Pandagon

Mediocre or worse (with a splash of overinflated self-importance)seems to serve as the bar these days; not only in journalism but in the political arena.

My hatred for Lileks burns hotter and brighter than a thousand suns. His 'response' to Salam Pax, which put me on the anti-Lileks agenda, was hypocritical and contradictory to the point of self-parody ("You shouldn't be so mean and smartass...even though I just told you 'Fuck you' and implied that you didn't care about the deaths of your friends and relatives under Saddam!" "You're a coward for not fighting against Saddam in the first place...even though I freely admit I'd be too scared to ever, ever do such a thing myself!") and now this Michael Moore thing just clenches it. Everyone likes to make below-the-belt jokes about the 'opposition,' but quickly mentioning you'd like to see one of the people who disagree with you dead in the same paragraph you discuss your daughter is just...screwed up.

Devil's Dictionary:

remarkably poor thinker

One whose opinions differ from mine.

doesn't deserve the fame that he has

I don't like him, and it annoys me that he succeeds and prospers in spite of that.

---

Jesse,

When reality defies your expectations, it is more beneficial to look inside yourself for the cause than it is to look outwards for something or someone to blame.

Anyone with an audience is worth taking seriously.

How you respond to this comment will indicate (to me) whether you will accept the world and work with it, or spend your life trying to break it to your will.

Shorter jb: Rush's opion on McNabb does matter because lots of people listem to him and so it should be addressed seriuosly.

While I'm glad you find patronizing litmus tests to be the pinnacle of public discourse, and a rather obnoxious talking-down-to to be the preferred method of responding to criticism that doesn't fit your proscibed

One whose opinions differ from mine.

Seriously? How do you know I meant that? Or are you simply creating a reading of my statement designed to put me on the defensive without actually trying to figure out what I mean?

Lileks is a poor thinker. I respect people who disagree with me and can provide a valid argument. I don't respect who simply write from the perspective of "because I said so" and who don't address serious critiques of what they've said (oddly enough, what you appear to be trying and failing to do).

You seem to think that my critiquing an overrated, lazy political writer is evidence of the fact that I want to "break the world to my will" or whatever such nonsense, and that my dislike of what he writes is somehow invalid because he has an audience. Not every critique comes from jealousy or resentment, and it would do you well to step outside of your tiny bubble and learn that before you step into any legitimate arena of ideas.

Or, perhaps you're critiquing me because of your jealousy and resentment? Who knows? It's the great dynastic spiral of self-replicating accusation!

Aargh. Please proofread before you post, self.

"the preferred method of responding to criticism that doesn't fit your proscibed..."

...rules for disagreement (which seem to be that anyone who says something is saying something worth listening to, and that anyone who listens and finds it lacking doesn't have a serious opinion), it doesn't cut it here.

You came here with a closed mind, and unwilling to do anything but accuse me of having an invalid opinion. If you care to stay and actually debate things, fine. Since you appear not to, don't mind if I ignore you until you can prove yourself capable of actual debate.

Anyone with an audience is worth taking seriously.

You mean like Michael Moore?

How you respond to this comment will indicate (to me) --

Who gives a shit?

The only thing worse than a moronic brownshirt fuck is a totally self-possessed moronic brownshirt fuck. Back to the circle jerk, you...

j.b. is right -- Jesse is just jealous of Lileks because he doesn't have a small, lisping insect of his own to write about. Or a Target store.

"accept the world and work with it"

Don't try and change things, work with the system, obey your superiors, do what you are told...

"spend your life trying to break it to your will."

Change things for the better, do what's right not what's expected, obey your heart, do what needs doing...

I sure hope Jesse disapoints you.

"Anyone with an audience is worth taking seriously."

So, the Backstreet Boys should be taken more seriously as musicians than Beethovan or Mozart? After all, they have a bigger audiance!

I first stumbled across Lileks when he was taking kitsch pics of fifties food and buildings and painfully pointed out just how kitsch they were. He seemed to have nothing but contempt for what he was showing (or at least, nothing to add to them), so I basically ignored his writing and looked at the pretty pictures.

This has served me well in dealing with Lileks.

Where'd JB go? Paging Mr. McLeish . . .

Christ, people, I have work to do during the day.

Yes, Michael Moore is worth taking seriously.

rea: I said should be taken seriously, not more seriously than others based on the size of the audience. And you people accuse me of not using logic.

Harry Buttle, sorry, Tuttle -
You can still work within the world and accomplish "Change things for the better, do what's right not what's expected, obey your heart, do what needs doing..."

dave: obviously you do.

jesse: I obviously did not come here with a closed mind. If I had, I wouldn't have attempted a conversation, I would have simply called you an idiot and gone away. Since I did not in any way impugne your character or your mind, but simply invited you into a discussion. I don't see how you can accuse me of having a closed mind. But then, I suppose I've always been a very open-minded, tolerant kind of fellow for different opinions. You know, instead of calling them "tiny minded" and "living in bubbles".

Secondly, I used the "Devil's Dictionary" as a clue I was trying to be at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

But in any case, your opinion that he is a poor thinker is unprovable - you (or I, or anyone) simply don't know how his mind works. According to Atrios, that makes you a liar.

Lastly, again, your say "overrated", but you have nothing to base that on but your own opinion. No scientific data to back that up. Which again, according to Atrios, makes you a liar. But I digress. The point I was trying to make was that audiences represent power. Maybe he's truly overrated, or maybe you are underestimating him.

I personally disagree with you, Hesiod, Atrios, Yglesias, Sawicky and Kos on just about everything. But I never, ever make the mistake assuming that because I dislike your opinions, and think you write amateurishly, that you are stupid and overrated. Your respective audiences demonstrate otherwise.

Lileks: Gnat was watching the television, and she asked if Mojo Jojo was like Saddam. I told her no - Saddam was hairier. Liberals don't understand this.

Liberals don't understand what, Lileks? That Saddam is hairier than a cartoon character? I understand that concept, though I can't imagine why anybody would go to the trouble of writing something so pointless as that down; but while we're on the subject, I'd like to point out that Yosemite Sam is a good deal hairier than Saddam; he's almost into the Osama zone, face-fuzz-wise. I also understand that Mojo Jojo, for all his indisputable charm, does not exist.

Lileks then swerves over the curb and into the bushes: Especially not Michael Moore, who could do nicely for a funnel and some sleeping pills, as well as a sadistic nurse (have to give the fat pig some satisfaction before he croaks). Gnat does not need to be exposed to this.

I reread that passage several times but I'll be damned if I can make out what Lileks is trying to say there. Hey Lileks, are you on drugs?

It's intervention time. Someone needs to take that poor innocent child away from this mental case and put her in a nice safe foster home before Lileks hallucinates Hillary Clinton's face on her while he's having one of his periodical foaming-at-the-mouth fits and proceeds to strangle her.

Lastly, again, your say "overrated", but you have nothing to base that on but your own opinion.

I'll just leave you all with the realization that "jb" doesn't understand the difference between qualitative opinions and statement of fact. Congrats, kiddo.

Or, maybe, I just hold myself to a higher level of precision in communications than you do.

Again, my point, which you seem to keep missing - by dismissing him, you underestimate him. By underestimating him, you render yourself (and more importantly, your cause) vulnerable.

Opinions are meaningless. Only facts matter.

"Opinions are meaningless. Only facts matter"

The fact is that the above is just your opinion, jb; and therefore is meaningless.

Or, maybe, I just hold myself to a higher level of precision in communications than you do.

How is my precise delineation of opinion versus statement of fact less precise than your clumsy and erroneous lumping of the two?

"I'm a more precise speaker than you be. I'm really good at it and stuff."

Again, my point, which you seem to keep missing - by dismissing him, you underestimate him. By underestimating him, you render yourself (and more importantly, your cause) vulnerable.

You seem to be incredibly bad at reading, so let me reiterate, again, what I am saying - I am not DISMISSING him. I am, however SEVERELY CRITICIZING him. For someone who is so precise in their communication, you seem to miss REALLY BIG FUCKING DISTINCTIONS.

Opinions are meaningless. Only facts matter.

Ladies and gentlemen, the dumbest statement of the year. I criticize an opinion columnist for his lack of factual context and his stunning inability to think outside the narrow confines of the "facts" that appeal to his preconceived notions...and I'm apparently not allowed to have an opinion, according to jb. Basically, there's no way to criticize Lileks whatsoever, in jb's world.

This is really sad, my man. Entertain me some more, though. "Criticize" me as best you can, I'm having fun.