February 05, 2004
WHEN A MAN LOVES A CAMRY
Lefty blogger Niall Cook wasn’t too fussed by the deaths of 88 Australians in Bali:
Why do we have this nationalistic, some might say 'jingoistic' love of rolling around, wailing and bemoaning the loss of fellow countrymen and women, whom 99.999% of us have never known, never likely to have known, and probably never wanted to know?
In the same post, Niall counselled that “hate ... is a drastic failure in a social makeup” and urged that we “accept life for what it is and move forward”. Sensitively, Niall advised: “Shit happens, people. Always has and always will.”
Move forward, people. Accept life! Stop the hate! But it’s a different story when somebody scratches Niall’s 14-year-old Toyota Camry:
These four shots are the result of an ignorant, slitty-eyed, slimy little Landcruiser-driving vietnamese prick which tried to squeeze past me on the freeway entry ramp this morning. It doesn't look too bad, in fact I dare say 80% will just polish off, but that's beside the point. It's MY car and I don't go around driving into other peoples cars then shrugging it off and driving away. Not to worry, though. I have the slippery little shit's registration number and will be following him up via the police. Might be a nice chance to get the car re-sprayed at someone elses expense. I'll teach the ignorant, non-english-speaking immigrant to go around rubbing up against other peoples cars and fucking off without barely a word.
After some attention from Israelly Cool, Sam Ward, and Adam (and, in comments, from a few equally revolted lefties), Niall decided to compound his shame. Imagine how angry he’d get if a suicide bomber blew that old Camry to pieces.
UPDATE. Yay! The Camry has been repaired.
UPDATE II. Niall recants. Sort of.
Posted by Tim Blair at February 5, 2004 02:17 AMNah, I'll just settle for some creative sort to put a dead pig in his Camry's trunk. After a couple of month, that puppy should be utterly undrivable.
Posted by: BigFire at February 5, 2004 at 02:20 AMIf I owned a car like that, I'd contact the police to beat me up.
Posted by: iowahawk at February 5, 2004 at 02:29 AMAnybody pretentious enough to use that "whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad" quote deserves a good hiding merely as a matter of principle.
The comments about this subject on Sam's site are hilarious, though; just when I needed a good laugh as well! :)
Posted by: gaz at February 5, 2004 at 02:34 AMWell "Blessed Be". I get worse damage than that when the cattle kick my car while driving out to the ranch. The slit eyed bovine bastards!
Posted by: Wallace at February 5, 2004 at 02:36 AMWe should be thanking the other guy for striving to take one more Camry off of the roads. It's a pity he didn't succeed. Whoever you are, good on ya, mate, and better luck next time.
Posted by: Wilbur at February 5, 2004 at 02:44 AMWell everyone KNOWS how awful it is to get your car scratched. Now he has to go through all that pain and effort to get it back to perfect. Yeah, ya just gotta make those idiots pay for all that pain.
All those dead people - eh - who cares, we don't know 'em anyway.
Posted by: Teresa at February 5, 2004 at 03:20 AM
A single death is a tragedy. 88 deaths is a statistic.
I love those compassionate lefties.
Posted by: Dave S. at February 5, 2004 at 03:33 AMI was going to empathize with Niall but then I realized he's one of the 99.999% of the people I've never known, will never likely know, and probably never want to know, so I've decided not to give a shit about him or his scratched Camry. I've moved forward.
Posted by: Randal Robinson at February 5, 2004 at 03:41 AMThere's really nothing you can say about this guy. He's revealed himself to be nothing more than a solipsistic, selfish little prick.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at February 5, 2004 at 04:01 AMHere in the States we call that Puerto Rican pinstriping. So much for diversity, Niall...
Posted by: Roger Bournival at February 5, 2004 at 04:33 AMOne problem with blogging is that just about any old asshole gets to do it.
Posted by: George at February 5, 2004 at 04:38 AM"I'm left to wonder, just how these reactionary idiots would react were they in the same position I found myself in, if anyone, regardless of the fact that they were a non-english speaking vietnamese immigrant, and yes, I do know he's vietnamese because I've since contacted him, scraped their vehicle along the side of theirs in peak-hour traffic before getting out jabbering in their native language, waving hands furiously then remounting their vehicle & pissing off."
Well, personally, I would probably say something like "What a fucking asshole to do that and drive off. I hope he gets what's coming to him".
I wouldn't be bringing his race into the equation, as it has nothing to do with the fact that he's a shitty driver.
I wonder how Niall contacted him if he doesn't speak English? Or how he could afford a Landcruiser?
Posted by: Yobbo at February 5, 2004 at 05:54 AMI confess, Niall is, in a way, right:
My invective would be just as strong as his.
Mine, however, wouldn't be related to the man's ethnicity. Espeically since, well, I know that plenty of native-English-speaking whiteys are simply terrible drivers.
Of course, I also don't bloviate about "accepting things and moving on" or any of that crap either.
(PS. the image links don't work anymore.)
Maybe Niall should ask himself why the vandal hates him?
Posted by: Patrick Chester at February 5, 2004 at 06:34 AMPerhaps you might all ask yourselves if I really care either way what anyone writes about what I might or might no believe. The honest answer is that I couldn't give a flying fuck. The longer this little campaign goes on and the more morons like Timmy climb onto the bandwagon, the more I love it. Just imagine the hits I'm getting. As that other fuckwit, Tex is wont to say, "They hate me, but they read me". Read me carefully. I am very comfortable with my actions and would do it all again tomorrow. The age of the vehicle is not in question. The actions of the other driver are. QED
Posted by: Niall at February 5, 2004 at 07:04 AMNiall, you are just a dill. No more, no less. As if anyone with a brain could be bothered hating you.
Posted by: Grunter at February 5, 2004 at 07:38 AMNiall, the point of the argument against you is not whether or not you care for the argument, but whether your attitude to the accident was in concert with your normally professed attitudes. The "I don't care since you're all a bunch of morons anyway" attitude seems to emerge when one is well and truly thrashed in an argument, as you have been, not that there was much question.
When this state is reached, one tends to observe the emergence of meaningless rhetorical flourishes ('QED' in this case; as it happens, it is completely out of context, having proven nothing.) Why is this? Presumably due to a lack of veracity in one's argument, which one is all too uncomfortably aware of; so let's trot out the verbiage usually encountered with solidly winning an argument, and that'll act as a decent surrogate. Not.
Posted by: Random Blogreader at February 5, 2004 at 07:44 AMDo you think he knows what QED means? It should be used at the end of a line of reasoning, especially in mathematics or a logical proof. Merely making a bald assertion and putting QED at the end doesn't make the assertion correct.
Niall's girly car got hit by another driver. When giving the driver a possibly well deserved spray, he used various offensive racial terms. Niall is a racist. QED.
Unless the QED was actually the start of a different post on quantumn electrodynamics. Umm, probably not.
Posted by: Paul Dub at February 5, 2004 at 07:48 AM"You will see that I am an urbane, cultured, dignified man of honour." (d'Niall from Sam Ward's comment thread)
"...slippery little shit's..."
"I couldn't give a flying fuck"
Wow, all these years and I din't know how fucking cultured and fucking dignified I fucking was. Ain't I the shit??!!
In the interest of putting all the facts on the table, I should also point out that Niall is a fat, old loser with a webcam which he sits in front of naked.
That is all.
Posted by: Yobbo at February 5, 2004 at 08:23 AMPretty easy to knock someone off their moral pedestal when you don't profess to any major moral convictions of your own. Either that or you don't expose them.
Ah, the life of a libertarian.
Posted by: LD at February 5, 2004 at 08:39 AM"... I couldn't give a flying fuck...", says the defiant Niall.
No surprise there. Old Paddy-Whack-the-Gherkin has never had a ground-based root, so it's not as if he has any levitating ones to spare
Posted by: suberboot at February 5, 2004 at 08:55 AMNiall said (on his blog):
"My personal belief being that this 'love' of misery and the willingness to 'hate' what we're told to 'hate' in recompense is a drastic failure in a social makeup. .... Shit happens, people. Always has and always will while ever human beings inflict pain and suffering on other human beings. "
Car damaged? Hey, Shit happens. Move on.
Niall, ( or should it be D- Niall, maybe that could be his rapper name) had this to say on Yobbo's site:
'Blatant displays of social ignorance appear to be their way, but not mine'.
Jeez, slit eyed, vietnamese, "jabbering away' etc. My Niall, either you are the worlds biggest hypocrite or you have your head so far up your arse (ass for our american friends) that you really have no idea.
Hoisted by your OWN petard it would seem. See, if you troll around the net pontificating about the behaviour of others (oh yeah, that Howard, what a racist bastard eh?) don't get all whiny when you are shown to be the duplicitous louse that you are.
Call us right wingers if you like, see, we know we are politically incorrect. Better being honest than professing one thing but living a lie.
You disgust me.
Posted by: nic at February 5, 2004 at 10:06 AM"wailing and bemoaning the loss of fellow countrymen and women, whom 99.999% of us have never known, never likely to have known, and probably never wanted to know? "
Change that to "50 percent of us have never known" and he might be closer to the real numbers.
You ever hear of the concept of "six degrees of separation" separate any two humans on earth? So I suspect most people know someone who knows someone hurt or spared by the bombing.
Australia is simply not that big a country. I suspect one or two degrees link most Aussies with someone affected).
For example, one of my classmates helped triage a Pentagon casualty, and my brother's friend (who I have also met) had a friend in the Pentagon badly burned. Even though I live 1000 miles away, I have first and second degree contacts with those affected in the Pentagon.
Sept 11 is and was personal for a lot of us...except for hollywood types and euroweenies like Kerry.
Posted by: tioedong at February 5, 2004 at 10:41 AMI've sent an e-mail directly to this bigot. What right does he have to slag off on the Vietnamese, assuming that's what the other driver was in the first place. After all they're just a "bunch of gooks," right Niall ?? Yup, send the B-52's over Darra & Inala this afternoon. That'll fix 'em.
I've never appreciated such gratuitous insults to a kind and generous people whom i've known and loved for the past 40 years, through war and peace, marriage and kids. He has absolutely no right to speak of them like that.
As if it ain't obvious, he lacks even the simplest compassion. What a bitter man.
Posted by: Carl Robinson at February 5, 2004 at 10:54 AMHmm
Maybe Niall's not racist, just shitty with the person and wanted to call him names...
Anyway, Niall, just remember 'Shit Happens', get OVER it.
Just imagine the hits I'm getting.
That's great -- if you're trying to build up a readership consisting of folks who think you're a racist hypocrite. I'm not sure that's the audience I'd be aiming for.
Posted by: Randal Robinson at February 5, 2004 at 11:10 AMThe sicker lefties (is there any other kind?) have always hated Vietnamese in Australia became by coming here from Liberrated Vietnam they show the war in Vietnam was a right and justified attempt to defend Vietnam from the one of the vile tyrannies they love.
Posted by: sue at February 5, 2004 at 11:36 AMWeird, though I'm not inclined to pontificate much living in New Zealand's largest city where the newspaper of record likes to ponitificate about racism (i.e. the conservative leader of the Opposition's objection to race-based funding of social services) while running stories about how Asians are fucking up everything.
Posted by: Craig Ranapia (Other Pundit) at February 5, 2004 at 11:40 AMNial, shouldn't you have been searching for the "root cause" of the incident? I mean chances are that it didn't happen because he was a "ignorant, slitty-eyed, slimy little Landcruiser-driving vietnamese prick" but because he harbored deep seated resentment at the western culture he finds himself to be part of, and subconsciously took out his frustrations on your vehicle.
As with the 9/11 bombers, or the Palestinian suicide bombers/freedom fighters, we would probably have done the same thing if we were in his position!
So basically what it really comes down to is that if you had been a little more compassionate to these peoples plight, the incident probably would never have happened.
Lefty Michael.
So, we all agree that it's wrong to demonize groups of people based on irrelevant characteristics, right?
So why does Tim's piece begin by characterizing Niall as a "lefty blogger", if not to tar lefties generally by association with the odious Niall?
Why not either characterize Niall on the basis of his personal characteristics (which are obvious to anyone who has had the misfortune to read his blog), or explain exactly why you think that Niall's position is characteristic of lefty thinking generally?
Of course, I know the answer to that question: you're interested in fairness or truth, you're just trying to get your smears in any way you can.
Posted by: Mork at February 5, 2004 at 01:23 PMSo, we all agree that it's wrong to demonize groups of people based on irrelevant characteristics, right?
So why does Tim's piece begin by characterizing Niall as a "lefty blogger", if not to tar lefties generally by association with the odious Niall?
Why not either characterize Niall on the basis of his personal characteristics (which are obvious to anyone who has had the misfortune to read his blog), or explain exactly why you think that Niall's position is characteristic of lefty thinking generally?
Of course, I know the answer to that question: you're interested in fairness or truth, you're just trying to get your smears in any way you can.
Posted by: Mork at February 5, 2004 at 01:23 PMOne man's crap driver is another man's fuckin'hero!
Hit 'm again, Victor Charlie!
Posted by: JDB at February 5, 2004 at 01:24 PMRe Sue's comment: notorious economy-wrecking ex-Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, to this day idol of the Left (for wrecking the economy in record time, no doubt), once infamously said about the Vietnamese boatpeople fleeing their communist regime, "We're not having hundreds of f****** Vietnamese Balts coming into this country."
Who's your hero, Niall?
Posted by: ilibcc at February 5, 2004 at 01:24 PMBy the way, Yob, it was a Tuesday, 20th January, not a weekend. get your facts straight and try not to look as stupid as you do, Rob....I know myself very, very well thanks, and am quite comfortable labelling the slimy little slitty-eyed prick as I did. Put yourselves in my place, if you can, and ask yourselves what you would have done. Perhaps you're all just too politically correct for that, eh?
Ah...not a weekend racist, just an every-day-run-of-the-mill one?
I had something similar happen to me a couple of months ago. Driving in the inside lane and a wanker in the outside lane decided he wanted the spot, good smash. I pulled over, the wanker did a U-turn and disappeared. My poor '91 Ford Escort's passenger side door looked very different from the way it arrived off the factory floor.
Was I pissed? Certainly. Did I rant? A little bit. But hey, it's a '91 Ford Escort, not James Dean's Deathmobile or a '93 Lexus.
Did I rant about the ethnicity of the folks that hit me? (I caught a glimpse of the driver, I'm white, he wasn't, but didn't get the car's number) No. That aspect was irrelevant.
I squirm recalling instances in the past where I have made racialist or bigotted statements, through wrong-headedness, misplaced irony, an attempt at humor, or thoughtlessness.
But when you get "called out" after such, it seems that apologies and introspection are in order, not repeated justifications.
Just my thoughts.
M o r k - you're rattled aren't you ?
3 tries to get your post out ? Yo fingers shakin a little aren't they son ?
Your brain not workin good is it - the old "wrong to demonize" red herring. Can't get any better ideas then ?
Niall runs a blog, and he says he's a lefty. And somehow, when Tim calls him a "lefty blogger" he's demonizing him ? This idea of yours is so dumb not even Jim Carrey would think of it.
Mork, I think everyone is laughing at you boy. Listen: "ha ha ha ha ha" - hear it ? Hey Mork, if I call you the "retarded commenter" am I demonizing you ? Ho Ho Ho
(yeah thats right Mork, I just called you a Ho ...)
Posted by: Arik at February 5, 2004 at 01:35 PMA very minor point, but in relation to ilibcc's post earlier, Whitlams quote (according to Greg Sheridan's excellent article at least) was
"I will not have those f------ yellow Balts with their religious and political prejudices against us".
The left has always hated the anti-communist vietnamese, Niall is just following in the grand tradition of their diety.
Posted by: Paul Dub at February 5, 2004 at 01:46 PMJeez Mork, did I just read you correctly when you wrote this:
"Why not either characterize Niall on the basis of his personal characteristics (which are obvious to anyone who has had the misfortune to read his blog), "
So, by personal I assume you also mean physical characteristics?
You lefties just get better and better. surely just focusing on what Niall actually said is enough eh?
I cant wait for your indignation when i refer to Howard Dean as that ugly white prick.
Posted by: nic at February 5, 2004 at 01:47 PM"You lefties"?
Can you point me to anything I have written that indicates left-wing views?
Or do you merely assume that anyone who chooses not to participate in the circle-jerk must be a lefty?
Posted by: Mork at February 5, 2004 at 01:59 PMMork, given that you post consistently opposing arguments on a blog with clearly right-wing sensibilities it should not be difficult to accept that you may occasionally be labelled a 'leftie'.
Posted by: ilibcc at February 5, 2004 at 02:21 PMAnyone who visits a blog to write "I don't give a fuck" obviously does...
Posted by: Jerry at February 5, 2004 at 02:22 PMIt's possible that Mork isn't a lefty, but merely an idiot. Hard to tell the difference sometimes.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 5, 2004 at 02:26 PM
"How do you drive when your eyes are three quarters of the way shut? You can blindfold these people with dental floss!"
-- Andrew Dice Clay, on Asian drivers.
Better recognise! All you weak "white people are bad drivers too" apologists!
Mork,
I know you're a bit slow, so for your benefit, I'll detail the elementary logic behind Tim calling Niall a "lefty blogger".
1. Niall is a lefty blogger. I hope you'll agree that's obvious.
2. People on the left vehemently condemn racist language such as "slitty-eyed" and "ignorant, non-english-speaking immigrant". I'm sure Niall has condemned such languge in the past (as do most people on the right). With me so far?
3. Even though Niall is a leftist, he used this language. Be patient, we're almost done.
4. Therefore, Niall is a racist and a complete hypocrite, to be totally dismissed on any matter concerning race, tolerance, ethics, and morality.
Q.E.D.
(And in my personal opinion there's a good chance that someone who would defend him is no better than him.)
Nothing about smearing other bloggers, see? In the future, please try to think before making baseless accusations, even if it is hard for you.
(note to Niall - see above for a better example of the use of "Q.E.D.")
Niall wrote:
I'm left to wonder, just how these reactionary idiots would react were they in the same position I found myself inI'm left to wonder what kind of an idiot would actually put it in print? So not only is Niall a racist and a hypocrite, he's a complete idiot as well.
Posted by: Jim C. at February 5, 2004 at 03:27 PM
So not only is Niall a racist and a hypocrite, he's a complete idiot as well.
Well, yes, but it would be rude to say so in public.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 5, 2004 at 03:37 PMJim, thanks for helping me out. I had not previously understood that opposition to racism was restricted to the left. I suppose that means that if a right-winger were racist, that wouldn't be hypocrisy, it would just be par for the course.
Perhaps I am a lefty, after all!
Posted by: Mork at February 5, 2004 at 03:43 PMHi stupid, let me qoute you:
"Perhaps you might all ask yourselves if I really care either way what anyone writes about what I might or might no believe. The honest answer is that I couldn't give a flying fuck"
Well you obviously care enough to follow the discussion around on other sites. You're in your 40's and still a dickhead. Shameful. I really thought you were in your teens until I checked your profile. My opinion of you dropped even further, teens grow up but you never did.
Posted by: Jake D at February 5, 2004 at 03:54 PMYou could have admitted that an hour or so ago and saved us all a LOT of trouble, Mork.
Posted by: ilibcc at February 5, 2004 at 03:58 PMOh shame upon all ye who slandered poor ol' Niall, simply because he was unfortunate enough to befall the actions of some Urban Assault Vehicle-driving slope.
I have taken pity upon my fellow blogger and had his conveyance repaired at my own great expense.
Just to prove it, here's a picture.
Posted by: Jim Riley at February 5, 2004 at 03:59 PMMork: I had not previously understood that opposition to racism was restricted to the left ...
I like how you totally skipped the "I'm sure Niall has condemned such languge in the past (as do most people on the right)." part of Jim's post.
I wouldn't go so far as to call you a lefty just because you're so mindlessly contrary for the pure thrill of being different. But keep trying. You're getting there.
Posted by: Sortelli at February 5, 2004 at 04:08 PMHey Tim. Can't I get a little credit for this? After all, I found it...(pathetic sniff)
Read here to see what started this...oh, I must confess, I wrote the post at Yobbo's allegedly by Naill..I couldn't help it..
Ok, Sortelli, now I'm confused. If Jim wasn't saying that Niall was a hypocrite because he was both a lefty and a racist, what was he saying?
Posted by: Mork at February 5, 2004 at 04:40 PMGreetings all,
You will note that Mork moved the goal posts of the discussion in his argument - selectively ignoring portions of Jim C's post to make a specious point.
NOTE FOR MORK - People can actually tell when you cheat in an argument in a forum such as this. People would take you more seriously if you didn't resort to such transparently dishonest tactics.
Posted by: Russell at February 5, 2004 at 04:46 PMWell, Russell, taking your (implied) reading of Jim's post, what Jim wrote doesn't make any sense at all.
Jim is arguing that Niall's status as a lefty is is a significant factor in how one should respond to his racism, because it demonstrates his hypocrisy.
But if Jim is saying that both right and left-wingers have an equal tendency to oppose racism (which, by the way, I think is true), he defeats his own argument: Niall's political persuasion is irrelevant.
QED, as they say.
Posted by: Mork at February 5, 2004 at 05:04 PMG'day Mork,
Jim C wrote a clear well structured post and it seemed that you deliberately ignored key elements of to make your point. I will accept that it is not a case of dishonesty on your part, you may have a fairly serios reading comprehension problem.
Your original attack on Tim was based on specious reasoning - Jim C pointed this out - you attacked Jim by distorting his point. Your failures in comprehension seem awfully convenient.
Posted by: Russell at February 5, 2004 at 05:12 PMOK, Russell, why don't you have a go at telling me what Jim's point is in your own words.
Posted by: Mork at February 5, 2004 at 05:19 PMMork: He wasn't saying that "opposition to racism was restricted to the left", which was the strawman you built for him.
Niall is a hypocrite because he dismisses the death of strangers and the anger people feel over such trivial issues, but froths like a racist toad when someone scratches his crappy car.
It's only an assumption that Niall would oppose racism in general, or that he would oppose it out of the mouth of a "right winger"... but I don't think Jim's making a risk there to assume as much.
Judging from the trolls 'round here, Niall isn't the only frothing contrary toad out to belch the opposite of what other people say until he can latch on to a small injustice with which he can use to stab at his enemies. Then it's ME ME ME! ... FARM SUBSIDIES!
Posted by: Sortelli at February 5, 2004 at 05:20 PMApart from an interest in V8 Supercars I thought Niall and I had nothing in common, and I also agree pretty much with everything Yobbo says.
Imagine my moral confusion when Yobbo implied that sitting at a computer naked is a bad thing.
Posted by: James Hamilton at February 5, 2004 at 05:21 PMUm, Sortelli, you've now conveniently left out of your explanation the entire point of the argument that Jim was trying to construct: that Niall's status as a left-winger was relevant to how his comments should be treated.
Posted by: Mork at February 5, 2004 at 05:31 PMYou see Mork, in human society, where some of us live or at least spend most of our time, opposing racism is popularly seen as a cause of the "left".
As Tim noted, there were outraged "lefties" who did not appreciate Niall's outburst. Therefore it is, in fact, relevant that Niall spits out leftist ideology while totally missing one leftist value that is so unassailable that even the "right" has had to come over and embrace it these days, and for good reason.
Now... lacking a specific example of Niall opposing racism, Jim's argument that Niall's racist diatribe makes him a hypocrite isn't founded on much. But, again, it's not really much of a stretch to think that Niall would be outraged by bald racism based on his liberal beliefs; unless you're just trying to be a pain in the ass or trying to use this to make Tim look bad for pointing out that lefty bloggers who complain about jingoism can also be ranting, petty morons.
You're trying to score points over nothing here, dude. Go back to the farm stuff. You at least have a point there, even if you just try to use it to be a snark.
Posted by: Sortelli at February 5, 2004 at 05:43 PMSo ... I was right about Jim's point after all!
(Although you try to finesse it by pretending that it's only about a perception that anti-racism is a leftist value ... obviously, acting contrary to something that is merely a perceived value and not an actual one is not actually hypocrisy).
In which case, the point of my sarcastic response to Jim stands: it's nonsense to imply that only left-wingers care about racism.
Posted by: Mork at February 5, 2004 at 05:53 PMZeroing in on the racism may be a bit picky, but read the sarcastic post from "Lefty Michael" way up above for a few more reasons why Niall's political alignment applies to this.
Wanting to punish people for damaging property, holding others responsible for their actions, becoming upset when someone else takes or breaks what we have worked hard for... those are nasty right-wing sentiments!
Posted by: Sortelli at February 5, 2004 at 06:07 PMTim presents several arguments, each one clear and each one qualifies Niall as a hypocrite. Here are some:
Niall denounces nationalism; Niall demonstates his nationalism by exalting his nationality and opposing the culture/nationality of another.
Niall preaches that we should accept things (in the context of MURDER) and move on, and cautions against hate; Niall demonstrates an inability accept things and move on, and encourages hate.
...
Lefties often preach about tolerance and denounce hate and racism; lefties are intolerant and hateful and support discrimination.
Righties keep their mouths shut and practice tolerance.
Mork, this doesn't need explaining. Take a damn class.
Posted by: aaron at February 5, 2004 at 06:23 PMThe point is it's the lefty wankers who always wear their hearts on their sleeve in parading their alleged anti-racist credentials and are always ready to accuse their opponents of being racists, Nazis, fascists, etc.
Read any history of Australia and the White Australia policy, down to Whitlam, Cameron, Mulvhill etc, attacking the Vietmanese boat-people, and you'll see racism in Australian history is in fact much more a left-wing than a right-wing thing.
Their present attacks on so-called globalism, and or Israel, are part of the same thing.
Posted by: sue at February 5, 2004 at 06:26 PMThe point is it's the lefty wankers who always wear their hearts on their sleeve in parading their alleged anti-racist credentials and are always ready to accuse their opponents of being racists, Nazis, fascists, etc.
Read any history of Australia and the White Australia policy, down to Whitlam, Cameron, Mulvhill etc, attacking the Vietmanese boat-people, and you'll see racism in Australian history is in fact much more a left-wing than a right-wing thing.
Their present attacks on so-called globalism, and or Israel, are part of the same thing.
Posted by: sue at February 5, 2004 at 06:26 PMNiall has moved to protect his site from being accessed by following a link from what he describes as "the darker side of the blog community". Of course, you can get to his page by just copying the link into a browser so I don't think it'll be too effective. I was amused by what Tim referred to as him recanting:
The driver was an ethnic Vietnamese, and in my indignant rage over the issue, I labelled him in what some describe as a racist manner. My intent was not to denigrate the drivers ethnicity, however that is the way it appeared to many. A valuable lesson in exposing ones inner emotions for public scrutiny has been learned. I was naive, to say the least, in believing that the general reading public would understand the intent behind my description in that entry.What did he say again that I misunderstood?
These four shots are the result of an ignorant, slitty-eyed, slimy little Landcruiser-driving vietnamese prick which tried to squeeze past me on the freeway entry ramp this morning.Oh, I think I understood him alright. Posted by: Bruce Gottfred at February 6, 2004 at 01:22 AM
*deep breath* Niall's update is more sad than funny, but I got to remind myself to put a happy face on.
So! Shall we start a fund to get Niall a little paper diary with a plastic lock so that he doesn't have to worry about people reading what he writes for himself?
Posted by: Sortelli at February 6, 2004 at 01:26 AMNiall wrote:
Just imagine the hits I'm getting.
Just imagine the hits you're not going to get for using this as some sort of "defense" of your boorish nature.
Posted by: Patrick Chester at February 6, 2004 at 03:40 AMOkay, in simple words for the lefties:
You don't get to choose your race, sex, etc. That's why it's rude to make racist, sexist, etc. remarks.
You *do* get to choose your politics, personal philosophy, taste in clothes, or other behavior. Those are fair game.
Picking on someone for being (for example) Vietnamese is wrong. Picking on someone for being (for example) a leftie is fair game. You chose your political opinions. You can choose them differently.
Criticizing the other driver's skills (or lack of them) was fair. Calling him "slit-eyed" was not.
Got it?
Sue:
"racism in Australian history is in fact much more a left-wing than a right-wing thing"
Spot on ! I love it when I see a clear crystallisation of historical reality. In spite of the efforts of the lefty historical establishment its still possible to see clearly.
Posted by: Arik at February 6, 2004 at 09:23 AM