Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Today The Stranger Suggests | Finding Gregory »

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Hey, Kentucky! Despite What You Mighta Heard on the FOX Teevee, Obama’s Not a Muslim!

posted by on May 20 at 11:08 AM

Yay: To Barack Obama for at least TRYING to reach out to Kentucky voters (expected to vote overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton).

Boo: For doing so with such ham-fisted religious pandering (OOH, lookie! A BIG, ILLUMINATED CROSS to prove to the rural hicks that he’s NOT A MUSLIM!)


I’ve come around on Obama (though, yeah, I’m still pissed about the way Hillary was treated)… but fer fuck’s sake, if you want to get rural voters in your camp, you’ve gotta stop treating them like gullible yokels.

RSS icon Comments


And Huckabee caught flack for a cross-shaped bookcase in the background of his TV ad?

Posted by NapoleonXIV | May 20, 2008 11:12 AM

Sigh. I really really want an atheist or agnostic president.

Posted by arduous | May 20, 2008 11:13 AM

Hey Erica, aren't the people of Kentucky saying over and over again that they ARE gullible yokels, what with the whole "We whities won't vote for a black muslim." quotes that the press has been talking about for the past few weeks?

Posted by NaFun | May 20, 2008 11:13 AM
if you want to get rural voters in your camp, youíve gotta stop treating them like gullible yokels.


And only four !'s and CAPS. I'm impressed.

Posted by Mr. Poe | May 20, 2008 11:14 AM

"fer fuck's sake"

What does fucking have to do with this?

Posted by Hartiepie | May 20, 2008 11:15 AM

Really? I'd say that's EXACTLY what you have to do. I don't agree with it, but I can imagine that ad working quite well. He should start placing these ads in Parade while he's at it too.

Posted by a | May 20, 2008 11:15 AM


Posted by Mr. Poe | May 20, 2008 11:15 AM

Sorry, but if Hillary's shown anything in the last month or so, it's that you can, in fact, win big by treating rural voters like gullible yokels. (Too late in her case ... but it worked as well as it could.)

Posted by tsm | May 20, 2008 11:16 AM

This is how I see you when I read your posts.

Posted by Mr. Poe | May 20, 2008 11:18 AM

@9: Exactly!

Posted by ECB | May 20, 2008 11:24 AM

I can almost hear the cheesy organ in the background.

Posted by Greg | May 20, 2008 11:24 AM

Okay, off topic I guess, but Iíve been bothered by Clintonís claim that she will do better against McCain. So hereís the skinny:

According to polls, Clinton is right, in a sense: if you look state by state, she beats McCain by 3 electoral college votes (269 to 266) with the help of Floridaís 27 votes, while Obama loses by a whopping 59 electoral college votes. But wait: Clinton beats McCain in New York with its massive 31 electoral college votes. Well, of course she does - democrats will definitely win New York - but in polls Obama seems to lose New York to McCain which, dear lord I hope, is essentially impossible. It just isnít considered a swing state. If we throw New York in as a win for Obama against McCain then Obama wins the general by the same 3 electoral college votes that Clinton does.

That's my 2 cents. It took me all morning to come up with that.

Posted by evg | May 20, 2008 11:28 AM

Gosh, I can't imagine why Kentucky voters would assume Obama's a Muslim.

I mean with a stinging rebutal to that wacky claim: "As far as I know he's not a Muslim," from Hillary Clinton how could rural voters be confused?

It just boggles my mind.

Posted by Jeff | May 20, 2008 11:28 AM

Well, as long as you're aware, then it's funny.

Posted by Mr. Poe | May 20, 2008 11:30 AM

If Obama sexually molests his daughter he would probably carry the evangelical vote in America by a landslide. That would prove he is a Christian!

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | May 20, 2008 11:33 AM

bad move. he should have just shot some baskets in a kentucky wildcats jersey.

his b-ball appeal, regardless of what u wanna be wonks say, helped him immensely in indiana and helped him sealed his nomination.

Posted by SeMe | May 20, 2008 11:34 AM

"Iíve come around on Obama"

no you haven't.

Posted by ho' know | May 20, 2008 11:34 AM

There are plenty of gullible yokels in this country, all over this country. They've already responded to lies and prejudices like gullible yokels, so why not deliver a message that they'll respond to positively?

Just like we elitist, latte-drinking, big-city urbanites want to believe that this country can change for the better, there are plenty of people who live in fear of it changing too radically. You need to address those people as well. They vote, too. People vote for the candidate that thinks like they do.

The non-yokels won't be terribly put off by it.

Posted by JC | May 20, 2008 11:36 AM

"if you want to get rural voters in your camp, youíve gotta stop treating them like gullible yokels."

On the contrary. Much as I loathe this ad, I'm sure it plays very well in Kentucky, or anywhere in the bible belt. It is shameless pandering, to be sure. But pandering has proven time and time again that it works.

I read an article this morning that brought up the interesting statistic that no democratic presidential candidate has won the lower income white male vote since 1964. That means that lower income white males have been voting against their own financial self interest for over 40 years. That to me seems like the very definition of gullible yokels.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | May 20, 2008 11:37 AM

By "Iíve come around on Obama" do you mean you want him to defeat John McCain in the Presidential election? Because I'm not sure how this post helps with that.

I remember a lot of posts complaining about how people who were not Barack Obama treated Hillary. I would take that up with them. Not sure what Obama did to her.

Posted by elenchos | May 20, 2008 11:37 AM

My only question is this: what does this have to do with The Impending Nearness of SIFF?

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 20, 2008 11:40 AM


As somebody who is now an ultra-liberal, educated 20-something living in an urban area, but who was raised in rural Kentucky, it really bugs me to see the othering of people from generally conservative or generally rural areas as being intellectual idiots.

In the same breath, Erica, you say, "Youíve gotta stop treating [Kentuckians] like gullible yokels," and but address those non-yokels yourself with, "Despite What You Mighta Heard on the FOX Teevee..." I know that a lot of Kentuckians have painful, backwards viewpoints, but ya don't gotta talk real slow-like to their poor dear souls. Kentuckians are no less intelligent than you, nor any less stubborn, which is where you're actually finding the rub. Maybe I'm ridiculous to take issue with snideness on the Slog (shock! horror!), but Kentucky never catches a break here.

Now, can we please be done with this the-other-as-the-idiot stereotype on Kentucky and the rural Midwest/South in general?

Posted by Christin | May 20, 2008 11:43 AM

@17 I think she's doing pretty well. Only 3 sentences for one thing.

While I'd love to have an atheist in the WH, I'll settle for someone willing to not restrict anyone's freedom with their beliefs.

Posted by Mike of Renton | May 20, 2008 11:43 AM

Eveyone made my point re: treating KY voters as gullible yokels. Trust me, you actually do have to treat them like dumbshits. I am surrounded by the very people to whom you are referring (I'm not IN KY, but really, what's the diff between MO & KY?).

Also, LMFAO @ 9. I will never be able to think of ECB without thinking of that!

Posted by Mike in MO | May 20, 2008 11:44 AM

isn't this pretty standard pandering for an election? esp when a significant percentage of the population thinks your a muslim, and those very same people think being a muslim is problematic? it's certainly no worse than bill clinton's shamelesss christian radio ads bragging about DOMA and defending "family values." now THAT'S pandering.

alas, i don't know this will do him any good, because these same people also believe that muslims are deceitful and not trustworthy, so he's pretty much fucked no matter what he does.

Posted by brandon | May 20, 2008 11:45 AM

What @16 said is soooooo true.

Obama really only needed to holler "Go Wildcats!". KY basketball is the true religion there.

It also wouldn't have hurt to have reminded those voters how much he misses his smoking. pastime. KY misses it too.

Posted by SeanD | May 20, 2008 11:45 AM

"youíve gotta stop treating them like gullible yokels."

Unfortunately it kind of seems like that's the only way to work it..

Posted by =( | May 20, 2008 11:45 AM

This is a positive ad. Obama is showing that he has a great deal in common with people who appreciate going to church. He is saying that his faith drives his actions. This is not treating anyone as yokels. Anyone who thinks so needs to look in the mirror and ask WHO exactly is looking down at people who go to church. And if this convinces suspicious voters that Obama is not a secret Muslim, all the better.

Posted by Cyclist | May 20, 2008 11:45 AM

Well, he's clearly trying to appeal to the legions of lapel-pin patriots who have shown grave difficulties distinguishing between symbols and their referents.

Posted by shub-negrorath | May 20, 2008 11:47 AM

As others have said, this is EXACTLY the kind of thing it will take for Obama to gain ground. Anyone read "The Appeal" by John Grisham? I just finished it and it scared the shit out of me. Sure, it was fiction, but it mirrors current political reality quite well.

We're already getting it from McCain...terrorists like Obama, Barack will take your guns, etc.

Posted by Gabe | May 20, 2008 11:49 AM

You need to look at ECB as a giant cat, batting you back and forth (if you let her). ;)

Posted by NapoleonXIV | May 20, 2008 11:49 AM

But there are SO MANY gullible yokels out there. Did you not SEE what happened in West Virginia? Did you not SEE the Daily Show interviews with fat old southern ladies who said voted for Hilary because they were afraid of black people and couldn't vote for a Muslim? NO? Thank god for the internet then:

He is clearly responding to that and it's a wise decision. Also, I suspect that Obama is secretly an agnostic or atheist but knows he would be a moron to let it slip.

Posted by Baxter | May 20, 2008 11:57 AM

Erica honey,
Sincerely, honestly why are mad at the way Hillary was treated?
By whom?
I am actually curious to hear your case.

Posted by Scott Dow | May 20, 2008 11:59 AM

Erica, you don't seem to like religion a lot and I think that clouds your judgment here. But, to be clear, I think that religion has been a large part of Obama's campaign from the beginning. In nearly every state he's put out information on his faith.

This isn't new. Sure, it may help in Kentucky, but I don't think he's doing it to pander.

All Democrats understand now that it's OK to talk about their religion if they choose to do so, because it may help break away some of the base of the Republicans in November. I mean, probably unlikely, but you never know.

Still, I think your own bias here is really messing you up.

Posted by Sam | May 20, 2008 12:02 PM

When Hillary panders like this you people jump down her throat. When Obama does it, it's what he needs to do to win.

Posted by mscanard | May 20, 2008 12:03 PM

Okay, ECB. Point taken, and thank you for being open-minded about Obama.

Now that you've "pissed" all over what the "ham-fisted" efforst the campaign DID do to reach out to faith-based voters, I challenge you to say EXACTLY what the campaign SHOULD have done instead? Feel free to use visual samples and designs, explanations of content et cetera.

Are you suggesting something subtle would work? Something intelligent and not sentimental? And still get them to vote for him from an intellectual rather than knee-jerk-emotional, religious imagery?

I am honestly curious to hear your creative ideas.

Posted by Andy Niable | May 20, 2008 12:03 PM

WTF? I am so tired of hearing people talk shit about Kentuckians. I am from Kentucky and I'm proud of my heritage. I now live in Chicago and there's really no discernable difference between prejudices here in Chicago than at home. People in the south are not dumbshits for the most's just a different place with different norms and trends and whatnot. Here's the one in the rest of the country talks about the south unless they're talking down to you. Why would anyone there want anything to do with what the rest of the country wants when it is utterly clear that the rest of the country wants nothing to do with the south. Obama only made three visits to Kentucky...and didn't really spend time outside of the bigger cities, so of course he's having a hard time there...he just gave up. Full disclosure: I'm a tried and true Obama supporter as are most of my immediate family members, including my die-hard Republican, small town, dumbshit, yokel great grandmother.
You guys are being small minded (read: dumb shits) for the most part. Go visit's not so bad. And...we have sweet tea. You can't beat that.

PS. Mike in Renton...aren't you a dumbshit too? if you're surrounded by dumbshits?

Posted by Jessica | May 20, 2008 12:05 PM

Add me to the camp saying they most assuredly ARE gullible yokels.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | May 20, 2008 12:08 PM

#34: It's just that it seems so disingenuous. Obama's too educated and too smart to be as religious as he makes himself out to be to these people. And yeah, they are yokels. Anyone who believes in nonexistent beings is an ignorant hick. I find it very hard to believe that Obama's religion is anything but politically expedient.

Posted by JJ | May 20, 2008 12:13 PM

Hey, Kentucky, on Meet the Press this past Sunday, Huckabee and two other Republican pundits stated that Obama is not a Muslim, and THEY stated that he is a practicing, active Christian.

Run a horse race on that, Kentucky!

Posted by Arlene | May 20, 2008 12:17 PM

Horserace, hell, run a commercial using CLIPS from it, @40

Posted by Andy Niable | May 20, 2008 12:19 PM

In reading slog comments for the past year, I have come to the following conclusions:

1) Erica never has a valid point, opinion, or critique. Not once, ever. Global warming is real? Not if ECB says it is! Coverage of transit stuff? Duh, Erica, everyone is teleporting now, you idiot.

2) Opinions don't really matter. Facts matter. Fact: In the opinion of slog commenters, Erica is as crazy as a pile of racoons in a garbage can full of methamphetamines.

3) Vaginas make people act crazy. Vaginas made women support Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is crazy because she has one.

4) Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have no similar viewpoints or voting records. And if they did (which is a lie from Erica) then Barack Obama had those viewpoints and voting records first. And he had them better.

5) You can't critique Barack Obama, unless you love John McCain. If you question his policies or decisions, it's because you are secretly a Republican operative. You know this is true because Erica and Bill O'Reilly have never had their picture taken together- because they are the same person.

6) ECB is personally responsible for every state that Barack Obama ever lost. Even more than Hillary Clinton, Erica has hated him forever, because she is irrational.

7) Every Hillary Clinton supporter ever, ECB included, only supported Hillary Clinton because they were stupid, or confused or poor or racist or all of those things. People who continue to support Hillary Clinton do so because they can't understand math. They say that it is values or principles or whatever, but really it is that they are stupid. Just like Hillary Clinton. She's stupid! Math! If we say it loud like those guys with the Iron My Shirt sign, maybe she will get it.

8) Obama supporters are NEVER ignorant, flawed or sexist. They love women so much, they are willing to oppress them even more than other minorities to prove that they don't even see sex. A vagina WHAT? She doesn't even have one, as far as I know! If she did have a vagina, it would make her poorly suited to be a leader and all because of her irrational moon-based menses- but we haven't been paying attention to that, because we don't even see sex or gender at all ever!

9) Also, if Obama supporters were ever to join a facebook group called "Woman Go Make Me A Sandwich", or "Iron My Shirt", they would not be being ignorant. They would be being ironic. Which Hillary supporters can't even spell, because none of them ever have gone to college or even left their dumb hick farms.

10) Barack Obama has never run a dirty campaign ever, or engaged in negative advertising. If he had done any of those things, it would have been a response to stupid mean Hillary Clinton, but that's irrelevant, because he didn't ever.

Thanks for finally enlightening me, slog commenters. It must be my crazy vagina and huge amount of student debt that has made me be critical of both Obama and Clinton and then choose her. Somehow, it just ran right over my graduate degree in speech communication and my 20+ years as a Democrat political insider.

Posted by Sara | May 20, 2008 12:19 PM

Obama's middle name "Hussein" makes him no more Muslim than my middle name "Charles" makes me the Prince of Wales.

And yet - the people who still believe the moon-landing was directed on a Hollywood backlot by Spielberg are the same people who believe Obama is an Al-Qaeda "sleeper".

Is it any wonder many politicians Do Not want everyone to exercise their right to vote?

Posted by RHETT ORACLE | May 20, 2008 12:27 PM

Christin: Uh, you're not getting it. That's the voice that ads like this implicitly adopt, not mine.

Posted by ECB | May 20, 2008 12:28 PM

Jessica @37: Did you confuse me with Mike in MO?

@42: Are you trying to replace ECB?

Posted by Mike of Renton | May 20, 2008 12:28 PM

#42 was almost funny.

Posted by w7ngman | May 20, 2008 12:29 PM

@42, did you learn how to knock down straw men so well in graduate school, or was that from your 20+ years as a Democrat?

Posted by actually, yes, you do sound crazy. | May 20, 2008 12:30 PM

but, yep, they ARE gullible yokels, I can think of no other demographic that votes against their interested based on intangibles, out and out bigotry, and just plain vindictive less-than-zero-sum meanness.

Posted by yep | May 20, 2008 12:32 PM

@42 is spot on (this coming from an Obama supporter).

Posted by Julie | May 20, 2008 12:34 PM

#42 is absolutely right. Thanks!!

Posted by poppy | May 20, 2008 12:37 PM

No, #42 is fucking ridiculous. #27 is spot on.

Posted by w7ngman | May 20, 2008 12:38 PM


Concerning point #4. ECB has long criticized Obama for positions that he shares with Hillary and for doing things, like missing votes, that Hillary does with pretty much the same frequency. I'm under no illusions that all Obama supporters are rational, but ECB has also never been a rational Hillary supporter.

Posted by keshmeshi | May 20, 2008 12:40 PM

Oops, #47 is spot on.

Posted by w7ngman | May 20, 2008 12:41 PM

I'm with Nafun at 3 and a at 6 and everyone else who comes after and agrees that yokel folks warrant yokel treatment.

Posted by David Schmader | May 20, 2008 12:42 PM

psst - Sara @ 41 *is* ECB

Posted by letting you in on the joke | May 20, 2008 12:44 PM

#42, if you can find a single Slog comment that represents *any* of your points, I will be impressed.

Come on, just one.

Posted by w7ngman | May 20, 2008 12:44 PM

If you are confused about the literary/argumentative devices I'm attempting, you can look up both straw man and irony there.

I prefer the first definition of both.

For this to be a true straw man, it would have to be presenting a position that does not exist at all. In my opinion, that's not true. At the very least, some slog commenters have a particularly intense dislike both ECB and Hillary Clinton, and post negatively about both regardless of the content of posts by/about them. While it has been argued that this dislike is justified, it does not mean that it does not exist.

Posted by Sara | May 20, 2008 12:47 PM

@39 Even very smart, educated people are capable of having an irrational belief or two. James Watson is a great example of this.

Posted by Hernandez | May 20, 2008 12:48 PM

Have you been to Hardscuffle, the Oaks, or the Derby? I used to go every year. Unless the standard issue for a "rural hick" in Kentucky is a freshly pressed Brooks Brothers seersucker suit and a cool julep in hand, I think your sweeping generalizations about a state you've likely never spent time in are off the mark.

Posted by john cocktosin | May 20, 2008 12:48 PM

I'm from texas. I'll have to throw my vote in the category of "YES. they are ignorant yokels, extremely susceptible to this type of pandering." though I must add that this is a harsh judgment.

from what I've seen, these types of ads DO work. the "yokels" that I know are ignorant because they don't pay any active attention. all opinions they have come floating in on the wind to them from ladies at the craft show, the headlines of the local newspaper, chain emails... my family received an email saying that obama was a muslim - and they believed it. if they see an ad from obama with him in front of a cross, they will believe that too.

as they don't seek out any information for themselves, any little bit that comes into their line of vision builds their opinion.

politicians have to do this crap.

I do think obama's (and clinton's) religiosity and anti-gay-osity are solely politically expedient. and for that I forgive them (fine line).

Posted by bstakes | May 20, 2008 12:52 PM
9) Also, if Obama supporters were ever to join a facebook group called "Woman Go Make Me A Sandwich", or "Iron My Shirt", they would not be being ignorant. They would be being ironic. Which Hillary supporters can't even spell, because none of them ever have gone to college or even left their dumb hick farms.
My heads going to explode here, Sara.

Were you being ironic when you accused Obama supporters of backfilling with an irony defense when in fact they were not being ironic at all? Or is your irony defense ironic?

I bet if you provided a specific example of any your accusations, as requested, it would cut through all this irony.

Posted by elenchos | May 20, 2008 12:56 PM

#56, take any of elenchos' comments ever, for example.

Do you really think those points aren't true? Many (or most) of the regular commenters here 1) think ECB is stupid or crazy, 2) never criticize Obama, 3) criticize Hillary for every little thing, and 4) deny almost anything is sexist. They're also not afraid to let everyone know these things over and over and over again.

Look at the comments on any of Erica's posts (including this one) for examples of all four of these phenomena.

Posted by poppy | May 20, 2008 1:03 PM
By "Iíve come around on Obama" do you mean you want him to defeat John McCain in the Presidential election? Because I'm not sure how this post helps with that.

I remember a lot of posts complaining about how people who were not Barack Obama treated Hillary. I would take that up with them. Not sure what Obama did to her.

#61: Examples of Sara's #1, #5, #6, #10.

Posted by poppy | May 20, 2008 1:06 PM

Here is a particular thread to illustrate my point. It was the first one I found- although it is certainly not the only one possible. To argue that all people on slog have treated ECB with respect or even human decency is ridiculous.

To clarify, the point that I am trying to make is NOT that ECB or Clinton or Clinton supporters are perfect. The point I am trying to make is that they are not perfectly wrong in all instances. Nor are Obama or his supporters perfectly wrong in all instances.

Both have their pros and cons. It seems, from my perspective, that there is a particularly violent response to Clinton and ECB that there is not to Obama or his supporters. What's even more disturbing to me is that although ECB has publicly stated that she believes that Clinton should drop out and that she supports Obama, she is still the personal scapegoat for those who hate Clinton.

Posted by Sara | May 20, 2008 1:09 PM

I'm looking at my favorite page:

Appeal to ridicule? Spotlight fallacy? Composition? Generalization? Cherry picking? Appeal to spite?

You're guilty of all of these.

Posted by w7ngman | May 20, 2008 1:09 PM

One more plug for "The Appeal." Grisham WAS a politician in Mississippi, I imagine that gives him a bit of insight as to what works for the rural Southern electorate. What works? Pandering and fear mongering works. If Obama is not going to use fear, he certainly needs to pander in this way to try and dispell some of the fear. For the record, I think this is more of a National than Southern problem...we could replace KY with Spokane here with the same arguements.

Posted by Gabe | May 20, 2008 1:09 PM

poppy@62, you are an excellent example of confirmation bias. You simply fail to pay much attention when an Obama supporter expresses unease or displeasure with something Obama says on Slog, or when an ECB post fails to inspire much or any bile, or when a poster agrees something is sexist, because these things have no particular emotional impact on you. Nonetheless, they happen all the time.

Posted by tsm | May 20, 2008 1:11 PM

"Erica never has a valid point" is #1. Where did I say Erica never has a valid point? I can see this is going to take awhile.

Sara once again attacks her (ironic?) strawman by saying ECB and Clinton are never "perfectly wrong." Who ever said they were always wrong about everything?

If you're reading criticisms of specific points as meaning "you are always wrong," I can see how you'd start to feel persecuted.

Posted by elenchos | May 20, 2008 1:12 PM

#68: It was a funny comment about "what Sara learned from reading Slog." She doesn't mean you're literally saying exactly "Erica never has a valid point." She's saying that's what you (and many others) are implying and inferring these things with almost every comment.

If you want a clearer example of #1 and #2, how bout this one?


I mean the part I read about security booting the bike is hilarious. I didn't read the whole thing of course. I'm assuming the factual part was followed by a stream of nonsense and half-truths, but life is too short to find out.

Posted by poppy | May 20, 2008 1:17 PM

@64, how can you expect any commenter here be so personally offended on ECB's behalf, or her gender's behalf, or whatever you're trying to argue, when the same "people" are making jokes to mock Senator Kennedy's probably fatal brain tumor just a few posts away on today's slog? You're seriously upset about a lack of humanity and reason amidst the sort of lowlife scum that would post here at the ass end of the internet, myself included? You can somehow extrapolate and make voting decisions based on the nonsensical, mean-spirited comments posted in response to any particular post or poster on this blog?

ECB is an expert troll, racking up amazing numbers of hits for this site's advertisers. She plays this crowd of retards like a harpsichord by now.

Posted by Just Sayin' | May 20, 2008 1:23 PM

elenchos -- just yesterday you commented that you only read the opening paragraph of one of ECB's posts because the rest would be a waste of your time (essentially, if I may paraphrase, that Erica never/rarely has a valid point).

Posted by mscanard | May 20, 2008 1:23 PM


"I'm not sure how this post helps" is not "Erica never has a valid point, opinion, or critique"

"I'm not sure how this post helps [defeat John McCain]" is not "you love John McCain"

I don't even know how #6 is related.

I might give you #10 if you come up with an example of Obama treating Hillary badly. Even so, I don't see how that comment says "Obama has never run a dirty campaign ever"

Even so, you can't generalize "slog commenters" based on a few single comments.

She doesn't mean you're literally saying exactly "Erica never has a valid point."

No kidding. It's called appeal to ridicule, as I mentioned already in #65. Appeal to ridicule is a type of straw man. #47 still wins.

Posted by w7ngman | May 20, 2008 1:26 PM

Back to @42 - she is one cRaZy vagina! or is it she has one crazy vagina, no no, she is one crazy vagina, or perhaps vaginas have made her crazy.

I purpose a study, a study of vaginas and long winded craziness.

Posted by Sad Comment | May 20, 2008 1:28 PM

#71, "if I may paraphrase"

Paraphrasing implies that you keep the original meaning of the text. Which you did not.

Posted by w7ngman | May 20, 2008 1:33 PM

Also, I wasn't personally directing my original post at you, elenchos. Your saying that I said you personally had said or implied that Erica has never had a valid point is a "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted"- the very definition of a straw man.

If you would like another example (even though w7ngman only asked for one and I've done that, and Poppy has done that repeatedly), how about this:

"The cutest part is that ECB actually believes Hillary is telling the truth. It's adorable, in a victimized-by-feminism kind of way."

April 24, 2008 2:23 PM

The argument made here is that ECB supported Clinton because she was stupid. #7

Posted by Sara | May 20, 2008 1:33 PM

gulliable implies that Obama's faith is a fake construction to win votes, which it is not.

Posted by Jason | May 20, 2008 1:38 PM

@69, @71

OK first, I was right. I was right. Being right counts. Erica advocated a harebrained protest to get more bike racks, while w7ngman provided the correct solution, to request more bike racks from the city.

Second, the hilarious part of Erica's post was the factual part. I didn't dispute her factual reporting. I did not dispute that she was right about what happened. If I believed she is wrong about everything, I would have taken issue with everything she said. Instead, I was only anticipating that the part where she editorializes, theorizes, and makes recommendations for remedial action are suspect. But I did give her credit for getting the first part right.

And, once again, I was right. It was a typical case where she nails the basic facts, then goes on a bender from there.

@75 Um, on that thing about Hillary raising$10 million, didn't that turn out to be a lie? Since half of it was a loan from herself? Or am I thinking about something else? Because that does make believing Hillary in that case kind of cute.

Posted by elenchos | May 20, 2008 1:39 PM

I think it's literally impossible to dumb something down to much for Kentuckians. Perhaps he should have written the mailer in grunts.

Posted by AMB | May 20, 2008 1:40 PM

Still patiently waiting for your constructive suggestions, Erica.

It's easy to say "that wont work, don't do that"--anyone can throw stones.

But to criticize and explain what TO do instead...

What Would Hillary Do?
(wait, please, don't answer that. give me YOUR own ideas)

Posted by Andy Niable | May 20, 2008 1:42 PM

@75. I'm pretty sure "I'm assuming [it will be] a stream of nonsense and half-truths" is at least relatively analogous to "never/rarely has a valid point".

Posted by mscanard | May 20, 2008 1:44 PM

So, elenchos... you were right. Okay, does that mean that you believe that Erica never/rarely has a valid point? It really sounds like you do. Which is fine. So, I don't see what your issue is with Sara's #1, then.

Posted by mscanard | May 20, 2008 1:48 PM

mscanard, you need to first realize that we're talking about typical posts that are in the form X happened, which means Y. Or X happened, and so we should do Z. In the context of that one statement, I'm saying X was correct, but the second part might not be worth your time to read.

Now I am willing to admit that I think all ECB articles of any length contain at least some bullshit. That is, I'm saying they are never entirely true. And the bullshit part is usually the one that comes after the basic facts. That is not the same as saying that she never has a valid point. It is saying that at least some of her points are usually invalid.

And you could say that about anyone, so what is the crime here?

Posted by elenchos | May 20, 2008 1:57 PM

w7ngman, there's a difference between fallacy and subtext.

Sara, sorry if I put words in your mouth! I can't help jumping in sometimes.

Posted by poppy | May 20, 2008 1:59 PM

I wasn't attempting to imply that anyone had committed a crime. I was being critical of people on the internet.

I thought that's what we did here...

Posted by Sara | May 20, 2008 2:01 PM

Poppy- you haven't stepped on my toes- no problems here.

Posted by Sara | May 20, 2008 2:04 PM

Again, if I may paraphrase, you are saying that Erica usually gets the facts right, but when she tries to make a "point, opinion, or critique" she usually does not succeed.

The "never" in Sara's point was obviously an exaggeration for effect, so I would say you two are in total agreement.

Posted by Julie | May 20, 2008 2:07 PM

Please move Sara @42 to the top of the list of Sloggers for the next Freaky Friday. That was fucking hilarious. "Crazy as a pile of racoons in a garbage can full of methamphetamines" LOL. "A vagina WHAT?"

Posted by David | May 20, 2008 2:08 PM

@42 wins, even if most people on SLOG don't take certain posts by certain SLOGsters seriously, which she does.

And it's President Obama to you ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 20, 2008 2:10 PM

Also to clarify- even if I support Hillary Clinton and think she's a nice person (gasp!)- I will vote in November for Obama and will encourage others to do the same. Petty bickering aside (and I can be petty just like the rest of the world- obviously)- it's not worth backsliding on gay rights and women's health issues.

Posted by Sara | May 20, 2008 2:16 PM

Do you think this is more ham-fisted than claiming to shoot with your pennsylvania grandfather while doing shots of Crown Royal? If anything I would say Obama learned a thing or two from Hillary: with Rust Belt low-education whites ham-fisting (hehe) is what is needed. Afterall, half of them believe he's a Muslim because "my cousins' daughter-in-law sent an email, y'all!"

Posted by Jason | May 20, 2008 2:46 PM

McCain's grandfather owned a 2000 acre plantation in Mississippi, was a member of the Confederate Army, and owned 52 slaves.

It may be his Great-Grandfather, actually. But it goes to show that McCain's roots are American. And deep.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | May 20, 2008 2:50 PM

I'm not so sure it was his grandpa. McCain is that old - remember, he used to hang out with Nero at BBQs and laugh at the slaves.

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 20, 2008 3:04 PM

God, this thread has gotten boring.

Posted by Greg | May 20, 2008 3:07 PM

I like how "never" became "rarely" in order to make the diatribe @42 less nonsensical.

Next you will tell us that all is most, none is some, and always is most of the time.

Apparently #42 making sense just depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Posted by w7ngman | May 20, 2008 3:12 PM

Sara, why are you proving the point that women make piss poor arguments and gleefully destroy strawmen instead.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | May 20, 2008 3:14 PM

That's strawpeople to you, @96.

Posted by Will in PC Seattle | May 20, 2008 3:16 PM

you know whats truly crazy: I actually didn't read any replies to your post when I made mine but several others called bullshit.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | May 20, 2008 3:17 PM

#84, I couldn't help but notice this in the link you posted.

Not only is it not literal, with subtexts mining the conversational field, but the distractors serve strange purposes that are contrary to productive conversation.
Posted by w7ngman | May 20, 2008 3:23 PM

Because every thread that makes it to 99 deserves to make it to 100...

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | May 20, 2008 3:30 PM

"Called bullshit" is an understatement.

Posted by w7ngman | May 20, 2008 3:33 PM

As a member of Persons Against Violence Against Strawpersons, I must now declare:


Posted by NapoleonXIV | May 20, 2008 3:37 PM

w7ngman, I didnt want to be more mysoginist and use words or phrases like "bitch slapped" or "fucked like a bitch" or "inforammed your cunt like a bitch"

Posted by Bellevue Ave | May 20, 2008 3:50 PM

OMG It says KY. LOL

Posted by NaFun | May 20, 2008 4:01 PM

Holy shit! 104 posts on this - don't you people have jobs.

Posted by Sad Comment | May 20, 2008 4:47 PM

Yes, yes we do.

Posted by w7ngman | May 20, 2008 5:28 PM

Seems like some people on this thread fail to see that #42 was, say, "exaggerating in a humorous fashion for the purpose of making a point", and are taking the comment literally. What's with that?

Posted by Anonymous | May 21, 2008 7:07 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).