I was recently removed from the blogroll at The Confluence. Normally, I ask other sites not to list Cannonfire, because I've received too many accusations of "attention-seeking." (I still hear that canard from time to time. And a few members of my un-fan club still insist that I'm in it for the money. What money?) Due to that long-standing policy, I did not ask riverdaughter to list me in the first place, and I hope that she will never re-list me. That said, I'm a little sad to think that my scribblings may have aroused enmity over on The Confluence, because I think that those people do great work -- besides, riverdaughter has good taste in music.
The recent anti-Israel posts seem to have snapped the camel's vertebrae. Or so I'm guessing. If so, other bloggers may be wise to avoid any taint of guilt-by-association.
(By the way -- among the shouters hurling the "attention-seeker" charge at me were the good folks at No Quarter. That's funny, coming from them. Has Larry Johnson ever turned down a chance to promote his site...?)
12 comments:
I noticed that, too. However, I've never seen any mention of why you were removed unless RD thought you requested it.
Liberal Rapture (http://www.liberalrapture.com/) was punitively de-listed by the confluence for a guest post by me, in which I criticized certain elements for trying to turn PUMA into a radical feminist/lesbian crusade.
I had complained that sites like pumapac and the confluence were stifling open debate, and that their content was become loaded with angry male-bashing. This brought cries of 'heresy' and set off new spasms of anti-male hatred. A recent pumapac post proposes chemical castration for all men.
If the confluence wants to head down that road, we can live without them. Sites like Cannonfire have proven themselves brave enough to tackle any subject, topple any golden calves, and take the heat of "return fire."
Keep up the good work.
As someone who regularly reads both this blog and The Confluence, I too was saddened to see your removal from their blogroll. It happened during a clean-up when two other blogs were removed that had very unkind things to say about TC, imputing racism all because because of one post that mentioned Franklin Raines's roll in the subprime mortgage debacle.
I have no idea why your blog was removed at the same time. At first I thought that it had to do with either your silly "estrogen poisoning" post (but we all write silly posts from time to time, so that makes no make sense) or your stated desire not to be listed on blogrolls.
I really hope that you are wrong, and that the delinking had nothing to do with your heartfelt position on I-P. I agree with everything you said about RD and I hope that someone on the in at TC will speak up and explain the real reason for your delisting.
Inky
You're still on my blogroll - I put you on there just to piss you off.
I'd tell you to keep doing what you do and not worry about what anyone else thinks, but I'm pretty sure you're gonna do that anyway.
I for one am very sad about it. I've read your blog regularly for years, and I admire your writing and your research skills; and I'll continue to read your work regardless of what blogrolls you are on.
Boston Boomer
You got booted this week-- Tuesday I think. Since I was never enrolled by them, but I do read all their posts every day, I guess you'll be missing some major traffic, but then I don't think you're really blogging for traffic, are you?
Wear it as a badge of honor, Joe.
There is no place among American patriots for those with overriding loyalties to other countries. They are not patriots to America if they feel like that, and especially if they act in treasonous fashion against America's interests.
Cf: the remarks of Philip Zelikow as to the real reasons for the Iraq war. If the war effort was perhaps good for them (arguably, it was not, creating a Shi'ia axis of an allied Iran and Iraq), nonetheless it has been ruinous for our country.
XI
Those who speak truth need no defending, and you, Joseph, speak truth. But please remember that truth is not always welcome.
Tamerlane:
You are misstating the facts again.
We decided to add Liberal Rapture to our blogroll but a couple of days later you single-handedly caused us to reconsider that decision. No one was "punished" - a final decision has not been reached.
If you are going to post lies about another blog and insult the posters there, you shouldn't be surprised if they don't want you on their blogroll.
In the future if you do more guest posts I suggest you be more considerate of your host and not launch dishonest attacks on his friends and allies.
Even better - why don't you start your own blog and show the rest of us how to do it right? I suspect that if you do you will discover that blogging and trolling are not the same thing. You have substantial experience at the latter but very little of the former.
BTW - none of the foregoing has anything to do with this blog.
And that's the last I'll allow of it, myiq. The internal problems between other sites are for other sites to discuss.
"Has Larry Johnson ever turned down a chance to promote his site...?)
Hell,has Larry EVER missed a chance at attention seeking? The so called whitey tapes come to mind. He blew on that old horn for weeks and then very quietly let it drop.
Hmmmm. Some male musings I see as legitimate confusion about male-female interactions. And they lead to lively and interesting conversation.
However. Anyone who pretends to be for sites which "tackle any problem" yet actually attacks with intent to stifle groups who have decided to take on the huge and largely unaddressed issues of sexism is fooling no one. Not to mention there is nothing on earth more pathetic than male "victims" whining about "male-bashing."
Here's the difference: women are dying. They are being sold as sex slaves, beaten, murdered, and even beheaded because of their gender. Here, and all over the globe. Sexism matters. What kind of person, male or female, wouldn't actively deplore it?
The fact that "most" men don't enslave women, murder their partners, behead their corpses, etc., is missing the point. "Most" white men didn't lynch Negroes back in the day, either.
The past primary season opened a lot of people's eyes, especially since after Hillary was forced out, Palin became the punching bag.
To say that "all" politicians get attacked is deliberately misleading. Was David Vitter portrayed in magazines wearing diapers and getting a spanking from a prostitute? Nope. Not hounded for his embarrassing illegal sexual misconduct, and he's still in office. But Palin, a married mom, was nonstop portrayed as a free-for-all sex object, in one magazine depicted squeezing a Bible between her bare thighs.
To call any group who wants to focus on this a "coven" (as was done in the guest column mentioned here in the comments) is rank and offensive. Women in the U.S. were *burned to death* for being accused of being "witches." There isn't even a parallel to illustrate how vile it is to call a group of people concerning themselves with toxic sexism a "coven," because one simply never hears a group of AA people called something like "lynchables."
I'm no fan of the Confluence, and have zero idea why they delisted Cannonfire, but anyone who uses the meant-to-be-ugly term "radical feminist/lesbian crusade" is sadly behind in his evolution. I, for one, am very grateful to the feminist and gay rights sites which preceded the PUMA sites in exposing the horrific misogyny from this past political season. It was the only thing that made the disheartening exposure of a large portion of fauxgressives as sexist pigs bearable.
And yet, even those pigs would hardly have dared to use "lesbian" as a derogatory slur.
I hope Joseph will allow this comment, which springs not from a internal blog war that I completely missed, but from my dismay at seeing "radical feminist/lesbian crusade" used as if it weren't bigotry. What the hell is a "lesbian crusade" anyway?
Let me guess...Lesbians are the real bigots, for rejecting male embraces? So men are the *victims* of radical male-bashing Lesbians and their "crusade" to have sex without men?
I also deplore the belittling use of "battered women's groups" to describe any group dedicated to misogyny. But hey....I get it. It's a-ok for the bigot to use "witches" and "Lesbians" as slurs, but the howling is non-stop if anyone brings up chemical castration. I missed any post about castration for "all men" and suspect that is a lie or exaggeration, or at most a lone comment, not an entire post. I did read an actual post (at a radical lesbian crusade site) that Poland is now chemically castrating rapists.
Rapists! Tsk! How insensitive of me to use such a male-bashing term...I mean, forced-sex enthusiasts. Or "forcies" as the politically correct Mannists insist upon! The poor forcies are being tortured in Poland! And the radical feminist dykes, those b-word covens!, are applauding this and plotting the chemical overthrow of all men!!! Beware, brothers!!
Post a Comment