Blogtard
I don’t take any pleasure in doing this. Like an execution or a gubernatorial recall, it’s an ugly process, but one that sometimes has to be done. I hereby declare William T. Quick, also known as the Daily Pundit, a blogtard.
I came pretty close to conferring this dubious distinction on Mr. Quick a few days ago, after he sided with a regular reader of his, who calls himself Young Goodman Brown, who recently discovered the mysterious “Chainsaw Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits private individuals from committing sexual assaults with chainsaws. My copy of the Constitution only includes the first 27 Amendments; I presume the Chainsaw Amendment is number 28. In any event, questioned YGB’s premise in a separate comment, as it was clear YGB had no clue about the state action doctrine. Mr. Quick – or perhaps I should call him Mr. Chainsaw – called me a “moron” and even went as far as to accuse me of advocating chainsaw rape, simply because I couldn’t find the provision of the U.S. Constitution that supposedly prohibited it. But that’s not what really got Billy’s goat in a gruff. No, what pushed him over the edge was a separate comment of mine in which I recommended he refrain from blogging on subjects where, by his own admission, he is either unwilling or unable to respect opposing viewpoints or even take them at face value. He responded, not once but twice, with substantially the same snotty remark. The first version summed up his attitude the best:
I’ve said it before, but let me make this also crystal clear: I write my blog for me, not to do any “favors” for you, or anybody else. Don’t like it? Fine. Drag your ass back to your own little blog and shoot your mouth off all you want.
Remember this, the next time Billy Boy tries to guilt you into a donating to his site.
The rest of blog for free, whether we are doing this for ourselves, our friends and family, or anyone else, so why shouldn’t he? After all, it’s not as though he’s doing us any favors. If the Daily Pundit is only there to boost his ego, let his ego pay for it, as well.
Despite that idiocy, I was not planning on beating up any further on this poor schlock. I mean, everyone blows his stack once in a while. Surely this was a fluke, right? Wrong. Just yesterday, he spread even more sunshine with a post suggesting that only “absolutely mindless idiot[s]“ have a problem with either gay marriage or polygamy. Spoons, who supports gay marriage but recognizes that some mindful non-idiots do as well (and who, I presume, does not support polygamy), called him on it, only to have Billy Chainsaw reply by calling him an illiterate or a liar.
To recap: first, I’m a moron because I know something about the law Billy Chainsaw doesn’t know. Now, Spoons is either illiterate because he reads, or he’s a liar because he tells the truth. Do you sense a pattern here? Lame denials notwithstanding, it is crystal-clear that Bill Quick does want his blog to be an echo chamber, and appears to be almost proud of his ability to act as a verbal bully toward anyone who doesn’t see things his way.
Which is, of course, his right. Free speech includes ugly speech. It’s his site, this is America, yadda yadda yadda. I’ll defend to the death Bill Quick’s right, or anyone else’s, to make a complete ass of himself in public, should that right ever be threatened by America’s enemies, foreign or domestic. I will not, however, recommend that anyone waste his time reading the Daily Pundit, for any purpose other than perverse entertainment value. If you like watching a train wreck, you’ll love the Daily Pundit. Otherwise, find some other, more productive use for your computer’s ones and zeros.
February 21st, 2004 at 7:13 pm
I preferred to believe that it wasn’t really him making those comments. But it’s been some time since they have been sitting there on his site, under his name, and he hasn’t removed them. I must reluctantly conclude he made them.
The incident with Spoons was less of a slam-dunk case for Bill’s ignorance. It was intemperate language on Bill’s part, but it was over a matter of opinion. By contrast, the comments wherein he attacked you made him look very foolish indeed, because he was clearly wrong as a factual matter, yet mocked your position, which was clearly right as a factual matter.
February 21st, 2004 at 7:20 pm
Another reason that the second example is not a slam-dunk is because you have not quite characterized Bill’s statement accurately. He said, “unless you’re an absolutely mindless idiot, I cannot see how anybody else’s marriage arrangements offer the slightest impediment to your own.” That’s not quite the same as saying only an absolutely mindless idiot has “a problem with either gay marriage or polygamy.” You can have a philosophical problem with either, and still recognize that such arrangements don’t present an impediment to your own. I thought Spoons overly generalized Bill’s comment, as you did here.
Again, none of this excuses Bill’s inexcusable treatment of you — especially because he was wrong on a factual issue.
February 21st, 2004 at 7:36 pm
You are right that it is technically different to say that only idiots believe gay/polygamous marriages undermine traditional marriage, vs. implying that gay/polygamous marriages really do undermine traditional marriages, but only when they involve people who are idiots. But that’s clearly not what Bill meant; obviously, in his mind, only idiots believe their traditional marriages are undermined by gay/polygamous ones. Otherwise, there would be no logical connection between the idiocy and the fact that certain traditional marriages, but not others, are affected.
Even if we assume Bill meant to make a hypertechnical point about idiots (who may or may not support gay/polygamous marriage) having weaker marriages than non-idiots (who also may or may not support gay/polygamous marriage), one can hardly fault Spoons for missing that subtle distinction. Certainly not enough so to justify calling him a liar or an illiterate.
February 21st, 2004 at 8:19 pm
I can’t tell how “tongue-in-cheek” you are being, but you are missing my point — whether deliberately or not. The point is not whether it is an idiot who is married or not. The point is whether one’s objection to gay marriage or polygamy stems from a general/philosophical objection, as opposed to an objection that such arrangements offer an actual “impediment” to your own arrangement.
There is, I think, a distinction between 1) a view that the institution of marriage is undermined by such alternative arrangements (a view which I find defensible although I disagree with it) and 2) a view that one’s own specific marriage arrangement is suffering an “impediment” as the result of the availability of alternative arrangements (a view that I think is harder to defend).
I understood Bill to be mocking the second, less defensible view.
Regardless, I still don’t like a mode of argumentation that asks someone if they are illiterate or just a liar. That is rude.
But I don’t think Bill’s actual point is as broad as portrayed by you and Spoons.
February 21st, 2004 at 8:27 pm
Yours is certainly a defensible view, Patterico, although I still think there’s a strong case to be made for my reading in light of the fact that the phrase in question was in the context of Bill saying that was no legitimate reason to oppose gay marriage or polygamy. In that context, he said that, “unless you’re an absolutely mindless idiot, I cannot see how anybody else’s marriage arrangements offer the slightest impediment to your own.” I don’t think it’s unreasonable to construe that statement as saying that those who oppose other’s ‘marital arragnements’ are are the mindless idiots he’s referring to.
That’s especially true in light of the fact that Bill has recently said that anyone who opposes judicially imposed gay marriage — even if they favor gay marriage generally — isn’t really concerned about judicial activism or separation of powers, but is really just trying to “conserve their own prejudices.”
As I said, though, I agree that your reading is at least as plausible as mine or as Jeff’s.
I can’t help but note, either, that you managed to articulate your disagreement with Jeff without calling him an idiot. Kudos.
February 21st, 2004 at 8:49 pm
If you look at this subsequent comment as an expansion on the “mindless idiot” comment, it does indeed look more like Spoons’s interpretation was correct, even if it hadn’t been completely stated.
February 21st, 2004 at 8:51 pm
Jeff, Who’s Jeff? I don’t know any Jeff around here…
February 21st, 2004 at 8:56 pm
Spoons,
You say: “I still think there’s a strong case to be made for my reading in light of the fact that the phrase in question was in the context of Bill saying that was no legitimate reason to oppose gay marriage or polygamy.” Can you point me to a link where Bill said there is “no legitimate reason to oppose gay marriage or polygamy”? I could try to look through his posts on the subject and the comments, but I’m too lazy.
Are you sure this isn’t just another characterization of his views, which may not be completely accurate?
Don’t get me wrong. In this whole affair, you and Xrlq come out smelling like roses, in my opinion. Bill’s ad hominem attacks did not do him credit. Especially in his treatment of Xrlq, I am really disappointed in him. But I did think you and Xrlq had read his last point a little too broadly.
In the interest of harmony, I would hope that we could all forgive Bill his inappropriate comments in the first post, on the theory that (as Xrlq put it) “everyone blows his stack once in a while.” The second post, I think, has been mischaracterized by both of you.
“Why can’t we all just get along?” — Rodney “drunk-driving wife-beating PCP-taking” King
February 21st, 2004 at 10:12 pm
Patterico,
I don’t know if you’ll agree, but try this post, and especially the comments that follow. It was against that backdrop that I interpreted the post the way I did.
Moreover, this is not a case of somebody just having a bad day, as I’ve chronicled in this post. In each of the instance in which I felt things got out of hand, I’ve responded with private e-mails. Posting something publically was not my first, second, or third choice. Honestly, this is not a topic I enjoy writing about.
In any event, if you read things differently, I can see where you’re coming from. If you enjoy that site, I don’t blame you. There’s a lot of good stuff there.
February 21st, 2004 at 10:48 pm
Here’s a gem (link):
Next, let’s hear from NAMBLA.
Well, if California marriage law already permits a 30 year old man to legally marry an eight year old girl, or vice versa, as long as the minor’s parent gives consent, I see no reason why the NAMBLA-ites shouldn’t be similarly accomodated. Do you?
Posted by Bill Quick on February 21, 2004 06:02 PM
February 22nd, 2004 at 12:53 am
Spoons,
Re-reading that post and comments thereto, I see that you’re right. Quick says:
These comments indicate that Quick has no respect for people who oppose gay marriage. And thinks they’re idiots.
With that context, your interpretation is not anywhere near as much of a stretch as I’d originally thought.
February 22nd, 2004 at 8:58 pm
One interesting thing here is that the meta-arguments really do recapitulate the meta-arguments in Brown. There really was a healthy debate going on by a large number of people who disagreed with Jim Crow legislation but felt that the courts approach was “unprincipled” in that it was based on nothing more than the Court’s sentiments. Herb Wechsler felt that this approach was quintessientially legislative,anti-democratic and would injure democracy. A quick google search turned up this essay on Wechsler.
Probably, no one remembers Wechsler anymore, although he was a dominant thinker of the 50s and 60s. His view has long since been discredited by a worldview that celebrates the correct outcome. Reading Bill Quick’s frankly lame, unthinking, emotional, unprincipled outbursts, it looks like Wechsler will have the last laugh after all.
February 23rd, 2004 at 9:03 am
But the central question, ‘how does someone else’s marriage affect the sanctity of your own?’, seems destined to remain unanswered.
February 23rd, 2004 at 12:42 pm
This may be something we’re not supposed to talk about, but I think the reason Bill gets so out of shape on this one is because he’s gay. I’m not trying to insult him or imply that being gay invalidates his views, I just think it explains a lot. Kindof like Sully.
February 23rd, 2004 at 1:43 pm
Once upon a time, married people were unsettled when they learned of married friends who were getting divorced. It has since become so commonplace that of course we would be amused that anyone would feel that way anymore.
Except that it is so commonplace now. And no one, it seems, has the sense of irony to contemplate that.
With so much going on that already that undermines marriage, I’m loath to accept anything that adds to the problem. Some of us are still bailing, and others want to open the scuttles.
February 23rd, 2004 at 4:52 pm
I’m with McGehee on this one. The truth is that social institutions don’t exist in a vacuum. One’s attitudes toward things like fidelity or the standards of marriage exist because of a large set of shared assumptions. Has no one ever had the uncomfortable experience of being in the presence of a couple who are openly and obviously cheating on their spouses? We tend to say to ourselves something like “well, it’s not my business” but the fact is that these kinds of social gambits are like the “broken windows” which criminologists told Rudolph Guliani to police. Every person with a commitment to fidelity in marriage is harmed by the person who successfully flaunts his or her violation of the traditions and taboos of fidelity because trust is not something that anyone can do in isolation.
I think that there are a lot of solid reasons why gay marriage is a bad idea on similar grounds, but mostly because it seems fairly clear that gay marriage isn’t likely to enhance the concept of trust and fidelity which has been deconstructing in heterosexual marriage over the last 30 years.
February 23rd, 2004 at 8:03 pm
This is funny. Do another ‘tard column (but not about me… yet).
Also, wtf does “damnum absque injuria” mean, if anything. I’m hoping it’s as amusing as snarkenremarken.
February 24th, 2004 at 6:03 am
Btw, I don’t know if you noticed, but Bill’s two comments in response to you look very similar, the difference being the first is more rude. My theory is that he posted the first (which you quote above), decided it was too rude, posted a second one that was still rude but less so — and meant to delete the first but didn’t.
February 24th, 2004 at 7:35 am
I noticed the redundancy of the two comments, which is why I linked to both here. I don’t think the second comment was any more polite, however. It’s more refined in some ways, and more shrill in others. The main difference is that the formatting is off on the first comment.
February 25th, 2004 at 12:19 am
Hudson: I’m glad you enjoyed reading this piece, but frankly, for the most part I did not enjoy writing it, and I hope not to have reason to write anything like this for a long time. Take, for example, the individuals who have commented so far in this thread. Off the top of my head, I can easily recall some rather spirited debates I’ve had with Patrick, Christopher, Robert, Rory and “Joel B.” (nice handle), but with the exception of a few obvious jokes, I can’t remember a single instance in which I called any of them, or was called by any of them, anything comparable to “moron,” “liar” or “illiterate.” Nor, for that matter, can I recall any of them saying something so obviously blogtarded as the crap Billy-Boy has been spewing of late.
As to the meaning of the name damnum absque injuria, I refer you to the post in which I introduced the name of the blog. Prior to that time, my blog didn’t really have a name beyond “Xrlq” or “Xrlq’s Blog.”
March 4th, 2004 at 1:52 pm
How come when I said he was a dick a while back (been about a year or so now) everyone said I was mean?
Hey and I’ve met him, so don’t think it’s just a blogpersonality thing, he’s like that in real life too.
February 22nd, 2004 at 9:56 am
CIVICS 101, LESSON TWO: THE CONSTITUTION DOESN’T OUTLAW EVERYTHING THAT IS BAD
Bill Quick and Xrlq have had a dustup, leading Xrlq to declare Quick a “Blogtard.” Placing aside the personal issues, I think part of the problem is that Quick appears to fundamentally misunderstand the Constitution. Like many Americans, he appears…
February 23rd, 2004 at 10:29 am
With the Blogosphere, who needs Soap Operas?
Xrlq defines the Blogtard Award, and then bestows it upon a worthy target. I love the smell of flamewars in the morning. ;} Barking Moonbat Early Warning System has posted Staff Photos. Calling all cars… be on the lookout for……
April 1st, 2004 at 9:52 am
Damnum
Apparently some think this is an April Fool’s joke. I guess I should have waited until tomorrow to respond but I am just so upset. C’mon, he’s mean. He’s so mean that sometimes he has to chastise himself. And he’s…