» idiocy ¦ What You Can Get Away With

Here we go again…

Future U.S. History Students: ‘It’s Pretty Embarrassing How Long You Guys Took To Legalize Gay Marriage’ – I’m surprised I took this long to link to something from The Onion, but maybe that’s because it’s not as funny as it used to be. Which, of course, they’ll also be stating as true in the 2080s.
What the EU Did Next – Interesting blog collecting a number of essays on the EU
The literature of ideas; or, please stop laughing at me – Very interesting post from Pornokitsch on the description of SF as the literature of ideas – “The phrase is made more pathetically self-congratulatory by its grandiosity”
Del Boy And The Shale Sale – Zelo Street puts the boot into the increasingly ridiculous James Delingpole
Android marriage, gay pirates, and other ways to poke fun at anti-gay activists – Towleroad on some of the more bizarre theories being proposed, such as how gay marriage will lead to people marrying androids, and how men dressed as pirates are abducting strangers. Sometimes, bigotry just satirises itself(via)

, , , , ,

The troll ladder

I wonder if there’s an ongoing notoriety competition between various of the right-wing professional trolls (or ‘prolls‘). Measured on some scale that calculates the balance Twitter outrage amongst the liberati, the number of outraged blog posts and PCC complaints generated, and – for the really accomplished – the number of huffy comment pieces generated in rival newspapers.

(While I’m not sure of the exact mechanics of the calculation, it’s clearly measured on the Moir Scale. Most outrages only normally register in milli-Moirs, of course, though all dream of reaching the heights of a full Moir)

Obviously, though, someone somewhere has the rather unenviable job of calculating the current scores in the ongoing contest and informing participants of their rank. This, of course leads to competition between the contestants and thus, the news that Telegraph columnist James Delingpole is about to be featured on television being humiliated for his lack of knowledge persecuted by the liberal elite for daring to counter their politically correct lies is clearly threatening either the Daily Mail or Melanie Phillips’ position in the table, so they respond by getting her to weigh in on the old favourite of the ‘gay agenda’, knowing that’ll create sufficient outrage to see off the young challenger.

, , ,

I only discovered the Labour Uncut site a short while ago, but has it always been the place where supposedly rational people let out their weirdest thoughts?

Last week, we had Sion Simon declaring that he didn’t like The King’s Speech because Colin Firth voted Liberal Democrat, and he should be apologising to people for that.

Then today we have Tom Watson – admittedly, never normally a man who acts like he knows the meaning of the word ‘restraint’ – stating that JFK would have supported locking up shifty-looking people without charge because, um, er, it’s wrong that anyone should attempt to hold Tony Blair to account and anyway – Look! Over there! Terrorists!

But even that fades to nothing when put next to this, which makes an immediate appearance in a very high position on the list of the most overwrought and hyperbolic political analogies. Yes, according to Labour Uncut, David Cameron is ‘the British Pol Pot’ and states:

This is the most destructive administration since Pol Pot. It isn’t killing professionals and the middle classes, but it is so damaging their lives and the chances of their children that it’s the British equivalent to wholesale slaughter.

Can you imagine the outcry – likely led by Tom Watson, ironically – if Conservative Home, Liberal Democrat Voice or any other political website ran an article comparing Ed Miliband to a genocidal dictator? As well as Watson, I can see articles by three other Labour MPs – John Spellar, John Woodcock and Tom Harris – on their front page right now. Are they happy with that sort of hyperbole and to have their words published on a site that produces material that resembles a parody?

I understand they oppose the Government and the site seems to be reflecting more of Labour’s authoritarian wing, but do they seriously believe that comparing David Cameron to Pol Pot does anyone any good?

, , ,