Sunday, May 15, 2016

remember when...

Remember when Glenn Greenwald was so eager to be worshiped as the next Alan Dershowitz that he was his own army of trolls, sprawled out across the internet, praising Glenn Greenwald and denigrating anyone who pointed out that Glenn didn't have any reason to be a hero given his unethical law practice history, his lack of substantive knowledge in the law, and his abject naivete in sociopolitical power struggles?

Oh, wait.  You don't remember that because you became a Social Justice Warrior after Gooey Glenn was hired by salon?  by GuardianUK?  by Petey Ovid's-hard?

Yes.  When he wrote for Unclaimed Territory, he was a self-funded blogger with self-funded Multiple Online Personality Disorder.

That's how he became a Hot Property:  marketing!  lying!  subterfuge!

Inevitably, idiots like Chalupa, Tarzie, Jake-fuck-my-back-door, Boring Freddy de Boer, Chris "to get rich, cast a line" Floyd scrambled to Socially Signal their Progressiveness by boosting Gooey Glenn as a hero of the 21st Century.

What dipshits.

Of course, Gooey Glenn became one of those who gets paid to troll heavily.

Not sure about the rest of them.  Jakey seems to have got some payment for his trolling novel of debauching gender identity and sexual mores.  Chalupa still struggles to be recognized as a genius.  Tarzie imitates (albeit poorly, and from a Swishy Boy-Lover's view) this blog's method of critical dark comic observation without income.

Keep trying, Chalupa.  Maybe you can pay off Planet's tuition in shorter than 20 years if you can get someone to fund your pathetic trolling of CORPORATE CRACKER MISOGYNIST RAPIST REPTHUGLICAN TEATARD REACTIONARY HOLYFUCK.


--Harold Caidagh, who sees your War for Social Justice as little more than a Battle of the 'net-work Passive-Aggressive Stars.

23 comments:

Chalupa, Lord Garth of the internet's Elba II said...

Your link is to a repthuglican teatard outlet, and besides, it just proves what I've been saying since I grasped only 1/3 of what you've been beating me over the head with for the past 5 years. Namely, that Sanders is the One True Prophet and all Obamapostates should line up behind him to defeat Wicked Hillary and lock up victory over sick reactionary teatard corporate Trump.

Harld Caidagh said...

The other 2/3 are available for comprehension and assimilation into a much saner world view, Jeff.

You just have to get out of your own way before you can grasp them.

But please keep tripping over your own extra-long Donkey Dildo that is permanently shoved up your "red" bunghole. I find more to mock in that process than in the process of you being your own worst enemy, passive-aggressive to the end, blaming everyone but yourself.

Paul Behrer said...

That didn't make much sense, Hal. You made a comparative insinuation, but failed to compare the two things. They look the same to me. Chalupa can't remove his heart's Donkey Tattoo (result: suicide), and he won't bother trying to grasp, let alone assimilate, the other 2/3 of the message that's hammered him for 5 years.

The proper contrast would be his continued victimhood with projection emitted via passive-aggression and other-blaming, versus the grasping and assimilating of the other 2/3 of the message that's been drummed for 5 years. He won't do the latter, but will pretend that's what he's done because he PROCLAIMS an OBAMAPOSTASY resulting in a Sanders-worship that denies religious over- or under-tones and pretends he's really most interested in an eventual socialist-communist America, where he can sit back and wonder for hours about which band's t-shirt to wear at the next show of Planet's shit-masquerading-as-art.

Chalupa, Lord Garth of the internet's Elba II said...

You can't teach me anything you idiot reactionary.

I'm the REFERENCE LIBRARIAN.

If you want the Truth, it's here: behind the Reserves desk. In the REFERENCE section. I protect the Truth.

You've never been to Hoya Bookstack Bunker, never come up to the counter and said,

"Dear Jeffy-Weffy-Uberlord-Popovich-the-Great, may I please gain access to the Truth?"

But even if you had done this, the answer would have been the same:

"NO. You are a reactionary teatard misogynist who is corporate and homophobic."

Harold Caidagh said...

Pablo,

I'm saying that his Donkey Cardiac Tattoo is the reason why he SAYS he's had an Obamapostasy and SAYS he supports Sanders for the ...uh... spite agenda, and pretends that he sees clearly that Hillary is indeed WICKED (despite his history of GO TEAM! in 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984 and all interim Lower Charades).

He keeps pretending he's beyond D vs R but D vs R is the core of every whinging beet-faced utterance he makes.

Also, saying he's a "dog urinating, nobody asks the dog why" is directly lifted from this blog.

He's such an original thinker.

Paul Behrer said...

So, Jeffy-Weffy-Ding-Dong is Tarzie?

Or just so unoriginal that his plagiarism is relatively universal?

Or something between the two?

Harold Caidagh said...

Well, Tarzie's "infosec expert" status is on par with standard Reference Librarian knowledge bases: theoretical knowledge based on Accepted Authorities' Pronouncements, must pay homage to the REFERENCE collection's immutable Divine Wisdom.

Intelligence isn't how you analyze information you gather.

Intelligence is the information itself!

No interpreting/analysis needed!

In other words: easily could be Tarzie, same ignorance behind both views. But doesn't have to be Tarzie. They could just be Dan Fogelberg/Tim Weisberg. Twin sons from different mothers.

Paul Behrer said...

Well, I do notice the practice consistency.

1) Get pwned by UNSF author, showing Tarzie/JWDD as ignorant smug naif
2) Face goes from beet-red to total cerebrovascular critical status
3) Deny that (1) happened, deny that self was ignorant, arrogant, and/or naive
4) Deny that (1) happened, deny that UNSF showed you the way
5) Adopt new position: what UNSF showed you
6) Pretend you had the insight, do not admit that UNSF showed you
7) Write new commentary reflecting (6)
8) Congratulate self for always seeing the kayfabe
9) Directly steal ideas from UNSF, regurgitating them as evidence you "get" the kayfabe
10) Circle back to (1)

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Maybe that's why the blog changed title from constructive destruction to its present name: the acronym is a vowel-free statement of how naifs would view a non-partisan analysis -- UNSAFE --> UNSF in the BLCKDGRD vocab.

Or maybe not.

Harold Caidagh said...

Can you imagine this scenario, for example?

* JWDD actually is "Michael J. Smith" and he thinks that his SMBIVA blog shows that he's always known & seen the kayfabe.

Anyone who knows the history of this blog's authors dissecting the fraudulent views offered as Will Ferrell, starring in Elf "political comedy" nonsense at SMBIVA would be aware that the Simulated Beavers are no more insightful than the Ding-Dong, even if they have reached the conclusion that maybe, just maybe, the Donkeys sometimes seem to carry water for Evil Repthuglican Party agenda items.

What really does JWDD know? Anything but self-promotion via lies?

Paul Behrer said...

On what topic has Jeff Popovich admitted something like this publicly, on one of his ego-ballooning blogs or on NervousBirds entries? --

"I used to think _______, but I was wrong. I was wrong because I thought it was _________ and my only reason for thinking that was because I assumed that everyone is partisan like me, in the very same ways I'm partisan, for the very same reasons. I've come to realize that my old view was adolescent at best, and rooted in my own insecurities about my own power and importance. I tried to gain more power and social status through my partisanship, while complaining about the partisanship of people on the Evil Repthuglican Misogynist Death Panel Homophobic Reactionary Conservatard Teap Artier side of the must-be-this-or-that divide. I now see how childish and, ironically, reactionary was my prior view."

instead we get

my complicity

What a daring admission. So precise, it's got to feel like seppuku to admit it.

Chet Redweld said...

Hal, can I get a point of clarification here?

Also, saying he's a "dog urinating, nobody asks the dog why" is directly lifted from this blog.

I would assume you meant this:

http://pezcandy.blogspot.com/2016/03/but-if-we-do-that-we-cant-run-our-shell.html

If I may be allowed a sortie in the human drives realm, here's what I'd like to suggest for consideration:

In the 15 second attention span generation our good friend BDR inhabits, he assumes that a month-old post basically doesn't exist any more, so you can't plagiarize it. Sorta like Glenn Greenwald deleting people's comments at Unclaimed Territory, to pretend as if the comments never were there, because of their content and its threat to the fabricated (pseudo-)expert position he was crafting for himself and future income desires.

That's just an idea, not an accusation. I leave it to you to assess its fit against the facts.

Chalupa, Lord Garth of the internet's Elba II said...

Trolled you HARD, bro!

I win again!

Chalupa, Lord Garth of the internet's Elba II said...

Also, you can't really plagiarize anyone who isn't an Authority, and you're not an Authority, you're just a crackpot misogynist reactionary homophobic bigot teatard who is corporate.

I am THE ANTI-CORPORATE!

I win again.

YOU LOSE!

Chet Redweld said...

Further explications of the Chalupa/Sprytel J Chimchim/dog metaphor, and evidence that the Simulated Beavers have been not just unfunny but highly clueless for at least 6 years:

http://pezcandy.blogspot.com/2010/10/third-man.html

As lawyer for this blog, I took it upon myself to know its archival posts, to know the patterns established by such posts and the comments they received, and to discover the ezxternal sources of humor and antipathy that this blog's various posts have discussed.

You might say I'm tantamount to the Reference Librarian for this blog, but that's a lesser rung on the human status latter than being the Lawyer for this blog, and that's not a social status observation, but rather a remark on what's required, intellectually speaking, to achieve either rung. Any fool can be a Reference Librarian provided he/she has the appropriate glasses and "SHOOSH!" skills. I don't think there are any Reference Librarians who could pass a bar exam without first going through a legal education, however.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Chet, slow down. There's a typo in there.

ezxternal

Kick that flippin' z to the curb, Chet.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

and

latter

in place of ladder?

Was that a pun, Chet?

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

I don't think there are any Reference Librarians who could pass a bar exam without first going through a legal education, however.

Also, Chet -- isn't there a big difference between/among these 3 things:

- graduating from law school
- passing the bar exam
- being a good lawyer of solid ethical integrity

Do you think the average Enginerd could do any of those 3 things, Chet?

Chet Redweld said...

I had a couple of law school classmates who had a BS in some engineering discipline. I can't remember what any of them did after graduation. I know one of them, whose discipline was EE, was aiming at patent work: a very wise move given the era (cusp of internet ubiquity, and pre-e-commerce). He might be hugely influential and somewhat $$ successful now, I don't know. I've never tracked the "status" side of law practice, always been interested in what kinds of quality work (respect for law as system, in other words) people engage in. Often, status is opposite such quality, much like we see in Hollywood Celebrity matters. Much like we see people calling Will Ferrell funny.

Chet Redweld said...

As to your Q on the difference among those 3 things, Karl?

Absolutely they are different.

You can graduate with a C average, and you might actually have learned more than the man or woman who got an A average. Depends on how you learn things and what you do with them once learned, if actually learned at all. The ability to memorize things in anticipation of an exam is not the same as understanding holistically how all those things tie into the human experience -- assuming you've remembered them more than 1 week after the exam was completed.

The bar exam is not really a representation of law practice, but I suppose it's one of those situations where we should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'm not in charge of bar admission, so I don't know whether we could have a better system. I've never analyzed alternatives. I do know that passing a bar exam doesn't prepare you for law practice -- at all.

The third category is where most slip up. Having passed through the gates, the new lawyer has many temptations. Clients want you to be a shark who manipulates the law to the client's advantage. Clients also lie to you about what they actually did, and why they did it. They destroy documentary evidence to the contrary, and say it never existed, but then you get blindsided by it during later discovery. (This is all a hypothetical example, mind you.) When this happens often, you may be tempted to say "what a rigged game! futile to be honest!" and become the snake, slithering along with your tongue tasting the air for new opportunities of deception for profit's sake.

One doesn't have to become such a serpent, though.

Chet Redweld said...

But honestly, Karl: I'm pretty sure you could become a Reference Librarian even if you dropped out of K-12 around the 9th grade. I'm pretty sure you could become one with a Stanford-Binet in the double digits. And I'm pretty sure that any dolt can become a "poet" simply by imitating others rather than creating one's own work from one's own ideas. So a Reference Librarian "poet" is, intellectually speaking, equivalent to being a sanitation expert or a maintenance engineer. Or a waiter/ess in the sky.

I think Paul Westerberg had the right idea. I always get treated like a bum when I fly, and I never wear a necktie when I fly.

Harold Caidagh said...

That's because you don't have a flying carpet like kidwoo.

Chet Redweld said...

I may piss off some people with this remark, but any good lawyer will agree with me on this one:

Lawyers do more real-world psychological counseling than those who are in the field of mental health.

Psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, social workers: they work with clients whose heads are in the clouds and disconnected from their motives etc. They have no obligation to document things to the counselor.

Lawyers deal with human screw-ups EVERY MINUTE OF THEIR WORKING DAY. They have to counsel the client on negative behaviors that cause REAL problems such as bankrupting the client, landing the client in jail/prison, etc.

A lousy lawyer doesn't work on the psychological side of things, and that's why he or she ultimately is a lousy lawyer.