Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Fatal Attraction

Bubba, the blogger who has the unhealthy obsession with Crunchy Cons author Rod Dreher, is so determined to insult his archnemesis that he doesn't mind hitting a couple of innocent bystanders -- myself and Daniel Larison -- in the process. He accuses Larison of "idiocy" but doesn't explain why he is wrong. Bubba is upset at the way we all noticed how Rush Limbaugh imputed to Liberalism what is in fact the central tenet of Conservatism -- the fallen nature of man. I learned the Cliff's Notes version of this reading National Review and old William F. Buckley books as an undergraduate two decades ago.

Bubba would do well to seek counseling to help over his Dreher-fixation and then learn what conservatives are supposed to believe before attempting to correct anyone else.

UPDATE: Things get even uglier in the comments. We are bad writers and Dreher is a showoff because he warns readers that the contents of a Time article isn't available on line and I'm not really sure how Caleb Steagall got involved but there is this:
The impression I get of Steagall et al is of a bunch of auto-didacts with inferiority complexes about not having a position in the academy. Considering the awful state of their prose is scary enough but imagining that they might actually speak this way is downright terrifying. The closest I can imagine is the renn-faire types with their "thees and thous."


Anonymous said...

Nice. Accuse one of the most remarkably learned and intelligent bloggers out there of idiocy. Bubba is an insult to all those who share his name or nickname.

Daniel Larison said...

Yes, "autodidacts" at the University of Chicago are a particularly dreadful bunch. Of course, at least such "autodidacts" have learned something, which seems to be more than can be said for some others. And the writing--oh, my God, the writing! How did I ever get my master's thesis with such horrendous writing? My advisers must have been asleep at the wheel when they let me through, yes, sir! I shall have to repay all my stipends, too, since I am clearly a fraud who knows nothing. Thank goodness someone came along to set me straight!

Jason said...

You heard them Clark, you're overly verbose. Your wordiness is just a mask for your lack of profundity. Get over yourself already.

Maximos said...

Wow. That thread, even apart from the visual-disturbance inducing white-on-black format, is really something. So much low-hanging fruit waiting to be picked. Or would that be many hanging curves waiting to be smacked over the fence?

Dime-store psychoanalysis.

Pseudo-populist resentment of those whose learning is reflected in both the style and substance of their writing.

Conflations of material success and intelligence/merit.

A dim incomprehension of the history and philosophy undergirding the judgments they bridle at as being invidious.

An utter incapacity to imagine things being other than as they are, and to grasp that The Way They Are is hardly a realization of some timeless verities. And, in light of these incapacities, a clear implication that the past was populated by benighted rubes than whom they are so much wiser, despite not being able to comprehend the arguments of their critics!

How does that go - professing to be wise....

Anyway, I wish I hadn't read it. It caused me to laugh for all of five minutes, but left me with the feeling that I had inadvertantly witnessed a neighbour indulging a nasty little vice. I feel dirty.

Jeremy Beer said...

Personally, I liked the reference to Bill Kauffman's "front-porch terrorist" book. Pacifists are terrorists, I guess. War is peace. Slavery is freedom. And Rush Limbaugh is God.

Bubba said...

The blog entry was just pointed out to me, so let me point out a few things very quickly.

Since you quoted a later comment, Clark, I hope that you saw this earlier comment in which I did, in fact, explain why I think Daniel Larison was wrong about Limbaugh.

Looking at the actual context of Limbaugh's comment and his clarification the next day, I came to believe it is inaccurate to suggest that he denied the fallen nature of man or that he imputed that belief to liberalism.

I believe that you and Daniel and Rod misrepresented Limbaugh's view, and it was that misrepresentation that prompted my criticism.

As I said in the comments thread, I believe the misrepresentation was deliberate -- or at least the result in being more concerned with scoring cheap rhetorical points than in knowing and conveying the truth.

Well, I see now how you treated me and the rest of us at that blog: you accused me of criticizing without substance, and in an update you found a comment you thought laughable, but in finding that comment, you overlooked the substance of my criticism.

What conclusion am I supposed to draw from that?