    charles’s handling of rachel corrie’s sacrifice i find deeply offensive. this is a young lady – an idealist perhaps – who gave up her life to try to stop conflict in a distant land.

    she had no weapon, she fought no battles, she simply bore witness. and the IGF just bulldozed her. literally. it was no accident.

    that charles could applaud this cold-blooded murder and heap scorn on the young american idealist boggles my mind.

    read rachel’s comments from this last entry. i think she makes the palestinian case very well. strange that charles cites it, as his chill disdain paints a most unflattering portrait of arrogance and cruelty. sadistic even.

    he verily seems to gloat over the flag burning pictures. if you or i had seen what rachel corrie had seen done by the IDF in palestine with american support – moral, financial and military – we might burn a flag or two.

    as a means of protest it certainly beats bombing civilians.

  • IsthatinAustralia? says:

    “charles’s handling of rachel corrie’s sacrifice i find deeply offensive. this is a young lady – an idealist perhaps – who gave up her life to try to stop conflict in a distant land.”

    You are cornier, less creative and as moronic as all the Bush fans at LGF. No wonder nobody pays any attention to you. You may be right about CJ being something of a tyranical jerk, but you are worse: a total bore. Why even bother with this sort of stuff?

  • alec kinnear says:

    i’m sorry that the fate of rachel corrie – whose untimely demise was symbolic of the absence of a desire for peace on the part of the israeli estabilishment – is of no interest to you.

    i’m sure comments like “nuke baghdad” leave you indifferent as well.

    perhaps discussion of robot armies and african legions may be more to your taste. if not, hélas, our dalliance is at an end.

  • GoBacktoAustralia says:

    “i’m sorry that the fate of rachel corrie – whose untimely demise was symbolic of the absence of a desire for peace on the part of the israeli estabilishment – is of no interest to you.

    i’m sure comments like “nuke baghdad” leave you indifferent as well.”

    No, I think you miss my point: neither corrie’s death nor the idea of nuking baghdad are very useful to understanding the Israel-Palestine conflict. Both are rhetorical crutches used by self-righteous bigots with little sense of historical context. However, if you are simply looking for a “symbol” may I suggest a swastika.

  • alec says:

    sticks and stones. and what is your point exactly?

  • JewishAmericanIndian says:

    I have already mentioned that you missed my point:

    “Both are rhetorical crutches used by self-righteous bigots with little sense of historical context.”

    That is my point. If you want to argue against that point, here let me repeat my point again:

    “Both are rhetorical crutches used by self-righteous bigots with little sense of historical context.”

    Nowhere did I use verbal “sticks and stones” to insult you at a personal level.

  • alec says:

    which historical context do we want to talk about? the last forty years – after the israelis had already taken the palestinians home from them. or the context of the twenties and thirties while the zionists were gradually expropriating and preparing to chase out the palestinians? or the last 500 while the palestinians were living quietly on their small territory as an appendage to various empires. or 2000 years ago when a people – for the most part some people not necessarily with much ethnic relation to the current israelis – called the jews had sway over these lands.

    or some time in between.

    tell me – just what historical context suits you? tell me just what historical context justifies the gradual crucifixion of the palestinian people now?

    for that matter, what historical context justifies americans in baghdad?

    as i have asked you three times now…

    what is your point?

  • CustersLastTemptationofAlec says:

    Alec, I think I’m going to stop arguing with you because frankly I’m starting to think that you just aren’t too smart. My original point had something to with the tendency for extremist ideologies from both sides to associate with rhetorical strategies that I personally find to be knee-jerk and counter productive to the goal of establishing meaningful discourse on this subject that we both seem to feel so passionate about.

    “Gradual crucifixion”!!! BTW, your “history” left out certain events and dynamics…things that don’t suit your idea of Palestinians as helpless “martyrs” (tee-hee)…but like I said, I quit.

    See you at shul! Maybe we can discuss why those rascally Jews are responsible for the mess in Baghdad. And cheer up! Whenever you feel angry, just remember your trust fund.

  • TheJewishAmericanIndianHitler says:

    “or 2000 years ago when a people – for the most part some people not necessarily with much ethnic relation to the current israelis – called the jews had sway over these lands.”

    Oh I can’t resist. Why this preoccupation with “ethnic relation”? My God! You’re not talking about race are you!? Do you want to maintain the ethnic purity of the Middle East? That sounds a little strange coming from someone with ideas as progressive as your own. Who exactly are these people “called the jews” that you talk about? Alec, man you crack me up.

  • ReallyMeanItThisTime says:

    2000 years ago? Do you think the Jews started with Mel Gibson or something?

  • alec says:

    JAIH:

    we were talking about historical context. at that point these questions become relevant when discussing a claimed 2000 year old homeland, while turfing out those who have been peacefully settled there for much of the intervening time.

    in the meantime, i would suggest that we are on the classic lawyer’s tactic here – advance little, niggle much.

    CLTA:

    above applies here to you. singular.

    except we add the gratuitous ad hominem attack. iced with irrelevance and false information.

    in any case, if the pharisees blew it 2000 years ago – and based on existing historical records they didn’t – the NYT wasn’t going to miss the mark this time.

    in these more worldly times, poor mel hasn’t had to perish to reap his heavenly reward.

    but the best slings and arrows money could buy were expended to make his outrageous fortune.

    hubris. the classic sin. did in the greeks. in line to do in others for the Nth time.

    far better to live in peace and lend a hand to one’s fellow man.

    no people are chosen. and when cut all men’s blood bleeds red.

  • #1AlecFan says:

    “hubris. the classic sin. did in the greeks. in line to do in others for the Nth time.”

    Alec, the lack of clarity in your writing could lead one to believe that you are looking forward to, if not advocating, some kind of deserved “holocaust” for certain “chosen people”. What would all your Jewish friends at the ballet think about this?

§ Leave a Reply