[MD] PC Madness

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
Arlo has been systematically demonizing me ever since he first posted 
to this site. Turn about is fair play.

[Arlo]
Arlo only responds to your insipid attacks. Exactly as has been the 
case here. Arlo only "demonizes" your baseless and unsubstantiated 
accusations. Arlo only "demonizes" the atrocious "logic" by which you 
prop up strawmen and use them to vilify "liberals". This classic "Pee 
Wee Manuever", where you use outright deception and distortion and 
then cry boohoo when you are called on it, attempting to turn those 
who stand up to your insipid assertions as the instigators, is just 
more of the same-old talk-radio rhetoric you seem to completely rely 
on, in all cases and at all times.

[Platt]
Now he has turned his vitriol on Andrew and Willblake. Shameful.

[Arlo]
That's funny. Let's take a look at Andrew's very first post to me, shall we?

"Your talmudic approach to this discussion is tedious to say the 
least. Your obsession with naughty terms is grating. Your ad hominem 
unrelenting. Your logic flawed. Your style insipid. ARLO, YOU'RE FIRED!"

I asked Andrew to back up any ONE of these claims, to show where my 
"logic is flawed", where my "ad hominem" was "unrelenting". He, like 
you, never could. And as I do with you, I respond in kind to the 
"vitriol" that is tossed my way, except that along the way I can back 
up and substantiate my claims. Something that continues to escape you.

With WillBlake, I've pointed out EXACTLY where he uses very 
distortive rhetoric. Its not just a "claim", I back it up by putting 
his words right there, for anyone to read. And I've asked him several 
times to respond to that, as to WHY he uses such outright 
distortions, and, like you, he has not even attempted to answer that. 
Here's but one example.

"[WillBlake] What is obscene is that you have no problem with that, 
and in fact support it using examples of social improvement to say 
that it therefore must all be good."

This came several days after I REPEATEDLY denounced several uses of 
"PC", and said REPEATEDLY that "some is good, some is bad, some is 
comical". As such, his rhetoric was deliberately deceitful, it was a 
complete misrepresentation and distortion of what my point was, a 
point I said over and over, and very clearly.

Want another example? After *I* brought up the Dixie Chicks as an 
example of "evil PC", *I*... *I* brought it up to point out the evil 
use of PC... get this? *I* brought it up. WillBlake wrote, 
"[WillBlake] The Dixie Chicks was done in the name of PC.  What do 
you think of your wonderful PC now." So again, I responded by 
pointing out yet another example of his reliance on some pretty 
atrocious rhetoric.

So the difference is that you, Platt, enjoy making baseless, 
unsubstantiated and distortive accusations, repeating them ad 
nauseum, and evading any and all questions that expose the inanity of 
your positions. Part of your MO in avoiding these points is to fall 
back on the moronic "evil liberal" bullshit that compromises the 
totality of what you have to say. Then when you are called out on 
this, you act like a poor little hurt baby bird. Oh boo hoo. Poor 
Platt the Assailed.

And yes, Arlo does grow very weary of the moronic talk-radio bunk 
that you year-in and year-out squalk into this forum, baseless, 
unsubstantiated strawmen, the same old tired "anti-intellectual" 
propaganda that Pirsig himself refered to as "just right-wing 
politics". While *I* may demonize YOU now for this deceitful tactics, 
YOU continue to demonize intellectuals, academics, liberals and 
everyone who is a smidgeon to the left of your radical right-wing 
position. You demonize the Academy, professors and "the media" 
continuously with the most baseless accusations and strawmen tactics. 
And you come after me in hopes of evading the fact that I've asked 
you repeatedly direct questions to substantiate your claims, and you 
simply can't answer (shall I repeat those questions now?).